Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[Sair]

which is why its not called proof, its callede opinion. which is what you have an opinion that animals have emotions.

im not afraid of it, im pointing out that it is an assumption, thats all it is, an assumption

Then we get back to the basic position of my opinion against yours - and deliver it as vehemently as you like, but it’s still an opinion - which is not sufficient to validate your claim that it’s immoral for anyone to give money or time to animal charities when humans are in need. In practice, there will always be people who will give to both.

Simple as that. Problem solved. People have the right to do as they wish with their own resources, for their own reasons, and if they are convinced that their actions are right and well-intentioned. You have no mandate to condemn them for this, and you have no objective right nor reason to do so either. You are not in a position to be the judge of anyone else’s morality.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Indeed. So how do we prove beyond doubt that anything exists independently of our own perception?

objective evidence, not assumptions, and logical fallacies, not qouting obviously biased sources, etc.

objevtive evidence.

My intention was to demonstrate the extent to which one can make an honest attempt to prove a negative, to a standard that exposes the positive to reasonable doubt. That was certainly more intellectually honest than your clear intent to set me a challenge that I was doomed to fail, according to the standards you impose.

you were doomed tpo fail because you cant prove a negative, talk all you like but my point was proved with the santa analogy, you ccant prove a negative.

In starting this thread, it appears that you did not expect to be challenged in your beliefs. You posted with every expectation that others would confirm your self-righteous view, and your presumption to judge others’ actions as immoral, without even understanding their motivations. You know this

.

i already knew it was immorral, i expected a fight. i expected it to be rational.

Others who have read this thread have seen as much. In view of our evidentiary impasse, where you have failed to acknowlege even the objective evidence

,

we dont have an evidentiary impasse, you have none. nor have you responded to repeated requests for your evidence,

i think you dont post it, because you know its not really evidence, and you dont want to expose it to ridicule.

I will, as I have repeatedly declared, reserve my right to do as I choose with my own resources, as, I suspect, will others. If other animals benefit from that as well as humans, I believe that is all to the good. You may think what you wish, but it will have no effect on my actions.

of course not, you already declared your basic scroogean nature, people you dont know are only statistics, they dont count. shameful, shameful

you have bared your basic callousness toward your fellow man, i expect that now you have no choice but to belligerently declare your immorality.

to do elsewise is to admit being wrong

I notice that you consistently failed to rise to the challenge.

which challenge is that.

What you can do is make a negative seem highly unlikely. You haven’t done that.

sure i have, i completely trashed what you thought was evidence, and now youve spent the last couple of days backtracking.

With

evidence, as far as evidence is possible. It is absolutely as valid as your belief in a deity.*

my belief in a deity is rooted in logi, your opinion is based on the old saw called anthropomorphism

I don’t rehash

.

because you cant, the evidence you keep talking about doesnt really exist. if it did, you would post it.

I employ the technique of multiple explanation, to make my point as clear as I can to as many people as possible.If necessary, I add more information.

May I respectfully suggest that you peruse the thread entitled, “How to Argue”?

if you had read the thread you would know i have already participated in that thread

now, where is your evidence that i am ignoring?

 

[Sair]

do you have evidence to offer, at all?

must not as this post was nothing but insults

A fine accusation, considering that your posts have been predominantly insult and belittlement. I, at least, have attempted to be courteous, but alas, I lack superhuman patience.

When I state my opinions, I give reasons for them, and the evidence that has led me to form the opinion. When considering evidence, it is important to consider whether said evidence is the best you are likely to get, and whether you consider it weighty enough to sway you either way. Circumstantial or inferential evidence may not be enough to secure a conviction in a court of law, but it is certainly enough to inform an opinion.

Furthermore, I consider it courteous to explain why I am disagreeing with someone, or dismissing their opinion as unlikely. I don’t consider it polite to simply deliver a put-down without substantial back-up. At the very least, you should acknowledge that you too lack sufficient evidence for a totally objective conclusion, and agree to disagree.

