Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[limerick]

a) i saw a telethon in the area the other day for various pet charities, in the wealthiest parts of town they have adopt-a-pet centers in expensive retail store space, we have pet shelters scattered throughout the area where stray and unwanted animals are cared for, fed, watered, and kept warm.

but just last winter, they found a man who froze to death down town.

b) i cant help but to be angry that while that man froze to death, some animals had warm kennels, they had food and water, what did this son of G-d have?

c) someone please tell me why its ok to let a mentally, or physically ill man freeze to death while there are resources being used for stray animals?

d) PETA and like organisations are immoral, as long as one human being does without the necessities of human life, they are taking the bread from the mouths of people and giving it to animals

e) what can we do about it?

a) The other day you were taking it easy, presumably in a sheltered environment, perhaps in a nice, toasty home (toasty, given the time of year and your geographic location). * Mmmmm, nice and toasty.* And you were watching a telethon. On a television. Why were you not scouring the downtown Kansas City area for a deserving down-and-out human being who could have used some compassion, a lift to your home, a big cup of steaming coffee, a hot shower, a cush bed to nap in? He might have wanted to warm up, watch a game on your nice t.v., tell you his tale of woe, ask for a ride to the nearest shelter. Where were you? At home. In front of a television.

b) Aside from the fact that anger and logic are strange bedfellows (no pun intended, before you start up on that again), you say you’re angry because while the man who froze to death last winter was dying, cats and dogs and rabbits and owl and birds were all hunkered down in their little shelter cages, all warm and snuggly for the night, watered and fed by volunteers. What did this man of “G-d” have, you ask. According to online sources, had beautiful downtown Kansas City: since you don’t specify which Kansas City you call home, I can tell you that Kansas City, Missouri offered him House Holy Family, City Union Mission, Kansas City Rescue Mission, Metropolitan Lutheran Ministries of Kansas City, reStart, Inc. Shelter for Men, and at least two Salvation Army facilities. Kansas City, Kansas offered him Mt. Carmel Community Outreach Ministries and the Salvation Army Harbor Light Family Shelter, among others. He had shelter available to him in any liquor-serving facility until last call at 3:00 a.m. In other words, he had a choice. And maybe his choice was to let go of earthly torment and move on. You will never know.

c) Why do you assume that the man who froze to death was mentally or physically ill? Can you support this? I need sources! And there are resources being used for stray animals because the people who make the money, the people who have their hands on discretionary income, also have a choice. They decide that homeless, injured, abused and/or neglected animals are creatures of God, too, and they decide to provide for these living beings as acts of kindness and compassion. Their morals, their motivations, their desires are not open to your “logical” scrutiny. If it were so, they might respond that they considered you to be a non-productive individual who could find nothing better to do with his free time than languish in front of a t.v.

d) I do not support PETA, but I will say that because I do have the choice to give my peanut butter crackers to either a homeless dog or my sexual assailant, the dog wins, paws down.

e) From reading all of your posts on this subject (on- and decidedly off-topic), I conclude that your real question is, “What are you emotional saps, you morons, you anthropomorphistic, uneducated, non-three-graduate-degreed people going to do about it?”

Asked and answered.

Limerick

 

[warpspeedpetey]

limerick:
a) The other day you were taking it easy, presumably in a sheltered environment, perhaps in a nice, toasty home (toasty, given the time of year and your geographic location). * Mmmmm, nice and toasty.* And you were watching a telethon. On a television. Why were you not scouring the downtown Kansas City area for a deserving down-and-out human being who could have used some compassion, a lift to your home, a big cup of steaming coffee, a hot shower, a cush bed to nap in? He might have wanted to warm up, watch a game on your nice t.v., tell you his tale of woe, ask for a ride to the nearest shelter. Where were you? At home. In front of a television.

