insertUsername2

3 ms·

1.
by insertUsername2 6y ago
Depressing.
2.
by insertUsername2 6y ago
The subtitle even says: "Animals are more human than we’d like to admit" So all humans are animals but not all animals are humans which is correct. You could also say "human" in this context is used as in "human beh
3.
by insertUsername2 6y ago
I don't think the intent of the article is to indicate that we are not animals but to point out that we should apply more of the way on how we treat other humans to how we treat animal because the difference we thought were between ani
4.
by insertUsername2 6y ago
Hmm. I'm kind of surprised nobody brought up the "nature" argument more strongly. First of, yes, if you are starving you eat everything. You basically fall back to the level of tribe behavior or below. However, two things: On
5.
by insertUsername2 6y ago
I agree that policy could have an effect. But it does not explain all of it. For example, I do not think that "the wealthy" could make slavery fashionable in a medium, lets say two generations time frame. This is because we have,
6.
by insertUsername2 6y ago
I agree with the sentiment of starting with yourself but I do not think any kind of "attack" will be helpful. Reasoning, maybe, but only in a few cases. I do not think awareness is the problem. It is part of culture, upbringing e
7.
by insertUsername2 6y ago
On every turn we discover that animals have more cognitive ability's and are closer to the specific primate branch that is us than we previously imagined. But a mix of convenience, prejudges and ""culture"" will mak