Humans are not animals

Is Europe the only place where megafauna was completely and utterly wiped out?

No

Australia? Seems like there are still some megafauna in Asia (elephants, rhinos, hippos and bovines)

It's the poltard invasion that is ruining Veeky Forums every second post is iq and flat earth threads..

I think mods are involved in this as well, or atleast one of the autistic mods who is a hardcore poltard

Nigger detected

Back to pol pablo

Only applies to whites honestly

differentiating animals from plants.

>differentiating life from non-life

differentiating carbon based automatons from molecules.

Not even close. Africa is the only place where it mostly wasn't.

>It's the poltard invasion and mods that are ruining Veeky Forums for money
FTFY

Australia used to have crazy shit megafauna.
They were all wiped out because humans arrived late to that continent knowing how to use weapons. The megafauna didn’t have the time to adapt to this new hunter.

The reason why Africa has a lot of megafauna is because humans start to exist at the same time of this animals, let’s say they evolve and developed the necessary to survive over time. When humans start to conquer other lands, they have advantage over the animals who never seen a human before.

you are fucking retarded and should open up a dictionary

What Veeky Forums needs is another option.
"Stupid and/or shitposting"
If enough unique IDs click that, the thread is deleted and the OP is warned. Three strikes and you're banned.

Actually, it was less the disadvantage of the animals and more the humans growing more bloodthirsty.

perpetuating this scientistic dogma that "humans are animals" is damaging
when we call someone an "animal" we mean they're a brute, driven by baser instincts, inhuman, etc.
being "animalistic" is a vice
thinking of people as "animals" is the main example of dehumanizing
but now scientism has legitimized equating humans and animals, so that being an animal is just being true to your nature, which is what literal satanists preach
>we're just naked apes that think they're special
>there's no real difference between humans and animals
neopositivists stupidly think "humans are animals" is just a straightforward empirical claim
but in reality, both "human" and "animal" are complex concepts with ethical and metaphysical semantic content

muh connotations

>"human" and "animal" are complex concepts with ethical and metaphysical semantic content

Human = "Homo"
Animal = "Animalia"

Something like this is necessary. The quality of /sci has slipped below tolerable levels. The influx of mentally ill posters, coupled to a complete lack of moderation, is killing what was once a great board.

i count 0 arguments

This board is science and math, not history and humanities

those aren't arguments, those are facts. definitions.

Yes, it's absolutely terrible. As an arthropod, I resent being lumped into "kingdom animalia" along with unethical human beings. My metaphysical semantics make me special, and I demand a special classification that no one else belongs to.

sure, you can redefine words so that your claims come out true
saying "human=homo", "animal=animalia" is nothing but that
we still use the words "human" and "animal" in their unredefined senses, like if we say it's wrong to eat humans but not animals
ordinary language constantly distinguishes between humans and animals, and scientists have to impotently try to get people to stop making that distinction

>philosopy is irrelevent cus i dont understand it

>when we call someone an "animal" we mean they're a brute, driven by baser instincts, inhuman, etc.
Yeah but that's just idiomatic.

>Anthropocentrism matters because I'M a human!
Nope. You're a nuisance.

>spelling is irrelevant cuz I can't do it

it's not an idiom, it's figurative
but it only works because we know what an animal literally is, which is something other than and lower than a human
"animalistic" invokes that same semantics

You're the one who DOESN'T understand philosophy. There's nothing in philosophy that compels us to pretend away the fact that humans are animals.

>it's not an idiom, it's figurative
True, but when we say "animal" we usually mean "an animal that is not a human". An animal other than our own species. Sort of like referring to a species in the "third person".

We are animals. It goes without saying, so that in everyday language it's implied that "animal" means another kind of animal to us because we have words like "person" to refer to our own. But that's in non-technical everyday language. You'd never get a book called Person Anatomy.

how is it anthropocentric to say humans are not animals

>if you don't buy into my ideology you are dismissing all of philosophy

i'm sure most people using the word "animal" like in my example would, if corrected, say "yes of course i mean 'non-human animal' since we are also animals"
if they were speaking accurately, though, they would add "in a sense"
and the sense they would be referring to would be the technical biological sense

might not compel us to pretend anything, but there's definitely stuff in philosophy that can be used to argue humans are not animals, even granting evolution

Nothing in philosophy outweighs the physical evidence. You are full of shit. You are also, like it or not, an animal.

this isn't entirely a question of physical evidence
riddle me this: are birds dinosaurs?

It's literally special pleading because humans WERE animals once. Now you're demons.

what do you mean humans were animals once?

Yes. Birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs.

how does that prove birds are dinosaurs?

/x/: the post

Phylogenetically. Humans started as animals. They fell, through evil acts, to demonic classification.

No need to resort to metaphysics. The actions of the species speak for themselves. Call them living garbage. Makes no difference. Humans are a disease that brings death and chaos now.

No - your riddle is intellectually jejune and so are you. Kingdom Animalia includes people, and for sound physical reasons. If you don't like it, disprove it using evidence-based reasoning, not silly riddles and semantic fol-de-rol. This assinine thread, so far, does not belong on /sci.

...

do you know the words "monophyly", "paraphyly", and "clade"?

i like where your head is at since you reject the scientistic idea, but i don't agree that all apparent humans are demons, only some
demons are archetypally inhuman, so by necessity if all "humans" were demons there would be no real humans

Sorry - not engaging in your pseudo-socratic pseudo-intellectual games. You should leave /sci and spend more time with your church group. I'm sure they'll agree with you that people are not animals. To the rest of us, it's fucking obvious.

you're assuming a term like "animal" must be monophyletic
that's cladism, a specific controversial position in the philosophy of biology
animals are arguably not a monophyletic group, and i could make the argument to you if you were willing to challenge your preconceptions
i think it's clear which of us resembles a religious dogmatist more

Lol - this guy's so desperate to grind his axe that he's attributing assumptions to other posters and arguing against them in absentio. Way to straw man, dude.

why are you so insecure about your position?

Why do you perpetuate a thread that no one has any interest in? I hereby give you leave to grind your axe by yourself, all day long, if you like. You can ask yourself leading questions, attribute assumptions to yourself, and otherwise have a faggotty old time.