I admit that I simply do not understand why it bothers you so much that there are people who are prepared to give the basic rights of animals equal consideration to the basic rights of humans. Remember, we are talking about basic rights here, and the most basic of rights is the entitlement to have one’s life respected. Humans have no more objective importance than any other animal, and the very nature of subjectivity means that everyone is entitled to hold a different opinion, and to act on that opinion, without receiving a self-righteous dismissal from people who don’t share it.

 

[Sair]

objective evidence, not assumptions, and logical fallacies, not qouting obviously biased sources, etc.

objevtive evidence.

Your prejudices do not constitute an invalidation of my sources of evidence. You are as biassed as anyone else. My observations, experience and intuition, as well as scientific data regarding the chemical responses of animals - which are, after all, the same as coresponding chemical responses in humans (ask any veterinarian) - and their social behaviours all add up to sufficient evidence for me to hold an informed opinion regarding animal emotion and affective consciousness, which, in case you missed it the last three times, is the awareness of sensation, the ability to experience pain and pleasure.

you were doomed tpo fail because you cant prove a negative, talk all you like but my point was proved with the santa analogy, you ccant prove a negative.

All the repetition in the world doesn’t make your appeal to the game with words we call logic any excuse for refusing to back up your claims, or adequately explain your dismissals of evidence.

we dont have an evidentiary impasse, you have none. nor have you responded to repeated requests for your evidence,

i think you dont post it, because you know its not really evidence, and you dont want to expose it to ridicule.

I am going to be as polite as possible in asking this, but did you actually read my posts?

of course not, you already declared your basic scroogean nature, people you dont know are only statistics, they dont count. shameful, shameful

you have bared your basic callousness toward your fellow man, i expect that now you have no choice but to belligerently declare your immorality.

to do elsewise is to admit being wrong

Again, I would ask you - have you actually read my posts? Or do you simply like to insult people? Of course it’s my sense of stinginess that leads me to help friends and family, care for my pets, and give to human and animal charities alike.

sure i have, i completely trashed what you thought was evidence, and now youve spent the last couple of days backtracking.

Oh, yeah. That’s your inner legend talking. You have presented nothing in support of your position but subjective opinions, weird perversions of logic (which, by the way, in itself doesn’t constitute ‘proof’ of anything - it’s just a means of structuring arguments) and a whole bunch of trash-talk.

my belief in a deity is rooted in logi, your opinion is based on the old saw called anthropomorphism

Logic does not constitute a body of evidence. It is a means of structuring arguments, a game with words. And when it is misapplied and convoluted, or used as an excuse to opt out of serious discussion, it becomes meaningless.

.

the evidence you keep talking about doesnt really exist. if it did, you would post it.

Have you actually read my posts? Either you haven’t, or you simply refuse to see things with which you don’t agree.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It amazes me that you can’t see the subjectivity of your arguments.

it amazes me that you believe animals have emotions

Importance to whom, apart from you? To the biosphere? We seem to be engaged on a mission to destroy it.

just evolution

Life evolves to suit the conditions, filling a biological niche. Each lifeform has its place in the global ecosystem. Hence the fact that we can’t claim more objective importance than any other species.

sure we, by far have the largest effect, that would seem pretty important to me

Except that, objectively speaking, we are chemically-driven meatbots also. Thus far we are equal to other animals. Everything else is subjective.

im cool with that, it means that i have no reason to care about animals at all, the lion does’nt care about the sheep, it just uses them.

So when the artificially intelligent robots start taking over the world, you’ll happily lie down and let them, 'cause they’ve clearly outclassed us mere meatbots. We get it, already.

i wont lay down, ill fight for it, but that supposition is about as far out there as animal emotions.

Seriously, no-one cares about your Roomba, no matter how determinedly you try to make it the subject of meaningful discourse. Many, however, care for animals. If the difference isn’t evident to you, may I say how much I pity you, but your - at times rather odd - perceptions don’t dictate those of anyone else.

there is no difference between animals and roomba. ive been using it as an anology to knock down the idea that animals have emotions, but being so vehement seems to indicate you know that it kills the logic your trying to use for a basis of special, treatments for animals.

Humans have effectively stalled our own biological evolution.

what makes you think that?

