Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[warpspeedpetey]

Try telling that to a quadrapelgic who has to have everything done for them. To a guy who has been castrated (physically or chemically) to try and cure a disease.

you miss the point, animals dont need hands to make love, or to commit suicide.

Would have more understanding and and maybe some agreement if you said animals don’t have human emotions - but maybe that’s as well. It isn’t animals who plot long-term revenge and with malice aforthought undertake prolonged torture.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That comment makes me wonder if maybe you have just been playing as game with those of us who care about animals and about the future of the planet.

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

Of course they’re not. I am posting becasue I care about animals and because I care and about the futire of the planet. Maybe if I was totally ruled by logic I wouldn’t bother because why try and stop the inevitable. But then in the past deaths from diseases like smallpox, tb were considered inevitable and that turned out to be wrong.

what? what does ‘the future of the planet’ have to do with the specific matter of animal emotions?

Is there any place in your world for things that aren’t rational? I hope so.

not really. just not part of my make up. but thats really not germane to the conversation is it?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I know this is true becuase I saw it on PBS.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I suspect WarpSpeedPetey is a university student. This kind of scolding, finger-wagging behaviour (verging on the hysterical) is most often heard from those who have yet to realize that everyone with a job is not Rich.

your assumptions are far from the truth. what hysterical finger wagging? please post what you are referring to.

though i continue to take the occasional university class, a took a couple last semester, i started my first degree 19 years ago.

i work in a field that will never make me rich. and thats fine by me, excess money is highly over rated.

Personally, I would refer him to Matthew 6, where we are told not to announce that we practice charity by blowing a trumpet and calling everyone’s attention to our goodness

.

ok, please post my boast then. i dont remember boasting about charity.

So if WSP would calm down some,

what makes you think i am excited?

and realize that there are legions of us who can both care for the homeless people AND pets, and incidentally care for ourselves, our parents and siblings, and still live a comfortable and pleasant life

the point is that until no human needs resources, spending them on strays is immoral. not that its ok as long as you have enough money for both.

on the money not extorted from us by those eager to practice what they call charity with money they did not earn.

i assure you that i earn every dollar i have ever made. blood, sweat, and tears style.

And just as a P.S., I tried for five years to adopt children and was rebuffed at every turn, and to say that my decision to adopt cats instead is “immoral” is just well, it defies a proper adjective that would not get me booted off this site.

you could have spent that money on people, you chose to spend it on a cat.

which seems to indicate that your attempts at adoptiion weren’t for the benefit of the child or the cat, but rather for your benefit.

i haven’t been allowed to adopt a child i raised for a number of years, even with his father permission, and his desire, my ex has custody, and it gets her a bigger SS check to have him. even though she doesnt want him around as he is always in trouble, and not hers.

but i didnt adopt a cat instead.

it was Jonathon or nothing.

maybe you should stick to the topic.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

I suspect WarpSpeedPetey is a university student. This kind of scolding, finger-wagging behaviour (verging on the hysterical) is most often heard from those who have yet to realize that everyone with a job is not Rich.

Personally, I would refer him to Matthew 6, where we are told not to announce that we practice charity by blowing a trumpet and calling everyone’s attention to our goodness. So if WSP would calm down some, and realize that there are legions of us who can both care for the homeless people AND pets, and incidentally care for ourselves, our parents and siblings, and still live a comfortable and pleasant life on the money not extorted from us by those eager to practice what they call charity with money they did not earn.

And just as a P.S., I tried for five years to adopt children and was rebuffed at every turn, and to say that my decision to adopt cats instead is “immoral” is just well, it defies a proper adjective that would not get me booted off this site.

I think his posts are funny, not verging on hysteria.
If you read back a- ways I think you’ll see that caring for the needy (humans) & properly caring for stray animals are not necessarily mutually exclusive but that people must always have precedence.
Having cats or dogs for pets is fine. Using the term “adoption” in referring to acquiring animals is what seems a bit disordered to me, but not “immoral.”

 

[Shin]

ive had plenty of animals, but nothing i can chalk up to grief

true

if a hog dies in the pen, it aint too long before his buddies eat him, so ive got to discount that scenario.

yes… I think it’s not just pigs that are that way too, but most animals including famous household pets…

And not just other animals too… there’ve been some newspaper articles about former pet owners too.

