Social Question

redfeather's avatar

How would you define "animal"?

Asked by redfeather (6485 points ) January 17th, 2012 from iPhone

I’m taking a really interesting class, Animals and Culture, and my professor asked us this in the first class. I was surprised at how difficult it was to answer, and she still hasn’t told us the right answer(and it’s not homework, so don’t think you’re answering something for me). So I’m curious to know what you sexy jellies think.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

66 Answers

Qingu's avatar

Multicellular organisms with non-rigid cells that contain mitochondria. Depending on how you define “multicellular,” this might or might not include sponges.

See Metazoan.

redfeather's avatar

Okay. Let me rephrase. What separates man from animal? Man is animal but where is the line between man and animal drawn?

Qingu's avatar

Humans are animals, duh!

Edit: are you asking what separates humans from non-humans? It’s a line in the sand. Our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, are highly intelligent, form strong social networks, can communicate (crudely) and can even create and use tools. Chimps have been observed passing down tool-use methods along generations, thus creating “cultures.”

The main difference between us and other primates is that we have highly advanced language capabilities. This difference evolved in baby steps, though. Our closest human relatives, the Neandertals, lacked strong vocal chords and so probably had to resort to sign language and grunts to communicate. The Cro-Magnons (our ancestors) had better vocal chords, so they could come up with more complex language. Which, in turn, enabled more complex cultures, more complex tools, farming—I’d say farming is the point in history when shit got real.

redfeather's avatar

Yes, but there’s obviously a line. It used to be “man uses tools” till we discovered that animals use tools.

redfeather's avatar

Maybe it’s “man can be a butthead” because, @Qingu, you’re totally making this difficult. ~

everephebe's avatar

Here is the line : m-animal.

Qingu's avatar

Why does there have to be a line? That’s not how evolution works. The lines we draw between taxons are arbitrary, they exist for us to help us classify and think about the diversity of life. They’re certainly useful—clearly there are major differences between humans and other apes, between fish and amphibians, between multicellular organisms and single-celled protists—but they’re not objective.

redfeather's avatar

So if you’re okay eating animals you should be okay eating people?

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

Why? Not all omnivores or carnivores are cannibals. We are animals.

Qingu's avatar

Um, no. How would that follow, exactly?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Humans can expand their vernacular instantly, thereby creating new words to express new concepts and observations which allow conscious awareness to also constantly expand.

Animals cannot expand their vernacular to express new concepts.
_______

It has been said that humans are no longer evolving physically. Theory is that humans stopped evolving upon the invention of written language some eight thousand years ago. The theory suggests that though humans no longer evolve physically, they do evolve mentally, in the realm of mind expansion as to what we are capable of becoming consciously aware of is only limited to our ability to express it with new words.

DominicX's avatar

Colloquially speaking, I use the term “animal” to refer to any animal that is not a human. However, I recognize that humans are animals. Many people don’t like to say that humans are animals because they think that gives us license to act the way non-human animals do and they think it diminishes any “special” status that humans have above other animals.

redfeather's avatar

Grrrrr… I’m getting off the topic. That’s not the point, or what I asked.

We know scientifically what makes an animal. Something that respirates, maintains stasis, reproduces somehow, can “grow”, but I’m asking from an anthropological persepective. There are indigenous people in Amazonia who say there is absolutely no distinction between animals and people. Their reason is more religious though. A peccary could be a kinsmen who was killed and the spirit now inhabits the peccary. Or, you have to be careful which jaguar you kill because it could be a shaman. So as a western culture, and way of thinking, what makes man separate from animals?

marinelife's avatar

I don’t draw a line between man and animal. Man is an animal.

redfeather's avatar

Could another reason be that man knows why and understands things? Like, we understand that if we plant a seed, it will grow and we will have food. I’m still trying to figure it out too, I just wanted to see what you all thought too.

And I agree with you @DominicX, and think you’re right. The idea of people being thought of as animalistic makes people uncomfortable.

Qingu's avatar

@redfeather, that’s not what scientifically makes an animal, that’s a cell. That also describes plants and bacteria.

