Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[limerick]

so your essentially saying i dont understand, thats not much of an arguement. the refutation would simply be “oh, yeah?, well, you dont understand!” Who’s arguing?

big deal, give me something more than your opinion, When you offer something more than your own opinion, perhaps I will respond to that.

other than the cats, dogs, birds, calves, fish, horses and ponies ive had, you mean. I’m sorry. For them.

i have had pets and livestock, i just dont think that they have actual emotions. Your argument is that pet emotions are nothing more than a biochemical reaction to situations and events - is this correct? How do you explain human emotions? Would they not be the same on a cellular level?

people are important, animals arent when the choice is between the two. Creative people can always think of a third alternative, to the exclusion of slaughter and consumption.

i dont disagree with that, you should take care of your livestock and your service animals. that doesn’t make them the equal of people. According to you. Do you claim to know how God views His creations?

aha! you dont love animals, you dont like people, the subtle implication is that you are better than the alkie on the street, and the so many irrational people I AM the alkie on the street, sir; I was a down and out drunk for 18 years, so I have lived within the inner sanctum of that particular insanity. You give an active drunk ten bucks and it will go toward booze. You give that same ten bucks to the ASPCA and it can buy food or doxycycline or vaccines. I love animals of all kinds; yes, there are people with whom I choose not to share my life. This does not imply that I am “better than” anyone. It means that in order to maintain my equilibrium I must be vigilant about the company I keep.

to you the value of people is in what they do and your opinion of their rationality. thats called being an elitist. which is exactly the attitude that i pointed out as immoral in the op, to you it doesnt matter what happens to the ***alkie *** or those irrational people because, unless they meet your standards, they arent worth anything. On the contrary, it matters a great deal to me what happens to the alkie on the street and the alkie in the board room, as well as anyone who suffers from temporary or seemingly permanent irrationality. I work with other alcoholics to try to light the way for them so that they can understand and accept the fact that they need not live like they have been. And I work with sober alcoholics so that together we can maintain a quality sobriety.

every alkie is Christ, every so many irrational people are Christ. pray that you are never in their shoes I have been in their shoes, I am still in their shoes: they are MY shoes. Alcoholics and irrational people do suffer, but they are by no means Christ.

shame on you. Presumption is ugly.

first, to qoute a passage highlight it, and click the button to the immediate left of the hash marks.

that said, it didnt stop you from correcting me earlier, why now? A typo is one thing; a blatant spelling, punctuation or grammatical error, though amusing at times, is my pet peeve.

no, and in my circle no one else thinks obscure references to technically incorrect latin terms are comedic. This is not the gaffe to which I was referring. "i think you were the only one that was obfusicated ": this is the one that sent me reeling.

though the fact you thought that it necessacary to explain what a malapropism is and who redd fox was is just more fodder for an increasingly elitist worldview A “worldview”, elitist or not, cannot eat fodder. And you yourself made this statement: “? your obviously light years ahead of me, as i have no idea what either character has to do with this.” I interpreted this remark as an invitation to explain that your use of the non-word “obfusicated” was humorous in the way that Crosby and Foxx were humorous. And I wanted to take the opportunity to tell you that it can be more rewarding to you if you take more care to clearly express yourself and not leave your underbelly wide open for attack.

Since when is posting “butting in”?

Limerick

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Constant repetition won’t make this true. Evidence for animal emotions is ample. It’s foolish to assume they can’t feel because they aren’t human.

i keep repeating it because you arent providing any evidence, the chemical similarities, that carbon based life forms share is not evidence of animal emotions,

they are nothing more than deterministically driven nano meat-bots. they act entirely within the constraints of their chemical natures.

It’s hard to trust something you don’t believe exists…that’s part of the reason you find it so difficult to accept that other animals have emotions.

if you dont believe G-d exists, that would explain why you think animals have emotions, by that theory we are all meatbots, who possess no free will, completely driven by our chemical natures.

for me that means that their is no morality at all in the concern for animals. if we are all just meat robots why should one care for animals at all?

It’s one thing to assume animals have emotions because they look like they do. It’s quite another to submit them to rigorous testing which demonstrates that they show every physiological symptom of emotion. At that point you can either concede it’s highly likely your animal is experiencing emotion, or you can dismiss the possibility because you don’t believe a non-human animal can have emotions. But you can’t just dismiss science as sloppy when you don’t feel comfortable with its conclusions.

so physiological system = emotion then?

if true, then why dont animals commit suicide? because they never really experience depression.

why dont they make love? because the physical act of mating is entirely chemically driven, they rut when chemistry says too.

why does my momma cat kick the **** out of her 4 and 5 year old kittens when they lay down too close to her? because they arent her kids, she doesn’t love them, chemistry tells her when to wean, and run them off.

i could go on, but its clear that chemical similarities are not the equivalent of human emotions

Crying is a physiological function. All mammals produce tears, and some animals, such as elephants, shed them in response to upsetting circumstances.

a chemical reaction.