You can’t call technological development an ‘evolutionary pressure’, just our attempt to overcome nature.

its an evolutionary pressure on nature.

what were you saying about subtleity?

We are in competition for resources, as are the members of any species. Equal again.

how does that violate kinship?

If we don’t want to wipe ourselves out with the rest of the world, yes.

then in your great wisdom, exactly how should we halt evolution? what goals should we have? just to stop it or what?

I’ve explained this before. And your question is inherently meaningless. The dinosaurs did not destroy the land they occupied.

how do you know? if elephants can tear up the landscape i assume dinosaurs would have been worse.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We can be arbiters of our own actions, if we choose. You can’t have it both ways - either we have the ability to care about ecological balance, or we are entirely subject to our animal nature, just mindlessly consuming and reproducing like locusts.

thats right, we either can eat animals because we are better and seperatte from nature, or we can eat them because we are part of nature.

your decision to alter the balance of the biosphere, is just about as megalomaniacal as ive ever heard.

who are you to stop evolution, or decide what its outcomes should be?

I

appreciate the value of biodiversity in and of itself, as well as its importance for the wellbeing of all species, including humans. The perception of human importance is entirely subjective.

yeah, except for those little things called civilisation, art etc.

I have at least demonstrated a different viewpoint than yours. That is sufficient for our present purposes.

no its not, earilier you were talking about the worlds view point and such. it has no independent viewpoint, there is no other viewpoint than ours

The possibility has appeal, but before I can see it as anything other than a nice story, I need either more evidence or some personal experience that will turn acknowledgement of possibility into conviction

.

why would you need to be convicted of it, im not

And, yes, I am subjectively applying standards of proof,

no your not, you just asked me for evidence, thats an objective standard. at least when you say it to me it is.

as you have done when it has suited your purposes and has aligned with your doggedly-held beliefs about the world.

my ‘doggedly’ held belief can be disposed of with objective evidence.

something you fail to present.

Nope, that’s a dispassionate assessment. To suppose there was a reason for it is not only anthropomorphic and anthropocentric,

as its not about assigning human qualities im not sure what you mean?

but it is also supposing that we are capable of knowing the mind of God,even if such a God exists

.

how so?, whats that got to do with metaphysics? or is this another one of your opinions?

As a self-professed proponent of mathematical probability, you should know that given a sufficient number of years - let’s say hundreds - perhaps thousands - of millions, chance alone could have produced the variety of life living today and preserved in the fossil record. Surely you’ve heard the analogy of the infinite number of monkeys…

i dont care about evolution, i care about metaphysics, you know, why is there a universe atall?

Yes, you’re a legend in your own mind. Massacred? ‘Enviro-speak’? You are revealing nothing but your own prejudices.

your not making it hard

Oh, I do wish it, if only because you have yet to offer any objective proof of said immorality.

sure, what did you think the whole, eating a dog because youare starving thing was about.

your position violates the golden rule. id call that about as objective as morality gets.

are you paying any attention to what your saying?

That and the fact that I actually care about the welfare of nonhuman animals. That’s ample reason to use my own resources as I see fit.

yes and i told my mother, “im going to smoke if i want to!”

belligerence didn’t change the moral value of the act

p.s. where is this evidence you keep talking about?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

A fine accusation, considering that your posts have been predominantly insult and belittlement. I, at least, have attempted to be courteous, but alas, I lack superhuman patience.

you dont need it, you just need evidence.

When I state my opinions, I give reasons for them, and the evidence that has led me to form the opinion. When considering evidence, it is important to consider whether said evidence is the best you are likely to get, and whether you consider it weighty enough to sway you either way. Circumstantial or inferential evidence may not be enough to secure a conviction in a court of law, but it is certainly enough to inform an opinion.

then post this ‘evidence’

Furthermore, I consider it courteous to explain why I am disagreeing with someone, or dismissing their opinion as unlikely. I don’t consider it polite to simply deliver a put-down without substantial back-up. At the very least, you should acknowledge that you too lack sufficient evidence for a totally objective conclusion, and agree to disagree.

nope, i am right, you are wrong. you cant prove a negative(santa)

you should have backed out when you could have done so quietly, now all you can do is run, or have your position exposed as wrong.

