Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[warpspeedpetey]

You’ve said nothing so far that has proved humans have any moral superiority to other animals. All you have said amounts to the assertion that humans are morally superior because they’re humans.

once again, animals dont have morals, unless you have some evidence of this, the mere fact that we do have morals, means that we are morally superior.

at the end of the day, it’s very convenient to ignore the claims of those you wish to exploit

.

the ones i wish to ‘exploit’ animals, dont make the claims, people do.

reasons one might use to support the human claim to be more deserving of respect and compassion than other animals.

Conscious self-awareness. we can articulate our feelings in terms of happiness, sadness, love, jealously, anger, etc. because we have the physical facility of language.

We may never know the extent to which other animals are conscious of their feelings, It is obvious that they are capable of suffering. Thus far, other animals have the same rights as humans, for the same reasons.

a roomba robot is programed to avoid falling down stairs(pain) and to go to a rechargging station when the battery is low (pleasure)

is the roomba then actually experiencing pleasure and pain? or would i just be projecting human emotions onto the roomba?

robots are robots, regardless of meatiness

In any case, if you are going to use conscious self-awareness as a criterion for human superiority, that would automatically exclude babies, people in persistent states of unconsciousness, and people with dementia or severe mental disabilities.

really? then sleeping people arent any better than animals? can we eat them then?

Intelligence? Well, conveniently, we have a very human definition of intelligence. Like everything else, we perceive it from a human perspective - it would be ridiculous to suppose we could do otherwise. Be that as it may, you still have the problem of where to draw the line - it’s obvious that some people are more intelligent than others. Who qualifies for moral superiority on the basis of intelligence?

once again, moral superiority, requires morals, something that animals lack. the activities of intelligence seperate us from animals instinctive behavior.

beavers build dams, we build spacestations, cheetas run upwards of 70 in short bursts, we fly faster than the speed of sound.

any average human can build or do any of these things, animas are limited to the chemically programmed, instinctive, behavior

**i.e ** a beaver can only buid a dam, not a cabin. acheetah runs fast, but it will never fly.

we predate every other species, from before fires invention. we are demonstrably superior in intelligence.

How about the notion that we have souls? This has the difficulty of being an untestable claim. You can choose to believe it, but you can’t prove it. Even if you do choose to believe in souls, there’s no reason to suppose that they are exclusive to humans.

blame the theist in me but thats the only one that really matters to me.

Evolutionary success? Sure. We’re one of the most successful species of all time. But to be fair, we’d have to share this claim with cockroaches, flies, mosquitoes and, of course, bacteria.

What of our use of technology? And what about people who don’t make extensive use of technology? Should they be considered less deserving on that basis?

ou advantage is that far ranging intelligence, htat is our advantage, it is out speed, tusks, talons, and claws.

though i dont see how you equate technological use with ‘deserving’, i would happily live out in the woods without more than a car battery to run my laptop.

Or we might consider our importance to the world. humans are very likely the worst plague the earth has ever seen.

like was posted before, if we are just animals, than it is just the natural progress of evolution, if we are more, it is still just another evolutionary pressure, the species that thrive in our presence, will continue, those who cannot adapt will die, evolution in action.

Of course, there’s always the measure of our importance to each other as fellow humans. That means that I and most other people are more likely to care about our own pets than about human strangers in other parts of the world.

and that is exactly my point, it is immoral to give resources to pet charities, but allow humans to starve.

evolution be darned. all humans are members of our tribe. consider gene mixing in populations throughout the world, though i am physically, germanic, i am sure that a genetic profile would reveal a matrineal lineage from several different concepts.

that emotion of love can and is transfered regarless of tribe, ethnicity, or other factors.