If you think your cat is looking at you hungrily… your cat just might be looking at you hungrily.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

yes… I think it’s not just pigs that are that way too, but most animals including famous household pets…

And not just other animals too… there’ve been some newspaper articles about former pet owners too.

If you think your cat is looking at you hungrily… your cat just might be looking at you hungrily.

yup, every so often they find some little old lady dead in her apartment with 20 cats, usually aint much left of the little old lady.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think his posts are funny, not verging on hysteria.
If you read back a- ways I think you’ll see that caring for the needy (humans) & properly caring for stray animals are not necessarily mutually exclusive but that people must always have precedence.
Having cats or dogs for pets is fine. Using the term “adoption” in referring to acquiring animals is what seems a bit disordered to me, but not “immoral.”

why thank you, i was beginning to feel rather villanous. peer pressure and all

 

[Shin]

Which reminds me there was this story about grandma and a cat who got larger and larger. . larger and larger…

Until grandma was in a precarious situation!!

Now I am trying to remember who wrote it or the title.

 

[Appleby]

why thank you, i was beginning to feel rather villanous. peer pressure and all

If you are not a university student, then perhaps you are just an antagonist. So I have decided not to bother with this thread anymore.

Have fun.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you are not a university student, then perhaps you are just an antagonist. So I have decided not to bother with this thread anymore.

Have fun.

no, im not a regular university student. im in my mid thirties. nor am i an antagonist, i did not antagonize you into posting, now did i?

so lets get this straight, you pop into the thread to insult me, then when your assumptions are exposed, you run…cluck. cluck.

 

[CatholicLeft]

I think I might have mentioned this before, but I’ll say it again- This is by far the most entertaining thread on this site.

 

[Shin]

Found it! For those who want to try playing it on the piano the musical score is here: sniff.numachi.com/pages/tiGRANDCAT;ttGRANCLOK.html

My Grandmother’s Cat

My grandmother’s cat grew too fat for his shelf
So he slept every night on a bed.
He was almost as big as my Grandma herself
'Cause three times a day he was fed.
He was fed tuna scraps as he sat on Grandma’s lap
On his back with a big napkin tied,
He ate as much as he could hold
Until he got too wide.

 Every day pounds of salmon meat (chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp)
 Sirloin of parakeet (chomp, chomp, chomp)
 He ate as much as he could hold
 Until he got too wide.

My Grandmother said that of cats she had known
Her favorite by far was old Dan;
He’d stand on the floor, and his eyes simply shone
When she opened the tunafish can.
With his eyes shining bright, and a groan of delight
He’d rub against Grandma and purr,
'Til one day he knocked Grandma down
For by then he was bigger than her.

 Every day gobs of goose pate (chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp)
 Followed by fish fillets (chomp, chomp chomp)
 'Til one day he knocked Grandma down
 For by then he was bigger than her.

She fell to the floor with a pitiful scream
And lay there unconscious awhile,
And when she awoke his eyes were agleam
As he looked down on her with a smile.
With a gigantic paw, he poked my old Grandma
As he gave her a horrible grin;
He looked at her legs, and he peered at her arms
Wondering where to begin.

 Aged, but tender parts, (chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp)
 Mouse morsels a la carte (chomp, chomp, chomp)
 He looked at her legs, and he peered at her arms
 Wondering where to begin.

She managed to climb, despite her bad back
To the top of her old Frigidaire.
She threw him two steaks, his favorite snack
Which he always took medium rare.
The three awful days that she spent upon the fridge
Seemed to her like a lifetime, at least;
She threw to the floor all the food that she could find
To fill up the ravenous beast.

 All sorts of merchandise (chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp)
 Hams of the family size (chomp, chomp, chomp)
 She threw to the floor all the food that she could find
 To fill up the ravenous beast.

She stayed there three days, till she ran out of stuff
And the giant was snarling for more!
He was standing and nibbling on her right scuff
When the family burst in through the door.
It took twenty men to shut him in a pen
And ship him away to the zoo;
Let this be a lesson to all, both great and small—
That your pets should be smaller than you.

 Carte blanche you can't afford (chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp)
 Cut out the smorgasbord ( chomp, chomp, chomp)
 Let this be a lesson to all, both great and small---
 That your pets should be smaller than you.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Found it! For those who want to try playing it on the piano the musical score is here: sniff.numachi.com/pages/tiGRANDCAT;ttGRANCLOK.html

My Grandmother’s Cat

My grandmother’s cat grew too fat for his shelf
So he slept every night on a bed.
He was almost as big as my Grandma herself
'Cause three times a day he was fed.
He was fed tuna scraps as he sat on Grandma’s lap
On his back with a big napkin tied,
He ate as much as he could hold
Until he got too wide.

