Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[Sair]

I have forwarded actual evidence. What you seem to be doing is appraising the actual evidence and assuming that it can’t be actual evidence because it doesn’t line up with your beliefs. This is why science is a different creature from religion. It relies upon observable facts and making intelligent assumptions based on those observable facts. If an animal is displaying signs of emotional experience - and these signs such as increased heart-rate, changes in brainwave patterns, are measurable as well as the externally observable signs - what is inherently irrational about supposing that it does actually have the emotions it appears to be displaying?

Just so you know it isn’t just me making all this up, and that I’m not the only person who thinks this way, I’ll here quote from an Australian writer and photojournalist named Reg Morrison, from his book Plague Species.

“The attribution of human motives and emotions to animals used to be considered sloppy science. The underlying fear was that such thinking might erode some of the respect that we felt we were owed as a uniquely sentient and rational species. That particular academic taboo is less rigidly observed these days, yet in a perverse sense it remains entirely sound. Indeed, no animal displays human behaviour. Quite the reverse. Humans display only animal behaviour. Watch the action without the sound track and this truth becomes obvious.”

See, the thing is that it is fundamentally irrational to ignore the fact that humans and other animals share a basic kinship. We are so caught up in the delusion of human specialness and separateness that we often fail to recognise what is right before our eyes.

 

[Sair]

Now I think about it, it strikes me as somewhat puzzling that you would choose to focus on animal charities as a frivolous item on which to spend money, while humans are starving. You make no mention of the money spent by many people on luxury items - wouldn’t those millions be better spent on food for the hungry? Their need to eat seems rather more important than anyone’s desire to drive a sports car, own a mansion or dine in fancy restaurants. Where is your condemnation of this kind of frivolous spending?

 

[Highwayhound]

Now I think about it, it strikes me as somewhat puzzling that you would choose to focus on animal charities as a frivolous item on which to spend money, while humans are starving. You make no mention of the money spent by many people on luxury items - wouldn’t those millions be better spent on food for the hungry? Their need to eat seems rather more important than anyone’s desire to drive a sports car, own a mansion or dine in fancy restaurants. Where is your condemnation of this kind of frivolous spending?

At first blush one might be inclined to think as above.

Honestly consider how many jobs are created by the constuction of one ‘luxury’ item.

Give it some thought. I can think of a half dozen jobs that exist by the making of a luxury item. In my case I thought about the building of a yacht. Pick any luxury item and ponder how many jobs exist because of the making of it.

So all these jobs have workers, do they not?

What is the motivation for all these workers going to work?
(Hint: for most people the motivation is not the job…:ehh

If you conclude that they work to be able to eat then your conclusion is the same as mine.

So, please cut out the promotion of envy :tsktsk:

Remember the 10th Commandment tells us not to covet what others own.

God bless

p.s. the reference to the 10th Commandment is not flip or frivolous. Envy is a sin and should not be promoted.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Sorry, but the attitude with which you write does seem to invite it…

more derision…

if one doesn’t agree with you its attitude…

that, or your a psychic, that can ‘read’ my attitude through miles computer networks.

I have forwarded actual evidence. What you seem to be doing is appraising the actual evidence and assuming that it can’t be actual evidence because it doesn’t line up with your beliefs.

ok, then lets see…

This is why science is a different creature from religion. It relies upon observable facts and making intelligent assumptions based on those observable facts.

what? where did you ever get that idea? faith is based entirely on rational dissection of the available evidence.

im surprised that you spend, any time on this forum and haven’t realized that. then again, i havent seen you in the apologetics/philosophy forum, so maybe you just didn’t know.

If an animal is displaying signs of emotional experience - and these signs such as increased heart-rate, changes in brainwave patterns, are measurable as well as the externally observable signs - what is inherently irrational about supposing that it does actually have the emotions it appears to be displaying?

because those ‘signs’ are simply chemical interactions, what makes you assign emotion to those?

we know we have emotions because we experience them, we don’t know thqat animals do, further most emotions don’t have any obvious outward signs.

on top of all that, true emotions would seem to require higher reasoning. i.e. love, depression, despair, hate, etc.

you have no real reason to assume the base emotions, and cannot assign the faculties that seem necessary to formulate more complex emotions.

your chain of reasoning seems to be this. animals have similar chemical reactions to humans- ergo- animals must have similar emotions to humans.

none of which amounts to anything more than a pile of unfounded assumptions. the similarity of two objects is insufficient reason to assume a connection on anything more than a superficial level without much more evidence.