i was out doing that all day, i had just collapsed into a pallet from exhaustion. and i already share my home, ther isnt any space left:thumbsup:

b) Aside from the fact that anger and logic are strange bedfellows (no pun intended, before you start up on that again), you say you’re angry because while the man who froze to death last winter was dying, cats and dogs and rabbits and owl and birds were all hunkered down in their little shelter cages, all warm and snuggly for the night, watered and fed by volunteers. What did this man of “G-d” have, you ask. According to online sources, had beautiful downtown Kansas City: since you don’t specify which Kansas City you call home, I can tell you that Kansas City, Missouri offered him House Holy Family, City Union Mission, Kansas City Rescue Mission, Metropolitan Lutheran Ministries of Kansas City, reStart, Inc. Shelter for Men, and at least two Salvation Army facilities. Kansas City, Kansas offered him Mt. Carmel Community Outreach Ministries and the Salvation Army Harbor Light Family Shelter, among others. He had shelter available to him in any liquor-serving facility until last call at 3:00 a.m. In other words, he had a choice. And maybe his choice was to let go of earthly torment and move on. You will never know.

from your research you should know that not only is this a huge city geographically, but the shelters are usually full, and you have to be there a certain time, and they arent safe.

all sorts of reasons he may not have been able to avail himself of those services, but those animals had anice night didn’t they

when your freezing to death maybe you can tell me how those animals are just aas deserving of warmth as you,

c) Why do you assume that the man who froze to death was mentally or physically ill? Can you support this? I need sources!

sure, the guy allowed himself to be in a position to freeze to death, and he was homeless. it seems to be evident he was mentally ill.

that or he was perfectly normal, and just laid down wrapped in newspapers on a freezing night, thats possinble if you wish to believe it.

And there are resources being used for stray animals because the people who make the money, the people who have their hands on discretionary income, also have a choice. They decide that homeless, injured, abused and/or neglected animals are creatures of God, too, and they decide to provide for these living beings as acts of kindness and compassion. Their morals, their motivations, their desires are not open to your “logical” scrutiny

.

of course they are, its an immoral activity whether its their choice or not, check out abortion, racism, ageism, etc. many things are allowed but immoral. no different here

If it were so, they might respond that they considered you to be a non-productive individual who could find nothing better to do with his free time than languish in front of a t.v.

like i said my free time that day was spent handing out blankets and hot soup to the poor, i finally collapsed from exhaustion, when i could no longer physically stand up

d) I do not support PETA, but I will say that because I do have the choice to give my peanut butter crackers to either a homeless dog or my sexual assailant, the dog wins, paws down.

dude, stop talking about sexual stuff, i dont get why you cant keep that out of the conversation. and if your going to tell me you were raped by a homeless man, im going to hit the floor laughing.

e) From reading all of your posts on this subject (on- and decidedly off-topic), I conclude that your real question is, “What are you emotional saps, you morons, you anthropomorphistic, uneducated, non-three-graduate-degreed people going to do about it?”

please post where i said any of that?

Asked and answered.

oh i just answered it, didn’t i?

but back to your creepy behavior

you researched where i lived and made two more creepy comments concerning sexuality.

you spent the whole post talking about me and my behavior, just couching it in terms of the OP

im starting to think that your stalking me, nancy.

 

[Sair]

It’s probably long past time for this, but I thought I’d post something of a summary of my thoughts on this issue, in an effort to link back to the original topic of the thread, and to give some sense of personal conclusion.

i cant help but to be angry that while that man froze to death, some animals had warm kennels, they had food and water, what did this son of G-d have?

someone please tell me why its ok to let a mentally, or physically ill man freeze to death while there are resources being used for stray animals?

PETA and like organisations are immoral, as long as one human being does without the necessities of human life, they are taking the bread from the mouths of people and giving it to animals

what can we do about it?

First of all, to claim that it is immoral to “take bread from the mouths of people and give it to animals” is a highly simplistic statement, and ignores most of the details of the issue. Human and animal charities exist for one purpose - to relieve suffering. It is never immoral to do this, no matter whose suffering you’re relieving. To sit back and do nothing when you know others are suffering and that you can help relieve them is, however, immoral.

