Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[warpspeedpetey]

If animal suffering is something we are morally obliged to take care of – positing this… how exactly are we going to take care of it?

There are billions (trillions?) of fish in the sea… each day they die, without anesthesia… some deaths are quick, some are slow. . most often they are eaten alive by another fish and slowly dissolved in the stomach acids thereof.

I don’t know about you but being eaten alive and dissolved in stomach acids sounds about one of the worst ways to go possible.

If, supposing we were to somehow with all our modern technology intervene, what exactly would we do? We could for example, kill all the fish. This would end the quantitative amount of suffering immediately… certainly there would be fewer positively happy fish, but the suffering would be over.

I see the animal rights groups basically following the same trend as the euthanasia groups for people – suffering is the moral fulcrum on which all existence hinges – and positive pleasure the other side of the coin that is the good.

oooohhhhhh…

i hadn’t thought of that.

But, to go back to the Catholic perspective for the briefest of moments (I don’t wish to interrupt) … no, this is not how it all works.

There is an overarching purpose to all existence that writes the moral laws of how we behave based on different criteria. Suffering and pleasure are part of those criteria… but not the pivot on which everything turns.

Perhaps there will come a day when ‘the lion shall lay down with the lamb’ but this day depends on human spiritual progress in the already established moral order, not creating something new that raises animals to the level of human beings – which can only harm both I might add due to its fundamental flaws.

very cogent.

 

[Sair]

If animal suffering is something we are morally obliged to take care of – positing this… how exactly are we going to take care of it?

There are billions (trillions?) of fish in the sea… each day they die, without anesthesia… some deaths are quick, some are slow. . most often they are eaten alive by another fish and slowly dissolved in the stomach acids thereof.

I don’t know about you but being eaten alive and dissolved in stomach acids sounds about one of the worst ways to go possible.

If, supposing we were to somehow with all our modern technology intervene, what exactly would we do? We could for example, kill all the fish. This would end the quantitative amount of suffering immediately… certainly there would be fewer positively happy fish, but the suffering would be over.

We could for example, segregate all fish into separate underwater zoos, the small minority that could survive such a domestication adaptation…

We could for… but these are all ridiculous. Nothing can be done. And the standard is maintained that they should be allowed to kill, torture, and eat each other and exist in the wild as before… which is their normal mode of existence at the moment.

The animal rights groups base their moral duty of us towards animals on animal suffering, that is, they cannot bear to see suffering because -they- suffer seeing suffering, through their ‘empathy’ (which they are responsible for in themselves as can be seen by the different reactions here).

I see the animal rights groups basically following the same trend as the euthanasia groups for people – suffering is the moral fulcrum on which all existence hinges – and positive pleasure the other side of the coin that is the good.

But, to go back to the Catholic perspective for the briefest of moments (I don’t wish to interrupt) … no, this is not how it all works.

There is an overarching purpose to all existence that writes the moral laws of how we behave based on different criteria. Suffering and pleasure are part of those criteria… but not the pivot on which everything turns.

Perhaps there will come a day when ‘the lion shall lay down with the lamb’ but this day depends on human spiritual progress in the already established moral order, not creating something new that raises animals to the level of human beings – which can only harm both I might add due to its fundamental flaws.

You raise some interesting points.

I completely agree that dissolving in stomach acid would be a horrid way to go. But such is the nature of predator-prey relationships. It could certainly be argued that saving all animals from suffering is unwarranted interference in the processes of nature. Indeed, the balance of nature requires that no animal take more than it needs, and throughout the animal kingdom, the predator-prey ratio is weighed such that prey outnumber their predators many times over.

This was true amongst all species until the human population began to expand at an exponential rate.

From what I have seen, most animal rights groups are concerned with the direct effect of human action upon other animals, now that we have effectively remade the world to our own desires, mostly with little thought for how it would affect other species, or indeed the Earth as a whole.

There are a couple of reasons behind this approach, I believe. In a human-dominated world, most other animals are weakened in their ability to take care of themselves or follow their natural behaviour patterns. It is up to us, being that we have the power to change the environment and effectively govern our actions, to allow these animals their right to occupy the world, and help them when they need it. This is also the practical reasoning behind movements to preserve wilderness areas, so that those animals who remain wild are afforded a fighting chance.

The second major reason, at least as far as I can discern, is more metaphysical. This is the argument that cruel, inconsiderate and thoughtless treatment of other sentient creatures diminishes the dignity of the human person. If we believe this, we are obliged to act towards other animals in consideration of their basic rights to have their lives respected and to be spared unnecessary suffering.

