Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[warpspeedpetey]

If you are using an opinion that lacks not only proof - since absolute proof of many things is a near impossibility - but even any evidentiary support whatsoever in order to inform your ethics, does that not strike you as just a little bit irresponsible? You are quite happy to use your opinions to oppose those who attempt to argue by using evidence. That is intellectually dishonest.

how is it dishonest?, i prefaced it as an opinion, opinions require no proof, thats why they are opinions, maybe your just upset i didn’t put myself in a bad position on the quetsion, that asid, you are welcom at any time to head on over to apologetics and philosophy if you care to debat the metaphysical merits of a ‘soul’

And your “out of your intellectual depth” accusation comes across as hypocritical when it is you who are constantly backing away from engaging with others’ arguments.

what? what are you talking about? please show me where i havent engaged any of you on the topic of the OP.

i havent dones so, if thats true then please post specifically what you are talking about and i will be happ y to disabuse you of the notion

im engaging all three of you and carrying on several other arguwemnts at the same time. engagement is never a problem for me…

 

[Sair]

if humans and animals were equal than sure, but as they aren’t or there is no evidence that suggests such an equality.

Perhaps the difference is too subtle for you to grasp, but it is significant - anthropomorphism is the assignation of human qualities to nonhuman entities; acknowledging the probability, on the basis of evidence that supports that probability, that animals experience some form of emotion and some form of consciousness, is not anthropomorphism. However, the assumption that there is only one possible form that consciousness, intellect and emotions can take, and that is the human form, is something very like arrogance.

i have repeatedly given the counter argument, you seem to think im rejecting things out of hand. pease pay attention to what i say, im giving you the counter argument, every time.

You’re giving statements that reject any possibility of animal consciousness, despite empirical evidence for its probability. That’s not argument. It’s unsupported assertion.

you mean i didnt provide evidence empirical evidence of a negative? of course not because you cant prove a negative.

Actually, you can. You can provide evidence which completely erases any possibility that the earth is a flat disc, for example.

what arbitrary about it? that is exactly why they deserve compassion. they are us, golden rule and all.

It’s arbitrary because every other justification you might provide for it has a counterargument, which I have already discussed in a previous post. It is based solely and completely upon the fact that we are Homo sapiens, and on no other reason that applies universally to the human condition and to no other organism. It’s the same as saying that women are morally superior because they’re women, or that white folks are superior to black folks. Completely arbitrary.

except they arent human. thats the difference, they arent people. which is why the standard is inapplicable to animals. if neither felt anything, i would still have an obligation to my fellow humans. on the other hand i have no moral obligation to chemically programmed meat- bots at all.

That’s further proof that your distinction is arbitrary. You state that you would apply it regardless of any other supporting evidence. Again, you assume that because animals are different creatures to humans, and don’t have human morals, that they are not entitled to compassion. For reasons I have outlined before, the lack of morals does not imply a lack of entitlement to compassionate treatment. This is the main reason that murderers are still legally entitled to a fair trial and respectful treatment following conviction, despite having violated socially-agreed moral requirements.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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

.
the distinction is in their humanity, not in their morality

You should know better than to sport with the intelligence of people who are clearly better at presenting an argument than you have so far shown yourself

.

thats laughable. your argument has no actual evidence, and three of you banging away has yet to provide anything more than assumption or projection.

if you are so clearly better at presenting arguemnts, then show me some evidence.

The absence of anything like a biological central nervous system in a robot makes it impossible for it to have any awareness of sensory perception, or even a rudimentary consciousness.

processor, programming, sensors, memory, system bus. yep looks like a central nervous system to me.

didn’t you just say you were better than me at presenting arguments?

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

give me the time and money for school and i would be happy too!

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

gene flow, is my evidence. we see wars and violence make the news, sarah and kim duc lu’s baby doesnt.

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

what ‘rights’ the ones based on their non-existent morals, or on their possession of a roomba like nervous system?

Then you must - as a self-proclaimed rational materialist - make moral distinctions between those of the human race who can and do perform these feats, and those who can’t and don’t

.

no, i dont, people are people. all G-ds children.

