Other animals can feel and show such things. Take for example a small dog. He will yelp when hurt, jupm when joyful, hide when scared, and do buisiness when lustful. Also may take something someone else has if he wants it (like food or a bone) and will try to comfort something if they think it needs it.

As for active though....my dog is rather dumb but my ferret and cat think things through quite logically.

To address the corruption point--from my own biblical view, of course--Since God tasked humanity the with the job of taking care of creation, we were given higher sentience than the animals.

Secondly, this sentience gave us choice, and through this choice humanity became tainted by sin. This is why humanity is. to quote Smith, a parasite. Because, through us, sin corrupts and destroys everything.

But that\'s just my belief.

As per my earlier post, if you start stabbing a dog it\'ll whine but it won\'t VERBALLY ask you to stop.

I say if its a homosaipian its human no real disscusion if you ask me......

But I like stabbing things so you can\'t trust me.:muha:

That\'s pretty ludicrous, Arix. By this we would imply that anyone who is mute is no longer human.

Now color me heartless, but I really don\'t think that animals have advanced feelings, besides maybe maternal instinct. They have no jealousy or real lust. If a dog pregnates another dog, they can seperate easily right afterwords. If a dog then sees another dog pregnate his partner, he doesn\'t care, unless he just doesn\'t like the other dog. If you hit anything with the ability of response, it makes a reaction. It wants to do anything it can to inform you to stop hurting it; it\'s about as basic as the nervous system. The dog simply barks/whines/frenzies because it\'s the easiest way to inform you. They have no real sense of passion; they don\'t form lasting bonds, and good greif, a lot of animals have absolutely no qualms about EATING their husband. They have little or no self-restraint. Animal instinct tells most animals to disable another animal if he\'s a good source of food or threatening its territory/ safety/ children? Really, they do have maternal instincts, but that appears to be about it.

And the urge to have sex isn\'t emotion. No, its common to just about every living thing as a basic means of substaining generations. That really sums up the scope of their emotions; what\'s needed to survive. Even things such as maternal instincts may fall under this categorization.

A dog will lick you hand if it is familiar with you or bark if it distrusts you. This is entirely based on familiarity and its basic definition of what is scary. If you walk in in the middle of the night with all black on and a flashlight, of course its going to bark at you. If it sees you a lot, it will begin to understand you better.

Yeah, try not to think of it as heartless, but I really don\'t think animals have any degree of emotion comporable to that of humans. It might just be because of the complexity of man\'s brain; the human brain has far superior abilities to that of most animals, and even the closest \"relatives of man\" aren\'t capable of expressing most human emotions. It is said that monkeys seem to exhibit emotions others don\'t; this may stem either from the fact that monkeys have slightly more evolved habits than other animals or that they simply have more ways to show basic instincts.

Humans who are unable to talk or are in a vegitative state, for instance, can\'t tell you to stop stabbing them verbally. They aren\'t people, then?

And obviously you know this because you can talk to animals. There have been many incidents of homosexuality in animals..that\'s not lust, screwing anything that walks no matter the gender?



If a man impregnates a woman, they can seperate easily right afterwards.



If a man then sees another man attempting to impregnate his partner, there are times when said man will not care, unless of course it\'s Billy from that damn heavy metal band he hates.



And so do alot of human beings. Nix the eating their husband part, but I\'m sure cannibals might do that.



And humans do?



Yeah okay. I just cannot stand it when people try to elevate themselves over animals, and when people try to elevate animals over humans. There are many species of animal that are intelligent. There are many species that mate for life. There\'s no need to try and make such a distinction..no one knows for sure what animals think. And hell, animals don\'t know what we think.

Man I got burned I was just making more jokes, and had already said the whole homosaipien thing earlier. (not trying to start a flame war)

And I understand the discussion about morals and cognative abilites, but thats why we humans use personifications to describe animals and plants and whatever. their not humans, but we give their actions human qualities.

If this seems wrong to you, sorry. This is just my opinion on the question.

On a side note If you stab yourself you won\'t ask to stop being stabbed........

\"Huh, I wonder what this feels like? *stabs self* OW! that hurts, Is that what I\'ve been doing to people? I deserve to be here.\" Family Guy

I tawt I saw flameing!
Seriously, Arix was just joking. He never said, \"Oh, Steven Hawkings isn\'t human, because he uses a computer to speak. You\'re blowing what he said way our of porportion.

I still agree with Match on this one though. Pure genetics.

But I think the main reason this thread is giving people problems is because of the wording in the topic...

\"What do you belive makes a person human?\"

Not...

\"What do you belive makes a human a human?\"

Or even...

\"What makes a human a person?\"

Your basicly asking what makes a person a human. Human is a genetic term. Person is a moral term. Your asking what makes a moral concept a genetic one. We could argue for hours just over that wording alone.