Animals don’t make love? You’ve obviously never heard of our closest relative, the bonobo. Sex is the glue that holds their groups together.

yes, ive heard of bonobos, ill be impressed when make their partners breakfast in bed. chemistry is still the motivating factor not love.

Many animal species mate for life; if one member of the pair dies, the remaining partner grieves.

please let me know who has ever proven that animals grieve? when i slaughter a hog tthe other hogs look around for him for a while, lay in his spot, etc. thats not the same as grieving

thats just more projection

Most social animals demonstrate altruism - caring for young, defending the group’s territory, even at risk to themselves. Altruism in humans evolved for the same reason - it’s a survival mechanism. Despite the complex moral codes we have created based on altruism, it has the same roots in humans as in other species.

preservation of ones species isn’t altruism, its chemical behavior too

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Human emotions result from chemical fluctuations in the brain. What distinguishes them from the “chemical” emotions experienced by other animals?

souls, with those souls we express actual emotion i.e. suicide, murder, the taj mahal, religion, art, etc, etc.

All mammals evolved from the same reptilian ancestor. Similarities in DNA prove this. There’s the fundamental connection that makes it sensible to suppose that our physiological functioning is similar to other mammals’. Every aspect of human individual and social behaviour can be traced back to our evolutionary roots. We have added complexity to our behaviours as human societies have changed from small hunter-gatherer communities to huge, urbanised populations, but the basics of all our behaviours are demonstrated by other animals as well.

except for those actual behaviors, once again, no doggie murders, suicides, taj mahals, religions, etc.

Biological study has steadily reduced the number of “uniquely human” characteristics we have. Emotions are not unique to humans. The ability to manipulate higher mathematical equations might be unique to a few humans, but the basic logical roots of this ability exist in the brains of other animals, like our nearest genetic relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos. I don’t suggest a monkey could reproduce the works of Shakespeare, given the right motivation. But we are dealing here with basic emotional experience.

only the lack of evidence frustrates your arguement. you assume basic emotions by projection. you argue that chemical similarities are evidence of actual emotions, though that doesn’t actually result in objective behaviors like suicide, murder, love making.

if they were actual emotions then i should think to see corresponding objective behaviors, something more than what amounts to watery elephant eyes.

if your taking astrictly deterministic evolutionary view, that bolsters my argument, because then i have no reason at all to care about animals. there is no intrinsic morality concerning them, if they dont serve me in some way, then they are worthless.

The intances you describe have everything to do with physical abilities. They might be motivated by emotions, but they are physically executed. Humans possess the physical ability and imagination to be able to alter the world around them to a far greater extent than any other animal. But the basis of these abilities is physiological, and it evolved from the building blocks of DNA that existed in the ancestors of modern humans. Differences in abilities aren’t enough to make humans qualitatively or morally “better” than other animals. And…“higher” emotion? You’ve changed your tune from saying that animals don’t experience emotions at all.

first, all primates possess the opposable thumbs that enable our ability to physically manipulate our environment

secondly, the acts of murder, and suicide, and actual, lovemaking arent dependent on our physical abilities. lemming kill themselves by accident, obviously animals could kill themselves.

You claim my view of reality is suspect.

i dont project emotions on animals, thats what is suspect

Yours is stuck in the 16th century, when people assumed animals operated by clockwork.

still chemical clockwork. check a chemistry, anatomy, physiology texts.

I’ve already mentioned the physiological similarities between humans and other animals. Read any biology text and you’ll find the same conclusions. You’ve yet to provide a shred of evidence of human moral superiority, or show conclusively why we’re more deserving of compassion than other creatures- particularly in view of the damage we’ve done to the world.

no comparison, animals have no morals or concepts of them. that automaically seems to make us superior, as to pollution, animals arent capable of that either, science advances, i suspect that pollution will not be a problem in the future.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Would have thought that you would have expected an emotional response when you suggested that we should not help animals until all human poverty is eliminated.

no, im a ratioanl materialist, im always alittle confused by emotional responses to what i see as purely rational exercises. thats why i didn’t post for a while, much too much emotion for me.

Also would have expected that you would have suspected such a response when you suggest that only humans are important and do not see that all species are interdependent.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Who’s arguing?

you seem to be trying

When you offer something more than your own opinion, perhaps I will respond to that.

im not taking the positive position, im saying that no real evidence exists. keep up

I’m sorry. For them.

why?

