>Not if animals is defined in exactly the same way for both.
True, but what is the objectively correct definition of "animal"?
I'm suggesting that there is no such thing, and if that's true
then conflicting truth values with respect to statements like
"humans are animals" are inevitable. Like Richard, I see little
point in arguing over the truth of such a proposition. However I
do see value in discussing the implications of the position:
"if humans are animals, then ...?". I admit the distinction is
a subtle one, but I see it as exploring a model as opposed to
advocating one.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/