I admit that I simply do not understand why it bothers you so much that there are people who are prepared to give the basic rights of animals equal consideration to the basic rights of humans. Remember, we are talking about basic rights here, and the most basic of rights is the entitlement to have one’s life respected. Humans have no more objective importance than any other animal, and the very nature of subjectivity means that everyone is entitled to hold a different opinion, and to act on that opinion, without receiving a self-righteous dismissal from people who don’t share it.

got some evidence for that?

please post your ‘evidence’

that or, cluck.cluck

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Your prejudices do not constitute an invalidation of my sources of evidence.

no, they wouldn’t, but assumption, logical fallacies and biased sources would, and that was the problem with your evidencee the firstr time you posted it.

You are as biassed as anyone else. My observations, experience and intuition, as well as scientific data regarding the chemical responses of animals - which are, after all, the same as coresponding chemical responses in humans (ask any veterinarian) - and their social behaviours all add up to sufficient evidence for me to hold an informed opinion regarding animal emotion and affective consciousness, which, in case you missed it the last three times, is the awareness of sensation, the ability to experience pain and pleasure.

then surely you have actual evidence, post it then

All the repetition in the world doesn’t make your appeal to the game with words we call logic any excuse for refusing to back up your claims, or adequately explain your dismissals of evidence.

post your evidence then.

Again, I would ask you - have you actually read my posts? Or do you simply like to insult people? Of course it’s my sense of stinginess that leads me to help friends and family, care for my pets, and give to human and animal charities alike.

please post your evidence.

Oh, yeah. That’s your inner legend talking. You have presented nothing in support of your position but subjective opinions, weird perversions of logic (which, by the way, in itself doesn’t constitute ‘proof’ of anything - it’s just a means of structuring arguments) and a whole bunch of trash-talk.

please post your evidence

Logic does not constitute a body of evidence. It is a means of structuring arguments, a game with words. And when it is misapplied and convoluted, or used as an excuse to opt out of serious discussion, it becomes meaningless.

.please post your evidence

Have you actually read my posts? Either you haven’t, or you simply refuse to see things with which you don’t agree.

please post your evidence

uinless you post some evidence, than your just blowing more smoke.

you either have evidence or your wrong, one or the other.

 

[limerick]

At long last, I know and understand the meaning of bliss.

warpspeedpetey has fallen beneath my “ignore button” and life is good.

Hey, warp, if and when you every run afoul of the law, you couldn’t do better than to hire an attorney just like Sair.

Limerick

 

[warpspeedpetey]

At long last, I know and understand the meaning of bliss.

warpspeedpetey has fallen beneath my “ignore button” and life is good.

hey what happened to ’trying to rein in a player’?

how do those words taste?

Hey, warp, if and when you every run afoul of the law, you couldn’t do better than to hire an attorney just like Sair.

Limerick

still stalking, cant help it can you?

so your advice is to hire an attorney that doesn’t seem to know the difference between evidence and opinion?

thats laughable.

or

you are telling me that sair is an attorney and that qaulifies her to treat opinion like evidence?

thats laughable

or

you are telling me sair is an attorney, how dare i argue with her, because you have some weird idea that such an education qualifies her to speak on the matter authoritatively in some way, without the necessity of evidence?

again, laughable.

or…i dont know

but what you did do ,was take a parting shot. bad form, very bad form

 

[Highwayhound]

Go away for a few days of work and a lot of water goes under the bridge. A bit of reading was done to catch up. Some interesting points and ideas have come up in my absence.

The first point I found interesting was in regard to starving people and how they would react to being without food.

i pointed out that in similar situation people do what they have to, to survive, in doing so i showed that they were making an unbelievable argument.

To this I would ask all people to read up on Saint Maximilian Kolbe. He along with 9 other men were tossed into a starvation chamber. No cannibalism ensued during the two weeks in the chamber. St. Kolbe calmed the fears of the others. Check it out

auschwitz.dk/kolbe.htm

Someone mentioned that the wilderness has more to eat than Joe or his dog. This is true there is the inner bark of pine trees to eat.