Just so you know it isn’t just me making all this up, and that I’m not the only person who thinks this way, I’ll here quote from an Australian writer and photojournalist named Reg Morrison, from his book Plague Species.

photo jounalists (people with cameras, who show other people their photos, like my grandma)

arent, probably the best source of evidence.

"The attribution of human motives and emotions to animals used to be considered sloppy science.

it still is considered sloppy science

The underlying fear was that such thinking might erode some of the respect that we felt we were owed as a uniquely sentient and rational species.

or it really is sloppy science

That particular academic taboo is less rigidly observed these days, yet in a perverse sense it remains entirely sound.

not by any one involved in the rational pursuit of intellectal endeavors, its still taboo, to everybody but PETA style thinkers, then again they would have us on reusable toilet paper if they could, so im not going to put them in that group

Indeed, no animal displays human behaviour.

indeed.

Quite the reverse. Humans display only animal behaviour. Watch the action without the sound track and this truth becomes obvious."

really? where is the doggie taj mahal? when was the holocaust performed by kitties? when oh when was the last time a koala commited suicide?

pffft

thats what happens when your evidence is the faulty reasoning of a photojournalist.

See, the thing is that it is fundamentally irrational to ignore the fact that humans and other animals share a basic kinship.

see, i think its fundamentally irrational to assume that the, unavoidable chemical similarities of life forms based on carbon, amount to any kinship above the molecular level.

and rational science tends to agree with me, not your photo journalist.

We are so caught up in the delusion of human specialness and separateness that we often fail to recognise what is right before our eyes.

see when you have evidence its not a delusion, its reality.

animal emotion, no evidence = delusion

human specialness, as evidenced by civilisation, art, science, faith = reality

your position still seems to be emotional assumption, nothing more.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Now I think about it, it strikes me as somewhat puzzling that you would choose to focus on animal charities as a frivolous item on which to spend money, while humans are starving.

it particularly disgusts me, that people should be allowed to starve, while stray dogs take up resources that people could use.

You make no mention of the money spent by many people on luxury items - wouldn’t those millions be better spent on food for the hungry?

 

[Sair]

At first blush one might be inclined to think as above.

Honestly consider how many jobs are created by the constuction of one ‘luxury’ item.

Give it some thought. I can think of a half dozen jobs that exist by the making of a luxury item. In my case I thought about the building of a yacht. Pick any luxury item and ponder how many jobs exist because of the making of it.

So all these jobs have workers, do they not?

What is the motivation for all these workers going to work?
(Hint: for most people the motivation is not the job…:ehh

If you conclude that they work to be able to eat then your conclusion is the same as mine.

So, please cut out the promotion of envy :tsktsk:

Remember the 10th Commandment tells us not to covet what others own.

God bless

p.s. the reference to the 10th Commandment is not flip or frivolous. Envy is a sin and should not be promoted.

I can’t own any envious feelings towards those who own sports cars, mansions or other luxury items. I certainly feel no need for such things.

Essentially what you’re saying is that spending money on luxuries is okay because it benefits those who create the luxuries. Fair enough. Your response still ignores the basic needs of those who can’t even obtain enough food to keep themselves alive because others are wedded to the capitalist mindset that values money and self-interest over altruism and equitable distribution of necessary resources.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

wedded to the capitalist mindset that values money and self-interest over altruism and equitable distribution of necessary resources.

what? are you a communist?

lets point out that there has never been a successful or equitable distribution of goods and services by a communist system. command economies are ineffecient, and have repeatedly failed, indeed, in order not to suffer the soviet fate, the red chinese had to open themselves to capitalism.

in fact every communist system has resulted in mass murder i.e stalin, mao, pol pot, castro, vietnam, etc

and on top of that they have limited basic human rights, red china, USSR, cuba, vietnam, etc.

there is nothing altruistic, or equitable in applied communism.

marx was wrong, and it only took a few hundred million deaths, and decades of suffering in order to show it.