If these things truly do demonstrate moral superiority, then the da Vincis, Mozarts and Descartes of this world must occupy a higher moral stratum than the average Joe.

not according to G-d, people are made in the image of G-d. they are all the same.

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

they arent arbitrary distinctions, i gave a reason for all of them, nor have i given opinions as fact, if you think i have then please post them and i will be happy to reply

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

of course you wont feel remorse, people are just another animal too you… until your the one in need and some amoral animal rightist gives food to an animal, but lets you suffer.

then you might see the immorality of it.

but until then, just remember every dollar you give a dog, would have fed an african family. inside their hut, they could care less about the suffering of animals. they have plenty of suffering there.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey;4923074:

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

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

funny, but the previous use of the word antagonist was negative, bu this time you merely meant it descriptively, yeah right.

more insults,

i guess you must be out of arguments.

 

[Sair]

what? what are you talking about? please show me where i havent engaged any of you on the topic of the OP.

Because the possibility of anthropomorphism doesn’t negate the evidence of probability of animal emotion or consciousness. You choose not to explain how anthropomorphism might negate the impressions of empirical research, nor do you provide any realistic criteria for acceptable proof that animals experience consciousness. To clarify the “realistic”, it is not necessary for animals to act exactly like humans in order for them to have some form of consciousness and emotion.

Since I have been arguing that the claims of animals to compassionate treatment - whether that’s actively caring for them or leaving them to their own devices and not destroying their environment - are based on their ability to suffer, which is an ability that humans share, this is an essential point in debating the morality of using resources to help animals that might otherwise go to helping humans.

So, in the light of all that, I would say that you are either actively refusing to engage with the debate, or you are incapable of comprehending the substance of said debate. Dipping your toe in the water is not the same as going for a swim.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Done that one already. Found nothing to suggest that what I’m applying to the evidence for animal emotions actually qualifies as anthropomorphism.

applying the qualities of emotions, to animals is the very definition of anthropomorphism.

I am well aware that different species are different species, but I am also aware of a vast body of evidence and research that makes animal consciousness and animal emotions seem probable, and certainly possible. I don’t claim to know for certain, but I do prefer to err on the side of probability.

yes i glanced at the obviously biased proponents of whale culture. i didn’t find it to be much more than projection, by people in favor of animal equality.

 

[Sair]

.
the distinction is in their humanity, not in their morality

Yet you state that the basis of human moral superiority is their morals. Now you’re arguing in circles.

if you are so clearly better at presenting arguemnts, then show me some evidence.

Refer to…hmm…every single one of my previous posts.

processor, programming, sensors, memory, system bus. yep looks like a central nervous system to me.

didn’t you just say you were better than me at presenting arguments?

Well, sure, if you want to suggest that your roomba is alive, 'cause it moves around and all…go right ahead. Life is necessary for consciousness.

no, i dont, people are people. all G-ds children.
not according to G-d, people are made in the image of G-d. they are all the same.

Again, oddly subjective and completely unsupported assertions, coming from a self-proclaimed rational materialist. Make up your mind, or admit that your own arguments are deeply flawed.

of course you wont feel remorse, people are just another animal too you… until your the one in need and some amoral animal rightist gives food to an animal, but lets you suffer.

then you might see the immorality of it.

but until then, just remember every dollar you give a dog, would have fed an african family. inside their hut, they could care less about the suffering of animals. they have plenty of suffering there.

I suspect that if I’m suffering, I’ll look to the people closest to me to care for me, and I’ll probably look to my pets to comfort me, assuming I can still afford to keep them. If not, they’ll have gone to other people who can care for them. I doubt I would expect anything from people who don’t even know that I exist as anything other than a statistic.

Oh, and by the way, given the current political situation in some African nations, I doubt the people in real need would see a red cent of the aid money sent to them by self-righteously affluent Westerners. And you know, every dollar spent on a toy for a child in a Western nation would have fed a dog being kept in a shelter because its owners were too irresponsible to care for it. Just a thought, but then I suppose you think it’s more important for a human child to have a plastic plaything than for an animal to be taken in as a pet rather than euthanased. Heirarchy of needs be damned.