I’m honestly not sure what your point is. You seem to be arguing against the view that humans are distinct from animals… a view that nobody on this website seems to actually hold.

marinelife's avatar

@redfeather Look at this video of a crow sledding down a roof. The crow is using a tool (a jar lid as a sled), and he is doing it over and over again for fun.

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

I’m having a hard time understanding the question. We are highly evolved animals. Still animals, though. There isn’t a difference. We’re a different species. Does that help?

redfeather's avatar

@Qingu, nope. I’m not arguing anything. Just rephrased the question that I originally asked wrong. And yes, I know, those are characteristics that classify living creatures.

@marinelife I am aware that animals use tools. Chimps make sticks to fish for acorns and not only do they do that, they make extras beforehand because they know some will break. I said that used to be the distinction till people saw that animals used tools as well.

HungryGuy's avatar

I don’t think you can separate man from animal.

Scientifically, man is a mammal, and part of the animal kingdom, but I get it that you don’t mean scientifically.

Anyway, every time someone tries to come up with some rule or behavior that separates man from animals (such as using language, using tools, enjoying kinky sex, etc.), someone else comes along and finds an animal that breaks that rule.

That said, one thing I’ve noticed is that animals don’t seem to recognize music. I’ve had my fair share of cats and dogs in my life. I’ve never, ever, seen one react in any way to music (such as bobbing their heads or whatnot). It’s like they can’t even hear it. So maybe appreciation of music is one thing that separates man from animals.

But just watch, someone will come along later in this thread to provide evidence of an animal reacting pleasurably to music…

redfeather's avatar

The question that our professor asked, verbatim, was “What is an animal?”
(if any of you mofos answer too literally and too scientifically, I’m burning a math book or something)

Brian1946's avatar

Could your professor be asking what aspects of human culture distinguish humans from other animals?

redfeather's avatar

Thank you, @HungryGuy. Knew I could count on you. That’s what I’m saying, every time someone comes up with a rule, some creature breaks it. I had a list somewhere of rules that scientists had thought of, ones like “man has emotion”, “man uses tools”, stuff like that. One was even “man cooks” which was pretty good because I think, as far as we know, no “animals” have really used fire to cook their food.

Qingu's avatar

@redfeather so basically you’re asking what the essential difference is between humans and other animals?

In one sense, nothing. We are biologically animals. There is nothing special or magical about us. We clearly evolved from other primates.

In another sense, clearly, something is up with us humans. No other species has so drastically altered the face of the Earth, or single-handedly caused so many extinctions. We are the only organism on Earth to travel to other bodies in the solar system.

So, in that sense, I don’t think we should insist that we’re “just” animals, we’re part of nature, we’re no more special than anything else. We clearly are not just part of nature, we have tremendous power over nature. The more relevant question might be, how did we get this power? And the answer is evolution, both biological and (later) cultural.

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

Is it possible that your professor simply wanted you to think about exactly the sort of things we’re saying here?

redfeather's avatar

@Brian1946 that may be as the class is Animals and Culture. I’m just asking exactly how she asked it and this is basically the discussion that went down in class, and she said she’d tell us next week.

Damn I love this class but it’s too much thinking at 9:30 am which is why I need to think about it now

redfeather's avatar

Just read where I typed “chimps fish for acorns.” I meant termites… I don’t know where I got acorns…

Dutchess_III's avatar

I have to agree…there is no line.

saint's avatar

Anything that is alive that is not vegetable.

Coloma's avatar

Yep, I’m in the humans are animals camp too. I think of humans as humans and other animals as other animals but, really, there is no distinction.

Blackberry's avatar

Humans are animals, it’s pretty simple. What else would we be? “Man” is not a species, it’s a label.

redfeather's avatar

Ugh. I’m pretty sure we can all agree people are animals.

Blackberry's avatar

I didn’t read the other answers :/

phaedryx's avatar

“I think therefore I am”—Descartes

Humans are unique in how we can think about our own thought processes and modify our own thinking. We also can communicate complex thoughts to other humans. Those are two places I’d make a distinction.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Qingu “Humans still are evolving physically”

As fond as I am of Wired Magazine, that article is pretty mushy to use for supporting humans are still evolving physically.

