Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[limerick]

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

that clear it up for ya?

No, actually, what you said was, “true emotions would seem to require higher reasoning; that is [or such as] love, depression, despair, hate, etc.” The abbreviation “i.e.” comes from the Latin “id est”, meaning “that is”. You used this phrase incorrectly in your post, which gave it a completely different meaning than that which you intended.

May I assume that you meant “…true emotions (i.e., love, depression, despair, hate, etc.) would seem to require higher reasoning”?

Words mean something. On a website forum where no one can interpret your facial expressions, your body language or your tone of voice, the way you construct your written thought will be literally interpreted. You can’t be obtuse and then whine - or get smart-alecky - because people don’t understand you.

That clear it up for ya?

Limerick

 

[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.

I submit that the hours spent creating logical and philosophical arguments which support one’s hate for certain ideologies are fueled by what began as anger and are subsequently augmented by ever more distilled negatives, such as rage, resentment, envy, jealousy. There is certainly no emotional detachment from these activities, and the emotions are caustic.

But this is not germane to the point I was making, which was that warpspeedy’s inarticulate post obfuscated his point.

Limerick

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I submit that the hours spent creating logical and philosophical arguments which support one’s hate for certain ideologies are fueled by what began as anger and are subsequently augmented by ever more distilled negatives, such as rage, resentment, envy, jealousy. There is certainly no emotional detachment from these activities, and the emotions are caustic.

I’m not saying that emotions are completely out of the picture. I’m just pointing out that people find certain ideas stupid to the point that they hate it. However, that cannot be if they lack the sense of higher reasoning to consider such ideas stupid in the first place.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, actually, what you said was, “true emotions would seem to require higher reasoning; that is [or such as] love, depression, despair, hate, etc.” The abbreviation “i.e.” comes from the Latin “id est”, meaning “that is”. You used this phrase incorrectly in your post, which gave it a completely different meaning than that which you intended.

May I assume that you meant “…true emotions (i.e., love, depression, despair, hate, etc.) would seem to require higher reasoning”?

Words mean something. On a website forum where no one can interpret your facial expressions, your body language or your tone of voice, the way you construct your written thought will be literally interpreted. You can’t be obtuse and then whine - or get smart-alecky - because people don’t understand you.

That clear it up for ya?

well, ill be darned, your right, i looked it up and i used the incorrect for of i.e., think it meant in example, as is the general usage, though it turns out to be incorrect

Jan 27, 2006 at 10:43 am Permalink

Id Est

Directly translated, it means “It is” or “That is”.

Generally, it’s used to mean “That is to say” or “for example”.

However, “for example” is not the correct translation. It is commonly misused/misinterpreted, possibly being thought of as “in example”. “For example” should be used as “e.g.” (exempli gratia).

i see now that all my life, i, and my contemporaries have been misusing this abreviation of a tecnical latein term, thank you so very much.

now, as it is the general usage, technically correct ofr not, i will continue to use it in the manner that most people understand, as i am speaking to most people.

that said, it didn’t change the order or meaning of my words, hate still requires higher reasoning. as i said previously.

notice, i didn’t get smart-alecky until presented with a smart alecky one liner.

now, does that clear it up for ya, or should i say it in latin?

but thanks for the language lessons, as im sure everyone else was greatly confused by my imprecesion. and greatly impressed by your knowledge of technical latin phrases.

i.e. the manner in which you just butted in to correct a total strangers langauge

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I submit that the hours spent creating logical and philosophical arguments which support one’s hate for certain ideologies are fueled by what began as anger and are subsequently augmented by ever more distilled negatives, such as rage, resentment, envy, jealousy. There is certainly no emotional detachment from these activities, and the emotions are caustic.

But this is not germane to the point I was making, which was that warpspeedy’s inarticulate post obfuscated his point.

Limerick

i think you were the only one that was obfusicated

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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

sorry i was distracted by an insignificant point, no where near the topic of the thread.

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.

no i have pointed out our concrete accomplishments. its actual observable evidence. you cant deny its existence.

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.

what evidence have you presented?

not one drop, the opinion of a photojournalist is hardly evidence, assuming anima emotion from similar chemical interactions is hardly evidence.

its not evidence, its opinion, and thats all it is.

i have presented objective observable evidence, you have presented opinion and assumption.

i love a rational argument, you just wont give one thats not based on emotion. that is why your evidence is dissmissable, no rationalist would take it seriously.

im sure your a nice person and you love animals.

but thats not a good enough reason to anthropomorphise them.