 

[Sair]

yes i glanced at the obviously biased proponents of whale culture. i didn’t find it to be much more than projection, by people in favor of animal equality.

Well, gosh. It’s no wonder I was struck by the arrogance of your earlier posts. Now you’re even assuming that you’re wiser than scientists who have conducted research into animal behaviour and cognition.

Let’s see…every single “argument” that you have so far made consists of one of the following three assumptions:

1. Human consciousness is the only possible form of consciousness
2. Every scientist who conducts research into animal cognition is a slave to anthropomorphism
3. That you know better, 'cause you say so.

Well, I’m still not convinced. I have seen no evidence of your personal investigations into these issues - just plenty of evidence of your determination to ignore probabilities; nor have I seen anything in your posts that indicates a higher level of intelligence and perception on your part than on that of people who seriously investigate the subject of animal cognition and animal rights. This kind of evidence is a requirement if you want anyone to give any credence to your assertions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

you still don’t get the difference between seeing an animal and thinking, “that animal is acting much like I act when I’m happy, so therefore it must be happy”, and rigorous empirical research, both in the laboratory and the field, that shows that not only do many animals have complex social relationships which we are barely able to comprehend,

those ‘complex social relationships’ are projections of our complex social relationships. they dont act from any provable sense of love, altruism, hate, etc. its all chemical programming.

i could program a computer to pass a turing test, that doesnt mean the computer is experiencing what we experience, no matter how similar it is.

in the same way, a monkey is evolutionarily programmed to behave in certain ways based on certain stimuli. that doesnt eaqual human culture or emotion, regardless of similarity.

but that they can learn to tackle new challenges in their environment which couldn’t possibly have been anticipated by any evolutionary “programming”.

nothing can be anticipated by -evolutionary programming, if a situation has not yet occured, then therir has been no oppurtunity for an evolutionary response.

which is why an animal presented with a radical change to its environment dies

a human, adapts within its own lifetime by intelligence i.e. we adapted to space, the antartic, and deep undersea, all within a generation.

animals cannot do these things, their chemical programming is unable to cope.

What you also refuse to acknowledge is that the complexity of human behaviour had its roots in simpler animal behaviours. Similarities in our genetic, physical, chemical and neuronal features are evidence for this.

it doesnt matter where the behaviors come from, even a common root wouldn’t mean that they are experiencing what we do.

Sure, none of this evidence constitutes absolute proof, but if you know anything about the practices of science, you would know that proof is rarely if ever absolute.

i know, but that doesn’t make it moral to provide sustenance to animals but not to humans.

Your denials are much like the creationist argument against evolution - because we don’t know everything, we can’t know anything. But evolution, as a theory, has stood the test of repeated interrogation, and each new discovery builds on our knowledge of how life evolved to its present forms. So scientists can say with confidence that the balance of probabilities is heavily weighed in favour of evolution by natural selection

.

i dont have a problem with the very specific idea of evolution by incremental adaptation, your thinking of the protestants.

The same goes for animal consciousness, although it is a relatively newer area of study. There is plenty of evidence for its probability.

here is where we disagree, you talk about probability but you cant assign any numbers to it, even if you mean likliehood, in the absence of specific numbers, it all hinges on projections of human qualities on to animals.

he fact that we have only a tenuous grasp of what human consciousness really is should tell us something about supposing that something can’t exist because we have no absolute proof.

back to the ‘cant prove a negative’,

And something I’ve been wondering all along - how does a self-proclaimed rational materialist like yourself justify belief in God and the soul - things for which there is no objective evidence? Perhaps I should explore the philosophy forum further…

you should explore the the philosophy forum further, why would a rational materialist believe in G-d? go check it out.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Again, this is just straight denial.

how is this straight denial?, i gave the exact reason, a lack of evidence.

Not good enough to justify a moral condemnation of one action over another

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Again, this is just straight denial.

how is this straight denial?, i gave the exact reason, a lack of evidence.

Not good enough to justify a moral condemnation of one action over another

.

a lack of evidence seems like a perfect reason to justify the moral condemnation of one action over another.

As far as the demands of basic rights go - respect for life and freedom from unnecessary pain - the claims of humans and animals are equal.

based on what evidence? thats the porblem you arent presenting any evidence, all the supposition in the world doesn’t make one cup of actual evidence.

