I understood that you were showing a view point.
I stated that IF you are saying on the one hand that humans aren't animals yet are mammals that you are contradicting yourself and someone (not you) is stubborn IF that person reasons incorrectly yet does not admit that.
Randomemory was using a certain definition of mammals and animals. You questioned that. I question you can question that without contradiction.
If you use the definition that a human is not an animal and you take a look at the syllogism of Randomemory, then should you already object at the second line that humans are primates. Primates have in their definition that they are a mammal. A mammal has in its definition that it is an animal.
Please use one definition of animals at the time. There are also more definitions of the word 'to beat' in English at the same time, but in every context you should only use one - unless the confusion is intended (like in 'do you love to beat your wife ... with chess?') You can not make the shift halfway. Then are you contradicting yourself.
If you would have been more clear about that, then is what is at stake also more clearly.
THERE IS HOPE
I am too pretty sure that the question meant to exclude humans, but then you have a question in the category 'do you love beating your wife?' It is for me a fallacy of the type loaded questions.
When you classify humans opposite to animals, then do you classify humans at the same time not as a primate or mammal. That is inevitable. You can not say that we are family of the chimpansees (animals) yet we are no animals. If you put humans on one side and animals on the other, then are all human beings not a mammal anymore. If someone is reasoning incorrectly yet to stubborn to admit his own illogical reasoning does not make the reasoning correct or logical. If you contradict yourself, then you contradict yourself.
I do not classify humans as either animals or not animals, that's my whole point. Ask yourself why the word 'animal' exists at all? Humans are animals in the sense that they are primates and mammals and descend from species that are, indisputably, animals. In another sense they are not animals, for no other reason than that the word is almost always used to distinguish humans from animals. I'm not contradicting myself and I'm not being stubborn about anything. I like to think of humans as animals as well but presenting a view or opinion or idea as cold hard facts, makes me react.
By the way, this is what Wikipedia says: "Today in scientific usage 'human' may refer to any member of the genus Homo." There are lots of primates and mammals out there, not of the genus Homo.