 

[limerick]

i think you were the only one that was obfusicated

Does Fred Sanford ring a bell? Or maybe Norm Crosby?

And on-topic:

" … the opinion of a photojournalist is hardly evidence …" Nor is the opinion of warpspeedpetey.

Limerick

 

[Holly3278]

Their are 1000 upon 1000s of churches that sit empty while people freeze to death on the streets. We could start a campain to allow people who are homless to live in churches ?

The tax free status of churches in america and other countrys? could be removed with those taxes going to pay for homless shelters and food.

What has sparked this for me is i see people homless in the citys near to where i live yet i continually see new churches being build that are shut and locked most of the time. Instead of bashing an innocent charity that people CHOOSE to donate to. Mabey look a bit closer to home with all the wealth that the catholic church and others like it have and distribute that to the homless people.

You know where else those taxes would go. They would also go to fund abortions and that is why I am opposed to taxing churches.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Does Fred Sanford ring a bell? Or maybe Norm Crosby?

? your obviously light years ahead of me, as i have no idea what either character has to do with this.

And on-topic:

" … the opinion of a photojournalist is hardly evidence …" Nor is the opinion of warpspeedpetey.

Limerick

which is why i didn’t qoute myself as evidence.

do you have anything to say that is actually on topic?

 

[limerick]

Yes, I have something to say about your views on this topic, and it is neatly summed up in your very own signature:

"I have dealt with great things that I do not understand; things too wonderful for me, which I cannot know. -Job 42:3"

You very obviously, and very unfortunately, do not understand the wonder of the pet/human relationship. Humans domesticated the dog around 13,000 BC - we put them to use as herders, hunters and protectors. Evidence of the domesticated cat has been traced to around 7500 BC. Our participation in their domestication demands that we care for them, feed them, protect them and, in my opinion, neuter or spay them.

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. That way you get what you want (less “undeserving” hunks of meat on four legs sucking up the “disposable income” of so many irrational people) and I get what* I* want (less wanton procreation of cats and dogs, less money spent on having to house and feed unwanted but perfectly adoptable house pets, less euthanasia).
*
" … but thanks for the language lessons, as im sure everyone else was greatly confused by my imprecesion. and greatly impressed by your knowledge of technical latin phrases.

i.e. the manner in which you just butted in to correct a total strangers langauge"*

So many opportunities for correction here; but since you choose not to see the other side of anything, I choose not to invest the time.

Oh, one more thing: Norm Crosby and “Fred Sanford” (aka Redd Foxx) were comics in the 60s (Foxx even earlier) who used the technique of the malapropism in their routines. A malapropism is the substitution of an incorrect word for a word with a similar sound, usually to comic effect.

You didn’t know you were so funny, did you?

Limerick

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, I have something to say about your views on this topic, and it is neatly summed up in your very own signature:

"I have dealt with great things that I do not understand; things too wonderful for me, which I cannot know. -Job 42:3"

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

big deal, give me something more than your opinion,

You very obviously, and very unfortunately, do not understand the wonder of the pet/human relationship.

other than the cats, dogs, birds, calves, fish, horses and ponies ive had, you mean.

i have had pets and livestock, i just dont think that they have actual emotions.

people are important, animals arent when the choice is between the two

Humans domesticated the dog around 13,000 BC - we put them to use as herders, hunters and protectors. Evidence of the domesticated cat has been traced to around 7500 BC. Our participation in their domestication demands that we care for them, feed them, protect them and, in my opinion, neuter or spay them.

i dont disagree with that, you should take care of your livestock and your service animals. that doesn’t make them the equal of people.

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. That way you get what you want (less “undeserving” hunks of meat on four legs sucking up the “disposable income” of so many irrational people) and I get what I want (less wanton procreation of cats and dogs, less money spent on having to house and feed unwanted but perfectly adoptable house pets, less euthanasia).

aha! you dont love animals, you dont like people, the subtle implication is that you are better than the alkie on the street, and the so many irrational people

to you the value of people is in what they do and your opinion of their rationality. thats called being an elitist.

which is exactly the attitude that i pointed out as immoral in the op, to you it doesnt matter what happens to the ***alkie *** or those irrational people because, unless they meet your standards, they arent worth anything.

every alkie is Christ, every so many irrational people are Christ. pray that you are never in their shoes

shame on you.

