|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 109
Graduate Member
|
Heh, Wikipedia. Definitions often vary, and you're clearly going far past my original point. In fact, it seems you're more intent on quibbling over minutiae of trivia rather than making any real statement. So what if animals are "sentient" based on your definition? Can you direct that point back to why it's being discussed in the first place, or do you just want to win points? Prove me wrong and then do something with that information. You're not doing that. What it appears to me, instead, is that you're arguing in the manner of an adolescent, relying on whimsy and recalcitrance as the backbone of your approach. The rest of the animal kingdom differs in certain ways from human beings. Their form of consciousness is vastly different from ourselves. Now you can call that sentience (as some do) or you can quibble over what specific word you care to call it until you're blue in the face. I'm not going to expound further upon that because it's irrelevant to this discussion. But the only thing I was suggesting in a previous thread was the difference between humans and animals. Nothing more, nothing less. If you disagree with that and believe that there is no difference whatsoever between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, you're certainly welcome to your opinions -- in which case, let's leave it at that and move onward with the topic because it's a really very small point at this stage of the discussion. I can't help but wonder why you are discussing God and evolution, which you have not yet proven without your textbooks (which also are not proven) if this your attitude toward others. I'm sorry. Please direct me to where you have proven anything beyond conjecture. Furthermore, what alleged text books have I used in this discussion? You said I can't prove anything without my text books. Which ones were those? You're again painting a picture of yourself akin to your Christian predessors (who made painstaking attempts to suppress knowledge and learning) when you suggest that books should not be used in an argument. The fact that I did not use any textbooks yet you mention I have evinces your opinions on their very existence. Of your own omission, I see you value anecdotal "evidence" over demonstrably proven facts. Through you I am reminded of a time in world history where books were burned and literacy punishable by death.
Last edited by egan; 07/10/07 11:53 AM.
|
|
|
|
|