 Every day pounds of salmon meat (chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp)
 Sirloin of parakeet (chomp, chomp, chomp)
 He ate as much as he could hold
 Until he got too wide.

My Grandmother said that of cats she had known
Her favorite by far was old Dan;
He’d stand on the floor, and his eyes simply shone
When she opened the tunafish can.
With his eyes shining bright, and a groan of delight
He’d rub against Grandma and purr,
'Til one day he knocked Grandma down
For by then he was bigger than her.

 Every day gobs of goose pate (chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp)
 Followed by fish fillets (chomp, chomp chomp)
 'Til one day he knocked Grandma down
 For by then he was bigger than her.

She fell to the floor with a pitiful scream
And lay there unconscious awhile,
And when she awoke his eyes were agleam
As he looked down on her with a smile.
With a gigantic paw, he poked my old Grandma
As he gave her a horrible grin;
He looked at her legs, and he peered at her arms
Wondering where to begin.

 Aged, but tender parts, (chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp)
 Mouse morsels a la carte (chomp, chomp, chomp)
 He looked at her legs, and he peered at her arms
 Wondering where to begin.

She managed to climb, despite her bad back
To the top of her old Frigidaire.
She threw him two steaks, his favorite snack
Which he always took medium rare.
The three awful days that she spent upon the fridge
Seemed to her like a lifetime, at least;
She threw to the floor all the food that she could find
To fill up the ravenous beast.

 All sorts of merchandise (chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp)
 Hams of the family size (chomp, chomp, chomp)
 She threw to the floor all the food that she could find
 To fill up the ravenous beast.

She stayed there three days, till she ran out of stuff
And the giant was snarling for more!
He was standing and nibbling on her right scuff
When the family burst in through the door.
It took twenty men to shut him in a pen
And ship him away to the zoo;
Let this be a lesson to all, both great and small—
That your pets should be smaller than you.

 Carte blanche you can't afford (chomp, chomp, chomp, chomp)
 Cut out the smorgasbord ( chomp, chomp, chomp)
 Let this be a lesson to all, both great and small---
 That your pets should be smaller than you.

my cats back in arkansas are maine coon mixes, one is almost as big around as a bowling ball! im not kidding, socks is so fat, she doesnt get more than 5 feet from the food bowl, unless sassy, the momma cat, comes outside and runs her off the porch.

im waiting for her too eat one of the chihauhaus,

 

[limerick]

warpspeedpetey,

" … so buy a dog ten dollars of food, but dont buy a drunk ten dollars of food? thats laughable." you say, " … and yet you wont buy him food, but you will a stray?" You couldn’t have missed my point any more completely than if you had been relying on Mapquest.

You give ten bucks to the ASPCA and they will feed or medicate pets with it. You give ten bucks to a drunk and he (or she) will buy booze with it. Can I make that any more clear for ya? You’re right - that’s laughable, but not for the reason you think.

You refer to yourself as a rational materialist over and over, as if trying to convince yourself that this is the course you want to take when you grow up. The authentic, complete rational materialist demands **of himself **rigorous empirical research to formulate and support a given position. By contrast, you have created what may seem to you an entertaining skeet shoot of a thread, setting up interested posters, hollering “PULL!” while feeling no responsibility to support a negative position, and then attempting to bring us all down one by one. You nailed it when you identified the purpose of your thread as “purely rational exercises.” Why, then, do we find your thread in the Social Justice section of this forum? Why not in the Philosophy section? Or the Moral Theology section?

Have you noticed that those who respond to your “emotion-free” posts remain unconvinced by either your position or your posturing? Just an opinion here, but the rational materialist costume is a poor fit. Now, the nano meat bot costume is quite flattering on you - small, tight, and revealing.

" … id like to think the cat slept with me last night because he likes me," you quip, “but i wake up and see he went to sleep on the heater, it wasn tme after all, i was just warm. …” Rational materialism in inconsistent with warmth.

Limerick

 

[Sair]

.

not just ‘cause we are’, but because there is actual evidence of it.