As others on this thread have pointed out, giving aid to humans and animals is not simply an “either/or” proposition. Many people, including myself, give money to both human and animal charities. What the OP is insisting is that no money or aid should ever be given to other animals while humans are starving or otherwise suffering. This proposition is ridiculous for a number of reasons. Firstly, charity is at best a band-aid measure in dealing with the fact of human suffering. It can do little to address the real causes of suffering - war, corrupt government, breakdown of social relationships and the unequal distribution of wealth and resources maintained by the global economy. For these reasons, human suffering is pretty much a constant. Secondly, there are plenty of things people spend money on, things that are not necessary for their survival. When you consider the relative urgency of various needs, it’s far more necessary to eat than it is to drive a luxury car, or possess the latest technological gadget. Why pick on animal charities in particular for taking money away from starving humans when millions of people are spending their money on frivolous material goods?

As for me, I have elucidated my reasons for supporting animal charities at great length. To sum up my position, it’s enough to say that I believe humans and other animals to be equally entitled to respect and compassion, and I do my best to try to make my actions reflect this. I give to both human and animal charities when I am able to do so; nearly all of my gainful employment to date has been with community-service-based organisations; I care for my pets, because their welfare is my personal responsibility; I have actively helped my friends when they’ve been in need and I was able to do something for them. And I don’t think that the OP is in any position to judge my actions as immoral.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It’s probably long past time for this, but I thought I’d post something of a summary of my thoughts on this issue, in an effort to link back to the original topic of the thread, and to give some sense of personal conclusion.

okey dokey.

First of all, to claim that it is immoral to “take bread from the mouths of people and give it to animals” is a highly simplistic statement, and ignores most of the details of the issue. Human and animal charities exist for one purpose - to relieve suffering. It is never immoral to do this, no matter whose suffering you’re relieving. To sit back and do nothing when you know others are suffering and that you can help relieve them is, however, immoral.

as soon as you are starving and someone chooses to give to an animal and not you, you willbe changing that tune pretty quickly. thats what makes it so hard to buy.

As others on this thread have pointed out, giving aid to humans and animals is not simply an “either/or” proposition. Many people, including myself, give money to both human and animal charities. What the OP is insisting is that no money or aid should ever be given to other animals while humans are starving or otherwise suffering. This proposition is ridiculous for a number of reasons. Firstly, charity is at best a band-aid measure in dealing with the fact of human suffering. It can do little to address the real causes of suffering - war, corrupt government, breakdown of social relationships and the unequal distribution of wealth and resources maintained by the global economy. Secondly, there are plenty of things people spend money on, things that are not necessary for their survival. When you consider the relative urgency of various needs, it’s far more necessary to eat than it is to drive a luxury car, or possess the latest technological gadget. Why pick on animal charities in particular for taking money away from starving humans when millions of people are spending their money on frivolous material goods?

as too luxury goods, i think thats immoral too, as to the rest. that will go out the window once you are the one suffering.

As for me, I have elucidated my reasons for supporting animal charities at great length. To sum up my position, it’s enough to say that I believe humans and other animals to be equally entitled to respect and compassion, and I do my best to try to make my actions reflect this. I give to both human and animal charities when I am able to do so; nearly all of my gainful employment to date has been with community-service-based organisations; I care for my pets, because their welfare is my personal responsibility; I have actively helped my friends when they’ve been in need and I was able to do something for them. I don’t think that the OP is in any position to judge my actions as immoral.

if you gave money to a pet charity while a human being was suffering, thats immoral, you can talk now, but the first time your child goes hungry, but some stray dog at a shelter has a full tummy, your going to change your mind.

your position is one that cant bear any of the reality of human suffering applied to it

you have an opinion, thats ok, but even that wont last long when its you that are hungry.

so next time your tempted to donate to fido, remember that someones baby is hungry tonight.

 

[limerick]

warpspeedpetey:

Regarding your “responses” to Sair’s post: I’ve got money for your tip jar if you think you can come up with a different song.

Here is what I’ve learned thus far in my travels with warpspeedpetey:

1. When backed into a corner and asked for a truthful answer to a direct question, he relies on the dishonesty of mockery as his reaction.
2. Death is safer than a homeless shelter.
3. Mental illness is the only explanation for a man finding himself in a position to freeze to death.
4. Every single person’s individual and private choices are open to contempt and ridicule by WSP, and rightly so, for he is the final authority.
5. Supporting a pet shelter is the moral equivalent of having or performing an abortion.
6. WSP is fixated on sexuality and transfers this obsession and anxiety onto others. He also finds it appropriate to call a senior woman “dude”. Breeding speaks. (Oh no, that pesky sexual innuendo again!)
7. WSP finds rape hilarious.
8. WSP’s behavior speaks volumes about his character, completely (and perhaps fortunately) drowning out his ideas.