So again, I ask you - on what do you base your claim of human moral superiority, other than this completely arbitrary distinction? If you are going to accuse others of immorality in choosing to relieve the suffering of other animals instead of humans - an ethically equal choice - then you ought to have something better to back it up.

i dont think they are ethically equal choices, back to the whole meat-bot thing.

once again, any moral claims regarding human superiority are based on the fact that animals mave no morality whatsoever.

as to general claims of superiority, i still think that culture, art literature, technology, religion, philosophy, etc, are demonstrable evidence of that superiority.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have to congratulate you on an absolutely charming post. And you’re quite correct - Warpspeedpetey hasn’t offered any empirical

im not trying to prove anything, your trying to prove animals have emotions.

or even apparently thoughtful - evidence for his position, and much as I have enjoyed this excuse for exploring my own thoughts regarding animal rights, there comes a time when repeated use of the “I’m right, you’re wrong, so there” response becomes just a bit insulting…

as to thought ful evidence, i believe that i have presented nmy reasoning concerning your position.

as to being insulting, i dont think you really want me to start posting some of the comments made about me, heck half the posts are about me and not the topic, which is a giant clue that your postions are ratioanlly flimsy

 

[limerick]

then your langauge may not be as exact as you seem to think. My original comment was this: “Seems like the money handed over to the alkie on the street could be put to better use donated to a spay and neuter program.” I choose my words carefully. Point: The typical alcoholic is more interested in alcohol than food. You have no idea where that sandwich will end up. In the hands of the alcoholic it transforms from food to currency.

why would you just hand a drunk ten bucks? buy him tend dollars worth of food. thats the point, you are more interested in giving an animal sustenance than a human being. If the choice were giving an alcoholic tangible sustenance or giving him spiritual sustenance, which do you consider the more urgent? The more helpful? The more lasting?

really? so when i keep asking for that evidence in concern of animal emotions, im not acting as a ratioanlist? No, sir, you dismissing anecdotal and scientific evidence provided in good faith by posters who are attempting to highlight the error of your “world view”.

seems exactly like what a rationalist does, asks for evidence. A rationalist does his own footwork; he does not rely on the willingness of others to provide statistics, studies, or even theories for the sole purpose of armchair critique.

since im not trying to prove anything, im not offering any evidence. This is certainly true enough.

there is no responsibility to support the negative position, it doesnt make evidentiray claims. Then it appears that this is not a discussion at all, but a set-up for you to take your cheap shots.

if you want to prove that lassie really gave a darn about timmy, then the burden of proof is on you. I believe Lassie pushed Timmy in the well after he’d had just about enough.

i think the moderators moved it here, though its been a while since the post, and i typically am involved in 4 or 5 threads at a time, so im not sure. Why not?

please keep the quasi-sexual comments regarding how you imagine i look in a small tight costume, in the closet, where they belong. its disturbing and offensive. My observation was this: “Have you noticed that those who respond to your “emotion-free” posts remain unconvinced by either your position or your posturing? Just an opinion here, but the rational materialist costume is a poor fit. Now, the nano meat bot costume is quite flattering on you - small, tight, and revealing.” Small = a mind unable to recognize and honor others’ viewpoints or experiences. Tight = reasoning which takes place solely within the box. Revealing = exposing an individual who has most unfortunately missed God’s Big Picture and is living a life with less color as a result. No sexual innuendo was ever intended, and the fact that you have pasted that onto my observations further reveals a limited mindset.

when people get insulting it usually means they are out of arguments. I believe the insult had its beginnings in your formation and presentation of this thread.

are you out of arguments, but just cant admit your wrong? because this entire post is about me, not the subject. I am not wrong; I simply see the world in a different light than you. And it is not the entire post that is about you; it is the entire thread.

all bark, no bite My advice to you in this case would be to turn every mirror toward the wall. Reflections can sometimes be overwhelming.

Limerick

 

[limerick]

warpspeedpetey,

“as to thought ful evidence, i believe that i have presented nmy reasoning concerning your position.”

Reasoning and evidence: totally different meat bots.

Limerick

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Like I said before, no-one is proposing that we allow apes to sit for university entrance exams, or extend the vote to dogs, cats and horses. That would be ridiculous, not least because it would be imposing human structures on different animals. We are talking about basic rights - the right to have one’s life respected, and the right to be spared unnecessary suffering. Humans and other animals should be accorded these basic rights for exactly the same reasons. We both have physical and psychological needs, and we are both capable of experiencing pain and pleasure.

projection aside for the moment, how does that transalate into, giving to pet charities when those funds could feed people?