[Edited on 1-12-2005 by BlueSilver]

[quote]Originally posted by AimMan v2.5
Well, I\'ll respect your opinion Hollow, but unlike in most cases with me, I see no reason to withdraw my comments. We do have more self-restraint than animals. Animals literally do not care if another animal (besides their own baby) is being killed. Seriously, I\'ve never talked to an animal, but when\'s the last time you saw one jump in to save another? There are just many emotions an animal really doesn\'t feel. You don\'t need to talk to an animal to know its thinking is not as complex.

There are situations where an animal becomes confused as to another animal\'s gender by some indicator that another is giving. You know as well as I do that animals are drawn to mate by different signals. It can be simply by instinct or, in the case of a firefly, it could be a flash given by their light. It could be a bird\'s song or an animal\'s call. Homosexuality among animals is purely confusion.

The \"and humans do?\" comment really needs no answer. Yes, they do. If humans only thought of themselves, we\'d live our lives trying only to conquer territory and preserve our own lives and generations. Yes, I know, someone\'s going to make a reference to Hitler\'s lust for European domination or the basic setup of organized communities as being preservation of lives. Hitler, Napoleon, and many others are simply special cases; humans have a matter of conscience that tells us that besides the fact that it\'s not sensible to eat someone\'s children for nourishment, it\'s also not right. There are many, many distinguishing features between humanity and animals; I, personally, hold to the fact that there is no proof of any animals having any sort of advanced emotions, and like I said, homosexuality is not an advanced emotion, it\'s simply a confusion which may be spread through communication. Animals, if homosexual, are only so by confusion or possibly by an irregularity stemming from instinct. The setup of communities was simply another advancement that was neccessary to substain stable conditions of living, and furthermore, is possible by the fact that the human mentality is far above that of an animal.

And I\'m sure there\'s a lot that will be discredited here, but whatever it is, I doubt it can prove that animals have any sort of human emotion.

[Edited on 1-12-2005 by AimMan v2.5]

[Edited on 1-12-2005 by AimMan v2.5]

[Edited on 1-12-2005 by AimMan v2.5] [/quote]
Err... there are a bunch of animals who seem to have strong maternal instincts, last time I checked... elephants, for instance?

I won\'t deny there are similiarities between us and animals. Plenty. As a matter of fact, I would say most of our emotions are also felt by them. And, as another point, they do appear to be able to use some tools and perform some thought. However, they are obviously another thing, so, on topic, I guess they\'re not human. But perhaps we can\'t say we\'re better than them.

I would mention the whole Bible deal again, but you people should know that by now.

Actually lot\'s of animals (mammals mostly) have strong emotions twords their familys.
Animals that live in packs such as wolves often help each other, and in the absence of a mother will raise an abandoned pup.

Elephants are known to do the exact same thing, including morning the loss of a group member.

Animals are not without emotion. Well, Mammals at least, bugs don\'t tend to really get up set if another bug dies, at least not with any outword display of sorrow that we can see.

Also, Wildebeests circle around their young, as a group, to protect them. Recently, there has been a lioness that was taking care of a baby oryx. Not even her species, but she tried.. Of course, the male ate the baby eventually. There also have been instances of lioness\' trying to save baby gazelles.




Agreed, of course. I\'m not trying to say they\'re human, of course not. I\'m just saying that it\'s silly to assume that, just because animals can\'t speak or take SAT\'s, that they\'re not intelligent, and instead are savage and stupid, with humans being the superior. As Aim seems to think.

Wasn\'t trying to bring homosexuality into this either, as an emotion, because no..it is not an emotion.



Animal cruelty should not take place if men truly have this command in proper perspective. We are to control the numbers of animals so disease and sickness do not kill them off, we are to use the animals for our needs, we are to control animals in a manner in which they are not harmful to humans, and finally we should protect them from over-killing and abuse. The problem lies in the fact that many do not understand this balance and tend to over protect or under protect animals. Animals were created for you and I to enjoy, so protecting a remnant for others to enjoy is also proper. Proverbs 12:10 tells us, \"A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.\"

^I just got that from a website, but well, I do agree with it and it is \"bibley\". That is my main problem with animal versus human/human versus animal debate. Just seems like people want to either protect animals too much, and coddle them..or protect them too little, and abuse them. I hope Aim understands that\'s the only reason I became defensive. o.o

Sorry I\'m not reading what you guys are posting for now; I\'ll read it tommorow. I just realized though that my \"AimMan, you\'re being an arrogant fool as well as a homophobe\" senses are tingling, so I gotta delete my old posts. Sorry for any trouble or disagreement that was caused...

Why is it I never think to delete these things right away?