“please post where i said any of that?” Start with your original post and work forward. If you can.

Limerick

 

[Sair]

warpspeedpetey:

Regarding your “responses” to Sair’s post: I’ve got money for your tip jar if you think you can come up with a different song.

Here is what I’ve learned thus far in my travels with warpspeedpetey:

1. When backed into a corner and asked for a truthful answer to a direct question, he relies on the dishonesty of mockery as his reaction.
2. Death is safer than a homeless shelter.
3. Mental illness is the only explanation for a man finding himself in a position to freeze to death.
4. Every single person’s individual and private choices are open to contempt and ridicule by WSP, and rightly so, for he is the final authority.
5. Supporting a pet shelter is the moral equivalent of having or performing an abortion.
6. WSP is fixated on sexuality and transfers this obsession and anxiety onto others. He also finds it appropriate to call a senior woman “dude”. Breeding speaks. (Oh no, that pesky sexual innuendo again!)
7. WSP finds rape hilarious.
8. WSP’s behavior speaks volumes about his character, completely (and perhaps fortunately) drowning out his ideas.

“please post where i said any of that?” Start with your original post and work forward. If you can.

Limerick

And in addition, obviously he claims to share God’s omniscience, since he evidently knows how I would respond to his projected scenario of suffering.

I guess he forgot about the monkey sphere…

 

[Sair]

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?

If we were still living in caves and hunter-gatherer societies, I suspect our moral obligations regarding other animals would go something like: live and let live. Small hunter-gatherer communities, such as some African tribes and the Australian Aborigines, recognised the need to live in harmony with nature. That meant taking no more than they needed, and respecting the rhythm of the land and seasons.

In our modern society, though, our moral obligation has extended to make up for the extensive harm we have done to other creatures through our plague-like takeover of the earth.

 

[Shin]

warpspeedpetey:

Regarding your “responses” to Sair’s post: I’ve got money for your tip jar if you think you can come up with a different song.

Here is what I’ve learned thus far in my travels with warpspeedpetey:

“please post where i said any of that?” Start with your original post and work forward. If you can.

Limerick

Some differences between this post and some of the previous ones is that this one is direct, ugly (and incorrect), and not funny and the previous had a sense of humor. I’m enjoying this interesting thread, I’d hate to see it get ugly and be shut down.

I think that regarding emotions and animals, I am curious as to what scientists without a predisposition think are the actual emotions and reasons for them in certain animals, higher and lower.

Because as I indicated earlier animals are wired very differently and I fear that what emotions might be there, are likely -quite- different than what the overly sentimental and imaginative pet lovers want them to be.

I am thinking of the typical behavior of wild animals, and even of the rare cases of human beings raised in the wild as babies amongst animals and the deep seated problems this caused.

 

[Salonika]

**Originally Posted by Salonika **
Would have thought that with our superior brains and logic we would be able to produce enough synthetic food to feed ourselves.

Reply by warpspeedpetey
ok, whats your point

Reply by Salonika
We don’t need animals for food, we could manufacture all of it. Therefore, we don’t need to eat animals and if we don’t need to eat animals do you think they have any right or value to be on the earth?

Reply by warpspeedpetey
As to emotion in the practice of religion, sure. so what? that doesn’t mean that you are required to emote unnecessarily.

but what does that have to do with the topic?

Reply by Salonika
Because you continue to tell us that you base your life rationality and that you consider that those who live by emotion or both rationality and emotion are mislead. Seems your answer admits to an emotional component of religion I wonder why the difference.

Reply by warpspeedpetey
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.

Reply by Salonika
humans and animals are different – human babies, children, teenagers and adults are different. Humans and other species don’t have to be the same to be treated humanely.
Am I expected to leave a badly injured dog on the road to be re-run over because I can’t be sure that I am not projecting how I would feel if I was run over? When my cat was howling with pancreatitis should I have pout off taking her to the vet because I might be just projecting that she feels pain?