Your argument is that pet emotions are nothing more than a biochemical reaction to situations and events - is this correct? How do you explain human emotions? Would they not be the same on a cellular level?

sure on the chemical level, but there is no corresponding behavior to suggest actual emotion.

Creative people can always think of a third alternative, to the exclusion of slaughter and consumption

.

for what purpose?

According to you. Do you claim to know how God views His creations?

He gives His view in scripture, nature is for our use.

I AM the alkie on the street, sir; I was a down and out drunk for 18 years, so I have lived within the inner sanctum of that particular insanity. You give an active drunk ten bucks and it will go toward booze. You give that same ten bucks to the ASPCA and it can buy food or doxycycline or vaccines. I love animals of all kinds; yes, there are people with whom I choose not to share my life. This does not imply that I am “better than” anyone. It means that in order to maintain my equilibrium I must be vigilant about the company I keep.

so buy a dog ten dollars of food, but dont buy a drunk ten dollars of food? thats laughable.

On the contrary, it matters a great deal to me what happens to the alkie on the street and the alkie in the board room, as well as anyone who suffers from temporary or seemingly permanent irrationality. I work with other alcoholics to try to light the way for them so that they can understand and accept the fact that they need not live like they have been. And I work with sober alcoholics so that together we can maintain a quality sobriety.

and yet you wont buy him food, but you will a stray?

I have been in their shoes, I am still in their shoes: they are MY shoes. Alcoholics and irrational people do suffer, but they are by no means Christ.

every human being is who suffers is Christ.

Presumption is ugly.

not when its true.

A typo is one thing; a blatant spelling, punctuation or grammatical error, though amusing at times, is my pet peeve.

you may have been confused by the threads title then.

This is not the gaffe to which I was referring. "i think you were the only one that was obfusicated ": this is the one that sent me reeling.

ok, then…your point?

A “worldview”, elitist or not, cannot eat fodder. And you yourself made this statement: “? your obviously light years ahead of me, as i have no idea what either character has to do with this.” I interpreted this remark as an invitation to explain that your use of the non-word “obfusicated” was humorous in the way that Crosby and Foxx were humorous. And I wanted to take the opportunity to tell you that it can be more rewarding to you if you take more care to clearly express yourself and not leave your underbelly wide open for attack.

leave my underbelly open for attack? im sorry nut you cant seem to stay on topic, you seem more interested in my patterns of speech, than what the topic of the thread is.

again, do you have anything useful to add, or are we just to be impressed at your myopic literary literalism?

Since when is posting “butting in”?

when you pos to a thread to make off topic comments, thats when its butting in.

please use the qoute button to the immediate left of the hash marks, you seem awful interested in the langauge used, but cant find the qoute button. it makes it easier for us to parse your statements.

ive corrected this one, but it takes too much time, please use the qoute button.

 

[Sair]

i keep repeating it because you arent providing any evidence, the chemical similarities, that carbon based life forms share is not evidence of animal emotions,

they are nothing more than deterministically driven nano meat-bots. they act entirely within the constraints of their chemical natures.

So, let’s see. To sum up your entire ‘refutation’ of my argument, I’ll paraphrase thus: “Even though humans and other animals share fundamental physiological and chemical similarities, chemical reactions in animals are just that, while chemical reactions in humans are real emotions, 'cause they’re humans. So there.” Does that about cover it?

because they arent her kids, she doesn’t love them, chemistry tells her when to wean, and run them off.

Why does she have them if she doesn’t love them and is content to abuse them?

i could go on, but its clear that chemical similarities are not the equivalent of human emotions

Clear to whom? Why? Where is your unassailable evidence for this? The counter to your position is that human complexity doesn’t mean that animals don’t experience more basic emotions that are just as real, for being simpler; nor does it equal human moral superiority.

 

[Sair]

no, im a ratioanl materialist, im always alittle confused by emotional responses to what i see as purely rational exercises. thats why i didn’t post for a while, much too much emotion for me.

 

[Sair]

sure on the chemical level, but there is no corresponding behavior to suggest actual emotion.

No corresponding behaviour…hmmm…let’s see. Repeated examples of animal behaviour have been offered, along with the corresponding explanation that while animal behaviour is not the same as human behaviour, it is a more basic form of many human behaviours. Animal altruism, sexual behaviour, emotional behaviours like grieving for dead companions; even suicidal behaviour, such as whales beaching (no-one has yet come up with a definitive explanation for this, although suicide has been posited as a distinct possibility); also, use of tools and environmental modification have been demonstrated by many types of animals, like beavers, apes and some species of birds. What are all these if not more basic forms of behaviours exhibited by humans? You can’t just draw a line in the sand and say that human behaviours are more real because we speak and build cities and write literature and kill ourselves in interesting and complex ways. All these behaviours have their roots in our animal ancestors.