And reference to your previous statements regarding abortion should be enough to show you that the ability to articulate a claim to compassionate consideration is not the same as having one.

that comes from being human, not from being able to articulate a claim.

anthropomorphism is the assignation of human qualities to nonhuman entities; acknowledging the probability, on the basis of evidence that supports that probability, that animals experience some form of emotion and some form of consciousness, is not anthropomorphism.

what? assigning human qualities to animals for any reason is anthropomorphism, much less what you call probabilities, based on emotional ans ocial projections, furhter, you cant assign numbers to these probabilities, making them not much more than, i’ am in favor ofs’

their is no evidence of any kind that animals have emotions based either on chemistry or behavioral similarities. its not more likely, or probable, its projection.

you are simply saying that since two systems look similar, they are similar. thats a logical fallacy. no such judgement can be drwn from the evidence.

it just seems so likely to you, that you can tunderstand why i dont interpret that infromation the same way. i must either be stupid, or ignorant, or mean, or immmoral or whatever. but i cant possibly be right, because what you consider the evidence is just too striong, even if its supposition.

However, the assumption that there is only one possible form that consciousness, intellect and emotions can take, and that is the human form, is something very like arrogance

.

or it could simply be a realization that no evidence is no evidence. its not a logical necessity, its not a physical necessity, its not supported by anything other than ‘evidence’ interpreted by the millenia old logical fallacy, anthropomorphism.

You’re giving statements that reject any possibility of animal consciousness, despite empirical evidence for its probability. That’s not argument. It’s unsupported assertion.

what empirical evidence?, you cant use a logical fallacy to prove a truth. rejecting the 'evidence you try presenting on the basis of logical fallacies is not an unfounded assertion, its an assertion based on those logical fallacies.

Actually, you can. You can provide evidence which completely erases any possibility that the earth is a flat disc, for example.

ok, you google ‘the flat earth society’ and tell them that. on top of that, you have to have evidence, not the assumption that similar things are the same thing.

It’s arbitrary because every other justification you might provide for it has a counterargument, which I have already discussed in a previous post. It is based solely and completely upon the fact that we are Homo sapiens, and on no other reason that applies universally to the human condition and to no other organism. It’s the same as saying that women are morally superior because they’re women, or that white folks are superior to black folks. Completely arbitrary.

ive given you repeatedly the reasons that humans are demonstrably superior to animals. possessing counter arguments, not based on evidence, but on projection, does not make those counter arguments true

in other words, the basis of your arguments are that animals seem equal to humans from your projective interpretation of animal behavior.

the basis of the argument is sand, you cant build any higher on the basis of unfounded claims.

That’s further proof that your distinction is arbitrary. You state that you would apply it regardless of any other supporting evidence. Again, you assume that because animals are different creatures to humans, and don’t have human morals, that they are not entitled to compassion.

again you are assuming some equality of animals and humans that doesn’t exist. their lack of entitlement doesnt come from a lack of morals, its because they are chemically driven meatbots, they necessitate no more rights than a roomba.

For reasons I have outlined before, the lack of morals does not imply a lack of entitlement to compassionate treatment.

which is beside the point, the ability to be moral alone is not a foundation for compassion, even if it was animals still dont possess that capacity.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

please disregard post 287, i made a editing mistake

 

[Watchman]

… 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.

If humans have no moral superiority to other animals, why do you suggest we have moral obligations beyond those of other animals? What, if any, moral obligations are held by any other animals? Is that difference one of degree or kind?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

QUOTE=Sair;4926551]Because the possibility of anthropomorphism doesn’t negate the evidence of probability of animal emotion or consciousness.

evidence of probability? please tell me the mathematical probability that you keep refering to.

no matter how much the similarities match what you see as evidence, they are not, it doesnt equal any probability, it simply an assumption, a million assumptions arent’ one cup of evidence.

