My last sentence was directed at the definition of exoskeleton. Looks and species are certainly part of it but the problem is where do you draw the line? Is it anything that walks on it's hind legs? We'd include bears. Opposible thumbs? We'd include chimps. Does it extent to pygmies? Neanderthals? Now we seem to cross some sort of line to most but some people kept going and said 'it is skin' or 'defects mean that it's not human'. Now most people would agree we've gone too far but the real question is how exact do you have to be to be human? How much leeway? Too little and we're prejudiced, too far and we get into the animals.Zenode said:Im sorry if i said exoskeleton dont go all mr scientific on me.lostclause said:Oh, right. Exoskeleton means a support system that is outside your body. Our support is our bones which, unless you're Alex Mercer, should not be visible. It's not about looks.Zenode said:Human aesthetic, human look whatever you want to call itlostclause said:Err, humans don't have an exoskeleton outside of mechwarrior. I think that it's only insects who have a chitin exoskeleton (and probably something like sea urchins but I can't think of the name for that group)
Just the way humans look on the outside is what i was getting at
If its not looks what is it about?
so your saying that if The thing below had morals it would be human?? no you would look at how the thing looks and if it had the same basic aesthetic as a person you would instantly in your head go "look a human" not "lets examine this things morals to determine it"
image snip
Not to say that what you are physically isn't important I just think it's one factor of many in making us human.