|
|
|
|
|
|
by loup-vaillant
5476 days ago
|
|
|
Well, at least by putting "non-human" in "non-human animals", they understood that human shouldn't be excluded by default. By "wrong" I essentially meant "you shouldn't do that", here because it is misleading. Using the single word "animal" when you actually mean "non-human animal" suggest we humans are not animals. We are. Now you changed my mind a bit: the "non-human animals" category does have its uses, and it does make sense to think of it. I just think it doesn't deserve the shorter expression "animals". |
|
|