Furthermore, we don’t at present have any way of gauging the consciousness of other animals. We can make intelligent guesses based on scientific observations, but we will probably never understand the world from the perspective of any other animal. What you are doing is ethically unsound - it has been shown that there is at the very least the possibility that animals experience emotion and self-awareness, yet you dismiss the possibility, despite the evidence, because it doesn’t fit your worldview.

its possible plants feel have emotions, its possible crystals have emotions.

anything is possible, going from a possibilty to an evidenced actuality is a big leap, its not unethical, to require evidence of such a thing as animal emotions.

further under your theory, we wouldn’t have anything to eat at all. sorry, but im eating if an animal screams in terror at every bite.

we need proof, not possibilities in this case, for that reason

And I’m sure you wouldn’t be such a proponent of the “might equals right” philosophy to seriously suggest that humans are entitled to exploit animals just because we’re more powerful (in a human-constructed environment, at least…)

why not we evolved in a predsator rich environment, as weak as we are, they are weak where it counts, upstairs.

I have repeatedly called on you to provide evidence of your position, but all you have done is deny that my evidence is evidence, without actually supporting your own positionThis is intellectual laziness.

as im not trying to prove animals, have emotions, there is no evidence to present.

You also assume many things you cannot prove, like the lack of animal consciousness.

im sorry, but that presumption is a logical error called anthrpomorphism, google it.

Sure, we perceive and define consciousness and emotion in human terms. That is quite a limitation when it comes to understanding other animals. With that in mind, how are you in any position to claim definitively that animals don’t experience emotions? Do you have access to knowledge that has so far escaped every scientist who has ever studied animal cognition?

because im taking the negative position, how many time do have to repeat that?

how about this you cant prove a negative

if you dont beleive me, google the bolded phrase, basic logic.

Again with the human perspective. We have little means of understanding the precise nature of the rules other animals use to govern their social interactions. They may not have human morals, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have any

it sure does, morals would seem to require intelligence. if they were instinctive or chemically based then everybody would have the same morals

nor does it excuse us, as moral beings, from treating animals in an ethical fashion. Human infants, and people with severe mental disabilities, have no knowledge of morality either - but they are still capable of experiencing pain and pleasure, and so they are entitled to respect and compassion.

they are entitled to compassion and respect because they are human beings, not because they understand or have morality, or because they can experience pleasure and pain, those standards are problematic to say the least.

do you think morality hinges on these things? what about catatonics? they experience nothing, should we count them out from as objects of respect and compassion?

very problematic

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey;4917879:

A swing and a miss for the antagonist. Do I need to rephrase the question?

if you dont have an argument, calling people names will make you feel better

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey

then your langauge may not be as exact as you seem to think. My original comment was this: “Seems like the money handed over to the alkie on the street could be put to better use donated to a spay and neuter program.” I choose my words carefully. Point: The typical alcoholic is more interested in alcohol than food. You have no idea where that sandwich will end up. In the hands of the alcoholic it transforms from food to currency.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey,

“as to thought ful evidence, i believe that i have presented nmy reasoning concerning your position.”

Reasoning and evidence: totally different meat bots.

Limerick

and you still seem to think that i should prove a negative…

do you not understand, or are you being purposefully dense on the subject?

once again you cannot prove a negative. what confuses you about that simple rule of logic?

 

[limerick]

and you still seem to think that i should prove a negative…

do you not understand, or are you being purposefully dense on the subject?

once again you cannot prove a negative. what confuses you about that simple rule of logic?

Life is not simply logic. What’s the big attraction to it? Numb is the New Deep?

Limerick

 

[Salonika]

warpspeedpetey:

you miss the point, animals don’t need hands to make love, or to commit suicide. Neither does my car.

Not sure whether you mean that animals and inanimmate objects are the same and just behave according to their chemical programming?

If so, why aren’'t cars driving themselves around.

Thinking I might have been irrational for years in driving my car, I went outside and sat in mine and waited for its chemical programming to take me where I wanted to go. Didn’t work.

 

[Salonika]

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.

Maybe we’ve been looking at this the wrong way round. Given the fact that medication can alter our emotions, maybe the basis of our “emotions” is chemical, the same as animals?

warpspeedpetey:

similarity, does not mean equality.