The question of whether humans are morally superior has been brought up.

If we wish to claim that we are morally superior to the animals that are completely subject to nature, as many seem to believe, then we are obliged to use our power over nature for positive ends…

On what basis do you claim humans are obliged to act in a positive manner?

…for protection of the rights of all other creatures to inhabit the world. But if we knowingly use our power for selfish and destructive ends, are we not then morally inferior to animals who act largely from natural compulsion, and cannot knowingly choose between good and evil?

What is your basis for distinguishing good acts from evil acts? That animals cannot chose between good and evil is, it seems, a limiting quality on your side of the debate. That humans have the capacity to seek morality is simple proof that humans are at a higher level than animals.

The perception of human importance is entirely subjective.

This statement puzzles me. Let me illustrate a few examples of why it puzzles me. I am the one typing not my dog. I put the food in the dishes in the morning, not the dog or the cat. Humans are the ones who go to the animal shelter to take home animals, not the other way around. Humans are the ones pondering the fate of other species. Although I will leave open the possibility of some animal posting an opinion to the contrary.

I would like to repeat that it is entirely possible to care of humans and animals too. Last evening at our St. Patrick’s day dinner one item for auction was $10 shares in a pig farm in Ghana. A total of $500 dollars was raised and will be sent to the family that is building the pig farm. I know many of the people who donated to this project (one of them is a veterinarian) and many are animal owners. Oh, a shamrock covered birdhouse went for $75. Thus a bird will get a house and the church will use the money raised in multiple ways. Students from both the confirmation class and my high school class helped serve the corned beef and cabbage. They received tip money, which was pooled. The confirmation teacher informs me that her students will be donating their tips to a charity of their choice. My students will be given the choice of using their free will to donate a portion of their tips to the social concerns fund (this fund helps people who might have trouble paying their monthly bills).

It was a great evening. Food, fun and dancing! :dancing: :extrahappy: :clapping:

God bless

 

[Sair]

*At long last, I know and understand the meaning of bliss.

warpspeedpetey has fallen beneath my “ignore button” and life is good.

Hey, warp, if and when you every run afoul of the law, you couldn’t do better than to hire an attorney just like Sair.

Limerick *

Thanks for you support

no, they wouldn’t, but assumption, logical fallacies and biased sources would, and that was the problem with your evidencee the firstr time you posted it.

then surely you have actual evidence, post it then

post your evidence then.

please post your evidence.

please post your evidence

please post your evidence

please post your evidence

uinless you post some evidence, than your just blowing more smoke.

you either have evidence or your wrong, one or the other.

I put it to you, sir, that you are confused, and what’s more, you have been deliberately convoluting the issue by misapplying logic and demanding unrealistic standards of proof.

Allow me to strip it back to an appropriate level of simplicity. The evidence relating to animal affectivity is at present the best evidence to which we can have access. When our technology and our application of scientific methods have advanced to the point where we can conclusively prove whether or not animals experience emotions, the weight of evidence will fall in favour of my side.

In the meantime, I take the more ethically-sound course of treating animals with basic respect. They are sentient life, so my ethics demand no less. They are, in this, neither superior nor inferior to humans, merely different. I value my dog as a dog, not as a furry substitute for a human companion.

Injustice and cruelty disgust me, whether they are applied to humans or to animals. Thus, with my limited resources, I do what I can to lessen the effects of injustice and cruelty in the world. This is completely in line with my ethical principles, and you are in no position to judge me on the basis of nothing more than your own opinion and your apparent need to shore up your sense to self-righteous angst.

That is all.

 

[Sair]

The question of whether humans are morally superior has been brought up.
On what basis do you claim humans are obliged to act in a positive manner?

On the basis that humans are capable of distinguishing good acts from evil acts, by whatever system of ethics they choose to apply. (Not all humans, of course - some act completely from expedience, but this is a useful generalisation for our present purposes). It seems to me that if we wish to claim the moral high ground, to take ourselves seriously as moral beings, then we must use our power for benevolent ends. Abusing the natural world and its creatures just because we can is by no means a demonstration of moral superiority - it is an exercise of the might=right principle, which is an inedequate basis for informing any ethical system. A ruler who murders and tortures his people just because he can will never be considered a ‘good’ or ‘just’ ruler.

What is your basis for distinguishing good acts from evil acts? That animals cannot chose between good and evil is, it seems, a limiting quality on your side of the debate. That humans have the capacity to seek morality is simple proof that humans are at a higher level than animals.

Again, our more developed abilities of reason and imagination in no way give us the right to abuse other creatures. The basic ethical principle that I apply in this case is respect for life - as someone who believes this, I am obliged to treat other sentient creatures with respect, to help them when they are in need and to spare them unnecessary suffering, and also to respect the natural systems that maintain life.

I would like to repeat that it is entirely possible to care of humans and animals too. Last evening at our St. Patrick’s day dinner one item for auction was $10 shares in a pig farm in Ghana. A total of $500 dollars was raised and will be sent to the family that is building the pig farm. I know many of the people who donated to this project (one of them is a veterinarian) and many are animal owners. Oh, a shamrock covered birdhouse went for $75. Thus a bird will get a house and the church will use the money raised in multiple ways. Students from both the confirmation class and my high school class helped serve the corned beef and cabbage. They received tip money, which was pooled. The confirmation teacher informs me that her students will be donating their tips to a charity of their choice. My students will be given the choice of using their free will to donate a portion of their tips to the social concerns fund (this fund helps people who might have trouble paying their monthly bills).

It was a great evening. Food, fun and dancing! :dancing: :extrahappy: :clapping:

God bless

Sounds lovely I am a great believer in helping both humans and animals. Some international animal charities also focus on helping and educating people, in order that they may be in a position to look after their own needs without treating other animals in an unethical manner.

 

[Salonika]

Hope your “I tend more” includes taking you dog to the vet when it’s sick!!!

About “Rainbow Bridge” and similar ideas - I too find them over the top but I see the value in them if they help people not to remain enmeshed in grief over their animals’ death.

I think that marking an animals death is fine - and cannot understand how someone would not do so if especially if the animal has been a loved family member for a number of years.

This is post 422 - by Salonika not Cracker Mom.

Also I was replying to a post in which “Rainbow Bridge” was mentioned.

 

[Salonika]

Sair:

I admit that I simply do not understand why it bothers you so much that there are people who are prepared to give the basic rights of animals equal consideration to the basic rights of humans. Remember, we are talking about basic rights here, and the most basic of rights is the entitlement to have one’s life respected. Humans have no more objective importance than any other animal, and the very nature of subjectivity means that everyone is entitled to hold a different opinion, and to act on that opinion, without receiving a self-righteous dismissal from people who don’t share it.

I am too am very puzzled at those who who are not prepared to give animals basic rights. There seems to me to be no reason not to. If you say they should not have basic rights then you are giving people carte blanche (even if you do not intend to) to maltreat animals.

Also referring to animals as meatbots encourages disrepect for animals - okay some people may deny that animals have emotions but even if they don’t have then it is clear they feel pain, anxiety, fear. I may kick my roomba or other household appliance but all I am likely to do is hurt myself, kick a meatbot and it as well as me is likely to feel pain.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

The contract between pet and owner is at the very least spiritually and practically binding; indeed, it is often legally binding if papers have been signed and money has changed hands. It is an agreement. The word “adoption” is defined as an act wherein one “chooses and brings into a certain relationship” - it is not uniquely applied to human adoption.

My family is from Montgomery, Alabama. Ain’t no stereotype.

Limerick

---

So, how many folks in Montgomery have their dogs tied up to DeSotos?
The contract between a pet & it’s owner is “spiritually” binding? What part of Church teaching is this? And what is the “contract” supposed to be?
Beyond which, most critters we consider pets are on the dinner menu in some other part of the world.That’s partly why I can’t take the whole “pet” concept too terribly seriously.I truly do enjoy animals-just as I enjoy God’s Creation as a whole-but we’ve chosen certain creatures & domesticated them for our use & service.That doesn’t necessarily make them any more worthy or special than other animals.Cuter maybe, but not more deserving of “rights” or “welfare.” And never more deserving than people.
When the tsunami struck several years ago, Pet Smart had a donation table set up in the front of the store with a sign asking for donations for the “animal victims of the tsunami.” Right…

 

[limerick]

The contract between pet and owner is at the very least spiritually and practically binding; indeed, it is often legally binding if papers have been signed and money has changed hands. It is an agreement. The word “adoption” is defined as an act wherein one “chooses and brings into a certain relationship” - it is not uniquely applied to human adoption.

My family is from Montgomery, Alabama. Ain’t no stereotype.

Limerick

---

So, how many folks in Montgomery have their dogs tied up to DeSotos?
The contract between a pet & it’s owner is “spiritually” binding? What part of Church teaching is this? And what is the “contract” supposed to be?
Beyond which, most critters we consider pets are on the dinner menu in some other part of the world.That’s partly why I can’t take the whole “pet” concept too terribly seriously.I truly do enjoy animals-just as I enjoy God’s Creation as a whole-but we’ve chosen certain creatures & domesticated them for our use & service.That doesn’t necessarily make them any more worthy or special than other animals.Cuter maybe, but not more deserving of “rights” or “welfare.” And never more deserving than people.
When the tsunami struck several years ago, Pet Smart had a donation table set up in the front of the store with a sign asking for donations for the “animal victims of the tsunami.” Right…

Dogs hitched to Desotos? Lost count.

The contract between a pet and its owner is indeed spiritually binding. Not necessary to say three Hail Marys before feeding; it’s more a good-faith agreement that when we include a pet into our lives we assume responsibility for its care and nurturance. Spirituality is not limited to Church teaching.

One organization I support is Ahimsa House in Georgia, which is a facility that houses primarily women who are attempting to escape domestically violent situations but are unwilling to leave because they are afraid if they leave their pets behind the abuser will harm thtese pets. There is no reason to stay in a hateful, physically threatening environment simply because a battered person’s shelter will not accept pets. Ahimsa House does. I would like to see one of these facilities in every city in the United States.
For info, go to www.ahimsahouse.org

Limerick

 

[warpspeedpetey]

i have posted the body of 403 for you to see, maybe were talking about 2 different things, im talking about the attribution of this bolded passage below to me in 422 when it is cracker mom in 403

It would be extremely convenient if I could, in good conscience, let my dog roam the streets and fend for himself. Then I wouldn’t have to bother feeding him, brushing his fur, treating him for fleas, taking him to the vet for shots…don’t forget, all this also costs money. So, no, it’s not convenient for me to think that animals are to be valued, respected and treated compassionately, but I choose to believe they are so, and I have found ample justification for that belief, through my own observations and through exploring the work of researchers in the field of animal behaviour and cognition. Until I am presented with a reasonable and convincing argument for animals not being entitled to compassion, I will continue to extend my consideration to them.

---

I don’t know, I tend more to take my dog to the vet so that he won’t spread rabies to people.Ditto for the fleas and we brush his hair so we won’t be bothered by it shed all over the house. I bet my dog could care less.
I value my dog as a pet & a pretty cool animal, but I about gag when I encounter over-the-top,goopy,sentimental, quasi-theology stuff like the “Rainbow Bridge” baloney where you’re supposed to meet your pets “on the other side.”(Check the thread about meeting your pets in heaven.) Please…

in post 422 you attributed this bolded passage to me, this passage orginially came from 403 by cracker mom

 

[Sair]

As I have previously stated on this thread, one of the most basic values that infoms many ethical systems is respect for life. Some prefer to limit this respect to humans alone, others find that it is more appropriate to apply it to all forms of life, particularly sentient life.