Furthermore, if you’ve worked and lived with other animals, you must have noticed that different individuals exhibit different personalities. Or perhaps not. You seem curiously immune to noticing such things. So far you’ve offered no real counter to the evidence presented. All you’ve done is deny the veracity of evidence with which you don’t agree. Far be it from me to question your authority to do so, but you don’t seem to be any more of a qualified scientist than I. Your response has been the equivalent of “Humans are better…'cause we are.” So much for rational debate.

.

 

[CatholicLeft]

Only man kills for sport, animals kill for food. For being such a soulless inferior life-form, Animals seem to be very pro-life. How many animals do you see doing abortions on each other?? Makes you wonder who is the superior life-form.

 

[Salonika]

warpspeedpetey:

so physiological system = emotion then?

if true, then why dont animals commit suicide? because they never really experience depression.

Maybe you’ve never had a pet who has clearly mourned the departure/death of a long time companion - some of us have and know the grieiving process takes some for it to come through.

warpspeedpetey:

why dont they make love? because the physical act of mating is entirely chemically driven, they rut when chemistry says too.

Don’t think this is restricted to animals.

warpspeedpetey:

please let me know who has ever proven that animals grieve? when i slaughter a hog the other hogs look around for him for a while, lay in his spot, etc. thats not the same as grieving

Maybe they would if you did it in front of them. Maybe they don’t realise the hog is DEAD.

 

[Salonika]

warpspeedpetey:

secondly, the acts of murder, and suicide, and actual, lovemaking aren’t dependent on our physical abilities.

Try telling that to a quadrapelgic who has to have everything done for them. To a guy who has been castrated (physically or chemically) to try and cure a disease.

warpspeedpetey:

i don’t project emotions on animals, thats what is suspect

Would have more understanding and and maybe some agreement if you said animals don’t have human emotions - but maybe that’s as well. It isn’t animals who plot long-term revenge and with malice aforthought undertake prolonged torture.

warpspeedpetey:

animals have no morals or concepts of them. That automaically seems to make us superior.

Does it - when we have the concept of morals and don’t act morally?

 

[Salonika]

warpspeedpetey:

yes, its been a lot of fun for me

That comment makes me wonder if maybe you have just been playing as game with those of us who care about animals and about the future of the planet.

im sorry, but no one is making you post.

Of course they’re not. I am posting becasue I care about animals and because I care and about the futire of the planet. Maybe if I was totally ruled by logic I wouldn’t bother because why try and stop the inevitable. But then in the past deaths from diseases like smallpox, tb were considered inevitable and that turned out to be wrong.

emotions, projections, and feelings aren’t acceptable instruments of rational discussion

Is there any place in your world for things that aren’t rational? I hope so.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Only man kills for sport, animals kill for food. For being such a soulless inferior life-form, Animals seem to be very pro-life. How many animals do you see doing abortions on each other?? Makes you wonder who is the superior life-form.

I’ve seen animals eat their young & dogs run down sheep & kill them without eating them.Coyotes often tear the throats of sheep & never eat the carcass.Who knows why they do it, but it’s not for food.I think animals enjoy the “thrill of the chase” just like some hunters.
Not all nature is pretty.

 

[Highwayhound]

Only man kills for sport, animals kill for food. For being such a soulless inferior life-form, Animals seem to be very pro-life. How many animals do you see doing abortions on each other?? Makes you wonder who is the superior life-form.

If a lion takes over a pride it will kill the cubs so that its own future offspring will better survive.

So much for the “Circle of Life”

I know this is true becuase I saw it on PBS.

 

[CatholicLeft]

Gee, these animals really do act like “animals”. I guess I was mistaken. My bad. Please carry on.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So, let’s see. To sum up your entire ‘refutation’ of my argument, I’ll paraphrase thus: “Even though humans and other animals share fundamental physiological and chemical similarities, chemical reactions in animals are just that, while chemical reactions in humans are real emotions, 'cause they’re humans. So there.” Does that about cover it?

no, im saying that assuming that they are emotions from similarities is inadequate, its called projection, because you have emotions, you assume that animals also do.

its a long leap from, a chemical reaction, to an emotion. an animal experiences chemical reactions, there is no evidence that it experiences emotions.

emotions and chemical reactions are not the same thing in people, much less in animals

similarity, does not mean equality.