You choose not to explain how anthropomorphism might negate the impressions of empirical research,

i have repeatedly told you that anthrpopomorphism is the problem, your projecting your eotions, behaviors, etc onto animals, thats how it explains away your impressions of the evidence.

nor do you provide any realistic criteria for acceptable proof that animals experience consciousness. To clarify the “realistic”, it is not necessary for animals to act exactly like humans in order for them to have some form of consciousness and emotion.

how is it my job to set criteria, to prove your argument? im not really sure that any criteria exist at all. maybe a turing test, who knows, but thats your job not mine.

Since I have been arguing that the claims of animals to compassionate treatment - whether that’s actively caring for them or leaving them to their own devices and not destroying their environment - are based on their ability to suffer, which is an ability that humans share, this is an essential point in debating the morality of using resources to help animals that might otherwise go to helping humans.

now you want to base it on the ability to suffer, not morals, make up your mind.

humans and animals are not equals. animals are chemically driven meat bots, you project suffering on to them in conditions which would make you uncomfortable.

if you see a tree cut down, a crystal broken, or bacteria killed with lysol, do you project your emotions on them? no ? why not?

because they arent cute little meatbots, your choice of what suffers and what doesn’t seems pretty arbitrary to me, to use your turn of phrase.

So, in the light of all that, I would say that you are either actively refusing to engage with the debate, or you are incapable of comprehending the substance of said debate. Dipping your toe in the water is not the same as going for a swim.

i have continually engaged, and given you the reasons for my position, your first paragraph is case in point.

if by engage, you mean agree, your out of luck on that, unless you have some evidence.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

If humans have no moral superiority to other animals, why do you suggest we have moral obligations beyond those of other animals? What, if any, moral obligations are held by any other animals? Is that difference one of degree or kind?

I love this site. People actually think about the topics!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yet you state that the basis of human moral superiority is their morals. Now you’re arguing in circles.

only because there is no evidence whatsoever that animals have morals. like military superiority, you must have a military to compete.

Refer to…hmm…every single one of my previous posts.

 

[Shin]

If humans have no moral superiority to other animals, why do you suggest we have moral obligations beyond those of other animals? What, if any, moral obligations are held by any other animals? Is that difference one of degree or kind?

Now THAT is a to the heart statement!

Here is a link about animals of the type people generally do not wish to read.

It truly is the great deal of domestication of animals as pets as well as removal from the farm life that has resulted in the current level of agitation for giving animals rights… but how much of this really is anthropomorphism of misunderstood wild instincts?

Pack behavior, hierarchy, food sources, habit, seeking shelter, etc?

I read one article that insisted that what cat owners interpret as ‘sulking’ after the owner goes away for vacation and comes back is actually just the confused cat before it has re-established the pecking order of who is the leader, and that the ‘jealousy’ when a baby comes which often results in the cat going outside of the litter box is actually the cat marking its territory to either get rid of the new comer or to establish ownership and who is in charge.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, gosh. It’s no wonder I was struck by the arrogance of your earlier posts. Now you’re even assuming that you’re wiser than scientists who have conducted research into animal behaviour and cognition.

they might just be a little biased, huh?

Let’s see…every single “argument” that you have so far made consists of one of the following three assumptions:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If humans have no moral superiority to other animals, why do you suggest we have moral obligations beyond those of other animals? What, if any, moral obligations are held by any other animals? Is that difference one of degree or kind?

great point.

if we are just animals why take care of other animals?

do elk take care of mice, do lions, take care of zebras?

no, there is no intrinsic morality based on common biology

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Now THAT is a to the heart statement!

Here is a link about animals of the type people generally do not wish to read.

It truly is the great deal of domestication of animals as pets as well as removal from the farm life that has resulted in the current level of agitation for giving animals rights… but how much of this really is anthropomorphism of misunderstood wild instincts?

Pack behavior, hierarchy, food sources, habit, seeking shelter, etc?

I read one article that insisted that what cat owners interpret as ‘sulking’ after the owner goes away for vacation and comes back is actually just the confused cat before it has re-established the pecking order of who is the leader, and that the ‘jealousy’ when a baby comes which often results in the cat going outside of the litter box is actually the cat marking its territory to either get rid of the new comer or to establish ownership and who is in charge.

excellent!

i think projection is the reason people are so ready too assign emotions to animals, cats dont ‘sulk’ its just ridiculous.