Not one genotype mutation was noted. They’re all phenotype, and I personally don’t consider that physical evolution any more than my sister having red hair is evolution. The article also cautions “against interpreting the findings as suggesting that people are becoming fundamentally better.” Thus, this could actually be devolution. And I’m not kidding.

We are no longer living in isolated clans with limited gene pool where phenotype is useless and genotype is not a matter of high volume, but instead a life dependent, highly selective necessity for survival. Our global society and mixed interbreeding cultures should be enough to explain phenotype mutations without ever hinting a possible course towards specation. Nothing is shocking the system enough to promote selective genotype mutations. We’re just enjoying the variety that comes when a species no longer needs to evolve for survival.

everephebe's avatar

You’re all animals!

Qingu's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, I don’t think you actually read the article. It was about differences in genome, not phenotypes.

As for shocking the system, um, have you noticed how quickly and unpredictably human environments shift? Just last year a majority of humans for the first time lived in urban environments.

And it’s true that, at least in developed countries, survival is not a primary driving force for evolution. Neither is survival a driving force for birds of paradise who live on cushy islands—their evolution is overwhelmingly driven by sexual selection.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I read the article twice, and for the third time just now. It only gives phenotype examples, which of course are part of the “genome” as you note the article is about. But it gives no samples of genotype mutations which may promote specation. When we speak of “evolution”, it’s usually in context of a potential for specation, which phenotype does not allow for.

I don’t consider “change” and “evolution” to be the same things. If humans are not moving towards specation, then there is no evolution. But if skin color, eye color change, and could just as easily change back, then that is just change… not evolution.

I don’t believe there are any cases where a species evolved/devolved back to a previous species.

Qingu's avatar

“In the study, researchers analzyed genomes from 270 people belonging to four disparate ethnic groups: Han Chinese, Africa’s Yoruba tribe,Japanese and Utah Mormons. By comparing areas of difference and similarity, they determined that about seven percent of the genome has undergone significant change since the end of the last Ice Age.”

Why on earth do you think the study is not talking about genetic mutations?

Also, evolution is not necessarily in the context of speciation; in this case speciation has nothing to do with it.

mattbrowne's avatar

According to Daniel Gilbert it’s this:

The human being is the only animal that thinks about the future.

If you object, here’s his explanation:

http://www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/gilbert/excerpts2.html

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Qingu “Why on earth do you think the study is not talking about genetic mutations?”

I didn’t say that. Phenotype mutations are genetic mutations. But that’s not evolution. And that’s all the examples they gave, was phenotype mutations.

Think of it this way… You’ve got a Max OSX.1, and it is constantly working in the background, changing its structure with preferences, ports, virus protections, data input/output… Think of this as a phenotype mutation. Though the code is constantly changing in respect to day to day operations, there is no mutation taking place that changes the fundamental structure of the OS. Change is not evolution. It can all be changed right back to where it was.

For evolution to occur, the OSX.1 must be updated to OSX.2… Now we can claim evolution has occurred. Think of this as a genotype mutation. OSX.2 will never be capable of changing back to OSX.1.
________

Interesting article @mattbrowne. I completely agree. Though I’ve seen squirrels and crows seem to plan a course of events in order to produce a particular outcome, it’s not the same as the type of future that Gibert addresses.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I thought of something…human animals are the only ones, as far as I know, who go to great lengths to save the life of other species, even adult carnivores who would be a dangerous enemy in the wild, simply out of compassion. We’ve seen examples of animals nursing baby animals of other species and that kind of thing, but I can’t think of a time when, for example, a chimp tribe came together to nurse a full grown leopard back to health. Dolphins have been known to come to the aid of humans, but are there any instances where they came to the aid of a shark?

Qingu's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, okay, it’s now clear that you know basically nothing about genetics or how it relates to evolution. I had been giving you the benefit of the doubt. This is one of the reasons why I don’t much like debating you down these little rabbit holes.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I had a feeling the “rabbit hole” comment was about to hit. And upon your declaration, I “know basically nothing about genetics or evolution”. Well you can keep saying that, but until you can point out where the article you provide speaks of anything besides phenotype mutation, or how that is evolution when it could easily change back, then I’ll have to remain ignorant, I guess, since you say so.

mattbrowne's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – Studies show that on average 12% of human thinking is about the future. Quite remarkable I think.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

It is. I wonder how much of that “future thinking” is required to author our reality tunnels into existence.