Why does she have them if she doesn’t love them and is content to abuse them?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey;4914983:

There’s one point that requires clarification here. You repeatedly assert that you don’t experience much in the way of emotion, yet you claim “real” emotion as the dividing line between humans and other animals. Where precisely do you

fall on this continuum?

yes, yes, im a bad person, because i dont htink animals have emotions. evil me.

 

[Appleby]

I suspect WarpSpeedPetey is a university student. This kind of scolding, finger-wagging behaviour (verging on the hysterical) is most often heard from those who have yet to realize that everyone with a job is not Rich.

Personally, I would refer him to Matthew 6, where we are told not to announce that we practice charity by blowing a trumpet and calling everyone’s attention to our goodness. So if WSP would calm down some, and realize that there are legions of us who can both care for the homeless people AND pets, and incidentally care for ourselves, our parents and siblings, and still live a comfortable and pleasant life on the money not extorted from us by those eager to practice what they call charity with money they did not earn.

And just as a P.S., I tried for five years to adopt children and was rebuffed at every turn, and to say that my decision to adopt cats instead is “immoral” is just well, it defies a proper adjective that would not get me booted off this site.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No corresponding behaviour…hmmm…let’s see. Repeated examples of animal behaviour have been offered, along with the corresponding explanation that while animal behaviour is not the same as human behaviour, it is a more basic form of many human behaviours

.

you have projected your emotions onto each of these behaviors. what proof is there that elephants cry for the reasons you think? why do you think animals grieve? because that is what you would do in their situation.

when ive taken my friends house cats to the humane society for my friend, the other cats dont seem to notice much, even though thye lived together for more than a decade.

when one of my ex’s chihauhaus dies, the others look around for their pack mate for a minute, and then never again.

i dont see how you can construe such behavior as actual greiving. your projecting emotions.

Animal altruism, sexual behaviour, emotional behaviours like grieving for dead companions; even suicidal behaviour, such as whales beaching (no-one has yet come up with a definitive explanation for this, although suicide has been posited as a distinct possibility); also, use of tools and environmental modification have been demonstrated by many types of animals, like beavers, apes and some species of birds. What are all these if not more basic forms of behaviours exhibited by humans? You can’t just draw a line in the sand and say that human behaviours are more real because we speak and build cities and write literature and kill ourselves in interesting and complex ways. All these behaviours have their roots in our animal ancestors.

really, animals construct art, religion, literature, tell stories, etc?

a nest is not a house, any human can build any structure imagination and physics allows, a bird can only build the nest htat his species normally builds.

animals are little meat bots running chemical programs. a huge difference from people

we act with free will, ar a darn good facsimile.

frankly, naked cave men, predated every other species on the planet, using their wits, we are demonstrably superior to animals.

regarless of a similar chemical makeup.

Furthermore, if you’ve worked and lived with other animals, you must have noticed that different individuals exhibit different personalities. Or perhaps not. You seem curiously immune to noticing such things.

yes, animals vary in their chemical make up. whats the big deal about that?

So far you’ve offered no real counter to the evidence presented. All you’ve done is deny the veracity of evidence with which you don’t agree.

because im not trying to prove anything, im saying that you cant prove animals have emotions, so far you havent gotten beyond projecting your emotions on animal behaviors.

id like to think the cat slept with me last night because he likes me, but i wake up and see he went to sleep on the heater,

it wasn tme after all, i was just warm. see thats projection.

Far be it from me to question your authority to do so, but you don’t seem to be any more of a qualified scientist than I.

what does being a scientist have to do with anthropomorphism? as to the authority to do so, i wrote the op, you chose to post, you essentially entered into a contract by which we would discuss the subject.

so thats where i get the authority.

Your response has been the equivalent of “Humans are better…'cause we are.” So much for rational debate.

my response is that there is no evidence of animal emotions, projection aside, there are no behaviors to indicate so.

no art, no murder, no suicide, no monuments to grief, no culture, no nothing to make me assume they are anything more than little meat-bots, running hardwired chemical programs.

as to being superior to animals, my response is that we have a demonstrable civilisation, and culture that show it.

not just ‘cause we are’, but because there is actual evidence of it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Maybe you’ve never had a pet who has clearly mourned the departure/death of a long time companion - some of us have and know the grieiving process takes some for it to come through.

ive had plenty of animals, but nothing i can chalk up to grief

Don’t think this is restricted to animals.

true

Maybe they would if you did it in front of them. Maybe they don’t realise the hog is DEAD.

if a hog dies in the pen, it aint too long before his buddies eat him, so ive got to discount that scenario.