 

[TaraGrace]

I work for a Humane Society.

We recieve no money from the government, but recieve donations from the community. We have taken in 10,000 animals annually on average for the last couple of years. I could go into a lot of ranting here, but I will keep to the point.

A family, consisting of a father, mother and 2 small children had a beloved pet dog. This dog was a good dog. The family could afford to feed it, give it medical care and love. Suddenly, the father lost his job. The mother is a stay at home mother. In this economy it is very difficult to get another job. The family waited to see if things would get better. They prayed.

Eventually, the family came to the conclusion that the if they wanted to remain out of a homeless shelter, they would need to cut the cost of the household. They could no longer afford to feed the dog. I stood in the animal shelter, holding this mother as she cried…not only because they had to give up the dog, but because the family had come to this point. She was embarrassed and humble. I told her she was doing the right thing. It was more important to feed her children than a pet. She agreed with me and thanked me many times for the shelter and care we were giving the dog until it was adopted. She said the decision would be more difficult if the shelter hadn’t been there.

After the dog was adopted I talked to the mother. This family managed to keep themselves out of a homeless shelter.

The number one reason an animal is given to a shelter is because of people’s financial situations.

If you don’t think those of us working in animal shelters do not help people, please volunteer at your local animal shelter and find out.

And for the record. I support my local humane society. I will NEVER support PETA. I find their tatics, commercials and website disrespectful. It is okay to make a point, but the point is lost if it seems radical and disrespectful. Most local humane societies have no connection to the national ones or organizations like PETA.

 

[Sair]

 

[Sair]

more derision…

if one doesn’t agree with you its attitude…

Actually, no. It’s the manner in which you express your disagreement. Just as you can suppose – across miles of computer networks - that I and others are being derisive, we can likewise assume that you are being dismissive, based upon your choice of words.

what? where did you ever get that idea? faith is based entirely on rational dissection of the available evidence.

If it were based upon rational dissection of evidence, faith would cease to be faith – it would become knowledge and conviction. It is defined as ‘faith’ precisely because it is belief in something that cannot be objectively known.

because those ‘signs’ are simply chemical interactions, what makes you assign emotion to those?

we know we have emotions because we experience them, we don’t know thqat animals do, further most emotions don’t have any obvious outward signs.

You can tell when another person is angry, sad, happy, grieved, fearful…and yet you pretend emotions have no outward signs. You are also able to perceive these feelings in other animals (though you deny it is the same because you think humans are special). That old phrase goes something like… “If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck.”

on top of all that, true emotions would seem to require higher reasoning. i.e. love, depression, despair, hate, etc.

Why? Does anger require higher reasoning? What is rational about depression and despair? Love is often irrational – it doesn’t require perfection, and it can be directed to those who wish us harm. What’s rational about that?

you have no real reason to assume the base emotions, and cannot assign the faculties that seem necessary to formulate more complex emotions.

So…what reason do you have to assume that other animals don’t experience what you call base emotions?

your chain of reasoning seems to be this. animals have similar chemical reactions to humans- ergo- animals must have similar emotions to humans.

Actually, that’s exactly what I assume. Emotions are the result of chemical reactions. Humans might add layers of complexity to emotions that other animals don’t, but the base emotions are the same.

none of which amounts to anything more than a pile of unfounded assumptions. the similarity of two objects is insufficient reason to assume a connection on anything more than a superficial level without much more evidence.

What more evidence do you need? I am not assuming a merely superficial connection – in addition to matching up with observation, this is a fundamental connection based upon the overwhelming evidence of biological evolution. You’ll have to come up with a much better refutation than the mere assumption that humans are too special to be subject to biological determinations if you want to convince anyone who has even a basic understanding of scientific principles.

photo jounalists (people with cameras, who show other people their photos, like my grandma) arent, probably the best source of evidence.

Well, that’s just another example of your apparently simplistic and ignorant approach. There is a vast difference between an enthusiastic amateur and an educated, experienced professional. There is also a difference of purpose - one desires to preserve personal experiences, the other to gather evidence and objective observations.

it still is considered sloppy science

By whom? Where are your contemporary quotations and evidence proving this opinion?

really? where is the doggie taj mahal? when was the holocaust performed by kitties? when oh when was the last time a koala commited suicide?