Qingu's avatar

You said: “Phenotype mutations are genetic mutations. But that’s not evolution. And that’s all the examples they gave, was phenotype mutations.”

Everything in this statement is either nonsensical or false.

There is no such thing as a “phenotype mutation.” Mutations are, by definition, genetic. A phenotype is simply how a given mutation or mutations manifests itself in the animal’s body or behavior. How it does this is not always clear.

Now, perhaps you meant that the genetic mutations the article discusses do manifest themselves physically in important ways and are thus “phenotype mutations.” Some of them do, but genetic comparisons between populations don’t just count mutations that result in noticeable phenotype changes, what they’re counting is the overall shift in genome code.

Then you go on to say “that’s (phenotype mutation) not evolution.” Um, yes it is. And natural selection acts on phenotypes, so it’s nonsensical to imply that phenotype changes are somehow not where evolution takes place.

You then go on to compare phenotype mutations to a computer systems application working and updating itself. I don’t even know where to begin in response to this.

As for “rabbit hole,” I have a feeling your ignorance on this topic relates to your bizarre ideas about information theory, which I have repeatedly tried to deal with and have learned to just walk away from. The basic problem here is that you do not know nearly as much about the subject as you think you know.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

We simply have different opinions about what evolution is @Qingu. It seems to me that you equate “change” with “evolution”. I don’t. If I’m correct in this assessment, then by your standards, a creek can evolve into a river. I don’t see that as evolution. For me, that’s simply change.

@Qingu There is no such thing as a “phenotype mutation.”

Here we study the effect of such phenotypic mutations. We find a maximum phenotypic mutation rate… we find a minimum phenotypic mutation rate…

@Qingu ”...genetic comparisons between populations don’t just count mutations that result in noticeable phenotype changes, what they’re counting is the overall shift in genome code.”

But your article didn’t give any examples of that beyond phenotype. It demonstrates that we are changing, like a creek into a river. And we could change right back again depending upon selective pressures. As I understand your position, any change back to a previous state would necessarily have to be called devolution. It that correct? I don’t want to misread you.

I don’t believe we are evolving any more than a creek can evolve into a volcano. It could easily change back to a previous state. Would you call that evolution or devolution? I don’t call it either one. I call it change.

@Qingu ”...natural selection acts on phenotypes, so it’s nonsensical to imply that phenotype changes are somehow not where evolution takes place.”

Natural selection can act on it, through random mutations. But random mutations are not known for their beneficial evolution. When it comes to phenotype, an argument could be made that The selection process is termed _’artificial’ when human preferences (mating) or influences… (manipulating the environment)... have a significant effect…

We artificially select for dog breeding and foods based upon individual preferences. Not much different than choosing a partner to mate with, thereby increasing the frequency of the selection.

@Qingu “You then go on to compare phenotype mutations to a computer systems application working and updating itself. I don’t even know where to begin in response to this.”

Feel free to ask questions then. It’s no secret that the human genome is often compared to and run by the same protocols that computer sciences utilize.

@Qingu “I have a feeling your ignorance on this topic relates to your bizarre ideas about information theory…”

You mean those bizarre ideas I share with Shannon and Weaver that author the protocols that genetics uses every day?

Qingu's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, you’re defining “phenotypic mutations” as protein synthesis errors? I’ll admit, I was unaware of this definition.

But okay.

You realize this further contradicts your point, right?

Seriously, dude.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Whether they are synthesis errors or not remains debatable. The point is they are recognized as real and distinguished from genotype mutations enough to study and discover new related phenomenon such as nonsense mediated decay (NMD) which terminates wild-type mRNA very early on, thus addressing synthesis errors in the process, if that indeed is what they are. It seems pretty clear how they do it… but the why is a completely different issue.