Reply by warpspeedpetey
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.

Reply by Salonika
I wonder if they know what is going to happen. I wonder if they suffer. Think it these situations it is better to assume that they may and act accordingly than assume that they don’t and cause them suffering.

 

[Sair]

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.

Again, you’re stating as indisputable fact, things that you have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty. On the basis of the evidence I have referenced, I can at least claim probability for my inferences.

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.

A completely meaningless comparison, and dodgy to boot. A monkey is far more similar to a human than it is to a computer, by virtue of the fact that the monkey is alive and a primate.

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

Firstly, unfamiliar challenges =/= radical environmental change. Secondly, you seem to be getting confused between individual learning and evolutionary change. You’ll actually find that they are quite distinct processes.

 

[Sair]

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.

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.

It’s quite likely that we will never have absolutely conclusive evidence of animal consciousness. We even have difficulty defining exactly what human consciousness entails; much less do we know the cognitive processes that work towards consciousness in the human brain. We can only know with certainty how we see the world, but we can make inferences based on our observations and biochemical measurements of other creatures. Most of the evidence suggests that other animals possess some form of consciousness; although we necessarily perceive this from a human point of view, that is still not the same as ascribing human characteristics to animals. To do so would be to assume, without proof, that consciousness is exclusive to humans. If you acknowledge the possibility that consciousness exists in other animals, then it becomes an animal characteristic that humans share.

It may well be that in the future, technology and the possibilities for scientific research will have advanced sufficiently for us to determine with certainty whether or not non-human animal consciousness exists as a natural phenomenon. But from our current position, it’s not possible to prove either way. Now, I can assure you I would have no difficulty in believing that other animals were the mindless automata upon which you insist, if in fact they exhibited no signs whatsoever of social relationships, awareness and sensitivity to external stimuli, and the ability to learn. Since they do exhibit signs of all those things - and often quite different signs to what humans exhibit - I will take the much more ethically sound course of assuming that animals are conscious and sentient, until they are unquestionably proven otherwise.

ok, you google ‘the flat earth society’ and tell them that.

Actually, I don’t think I will bother, since I can assume from the name that they are ignorant of the nature of scientific evidence.

ive given you repeatedly the reasons that humans are demonstrably superior to animals.

For certain values of ‘superiority’, that is undoubtedly the case. But superiority is subjective and dependent upon circumstance. I doubt anyone would claim that a human’s survival skills in the arctic are superior to those of a polar bear, for example.

 

[Sair]

okey dokey.

as soon as you are starving and someone chooses to give to an animal and not you, you willbe changing that tune pretty quickly. thats what makes it so hard to buy.

as too luxury goods, i think thats immoral too, as to the rest. that will go out the window once you are the one suffering.

if you gave money to a pet charity while a human being was suffering, thats immoral, you can talk now, but the first time your child goes hungry, but some stray dog at a shelter has a full tummy, your going to change your mind.

your position is one that cant bear any of the reality of human suffering applied to it

you have an opinion, thats ok, but even that wont last long when its you that are hungry.

so next time your tempted to donate to fido, remember that someones baby is hungry tonight.

Once more you demonstrate failure - in this case, three times over - to engage with an argument. Instead of considering the issues I raised, all you have done is to pose a hypothetical situation and then assume that you know how I will respond. Sorry, but if the evidence is all in, then you’re not sufficiently perceptive for that.

 

[Sair]

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.

No, but a million observations add up to a whole body of evidence.

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.

But you have not explained how you know this, or upon what basis you infer it. Scientists who study nonhuman animal behaviour and cognition are generally very careful to avoid the tendency to anthropomorphism. It isn’t an inescapable feature of our ability to process the information we take in about the rest of the world, but you seem to think that it kicks in whenever we observe other animals. You are assuming that all scientists succumb to anthropomorphism, but if such were the case, they would quickly be hounded from their university positions by the rest of the scientific community.

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

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.

The ability of an organism to suffer, and to feel pain, is a key characteristic that informs ethics. If an animal can suffer, it has an interest in not suffering, and therefore it has the right to be spared unnecessary suffering. Get with the program. I’ve explained this several times before.

