You always demonstrate your arrogance and incompetence with your replies. "you think you're intelligent because you watch this show" You just made this up, so evidently you're also a liar. There was nothing patronizing about my answer to your question as there was no conveying of any sense of superiority. However, having seen what kind of person you are, I do in fact think I am superior to you. But this is hardly a "high-horse", as you are the one stooping to such pathetic depths of insecurity.
NewsyScience only reports on topics that have already been reported on, they are like the boring version of SourceFed. They've also done some pretty dumb reports as well such as a report on the existence of Bigfoot. The moronic thing is, is that you think you're intelligent because you watch this show. You're a jackass for patronizing me with your first comment and then getting atop your high-horse by speaking to me like you're a dictionary. You're just arrogant.
You asked me what I meant by a "generalized word" and I gave you the best answer I could in the allotted 500 characters that YouTube allows. I didnt "choose to talk like I'm reading out of a dictionary". I chose to talk like I'm talking to somebody who might understand intermediate English vocabulary, since this is a "NewsyScience" video and not a "ShaneDawson" video.
Anybody who criticizes another for showing the ability to speak fluently and coherently is definitely a moron. So you're a moron.
I'm not a moron, I just think you could have summarized it without having to try and show off your articulateness. "Humans" generalizes our species and "People" generalizes Humans, it's as simple as that. I can be articulate but I choose not to talk to people like I'm reading out of a dictionary.
a generalized word only supplies a certain useful amount of specificity, from which we can extrapolate ourselves any further details or subsets of the term. "humans" refers specifically to homosapiens, but not to the gender, culture, race, size, etc. So it is already "generalized", hence why I say it's "a funny concept" to have the word "people" to generalize it. The common use of "people" is really just "humans", but I think it makes more sense to further generalize it 'as any sentient being'.
That writer for the National Review must be a Christian or some kind of religious retard still believing that their "God" created us in his or her image. That humans were created with love and emotions and that animals cant have that. This just shows that we are all part of this universe. We are related to everything. That evolution is true. If humans are capable of emotions, why cant other animals. After all, we are animals too.
...this is absurd. First corporations are people, now dogs are people. What's next plants and microbes? Our definition of a person is getting more and more vague as time goes on. The only people on this planet, currently, are humans as far as I'm concerned. When animals become philosophers and engineers then we can talk about personhood. They are a long way off at this point.
I'm not a dog person. Having a dog is like sharing a living space with a goat or a chicken. They stink and they are dirty.
They should do a study on cats. It would find that humans are the pet and the cat is the master. Cats are cleaner than humans.
The class of drugs that Levitra, Viagra, Stendra, and Cialis belong to are called PDE5 inhibitors. They work by relaxing tight blood vessels, allowing more blood to surge into the penis and cause an erection, says Gregory Bales, M.D., an associate professor of urology at the University of Chicago.
The little pills do the trick for more than two-thirds of men with Viagra protects the heart (ED). They also work for guys who simply need them for a short time to get their “confidence back,” says Michael Eisenberg, M.D., director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford University.