OK, if you want to play it that way - when was the last time a human ran as fast as a cheetah? Dived as deep and for as long as a sperm whale? Survived in a desert without the assistance of technology? Relative abilities are no reason to suppose that humans are fundamentally “better” than any other species.

animal emotion, no evidence = delusion
human specialness, as evidenced by civilisation, art, science, faith = reality
your position still seems to be emotional assumption, nothing more.

Your position is also emotional assumption. It’s the assumption that humans must have some special qualities that elevate them above other animals. Yet in observable reality, the differences between humans and other animals are differences of degree, not kind. None of them make humans any more worthy of compassion than any other animal.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yet it disgusts me even more that humans, whom you seem to believe are so superior to other animals, can assume that a material luxury like a sports car is a more worthy expenditure of money than the relief of suffering, on the part of any other creature.

ok…?

so you think that people shouldn’t spend money on luxury items, when there are animals doing with out?

i am no great lover of materialism, if it wont fit in my coffin, it really isn’t worth much, now is it?

yet, highway is right, those luxury goods do pay for the food, that the employees and their families need.

if the resources go to people, even through luxury items, then i cant really say that its bad.

i may not like luxury spending, but people need the resources generated from that.

animals have no value outside their usefulness to us (i know you dont agree)

you really want to place animals on some level with people, but you dont seem to have a reason to do that other than emotions

p.s. are you going to reply to the refutation of your ‘evidence’?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Yet it disgusts me even more that humans, whom you seem to believe are so superior to other animals, can assume that a material luxury like a sports car is a more worthy expenditure of money than the relief of suffering, on the part of any other creature.

Relief of suffering? I’m sorry but unless its to save a critically endangered species (like my country’s Haring Ibon) and not simply some sappy PETA campaign (like their beef with boiling lobsters), I’d rather enjoy the money I’ve worked my rear end off to earn and save.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to decide whether to buy a burger or some barbecue sticks.

 

[ProVobis]

It made you sound like a PETA acolyte.

So what’s your problem with PETA? Is it immoral to donate to them?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So what’s your problem with PETA? Is it immoral to donate to them?

missoulian.com/articles/2009/01/08/news/local/news04.txt

extremeways.deviantart.com/art/Rats-and-my-life-10148334

mexicano27.deviantart.com/art/PETA-75659220

Do you have to ask?

P.S.

I’m not the only one with this opinion.

conservatoons.deviantart.com/art/Pigs-are-Equals-62112889

signals.deviantart.com/art/anti-peta-60657271

 

[Sair]

if the resources go to people, even through luxury items, then i cant really say that its bad.

That’s pretty much what I expected. Heirarchy of needs be damned.

you really want to place animals on some level with people, but you dont seem to have a reason to do that other than emotions

The reason I have stated time and time again is that animals are just as capable of suffering as humans, and therefore just as entitled to be spared unnecessary suffering. What actual reason do you have for elevating humans above other animals? So far all you have presented is your determination to believe that humans are somehow more worthy of compassion than other animals, just because we have the potential to exercise different abilities.

are you going to reply to the refutation of your ‘evidence’?

At what point have I failed to refute your paltry attacks on the evidence I have presented? There is little point in repeating my assertions if you are going to simply dismiss them out of hand because they don’t match your beliefs.

 

[limerick]

" …on top of all that, true emotions would seem to require higher reasoning. i.e. love, depression, despair,** hate**, etc."

Hate as higher reasoning. That’s food for thought. Thanks, warpspeedpetey.

Limerick

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Actually, no. It’s the manner in which you express your disagreement. Just as you can suppose – across miles of computer networks - that I and others are being derisive, we can likewise assume that you are being dismissive, based upon your choice of words.

if it seems im being dismissive, its because you have yet to provide any evidence to support your claims.
your derision is based on my dismissiveness?
so your derisive because ive been asking for ratioanal evidence?
sounds like you could solve the whole problem by offering rational evidence.
instead of blaming me for your actions

If it were based upon rational dissection of evidence, faith would cease to be faith – it would become knowledge and conviction. It is defined as ‘faith’ precisely because it is belief in something that cannot be objectively known.

the theological definition of faith is belief is found here
newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

generally it is trust in G-d, not faith in His existence. these are things you should know, hanging out on Catholic forums.

