Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[limerick]

warpspeedpetey would have us believe that every single human being has a soul.

L

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey would have us believe that every single human being has a soul.

L

thats my theistic opinion

 

[limerick]

warpspeedpetey,

I recently wrote that life is not simply logic. Your response: “really? because i dont see any area of life that can escape it.” Can you look at this and understand the communication problem here? You seem not to be willing to read the entire post. My point is that there is more to life than logic, not that there are areas of life untouched by logic. Do you have the capacity to embrace anything but logic?

You wrote, “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”

Armed, as you are, with the complete understanding of other peoples’ views, what, then, is the purpose of this thread? Why not just debate “the issues” with yourself? You have every permissible question. You have all the answers that you will consider legitimate. You have the insults, the cute techno-names for other beings. You are brimming with contempt and hubris - honestly, what is the point? You don’t want to have to digest a diversity of views. Your words: "I* like combat, mental, physical, warcraft, poker, i dont care … "* Then you turn around and bat your eyelashes, sweetly protesting, "what games could i possibly be playing?

Now your “theistic opinion” is that every single human being has a soul. Your empirical evidence to support that position?

Limerick

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey,

I recently wrote that life is not

 

[Salonika]

warpspeedpetey:

what games could i possibly be playing?

That may be rhetorical but some of possibilities - you enjoy arguing debating for itself? you want to be last person standing? you find posting a highlight of your day?

warpspeedpetey:

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

I thought this forum was to discuss ideas. Also as nearly everything in life involves both logic and emotion how can there be a debate when you dismiss emotion and say it has no place in this, and I suspect, any debate.

 

[Sair]

there is no responsibility to support the negative position, it doesnt make evidentiray claims.

if you want to prove that lassie really gave a darn about timmy, then the burden of proof is on you.

So, now that you’ve said this on record… does this mean that if I were to come out and say that there’s no God, you would be under obligation to provide evidence to the contrary, while I sat back and twiddled my thumbs, occasionally denying that your evidence was valid?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Ask any person with a scientifically-inclined mind and a genuine desire for knowledge.

 

[Sair]

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

So? Those funds that you give human charities could also be going to line to pockets of unscrupulous dictators, but really, that’s not the point. Compassion is an ethical choice, whether applied to humans or other animals.

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

Possible, but much less probable, since plants don’t have central nervous systems, and crystals aren’t alive.

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

Not anthropomorphism to think it’s possible that other animals see the world differently from humans.

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

No, but you are required to refute evidence with actual counterargument, not just denial. For your case to be more correct than the alternative, you would need to show that despite the inferences of many scientists who have worked in the field of animal behaviour and animal cognition, their conclusions are impossible, despite the weight of probability. You have not shown anything of the sort, just blustered about your own opinions with no empirical support. Furthermore, you have gone from taking a negative position to making the positive declaration that animals have no emotions, no intellgence and are not equal to humans. These assertions all require proof, or at least some kind of evidentiary support. You have a lot of catching up to do…

they are entitled to compassion and respect because they are human beings,

Arbitrary distinction.

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?

Not necessarily, but evidently you do, since you refuse to acknowledge the claims of other animals, and the basis of your refusal is that they don’t have human feelings or intellgence.

what about catatonics? they experience nothing, should we count them out from as objects of respect and compassion?

very problematic

Exactly. So your distinction is completely arbitrary. If it were not, then even if your claim that animals have no feelings is more probable than the counter-claim that they do, they are still entitled to basic respect on the basis you provide here.

 

[Salonika]

warpspeedpetey:

plants and crystals don’t 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.

Would have thought that with our superior brains and logic we would be able to produce enough synthetic food to feed ourselves.

warpspeedpetey:

I will eat any animal that don’t eat me first

If you live in area where people keep dogs I hope your neighbours know this.

Limerick:

Now your “theistic opinion” is that every single human being has a soul. Your empirical evidence to support that position?

I’ll also be interested to see the warpspeedpetey’s answer to this.

And at the risk of going off-thread I’d also be interested in whether warpspeedpetey considers there is any place in religious belief and practice for emotion. Aren’t we told to love God with all our heart, mind and soul.

 

[Sair]

yup. we are chemically, meat-bots.

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

Animals adapt themselves to new challenges and environments. Simply put, it’s called learning. Happens constantly in nature, has been observed by scientists, and matches their findings from laboratory testing. All of which increases the probability of animal consciousness.

And the soul thing - pure speculation. See, now that I’ve taken the negative position, the burden of proof is on you here.

 

[Sair]

as i stated that it was my opinion, why should i offer evidence of it? thats the point of labeling it an opinion

 

[Sair]

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.

Again, I would point out that human babies don’t have morals. Some human adults don’t have morals. So what? They are still entitled to basic respect and to be spared unnecessary suffering. Your distinction is meaningless.

.

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?

You should know better than to sport with the intelligence of people who are clearly better at presenting an argument than you have so far shown yourself. The absence of anything like a biological central nervous system in a robot makes it impossible for it to have any awareness of sensory perception, or even a rudimentary consciousness.

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

Really? Any average human, huh? I’ll look forward to seeing your space station sometime soon.

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

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

Where is your supporting evidence for the latter claim? Mostly what we see is hatred and violence.

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 stated earlier, presence or absence of morals in animals says nothing about whether or not their rights are to be respected by humans.