Plenty of actual evidence that we are different animals, sure. But there’s plenty of actual evidence that a whale is a different animal from a mouse. You’ve said nothing so far that has proved humans have any moral superiority to other animals. All you have said amounts to the assertion that humans are morally superior because they’re humans. But that’s a completely arbitrary distinction, much like distinctions based on race or gender.

The reason you and others cling to this particular arbitrary distinction is probably much the same as the reason the opponents of women’s suffrage and the abolition of slavery clung to their arbitrary distinctions - at the end of the day, it’s very convenient to ignore the claims of those you wish to exploit.

So you may wonder why I and other people interested in ethics claim the distinction between humans and other animals to be arbitrary. Well, let’s look at reasons one might use to support the human claim to be more deserving of respect and compassion than other animals.

Conscious self-awareness. This is the main thing that we currently believe separates humans from all other species. When we have certain chemical interactions and electrical signals in our brains, we’re aware of them as emotions, and we can articulate our feelings in terms of happiness, sadness, love, jealously, anger, etc. because we have the physical facility of language.

We may never know the extent to which other animals are conscious of their feelings, nor do we have any way of knowing the rules by which they construct and govern their relationships. Until scientists have unravelled the mysteries of brain functioning, even many aspects of our own consciousness remain open to speculation. It is already clear that certain people aren’t capable of governing their emotions - we usually call this ‘poor impulse control’. What we do know, from the available evidence, is that animals can perceive pain and pleasure. This is evident from their physiological responses, and it is also the reason that even animals as ‘lowly’ as lab rats can be trained to respond to abstract stimuli. This ability to perceive pain and pleasure - or pleasant and unpleasant sensation - is enough to entitle them to respect and compassionate treatment. Again, because we may never know the extent of animal consciousness, from an ethical standpoint it is better to err on the side of respect and compassion, based on what we can and do know. We can observe animals exhibiting signs of emotional awareness. It is obvious that they are capable of suffering. Thus far, other animals have the same rights as humans, for the same reasons.

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

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

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

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

What of our use of technology? Maybe. But it’s worth remembering that most of our technological innovations were needed to make up for some biological deficiency - clothing and shelter, 'cause we’re naked apes who otherwise can’t survive in cold climates; weapons, because we lack sharp teeth and claws; transport, because we are relatively slow-moving in animal terms, and we can’t fly; and medicines, because we’re vulnerable to all kinds of diseases. And what about people who don’t make extensive use of technology? Should they be considered less deserving on that basis?

Or we might consider our importance to the world. The truth of the matter is that in terms of the environmental destruction and species extinction we have directly and indirectly caused, humans are very likely the worst plague the earth has ever seen.

Of course, there’s always the measure of our importance to each other as fellow humans. First of all, this is rather laughable, considering our demonstrated propensity to kill each other. Secondly, we are hardwired by our evolution as a tribal species to care about those closest to us. That means that I and most other people are more likely to care about our own pets than about human strangers in other parts of the world.

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

 

[Sair]

warpspeedpetey,

" … so buy a dog ten dollars of food, but dont buy a drunk ten dollars of food? thats laughable." you say, " … and yet you wont buy him food, but you will a stray?" You couldn’t have missed my point any more completely than if you had been relying on Mapquest.

You give ten bucks to the ASPCA and they will feed or medicate pets with it. You give ten bucks to a drunk and he (or she) will buy booze with it. Can I make that any more clear for ya? You’re right - that’s laughable, but not for the reason you think.

You refer to yourself as a rational materialist over and over, as if trying to convince yourself that this is the course you want to take when you grow up. The authentic, complete rational materialist demands **of himself **rigorous empirical research to formulate and support a given position. By contrast, you have created what may seem to you an entertaining skeet shoot of a thread, setting up interested posters, hollering “PULL!” while feeling no responsibility to support a negative position, and then attempting to bring us all down one by one. You nailed it when you identified the purpose of your thread as “purely rational exercises.” Why, then, do we find your thread in the Social Justice section of this forum? Why not in the Philosophy section? Or the Moral Theology section?

Have you noticed that those who respond to your “emotion-free” posts remain unconvinced by either your position or your posturing? Just an opinion here, but the rational materialist costume is a poor fit. Now, the nano meat bot costume is quite flattering on you - small, tight, and revealing.

