Well we cannot prove Emotions, etc is something only Humans can have for now also..
^
v
Anthropomorphism is not really proven also.. It was made by writer to describe something for "Separated" reasons or it looked like that. It was describe "Putting humans to animals".. And I was saying the things that was claimed only humans can have is not a real thing or wasn't proven.. I was saying it's possible for the things that was claimed "Humans only have this" to be possible for non-human creatures.. The "Only humans can have this" is very faded and for evidence, the only evidence I am seeing is creatures having similar things which gets more evidence that non-human animals has the possibility and even the possibility to create.. (In other words: Humans only have this theory fading away)
So if I see the dog as a friend, I think I am saying that the so called "Human can only have this" thing is something the dog has and shares. Friends I mean is like the acting like a friend, trust, etc. And that's what some dogs already do.. is this Truth? Well is this fact? It's a fact that they do that.. But is it fact that Dogs has the same thing? Kind of. But why do I say this? I say this for the definition of Anthropomorphic. And the Humans to Animals is not even a proven thing it's self. That's why I been saying "Similarities, parts, or so"
Equality is something anyone can have. Looking at the dog equal isn't a "Adding human thing" it's adding a thing that life it's self got. If that's not proven, than Equality it's self isn't.
Back to the Anthropomorphism thing, the reason why I had trouble with this was because of how it's viewed. "Humans to Animals" But that's not proven that Humans has something any creature doesn't. And the fact AND truth that Humans are Animals. If a theory, there is good evidence.
Again, Anthropomorphism is found sometimes in dictionaries but forcing it against a person who doesn't think Anthropomorphism but instead thinks of a thing that others can have in art, etc isn't the best idea.
IMO, evidence is the best path to go. The Big Bang is a theory based on some evidence, same thing for anti-specialism theory.
I know I know, It's NOT proof it's self, well kind of but it can be good enough, but remember even the "Adding Humans to Animals" is not proven also (Yet we are animals too). Perhaps the other way kind of has more evidence from what I see. To me evidence can be connected to Truth or Fact, what ever you mean to be proof.
Kind of get what I mean?
I would see the Anthro part, and I was trying to theorized that the meaning of it it's self isn't even proven, not even good evidence for a part of the meaning.
Well we cannot prove Emotions, etc is something only Humans can have for now also..
^
v
Anthropomorphism is not really proven also.. It was made by writer to describe something for "Separated" reasons or it looked like that. It was describe "Putting humans to animals".. And I was saying the things that was claimed only humans can have is not a real thing or wasn't proven.. I was saying it's possible for the things that was claimed "Humans only have this" to be possible for non-human creatures.. The "Only humans can have this" is very faded and for evidence, the only evidence I am seeing is creatures having similar things which gets more evidence that non-human animals has the possibility and even the possibility to create.. (In other words: Humans only have this theory fading away)
So if I see the dog as a friend, I think I am saying that the so called "Human can only have this" thing is something the dog has and shares. Friends I mean is like the acting like a friend, trust, etc. And that's what some dogs already do.. is this Truth? Well is this fact? It's a fact that they do that.. But is it fact that Dogs has the same thing? Kind of. But why do I say this? I say this for the definition of Anthropomorphic. And the Humans to Animals is not even a proven thing it's self. That's why I been saying "Similarities, parts, or so"
Equality is something anyone can have. Looking at the dog equal isn't a "Adding human thing" it's adding a thing that life it's self got. If that's not proven, than Equality it's self isn't.
Back to the Anthropomorphism thing, the reason why I had trouble with this was because of how it's viewed. "Humans to Animals" But that's not proven that Humans has something any creature doesn't. And the fact AND truth that Humans are Animals. If a theory, there is good evidence.
Again, Anthropomorphism is found sometimes in dictionaries but forcing it against a person who doesn't think Anthropomorphism but instead thinks of a thing that others can have in art, etc isn't the best idea.
IMO, evidence is the best path to go. The Big Bang is a theory based on some evidence, same thing for anti-specialism theory.
I know I know, It's NOT proof it's self, well kind of but it can be good enough, but remember even the "Adding Humans to Animals" is not proven also (Yet we are animals too). Perhaps the other way kind of has more evidence from what I see. To me evidence can be connected to Truth or Fact, what ever you mean to be proof.
Kind of get what I mean?
I would see the Anthro part, and I was trying to theorized that the meaning of it it's self isn't even proven, not even good evidence for a part of the meaning.