I can't really say anymore on the "Humans are Animals" debate. I think we've established a good argument, and the very definition of animal proves that humans are indeed animals.
To understand that humans are animals, we need to know the definition of animal. An animal is defined as:
A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
Do humans fit this criteria? Let's see.
Multicellular: Yes.
Capacity for locomotion: Yes.
Nonphotosynthetic metabolism: Yes.
Pronounced response to stimuli: Yes.
Restricted growth: Yes.
Fixed bodily structure: Yes.
So by our very definition, we are animals. It doesn't need to be proven because it is already an established fact. Does it need to be proven that the sky is blue? Maybe to a blind person, which is impossible. Just like in this argument, you can not prove that humans are animals to those who are blind to the facts.
|