" … but thanks for the language lessons, as im sure everyone else was greatly confused by my imprecesion. and greatly impressed by your knowledge of technical latin phrases.

i.e. the manner in which you just butted in to correct a total strangers langauge"

So many opportunities for correction here; but since you choose not to see the other side of anything, I choose not to invest the time.*

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

that said, it didnt stop you from correcting me earlier, why now?

Oh, one more thing: Norm Crosby and “Fred Sanford” (aka Redd Foxx) were comics in the 60s (Foxx even earlier) who used the technique of the malapropism in their routines. A malapropism is the substitution of an incorrect word for a word with a similar sound, usually to comic effect.

You didn’t know you were so funny, did you?

Limerick

no, and in my circle no one else thinks obscure references to technically incorrect latin terms are comedic.

though the fact you thought that it necessacary to explain what a malapropism is and who redd fox was is just more fodder for an increasingly elitist worldview

 

[CatholicLeft]

This is probably the most interesting debate I have seen in a long time.

 

[Highwayhound]

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.

I accept your representation of holding no envy of other people’s possessions. It is quotes such from post #167(below) that might lead people to think otherwise.

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.

I read this as – “A person cannot spend on a luxury if someone or some creature is suffering.”

It is because of the freedom we have in the U.S.A. that we can generate the income level that allows us to be in the position to debate this idea, AND find a solution. The proposition is not either/or. We can have a high standard of living and provide for God’s other creatures. Be it basic shelter (i.e. and/or e.g. {covering my bases here} owning a pet) or forms of medical assistance (spaying/neutering, rehabilitation, etc.).

Essentially what you’re saying is that spending money on luxuries is okay because it benefits those who create the luxuries. Fair enough.

I am saying a bit more. The overall process benefits a multitude of people. The creators, the service personnel, the people whom supply accessories for the activity, etc. all receive benefit from luxury activities. A good friend of mine works in a cabinet factory. People could get along without cabinets, but they sure are nice to have in a house. My friend also works with another man building kayaks for people. I think it is safe to state that most kayaks are not bought because of necessity. They are a fun luxury item. So my friend then takes all this income and buys a cell phone, takes his son to the coast, helps a co-worker with his horse camp (the camp is for autistic children), and the list could go on ad infinitum (did I use this correctly?).

The point being that my friend does a lot with his income from luxury items. His spending then creates income for others.

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.

I am not sure what you know and understand about Catholic traditions. One thing I learned is that when doing charitable work as a Catholic man I should not be seeking recognition for any charity I do. This presents a difficulty for me because I would like to refute this point by examples. However, I have to ask myself if I would be guilty of the sin of pride? I will state that for my part I have a healthy balance between my personal interests and altruism. Plus, I teach my students by example and giving them opportunities to help others. Every week the kids pass the collection plate in class. The money goes towards social needs. The amount collected is small. The money has helped people with electric bills and other daily exspenses. They are learning.

This post is a little long.

God bless

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This is probably the most interesting debate I have seen in a long time.

why thank you, when i wrote the original post i didn’t expect the response, i am genuinely suprised at the vigor with which people have reacted. i even quit posting for awhile as i didn’t care for the emotional tone.

then people had to be rude, derisive or condescending, unfortunately my weakness is a combative nature

but its been fun, i hope a peta rep joins in

 

[Shin]

why thank you, when i wrote the original post i didn’t expect the response, i am genuinely suprised at the vigor with which people have reacted. i even quit posting for awhile as i didn’t care for the emotional tone.

then people had to be rude, derisive or condescending, unfortunately my weakness is a combative nature

but its been fun, i hope a peta rep joins in

No you’ve made this a very interesting thread, I am thinking about this matter in new ways due to your contribution. Thank you.

 

[Sair]

if it seems im being dismissive, its because you have yet to provide any evidence to support your claims.

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

generally it is trust in G-d, not faith in His existence.

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

that is exactly how you get sloppy science.

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.

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

animals dont cry, commit suicide, make love, or care about anything other than basic needs, food, warmth, safety from predators, etc.

