"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> rick wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>You can identify some differences which hold between most humans and
>>>most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but there will
>>>always be some humans who don't have these differences from nonhuman
>>>animals.
>
>> =====================
>> But the main difference still remains. Within each person is the seed of
>> what being human is.
>
> Which is what? How are you defining "human"? And, as
> important, why is it morally relevant?
> ===========================
ROTFLMAO You really need a definition of human. But then, you've already
proven yourself as a hate-filled person
that only likes the fringes of any moral behavior anyway.



>> No such seed exists in ANY animal.
>
> Depends on what your definition is.
> =======================
No, it doesn't. No other animal can EVER become what makes a person human.
maybe if you were even close to being a humane person you'd see the
difference, eh killer?



>> The person you claim now doesn't have the differences from animals has
>> the potential to achieve those differences.
>
> That is not true for all biological members of the human species.
> Pick any characteristic which is morally relevant, and you will
> find at least some biological humans who lack it from birth and/or
> are completely incapable of developing it. Speciesism is simply
> a prejudice, like racism or sexism.
> =============================
LOL And you have porven to be racist already too, eh fool?
Tell me what other animals can ever exhibit human morality, killer.
That YOU cannot exhibit that morality does not count.



> <snip>