If we took this attitude with humans, then we would only provide health care for some, we would only allow some people to vote, we would only have laws that protect some people.

Don’t think anyone here is saying animals are the same as humans - could argue in some things they are superior and in others we are.

The fact that animals are living animals who, for example, feel the cold, thirst and hunger means that they should be well cared for.

 

[Salonika]

warpspeedpetey:

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

That sounds a lot more like robots than animals to me.

warpspeedpetey:

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.

Think you may be the one projecting. Maybe your cat slept on the heater because you tossed and turned. Or maybe s/he dislikes being told he is just one of the “little meat bots running hardwired chemical programs”.

 

[Calliso]

I am pretty sure techinically humans are animals

dictionary defination of an animal…any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation

anthro.palomar.edu/animal/table_humans.htm

Seems we are just meat bots as well. Who knew…

 

[Salonika]

Originally Posted by Salonika
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.

**Reply by warpspeedpetey **
I like combat, mental, physical, warcraft, poker, i dont care. it aint got nothing to do with you in particular

Reply by Salonika
Didn’t think it had anything to do with me in particular.

But I would hope that posters on this forum are posting seriously and not “playing games”.

**Originally posted by Sair **
Like I said before, no-one is proposing that we allow apes to sit for university entrance exams, or extend the vote to dogs, cats and horses. That would be ridiculous, not least because it would be imposing human structures on different animals. We are talking about basic rights - the right to have one’s life respected, and the right to be spared unnecessary suffering. Humans and other animals should be accorded these basic rights for exactly the same reasons. We both have physical and psychological needs, and we are both capable of experiencing pain and pleasure.

Reply by Salonika
A good, concise, and balanced statement – captures my views exactly.

Originally posted by Sair
Furthermore, we don’t at present have any way of gauging the consciousness of other animals. We can make intelligent guesses based on scientific observations, but we will probably never understand the world from the perspective of any other animal. What you are doing is ethically unsound - it has been shown that there is at the very least the possibility that animals experience emotion and self-awareness, yet you dismiss the possibility, despite the evidence, because it doesn’t fit your worldview.

Reply by warpspeedpetey
its possible plants feel have emotions, its possible crystals have emotions.

anything is possible, going from a possibilty to an evidenced actuality is a big leap, its not unethical, to require evidence of such a thing as animal emotions.

further under your theory, we wouldn’t have anything to eat at all. sorry, but im eating if an animal screams in terror at every bite.

we need proof, not possibilities in this case, for that reason

Reply by Salonika
If you accept the possibility of plants and crystals having emotions why can’t you accept the possibility that animals do to? There is more evidence, at least the moment, that they do.

Also I think it is better to assume that animals have emotions and treat them well, than make the opposite assumption. After all, you haven’t hurt animals that way.

Re being prepared to eat an animal screaming in terror at every bite – even if you are being rhetorical I find it offensive, if you mean it I find it disgusting.

Originally quoted by Limerick
Life is not simply logic.

Reply by Salonika
Sure thing and anyone thinking all decisions should be made on logic alone has it wrong and misses the pleasure of the diversity of views and discussions of them. It also leads to some of the name calling in this thread.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Life is not simply logic.

really? because i dont see any area of life that can escape it.

What’s the big attraction to it?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Not sure whether you mean that animals and inanimmate objects are the same and just behave according to their chemical programming?

If so, why aren’'t cars driving themselves around.

Thinking I might have been irrational for years in driving my car, I went outside and sat in mine and waited for its chemical programming to take me where I wanted to go. Didn’t work.

your car doesn’t use chemical programming its electronical

any way if you want a robot car, the army is developing them, give it time

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Maybe we’ve been looking at this the wrong way round. Given the fact that medication can alter our emotions, maybe the basis of our “emotions” is chemical, the same as animals?

is it you having the emotion, or the medecine altering your brain chemistry to simulate a real emotion?

can you take a love pill that really makes you fall in love or would it simulate the feeling temporarily?

im in the simulation camp. not a real emotion, a chemical facsimile, of course that doesnt address the idea that chemical changes in animals equal the emotional changes that we as humans have

If we took this attitude with humans, then we would only provide health care for some, we would only allow some people to vote, we would only have laws that protect some people.