Crying is a physiological function. All mammals produce tears, and some animals, such as elephants, shed them in response to upsetting circumstances. Animals don’t make love? You’ve obviously never heard of our closest relative, the bonobo. Sex is the glue that holds their groups together. Many animal species mate for life; if one member of the pair dies, the remaining partner grieves. Most social animals demonstrate altruism - caring for young, defending the group’s territory, even at risk to themselves. Altruism in humans evolved for the same reason - it’s a survival mechanism. Despite the complex moral codes we have created based on altruism, it has the same roots in humans as in other species.

but then its not really an emotion its just chemistry

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

what is this fundamental connection based on overwhelming evolutionary evidence?

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

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphic

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

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

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

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

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

Again, these are physical adaptations that suit the conditions in which humans have evolved, and which we have created for ourselves. This says nothing about moral superiority or “betterness”.

your view of reality is already suspect.
animals are nothing more than little biomechanical robots.

You claim my view of reality is suspect. Yours is stuck in the 16th century, when people assumed animals operated by clockwork. I’ve already mentioned the physiological similarities between humans and other animals. Read any biology text and you’ll find the same conclusions. You’ve yet to provide a shred of evidence of human moral superiority, or show conclusively why we’re more deserving of compassion than other creatures - particularly in view of the damage we’ve done to the world. As to your previous claim that my seeing emotions in animals was wishful thinking - on the contrary, I am horrified by the suffering animals endure at human hands. I’d love to think they lacked some faculty whose absence would dull their pain or blunt their terror, but I’m drawing a blank.

 

[Salonika]

warpspeedpetey:

why thank you, when i wrote the original post i didn’t expect the response, i am genuinely suprised at the vigor with which people have reacted. i even quit posting for awhile as I didn’t care for the emotional tone.

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

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

then people had to be rude, derisive or condescending, unfortunately my weakness is a combative nature

Do you expect us just to accept your views without debate? Also do you think everyone who has not accepted your views has been "rude, derisive or condscending?

but its been fun…

You think it has been fun? I don’t. I don’t think it is fun to be told that all my experience of companion animals and how they think and feel is wrong. I also don’t think a thread is fun where the rationality of many posters is questioned.

 

[Sair]

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

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

I agree this has definitely been an interesting thread. It has also led me to a better understanding of the interconnectedness of all life, and just how delusional it is to suppose that humans are special and separate from all other animals, when so much evidence suggests otherwise. I guess I had underestimated the tenacity with which people cling to their delusions, though!

You think it has been fun? I don’t. I don’t think it is fun to be told that all my experience of companion animals and how they think and feel is wrong. I also don’t think a thread is fun where the rationality of many posters is questioned.

Well, I have to admit that I’ve found your posts extremely refreshing, as one of the few voices of agreement in a sea of, yes, derision. There’s that word again.

Seriously, though, I believe it’s simplistic to say that anyone who would spend money on animals when humans are starving is committing an immoral act. It’s perfectly normal for people to care about the people and animals with whom they have personal associations. For this reason, I would consider it moral to spend money to care for my dog, rather than giving it all to needy humans. My dog’s welfare is my responsibility, because within a human-centered society and environment, there’s little he can really do to take care of himself, short of scavenging in rubbish dumps and sleeping on the streets. I can offer him a much more comfortable life, so I do. We are hardwired by our biology to care about those closest to us. Admittedly, if it came to a choice between saving my dog and saving my husband, I would save my husband - but I would save my husband in preference to other humans as well, because he is my best friend and the love of my life.

Interestingly, I have yet to see anyone on this thread putting forward any actual evidence of human moral superiority and worthiness. I also note that no-one has questioned the wisdom or the morality of bringing more children into the world when existing children and adults are starving. You might say this is an unrelated issue, but it goes to the heart of what we are debating - the inherent worth of humans vs animals.

 

[Sair]

Some very interesting reading here:

newscientist.com/article/dn13860-six-uniquely-human-traits-now-found-in-animals-.html

This article gets down to the core of dissecting human “specialness”. It’s quite intriguing to read the comments as well.

 

[Sair]

Here’s some more food for thought for you all:

animalsvoice.com/edits/editorial/essays/aniphilo/meyer_philosophy1.html

Happy reading!