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

Then you must - as a self-proclaimed rational materialist - make moral distinctions between those of the human race who can and do perform these feats, and those who can’t and don’t. If these things truly do demonstrate moral superiority, then the da Vincis, Mozarts and Descartes of this world must occupy a higher moral stratum than the average Joe.

I’m afraid I yet remain unconvinced by your abitrary distinctions and the presentation of your opinions as fact. But I’ve appreciated the opportunity to further explore my own ethical standpoint.

As for me, I shall continue to spend money for my pets’ welfare, and give to animal charities whenever I can. And I shan’t feel a moment’s remorse that the money so spent is not being spent on humans. A good deed done for any creature is still a good deed, and still reduces the total amount of suffering in the world.

 

[Sair]

Sair;4921675:

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

Had I wished to call you names, I would have come up with something much more creative than the merely descriptive “antagonist” - ie: the one who is against my position.

But your initial response was enough to prove that you completely missed the point of my posting the question anyway, so I shouldn’t evince any surprise at your repeated misfiring.

 

[Sair]

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

Done that one already. Found nothing to suggest that what I’m applying to the evidence for animal emotions actually qualifies as anthropomorphism. I am well aware that different species are different species, but I am also aware of a vast body of evidence and research that makes animal consciousness and animal emotions seem probable, and certainly possible. I don’t claim to know for certain, but I do prefer to err on the side of probability.

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.

Yep, tried this one too, being that I was curious to know what you were on about. What I found contradicts your supposed absolution from providing evidence. The logical fallacy to which you refer appears to be the argument from ignorance, whereby you state that something doesn’t exist because you don’t know otherwise. What you are saying is that something must be false because it hasn’t been proven true, at least not to your personal satisfaction. But absence of evidence (not the case here, by the way) is not evidence of absence. Furthermore, in making your positive assertion that animals don’t have emotions, you are required to back this up with evidence - preferably evidence that is observable and testable, not based on unprovable notions of souls or arbitrary distinctions between species.

By the way, did you read any of the links I provided earlier?

 

[Sair]

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

Limerick

Are you a writer by profession or hobby, by any chance? It would comfort me to know that you had other outlets for your perception and expression, because I suspect your witticisms are largely wasted on this thread…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That may be rhetorical but some of possibilities - you enjoy arguing debating for itself? you want to be last person standing? you find posting a highlight of your day?

of course i enjoy debating the point, the last person standing thing is non-sensical, the goal is to find the logical truth of the op, and i would much rather post to metaphysics threads, but you all insist on supporting a logical fallacy, several thousand years old called anthrpomorphism. it is little different than saying the earth is flat, or life spontaneously generates from rotting meat.

emotional projection is not evidence

though we are no longer discussing the point, its all about me now.

which tells me you have run out of arguments and simply dont wish to admit the truth, there is no evidence to support the idea of animal emotions, and by extension it is immoral to extend charitable resources to anmals, while there are humans in need.

I thought this forum was to discuss ideas. Also as nearly everything in life involves both logic and emotion how can there be a debate when you dismiss emotion and say it has no place in this, and I suspect, any debate.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So, now that you’ve said this on record… does this mean that if I were to come out and say that there’s no God, you would be under obligation to provide evidence to the contrary, while I sat back and twiddled my thumbs, occasionally denying that your evidence was valid?

yup, if i take the positive position i need to provide evidence, if you care to have that discussion, we are carrying on several in the philosophy and apologetics forums, right now

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Ask any person with a scientifically-inclined mind and a genuine desire for knowledge.

ok, a lack of evidence is simply that, a lack of evidence.

your taking the positive, position and now imply that you know you have no evidence,

in that case i suggest that you simply admit that you hold a millenia old fallacy called anthropomorphism, as a personal belief, regardless of a lack of evidence to support your position.

ergo, it is immoral to give animals resources that humans in neeed could use. or the assertion of the op is correct.

 

[Sair]

of course i enjoy debating the point, the last person standing thing is non-sensical, the goal is to find the logical truth of the op, and i would much rather post to metaphysics threads, but you all insist on supporting a logical fallacy, several thousand years old called anthrpomorphism. it is little different than saying the earth is flat, or life spontaneously generates from rotting meat.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So? Those funds that you give human charities could also be going to line to pockets of unscrupulous dictators, but really, that’s not the point. Compassion is an ethical choice, whether applied to humans or other animals.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Would have thought that with our superior brains and logic we would be able to produce enough synthetic food to feed ourselves.

ok, whats your point

If you live in area where people keep dogs I hope your neighbours know this.

they are pretty much of the same mind. we are the BBQ capital of the world.

I’ll also be interested to see the warpspeedpetey’s answer to this.

And at the risk of going off-thread I’d also be interested in whether warpspeedpetey considers there is any place in religious belief and practice for emotion. Aren’t we told to love God with all our heart, mind and soul.

i already answered it.

as to emotion in the practice of religion, sure. so what? that doesn’t mean that you are required to emote unnecessarily.

but what does that have to do with the topic?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Animals adapt themselves to new challenges and environments. Simply put, it’s called learning.

see, we call that evolution, a ardvaark in the artic will die long before it ‘learns’ to adapt.

Happens constantly in nature, has been observed by scientists, and matches their findings from laboratory testing. All of which increases the probability of animal consciousness.

evolution doesnt increase the likliehood of animal conciousness.

where do you get that?

And the soul thing - pure speculation. See, now that I’ve taken the negative position, the burden of proof is on you here.

hey if i put it forward as anything more than my opinion, than i would. thats why i qualified it as my opinion. plus thats not on topic isit?