Don’t think anyone here is saying animals are the same as humans - could argue in some things they are superior and in others we are.

The fact that animals are living animals who, for example, feel the cold, thirst and hunger means that they should be well cared for.

we are talking about chemical similarities between carbon based life forms, and how those similarities cant be construed as emotion in animals, thats what i mean when is said that similarities dont equal equalities.

though i would argue that they are superior in noway, our intellect can be used to surpass any of theeir natural abilities, after all, before there was fire we ate them.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That sounds a lot more like robots than animals to me.

different chemical structure, same operation by programming.

Think you may be the one projecting. Maybe your cat slept on the heater because you tossed and turned. Or maybe s/he dislikes being told he is just one of the “little meat bots running hardwired chemical programs”.

maybe i am, i toss and turn, and he gets up when i do.

his name has always been meat-bot, i dont think it bothers him any more,

ok im kidding his name aint meat-bot.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I am pretty sure techinically humans are animals

dictionary defination of an animal…any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation

anthro.palomar.edu/animal/table_humans.htm

Seems we are just meat bots as well. Who knew…

yup. we are chemically, meat-bots.

except fot that self adaptive programming and a soul, you could hardly tell us apart.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by Salonika
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.

**Reply by warpspeedpetey **
I like combat, mental, physical, warcraft, poker, i dont care. it aint got nothing to do with you in particular

Reply by Salonika
Didn’t think it had anything to do with me in particular.

But I would hope that posters on this forum are posting seriously and not “playing games”.

what games could i possibly be playing?

**Originally posted by Sair **
Like I said before, no-one is proposing that we allow apes to sit for university entrance exams, or extend the vote to dogs, cats and horses. That would be ridiculous, not least because it would be imposing human structures on different animals. We are talking about basic rights - the right to have one’s life respected, and the right to be spared unnecessary suffering. Humans and other animals should be accorded these basic rights for exactly the same reasons. We both have physical and psychological needs

,

psychological needs? what psychological needs?

and we are both capable of experiencing pain and pleasure.

chemical motivations to avoid physical damage, and fuel the body for continued function, i.e making more animals.

how does that equate to rights? my roomba does essentially the same thing, does it have right?

Originally posted by Sair
Furthermore, we don’t at present have any way of gauging the consciousness of other animals. We can make intelligent guesses based on scientific observations, but we will probably never understand the world from the perspective of any other animal. What you are doing is ethically unsound - it has been shown that there is at the very least the possibility that animals experience emotion and self-awareness, yet you dismiss the possibility, despite the evidence, because it doesn’t fit your worldview.

Reply by warpspeedpetey
its possible plants feel have emotions, its possible crystals have emotions.

anything is possible, going from a possibilty to an evidenced actuality is a big leap, its not unethical, to require evidence of such a thing as animal emotions.

further under your theory, we wouldn’t have anything to eat at all. sorry, but im eating if an animal screams in terror at every bite.

we need proof, not possibilities in this case, for that reason

Reply by Salonika
If you accept the possibility of plants and crystals having emotions why can’t you accept the possibility that animals do to? There is more evidence, at least the moment, that they do.

Also I think it is better to assume that animals have emotions and treat them well, than make the opposite assumption. After all, you haven’t hurt animals that way.

Re being prepared to eat an animal screaming in terror at every bite – even if you are being rhetorical I find it offensive, if you mean it I find it disgusting.

plants and crystals dont have actual emotions anymore than animals do, i was just pointing out that if we are going with what is possible we would be unable to eat at all.

i treat animals well so they provide the best utility

and i will eat any animal that dont eat me first

Originally quoted by Limerick
Life is not simply logic.

Reply by Salonika
Sure thing and anyone thinking all decisions should be made on logic alone has it wrong and misses the pleasure of the diversity of views and discussions of them. It also leads to some of the name calling in this thread.

who thought this was for discussion of a diversity of views, i alredy know other peoples views, i simply wanted to debate the issues, not have some hippy love-in