" … id like to think the cat slept with me last night because he likes me," you quip, “but i wake up and see he went to sleep on the heater, it wasn tme after all, i was just warm. …” Rational materialism in inconsistent with warmth.

Limerick

I have to congratulate you on an absolutely charming post. And you’re quite correct - Warpspeedpetey hasn’t offered any empirical - or even apparently thoughtful - evidence for his position, and much as I have enjoyed this excuse for exploring my own thoughts regarding animal rights, there comes a time when repeated use of the “I’m right, you’re wrong, so there” response becomes just a bit insulting…

 

[Sair]

no, im saying that assuming that they are emotions from similarities is inadequate, its called projection, because you have emotions, you assume that animals also do.

My mistake. I presumed you were talking about a human who had pet cats. Still, I suspect there are plenty of people who exercise what’s called ‘tough love’ on their children.

i dont need evidence to take the negative position here, im only saying that you hav e no evidence, you assume a similarity you cannot prove.

I have repeatedly called on you to provide evidence of your position, but all you have done is deny that my evidence is evidence, without actually supporting your own position. This is intellectual laziness. You also assume many things you cannot prove, like the lack of animal consciousness. Sure, we perceive and define consciousness and emotion in human terms. That is quite a limitation when it comes to understanding other animals. With that in mind, how are you in any position to claim definitively that animals don’t experience emotions? Do you have access to knowledge that has so far escaped every scientist who has ever studied animal cognition?

as to moral superiority, animals hve no morals, any morals therefore would make humans superior in that regard.

Again with the human perspective. We have little means of understanding the precise nature of the rules other animals use to govern their social interactions. They may not have human morals, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have any; nor does it excuse us, as moral beings, from treating animals in an ethical fashion. Human infants, and people with severe mental disabilities, have no knowledge of morality either - but they are still capable of experiencing pain and pleasure, and so they are entitled to respect and compassion.

 

[Sair]

Sair;4916686:

yes, yes, im a bad person, because i dont htink animals have emotions. evil me.

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

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey,

" … so buy a dog ten dollars of food, but dont buy a drunk ten dollars of food? thats laughable." you say, " … and yet you wont buy him food, but you will a stray?" You couldn’t have missed my point any more completely than if you had been relying on Mapquest.

then your langauge may not be as exact as you seem to think.

You give ten bucks to the ASPCA and they will feed or medicate pets with it. You give ten bucks to a drunk and he (or she) will buy booze with it. Can I make that any more clear for ya? You’re right - that’s laughable, but not for the reason you think.

why would you just hand a drunk ten bucks? buy him tend dollars worth of food. thats the point, you are more interested in giving an animal sustenance than a human being.

You refer to yourself as a rational materialist over and over, as if trying to convince yourself that this is the course you want to take when you grow up.

more rhetoric completely off topic, this is the part i explained was ‘butting in’

The authentic, complete rational materialist demands **of himself **rigorous empirical research to formulate and support a given position

.

really? so when i keep asking for that evidence in concern of animal emotions, im not acting as a ratioanlist?

seems exactly like what a rationalist does, asks for evidence.

since im not trying to prove anything, im not offering any evidence.

By contrast, you have created what may seem to you an entertaining skeet shoot of a thread, setting up interested posters, hollering “PULL!” while feeling no responsibility to support a negative position, and then attempting to bring us all down one by one

.

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

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

You nailed it when you identified the purpose of your thread as “purely rational exercises.” Why, then, do we find your thread in the Social Justice section of this forum? Why not in the Philosophy section? Or the Moral Theology section?

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

Have you noticed that those who respond to your “emotion-free” posts remain unconvinced by either your position or your posturing? Just an opinion here, but the rational materialist costume is a poor fit. Now, the nano meat bot costume is quite flattering on you - small, tight, and revealing.

please keep the quasi-sexual comments regarding how you imagine i look in a small tight costume, in the closet, where they belong. its disturbing and offensive.

that said, this is just more rhetoric, with no evidence.

when people get insulting it usually means they are out of arguments.

are you out of arguments, but just cant admit your wrong? because this entire post is about me, not the subject.

all bark, no bite

" … id like to think the cat slept with me last night because he likes me," you quip, “but i wake up and see he went to sleep on the heater, it wasn tme after all, i was just warm. …” Rational materialism in inconsistent with warmth.

Limerick

you say woof, woof. but when i dont feel an evidentiary bite, i hear…

cluck. cluck