How this contradicts my “point” is also debatable. I really don’t want to debate you any further with this @Qingu. You’ve made your point that you believe humans are still evolving. I’ve made mine that upon us applying different requirements for what evolution must be to occur, that I don’t believe we are.

You’ve got the last word. I’m just not interested in carrying this on. Thanks for the conversation.

Qingu's avatar

No, @RealEyesRealizeRealLies, let’s at least finish this discussion about phenotype mutations.

I linked to an article in which scientists compared the genomes of modern humans and showed that the genomes had many differences (thus proving that humans are still evolving in the Holocene).

You then claimed that the article’s mutations are “phenotype” and not “genotype” mutations.

You have since linked to articles defining phenotype mutations as protein synthesis errors.

Which is not what the article is about remotely. Such errors would not be reflected in the genomes studied—that’s the whole point, that’s what makes them “phenotype mutations.”

I’d like to see you either explain yourself or admit you were wrong.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Sorry @Qingu “many differences” don’t “prove” that humans are “still evolving”.

You keep saying it doesn’t prove it either.

@Qingu “I’d like to see you either explain yourself or admit you were wrong.”

No doubt either one of us could be wrong. No doubt further research will “prove” that neither one of us is completely right. But explaining myself to you is impossible. You don’t see a difference between “change” and “evolution”. I do. You don’t see a comparison between Computer Science and Genetics. I do. You don’t give credit to Information Theory in understanding DNA. I do. You don’t accept McClintock/Schapiro “controlled” mutations. I do. You believe in beneficial “random” mutation. I don’t.

Our foundations for understand things the way we do are polar opposites. There is nothing to argue about here. Doing so would require rehashing our past discussions to the degree I just don’t have further interest in. Your only real desire here is for me to admit that I’m “wrong”. That’s absolutely fine. In the bigger picture, our personal views on this don’t matter one bit.

Qingu's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, I am talking specifically about your statements about phenotype mutations regarding the article I posted.

Here is what you have said:

“It only gives phenotype examples, which of course are part of the “genome” as you note the article is about. But it gives no samples of genotype mutations which may promote specation.”

“Phenotype mutations are genetic mutations. But that’s not evolution. And that’s all the examples they gave, was phenotype mutations.”

“But your article didn’t give any examples of that beyond phenotype.”

Please explain these statements, or admit that you were wrong.

I think you have a tendency to make things up as you go along, and I’m calling you out on it. I will not have any further discussion with you until you demonstrate you are able to actually discuss things logically and honestly.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I tried to explain, but you don’t accept my MacOSX example. In fact, that was so profoundly difficult for you to grock that you ”don’t even know where to begin in response”.

You won’t make a designation between ”change” and ”evolution”. You won’t even comment on it despite my numerous attempts to explain our differing foundations for understanding things the way we do.

Let me offer a word substitution for ”change”. Let’s use ”adapt” instead. So now, do you believe that ”adaptation” and ”evolution” are the same things? I really believe this is where our discord is. Unless you’re just trying to pick on me.

Since I must assume that it’s all evolution to you, will you designate what it’s called if a phenotype returns to a previous state… Is it still evolution, or is it devolution?

You won’t concede that the Anthropologist article you refer only speaks of phenotypes, that determine ”light skin, blue eyes, blonde hair”. But instead insist ”There is no such thing as a phenotype mutation.” But you disregard the Anthropologist perspective, which is primarily based upon phenotypical observations.

You can’t explain how “blue eyes” phenotype will ever be capable of evolving into aquatic humans or people with cloven feet and a third stomach… as in a different species, which as far as I’m concerned, is what evolution really is. Anything less is just change… or should I say “adaptation”?

How can I possibly “explain myself” in a manner that makes any sense to you?

How can I possibly admit I’m “wrong” just because you refuse to acknowledge where I’m coming from on this?

You don’t even seem to notice that the reference to your article begins with the assumption that humans are still evolving. To an anthropologist who wrote the paper, it might seem as such. But in the same sentence, uses the term ”adaptive substitution”

”...consistent with a constant rate of adaptive substitution during human evolution…”:http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753

That’s what your article is referring to… ”adaptive substitution”. And it presumes it to be taking place ”during human evolution”… as if it’s already been decided that humans are still evolving… when it has not. Your article comes to the table carrying the baggage of dogma.

