politics

and it also probably helps when you’re classifying humans separately to animals for the purpose of a semantical argument

Nice try but the implication of animals being distinct was quite clear. The point is that there was absolutely no need to add the extra "English" to the end of "animals don't speak [English]", and actually omitting it would've made the sentence more inclusive and less prescriptively wrong. Even less wrong would've been to say "animals don't have language", although we're actually not a 100% on that, given that there are definite communications. We're having a hard time defining what level we're on ourself and where we came from to be able to understand a similar evolution happening on an entirely different branch of evolution.

Along with the fact that it’s arguably hate speech to some degree to refer to certain groups of people as animals separately from others,

Is it? Is it really? Because I don't think it is in any way, unless it's explicitly hate speech that you're doing in the context, and then anything in that context is hate speech. So you think no-one should ever refer to "Finnish people" for instance, because they would be doing a hate-speech on me, eh? Or that you can't talk about the differences between European and American cultures, as you can't refer to people separately without it being hate speech?

no, they don’t speak spoken languages, with semantic meanings, and rooted histories. The same way that humans do “english” for example.

But see, they do. They do speak the same way, but language isn't just about speech. Speech is only a part of language. You seem to be having trouble seeing those two concepts as different from each other. Animals can speak, ie remember and use words.

yes technically parrots can recognize, and recreate sounds, it’s not that they understand english, or words, or language. It’s that they’re capable of recreating vocal anomalies of human speech, pretty well. Likewise, i can also mimic someone else speaking in another language, or just individual words, but that doesn’t mean that i’m speaking the language. In order for me to speak that language, i need to be able to communicate in some commonly understood and defined dialect, that other people can understand, such that i’m capable of understanding them as well. Parrots cannot do this.

See, this is sort of my core point that came out very strongly from just you having had to use "English" in your sentence. You're ignorant, but you don't like to think of yourself as ignorant. You're intellectually lazy, but you don't like thinking about yourself that way. So you pretend you're not.

First off, I already gave you way more information on the subject, which clearly you didn't even open let alone peruse although it's a very in-depth dive to what properties of languages we've observed animals using and how much do we understand about how they understand their own understanding. And that sort of thing. Anyway, with just 30 secs in Google you'd find the most famous parrots on the matter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)

Alex had a vocabulary of over 100 words,[17] but was exceptional in that he appeared to have understanding of what he said. For example, when Alex was shown an object and asked about its shape, color, or material, he could label it correctly.[15] He could describe a key as a key no matter what its size or color, and could determine how the key was different from others.[7] Looking at a mirror, he said "what color", and learned the word "grey" after being told "grey" six times.[18] This made him the first non-human animal to have ever asked a question, let alone an existential one (apes who have been trained to use sign-language have so far failed to ever ask a single question).[19]

Alex was said to have understood the turn-taking of communication and sometimes the syntax used in language.[14] He named an apple a "banerry" (pronounced as rhyming with some pronunciations of "canary"), which a linguist friend of Pepperberg's thought to be a combination of "banana" and "cherry", two fruits he was more familiar with.[18]

You were saying that " i need to be able to communicate in some commonly understood and defined dialect, that other people can understand, such that i’m capable of understanding them as well. Parrots cannot do this."?

This must be a deepfake then

because i don’t know if you know, ethics, is an english word. It comes from the english language.

I've more than likely been using English for longer than you have, and I'm sorry to say you got it wrong again.

"Ethics" as word with the very same meaning it has today was spoken aloud long before English was a thing. It actually comes from Greek, through Latin.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/ethic

ethic (n.)

late 14c., ethik "study of morals," from Old French etique "ethics, moral philosophy" (13c.), from Late Latin ethica, from Greek ēthike philosophia "moral philosophy," fem. of ēthikos "ethical, pertaining to character," from ēthos "moral character," related to ēthos "custom" (see ethos). Meaning "moral principles of a person or group" is attested from 1650s.

You make bold assumptions which I don't see have much scientific basis in them. Like yes, animals have their "own" ethics and one could make the argument that all ethics are subjective and no such thing exists as objective ethics. However, saying they're "wholly independent" might be a reach, since we know that we share some of our most fundamental concepts of what is "unfair" with some of our close cousins.

My point is that you should look question yourself a bit more and be open to other people actually knowing what your'e speaking about, and adding to it, instead of thinking everyone is always arguing against you.