Are you capable of accepting that plants and bacteria have no central nervous system, and that crystals are not alive? For these reasons, they cannot suffer, therefore they have no interest in not suffering. This is not an arbitrary distinction, but a functional one.

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

Nope - by engage, I mean consider the evidence, and carefully refute each aspect - not merely respond with sweeping denials that demonstrate nothing other than your ability to miss the point.

 

[Sair]

Now THAT is a to the heart statement!

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

True, it’s rather tragic for the owner of the cats, but from the cats’ point of view, it’s probably better to kill sick kittens than to let them linger in their suffering, and possibly infect healthy kittens.

Really. At least I had the respect to post scholarly articles by way of supporting my arguments.

 

[Sair]

i have, thats why i wonder how you can come to the conclusion.

Nope, hadn’t heard of him. So I consulted some online info. Nothing there to suggest the possibility of computer consciousness, or even affective consciousness (the awareness of sensation). Just human intelligence projected through microchips and plastic.

not everyone has family, nor can your pets do anything.

True. I, however, do have them, so they would be my first port of call if I was in need.

but if someone walks up and feeds your pets, while you are starving, your going to be mad, and call them names.

That, or I’ll be happy that my pets aren’t starving. Also, you assume the either/or proposition which is not usually the case. In fact, beggars at London tube stations earn a fortune - more if they are accompanied by a dog, because people want to make sure the beggar will feed their dog as well as themselves.

thats why i know you are full of it.

Correction. That’s why you think I am full of it. Because the reality is that you know nothing about me other than what I’ve chosen to post here.

then you can feed the dog to culturally relevant diners.

Apart from the fact that you’re trying to be deliberately offensive here, ‘culturally relevant diners’ puts me in mind of cannibals…or possibly the Aztecs, who actually bred small dogs for food. But then, they also sacrificed prisoners of war to their sun god. None of this has any bearing at all on our argument, of course, but just thought I’d throw it in out of interest.

 

[Sair]

they might just be a little biased, huh?

Clearly you’re extremely biased against it, so you’re hardly a disinterested observer.

according to the standards you just set, thats what you need to be for anyone to take your assertions seriously.

I have claimed nothing of the kind. Merely that I have referenced serious scholarly research into animal behaviour and cognition. Where is your scholarly support in favour of animals being automatons, and every attempt to research their behaviour being tainted by anthropomorphism. Oh, wait - I think I already know your response to this one. It’ll be some reiteration of your fallacious logical fallacy about not proving a negative…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey:

Regarding your “responses” to Sair’s post: I’ve got money for your tip jar if you think you can come up with a different song.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

I’m really enjoying these posts.

 

[Sair]

I think that regarding emotions and animals, I am curious as to what scientists without a predisposition think are the actual emotions and reasons for them in certain animals, higher and lower.

Because as I indicated earlier animals are wired very differently and I fear that what emotions might be there, are likely -quite- different than what the overly sentimental and imaginative pet lovers want them to be.

Scientists without predispositions are difficult to find. Most of them are predisposed to curiosity about a certain field of study, and predisposed to be interested in what they find. Those scientists who study animal behaviour and cognition have recognised at least two things - that animals exhibit the capacity for emotions such as fear, anger, affection, excitement, curiosity, contentment, etc. Secondly, they have recognised that the circumstances in which animals display certain emotional indicators are difficult to predict from a human point of view. Painstaking observation has been undertaken to inform scientists’ hypotheses about animal emotions and affective consciousness.

Because there is the likelihood that animals are capable of suffering - a quality they share with humans - their theoretical interest in avoiding pain is equal to that of humans (assuming, of course, that pain is an unpleasant sensation, indicating damage to the body). Some scientists and philosophers have suggested, actually, that the desire of some humans to believe that other animals can’t have emotions or experience pain is due to their fear that they wouldn’t be able to cope with the guilt if the opposite were the case.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And in addition, obviously he claims to share God’s omniscience, since he evidently knows how I would respond to his projected scenario of suffering.

I guess he forgot about the monkey sphere…

where did i claim to be omniscient? no where,

are you saying that as you lay starving to death, you would be happy to see a man with food feed a stray dog, and not you?

thats awful hard to buy.