Sorry, I don’t base my entire perspective about what evolution actually is on those with preconceived notions from any one discipline… such as Anthropology.

Notice I’m not rejecting their data. I’m simply rejecting the assumptions made about it.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Look, sorry, I really don’t care if you consider change and evolution to be the same things. I don’t care that our understandings are different. I don’t even care if you call me a liar who doesn’t know anything. Answer if you wish, and enjoy the last word on this.

Qingu's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, let’s stay focused here.

I’m not talking about evolution or change right now. I am talking about phenotypes and genotypes.

You said the article I linked to talks about phenotype mutations.

You then provided a link about phenotype mutations—which are, according to the link, protein synthesis errors.

Do you understand that protein synthesis errors, aka phenotype mutations, are not what the scientists were studying in the article?

Can you please just answer this simple question?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

This is the last time I repeat myself @Qingu. All the answers to your questions have already been given.

@Qingu “You said the article I linked to talks about phenotype mutations.”

Yes, from your article… ”light skin, blue eyes, blonde hair, etc.

@Qingu “You then provided a link about phenotype mutations…”

Yes, specifically because you said there was no such thing.

@Qingu ”...which are, according to the link, protein synthesis errors.”

Yes, but I said it was debatable that they were errors.

@Qingu “Do you understand that protein synthesis errors, aka phenotype mutations, are not what the scientists were studying in the article?”

That assumes they are errors #1, and #2 the term “adaptive substitution” is used to describe what is otherwise known as “phenotype mutations”. That’s why I said they could change back if conditions were right. Because when conditions are right, another “adaptive substitution” could occur in the form of brown eyes instead of blue.

BTW…
@Qingu I’m not talking about evolution or change right now. I am talking about phenotypes and genotypes.”

@Qingu ”...evolution is not necessarily in the context of speciation…”

@Qingu ”...you go on to say “that’s (phenotype mutation) not evolution.” Um, yes it is.”

So when you talk about phenotype/genotype, you are or are not talking about evolution?

Nevermind.

Qingu's avatar

Again, let’s focus.

The mutations for light skin, blue eyes, and blond hair are not phenotype mutations (ie protein synthesis mutations). We know what genes cause these traits.

Do you understand? You don’t appear to.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Qingu “The mutations for light skin, blue eyes, and blond hair are not phenotype mutations. We know what genes cause these mutations.”

Are those gene mutations expressed as phenotype?
…a phenotype is the ensemble of observable characteristics displayed by an organism…’’

If so, then I call them phenotype mutations. Just as I said before “phenotype examples, which of course are part of the “genome”.

Qingu's avatar

Okay, so you don’t understand.

Do you know what protein synthesis is?

Qingu's avatar

Let me try to put this another way.

Genome: the code in your DNA. A genetic mutation is a change in this code.

Proteins: this is what the DNA code physically makes. RNA copies the DNA gene, and outputs a protein. Sometimes the RNA screws up, however.

With me so far?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Wait… what are we talking about now… geno/pheno, evolution, or is this your version of “change”?

@Qingu “With me so far?”

Nu… Not at all.

Genome: NOT “the code in your DNA”.

…the genome is the entirety of an organism’s hereditary information. It is encoded either in DNA or, for many types of virus, in RNA.

Code is a physical object. In this case, a molecule. Genome is pure information, not physical. Genome is encoded, but it is not a code. The Genome can be represented by many different types of codes. Right now, the Genome Project represents the Genome with binary. But it’s the same Genome represented by the DNA code. Two codes pointing to one set of information.

@Qingu “Sometimes the RNA screws up…”

The conventional view is that genetic change comes from stochastic, accidental sources: radiation, chemical, or oxidative damage, chemical instabilities in the DNA, or from inevitable errors in the replication process. However, the fact is that DNA proofreading and repair systems are remarkably effective at removing these non-biological sources of mutation.

Qingu's avatar

OMG.

You’re clearly just googling words and citing search results without understanding it. I’m done with you.

redfeather's avatar

Omfg I think we were done a long time ago.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther