I'm not for the killing of blackbirds just for the sake of it. ;) It seems they were being a nuisance to the crops. Nuisances should be taken care of. How? Well, shooting them shouldn't be considered "wrong" because they're causing problems; very serious problems.

I'm reminded of "To Kill a Mockingbird":

You've misunderstood. I didn't say that whether or not humans are animals is irrelevant to the topic... far from it! I think it's an absolutely essential aspect of the debate, which is why I addressed it in my reply. What I said is that the comparisons you made were irrelevant to the topic of "whether or not an animal is a human" :gsmile:.

I believe it's fairly insulting you'd assume I'd only reach the conclusion that humans are animals because "some teacher said so" or because I read it somewhere. It is a conclusion that I have come to through my own freedom of thought. Please don't degrade your argument by assuming that your beliefs are more thoroughly researched.

I do not believe that people who think humans are not animals are crazy. However, I do not believe their belief.

My belief that humans are animals is based on biological similarities and my belief in the theory of evolution, amongst other things.

I wasn't attempting to debase your opinion on the matter by countering it with my own. I'm simply asserting my world view for the context of the debate. I could make this clear in future by putting "It is my belief that..." or "In my opinion..." before all of my statements... but I hope that it would be clear that this is my opinion based on the fact that I was the one who said it :gtongue:.

This is the reason that I believe a human's right to kill an animal is equivalent to that animal's right to kill a human. That's my opinion on the main topic at its basest form... I'm sure I'll go into more detail as the thread develops.

In self defence, if there is not a reasonable way to drive it off otherwise (most animals that attack humans can be scared off and will only attack if provoked, extremely hungry or threatened, or the person does the wrong thing to make themselves a target) then that should be done if at all possible - most wild animals that kill humans either do so when humans attempt to interact with them, if they mistake humans for a more vulnerable prey animal, or if threatened and cornered.

Preemptively is not right unless a man-made problem is causing them to become a threat (individual animals such as bears that have become accustomed to humans and lost their fear of them) or there is overpopulation that makes them become a threat to people and/or to the biodiversity of the area, and then it should only lower the population to a sustainable level and not damage their ability to survive in the long term.

Humans ARE animals. Sentient ones, but animals nonetheless, but to me, sentience is the important factor.

I tend to agree with this statement.
I believe that humans are animals, but the main distinction is sentience. As for the examples given in the first post, I believe that killing animals should be absolute bottom of the bucket last decision. If there is any other way to resolve the problem without killing, it should be exercised. Capture the fly and take it outside...as for the birds eating the crops, find a passive way to keep them out...ie scarecrow. If a human life is in danger, do what is necessary to save the human, preferably without any harm to the animal.

Just my thoughts.

Whether or not humans are animals comes down to the definition of "animal." For scientific purposes, humans are animals. We share the characteristics established for the kingdom Animalia and are thus members of this particular classification. If we choose a more colloquial version of "animal," humans and animals are usually set apart from one another. Thus, scientifically, we are animals but often when people mention animals as if they are a separate group from humans, they are doing so not using a strict scientific definition of the term "animal" for the purposes of distinction between humans and all other animals.

And what of dolphins? If we are not animals, based on sentience, then if dolphins are proved to be sentient in the future, then they would not be animals anymore, either, based on that logic. Same with neanderthals and other prehistric humanoids.

Most animals are more afraid of humans than humans are afraid of animals. So if there is some way to keep the animal alive I am all for it. I mean, that's why tranquilizers were invented.

Actually, your examples are examples of deductive fallacies.

Where as the logic in:

All humans are mammals
All mammals are animals
Therefore all humans are animals

does not suffer from any deductive fallacy (at least not that I can see).

Well, i would say.. if one's life is threatened... everyone has the right to defend the life, an animal would do the same, so its justified seen from that point, but all other reasons why to kill...

No thanks, at least i see that that way

The conclusion is loaded, though. The assumption is that all mammals are animals, when that's up to debate.

Why wouldn't all mammals be animals? What else would they be? But under the scientific definition of the term "animal," all mammals would be animals.

As some of you have mentioned, there is the difference made between the degree of sentience. There can be no doubt that sentient life is abundant on this planet. I'm basing this on the definition of sentience being a creature that is subject to only its baser, primitive urges, e.g. cells or what have you.
When it comes down to a question of degree, it is always always subjective. One person believes that sentience is higher thought and another that sentience should be deserved for having the will to live.
It is my belief that, yes, while we as humans are subject to the primal instincts of animals (eat, mate, live) we have the ability of deductive and logical thinking. With that comes a vast array of other factors. We begin to question the food chain, we begin to question the value of life whereas animals don't.
And that is a philosophical distinction which can be believed alongside the scientific distiction that humans are animals aswell (which I do). It is just a matter of looking at it on different levels.

Honestly, I don't care about "sentience". It doesn't make any difference. We should respect nature because:

We are part of it

Our livelihood depends on it

Life is special. It is beautiful. Remarkable. Extraordinary and magnificent. We could debate about how much life exists in the universe. We could debate what is or what isn't sentient. But what is indisputable, is life...is something amazing. Something worth cherishing. Something worth our own expense, as to allow it to blossom. We are part of that - we are part of the phenomenon called "life". I feel lucky and blessed to say that, although it may seem weird to say such. It doesn't matter. Life rocks, and we should do everything we can to promote its wellbeing as a whole.

So my revised conclusion is this: It is not animal life vs. human life. It is just life. And life is something worth promoting, even if it sometimes comes at our minimal expense.

The assertion takes into account all mammals, which would include humans. That's where the debate is.

I'm a little confused as to where the debate is. It's not in the scientific community, as in regard to science humans are animals. In order to say that humans are not animals, one would need to redefine "animal" in such a way as to deliberately not include humans in the definition. This would conflict with the scientific definition of "animal." In this thread, it seems that the use of "animal" is meant to denote all animals that are not human, which is fine. But I do not see how humans are not animals in the scientific sense.


The argument:

All humans are mammals
All mammals are animals
Therefore all humans are animals

is correct if we use scientific definitions of the terms.