As I have also mentioned in previous posts, animals are in fact sentient. Whether they are capable of self-awareness to the same extent as humans is open to debate, but self-awareness is not necessary to the ability to suffer. As the utilitarian ethicist Jeremy Bentham stated, “The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’”

Although I don’t profess to be a utilitarian, I think this is a useful distinction to bear in mind. Laboratory experiments have shown remarkable similarities in the electrical signals and chemical responses occurring in the brains of both humans and other animals. The same structures in the brains of animals respond in the same way as those of humans to certain stimuli. Biochemical changes in the brain accompany emotions of any sort. Dopamine, the ‘feel-good’ hormone, and oxytocin, the ‘bonding’ hormone, are released in both human and animal brains in the same kinds of situations. Both human and other animal brains have a structure called the amygdala, which is closely linked to fear. Fear is one of the most primitive emotions, and it certainly isn’t exclusive to humans. In fact, experiments upon rats have shown the extensive and permanent changes in brain chemistry that can be brought about by prolonged experience of terror. It is possible to die from an excess of fear, as some rats did indeed die after lengthy periods of induced terror. I think it would be hard to argue that such experimental data come from a source that is biased in favour of the animals.

The accusation of anthropomorphism is dismissible - it is as much a sign of inherent bias as any tendency to support animal rights. The accusation itself often comes from biased sources, such as scientists who wish to continue conducting medical research on animals, or those who make a living from intensive farming practices, or just those who are afraid that comparison with animals will compromise their own feelings of superiority. It comes from a deeply-held desire to maintain some sense of distance between humans and other animals, a distance that is largely artificial when it comes to emotional and behavioural responses. Humans tend to rationalise their emotions and imagine they are more than just a response to chemical changes in the brain. There is no aspect of human behaviour that cannot be linked back to the fundamentals of our animal nature. The differences between us and other animals are of degree, not kind.

None of the relative sophistication of humans makes any difference when it comes to basic rights, especially when you consider that not all humans exhibit the same level of sophistication. Respect for life is just that - respect for all life. Every sentient creature - every creature with the ability to experience pain, pleasure and fear - is entitled to humane treatment. This means that if either humans or animals are suffering (unless that suffering is absolutely necessary for reasons consistent with a respect for life), it is always right to help them.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I put it to you, sir, that you are confused, and what’s more, you have been deliberately convoluting the issue by misapplying logic and demanding unrealistic standards of proof.

objective evidence is is hardly an unrealistic standard of evidence, if you have none. then you simply cant support your position as anything more than a personally held opinion.

and since you had to look up specific logical fallacies, and then i had to correct your understanding, remember ‘coaching’?

i havent misapplyed anything

you just lack evidence, and i wont let you off the hook gracefully as you decided to treat me badly.

Allow me to strip it back to an appropriate level of simplicity. The evidence relating to animal affectivity is at present the best evidence to which we can have access.

thats not evidence of emotion, thats evidence of the chemical systems meant to prevent damage to the meat bot.

my roomba has an equuivalent ‘error light’, when its damaged.

When our technology and our application of scientific methods have advanced to the point where we can conclusively prove whether or not animals experience emotions, the weight of evidence will fall in favour of my side.

why do you think that?

science already says that we are chemically driven meatbots ourselves. i dont see what makes you think that science will ever be in favor of your side.

but now i know that you know science doesn’t yet support your side.

In the meantime, I take the more ethically-sound course of treating animals with basic respect. They are sentient life, so my ethics demand no less.

how is it ethically sound to treat a meatbot as a human?

my roomba dsoesn’t ruffle my ethical feathers. i just turn it off

They are, in this, neither superior nor inferior to humans, merely different. I value my dog as a dog, not as a furry substitute for a human companion.

and yet it seems from the evidence of civilisation, art, literature, etc that we are demostrably superior.

Injustice and cruelty disgust me whether they are applied to humans or to animals. Thus, with my limited resources, I do what I can to lessen the effects of injustice and cruelty in the world

unless they happen to those people you cant see and have previously refered to as ‘statistics’

This is completely in line with my ethical principles, and you are in no position to judge me on the basis of nothing more than your own opinion and

then its good that i convict you with your own words, its not my judgement, its what you have said.

people you cant see are little more than statistics, remember? their suffering doesn’t really count. does it?

your apparent need to shore up your sense to self-righteous angst.

angst? what is this an '80s teen flick?