You can tell when another person is angry, sad, happy, grieved, fearful…and yet you pretend emotions have no outward signs.If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck.”

and that is exactly how you get sloppy science. you percieve emotions in animals

please prove that any emotion you have projected on an animal, is actually an emotion the animal is experincing. you cant, no one ever has.

its all your projection, nothing else. animals dont cry, commit suicide, make love, or care about anything other than basic needs, food, warmth, safety from predators, etc.

Why? Does anger require higher reasoning? What is rational about depression and despair? Love is often irrational –

if it is anything more than a basic chemical interaction, if thats all it is than it doesnt need higher functions.

but then its not really an emotion its just chemistry

So…what reason do you have to assume that other animals don’t experience what you call base emotions?

because you dont assume the presence of something when you lack evidence.

Actually, that’s exactly what I assume. Emotions are the result of chemical reactions. Humans might add layers of complexity to emotions that other animals don’t, but the base emotions are the same.

yes, you assume that animals chemical interactions are ‘emotions’ , you can really only say that they are chemical interactions.

you just project your own emotions onto them

What more evidence do you need?

proof, something more than an emotional interpretation of chemical interaction.

I am not assuming a merely superficial connection –

sure you are your assuming that two similar things are the same thing.

in addition to matching up with observation, this is a fundamental connection based upon the overwhelming evidence of biological evolution.

really? what is this fundamental connection based on overwhelming evolutionary evidence?

You’ll have to come up with a much better refutation than the mere assumption that humans are too special to be subject to biological determinations

when did i make that assumption?

i simply said that you are assuming a that 2 things are the same from similar appearances. classical logical fallacy.

if you want to convince anyone who has even a basic understanding of scientific principles.

i have a basic understanding of scientific principles, and im convinced.

Well, that’s just another example of your apparently simplistic and ignorant approach. There is a vast difference between an enthusiastic amateur and an educated, experienced professional. There is also a difference of purpose - one desires to preserve personal experiences, the other to gather evidence and objective observations.

so im simplistic and ignorant, but you qoute a photojournalist as evidence? yeah, right.

By whom? Where are your contemporary quotations and evidence proving this opinion?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphic
check it out, been that way since ancient greece

OK, if you want to play it that way - when was the last time a human ran as fast as a cheetah?Dived as deep and for as long as a sperm whale? Survived in a desert without the assistance of technology? Relative abilities are no reason to suppose that humans are fundamentally “better” than any other species.

what do physical abilities have to do with emotion? are you confused?

i said this

really? where is the doggie taj mahal? when was the holocaust performed by kitties? when oh when was the last time a koala commited suicide?

none of which has anything to do with running , diving , or desert survival.

the point is that animals present no evidence of higher emotion, period.

Your position is also emotional assumption. It’s the assumption that humans must have some special qualities that elevate them above other animals

its not an assumption, math, science, art, literature, religion, space travel. and the fact that we are almost physically defenseless, yet the top predator on the food chain, even before we had fire.

all these things are just some of the evidence of our superiority.

Yet in observable reality, the differences between humans and other animals are differences of degree, not kind.

your view of reality is already suspect, you think animals have emotions.

None of them make humans any more worthy of compassion than any other animal.

do you have compassion for a robot? animals are nothing more than little biomechanical robots.

our emotional attachments to them are the only difference, between them and a little honda asimov

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

" …on top of all that, true emotions would seem to require higher reasoning. i.e. love, depression, despair,** hate**, etc."

Hate as higher reasoning. That’s food for thought. Thanks, warpspeedpetey.

Limerick

Actually, he’s right. Not all people hate with 100% anger. People who hate certain ideologies can spend hours creating logical and philosophical arguments and find only more reason to despise those ideals.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

" …on top of all that, true emotions would seem to require higher reasoning. i.e. love, depression, despair,** hate**, etc."

Hate as higher reasoning. That’s food for thought. Thanks, warpspeedpetey.

Limerick

who said that hate is higher reasoning? i said it requires higher reasoning to hate.

that clear it up for ya?

 

[ruslan]