Neither of these arguments advocates that we start treating other animals as if they were human. What they do demand is that we consider the claims of other creatures where they are commensurate with our own.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey has been directly ugly to Limerick

yeeeeeahhhhhhhh…the whole third person thing aint creepy at all, no thats perfectly normal. yeah

on more than one occasion - someone who reveres logic as he claims would have no call to resort to name-calling or any other form of derision. If you look back on the thread you may modify your perspective.

 

[Shin]

If I may add a bit more perspective here… moral order trumps emotion… what God is happy about. . is what everyone ultimately should be and is happy about… but perhaps a little excerpt that nearly illustrations it like this might help lead people to understand how that can work in an ultimate fashion…

This is quoted from a little bit of a sci-fi comedy book, called, ‘The Restaurant a the End of the Universe’… probably familiar to some people here.

A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox’s table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips.
“Good evening,” it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, “I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in parts of my body?” It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters into a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them.
Its gaze was met by looks of startled bewilderment from Arthur and Trillian, a resigned shrug from Ford Prefect and naked hunger from Zaphod Beeblebrox.
“Something off the shoulder perhaps?” suggested the animal, “Braised in a white wine sauce?”
“Er, your shoulder?” said Arthur in a horrified whisper.
“But naturally my shoulder, sir,” mooed the animal contentedly, “nobody else’s is mine to offer.”
Zaphod leapt to his feet and started prodding and feeling the animal’s shoulder appreciatively.
“Or the rump is very good,” murmured the animal. “I’ve been exercising it and eating plenty of grain, so there’s a lot of good meat there.” It gave a mellow grunt, gurgled again and started to chew the cud. It swallowed the cud again.
“Or a casserole of me perhaps?” it added.
“You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?” whispered Trillian to Ford.
“Me?” said Ford, with a glazed look in his eyes, “I don’t mean anything.”
“That’s absolutely horrible,” exclaimed Arthur, “the most revolting thing I’ve ever heard.”
“What’s the problem Earthman?” said Zaphod, now transferring his attention to the animal’s enormous rump.
“I just don’t want to eat an animal that’s standing here inviting me to,”
said Arthur, “it’s heartless.”
“Better than eating an animal that doesn’t want to be eaten,” said Zaphod.
“That’s not the point,” Arthur protested. Then he thought about it for a moment. “Alright,” he said, “maybe it is the point. I don’t care, I’m not going to think about it now. I’ll just … er …”
The Universe raged about him in its death throes.
“I think I’ll just have a green salad,” he muttered.
“May I urge you to consider my liver?” asked the animal, “it must be very rich and tender by now, I’ve been force-feeding myself for months.”
“A green salad,” said Arthur emphatically.
“A green salad?” said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at
Arthur.
“Are you going to tell me,” said Arthur, “that I shouldn’t have green salad?”
“Well,” said the animal, “I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am.”
It managed a very slight bow.
“Glass of water please,” said Arthur.
“Look,” said Zaphod, “we want to eat, we don’t want to make a meal of the issues. Four rare steaks please, and hurry. We haven’t eaten in five hundred and seventy-six thousand million years.”
The animal staggered to its feet. It gave a mellow gurgle.
“A very wise choice, sir, if I may say so. Very good,” it said, “I’ll just
nip off and shoot myself.”
He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur.
“Don’t worry, sir,” he said, “I’ll be very humane.”
It waddled unhurriedly off into the kitchen.
A matter of minutes later the waiter arrived with four huge steaming steaks. Zaphod and Ford wolfed straight into them without a second’s hesitation. Trillian paused, then shrugged and started into hers.
Arthur stared at his feeling slightly ill.
“Hey, Earthman,” said Zaphod with a malicious grin on the face that wasn’t stuffing itself, “what’s eating you?”

…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

opcorn:All this talk of starving dogs and people…opcorn:made me hungry…opcorn:The dog and cats sit at my feet as I eat this popcorn, begging for scraps (the cats like the butter).

Having grown up on a farm, I, too, raised and slaughtered cows, chickens, pigs, and ducks. I also had and have dogs and cats as pets. All were named.

ANYONE who has had pets and is COMPLETELY HONEST with themselves knows some pets do show some emotion (excitement, guilt, etc.) Not all do, though. Can’t the same be said for people ,though? Some show lots of emotion - others seemingly have no emotion - no remorse, no guilt, no empathy.

i just dont see it as anything but projection, thats how i honestly feel, i cant rationally assign a motive to their behavior beyond the basic food, shelter, safty, warmth paradigm.

I don’t have a lot of resources right now. I support my pets. I support those pets because I have a made a committment to them (and to my family) when I adopted those animals to care for and feed them. Does it mean that $100 a month I now spend on pet food does not go to a homeless shelter? Yes, BUT if I had the extra $100, it may or may not be going there anyway (actually probably not)! There are SO MANY charities that are worth supporting - so for me, right now, charity begins at home - feeding my pets and my children, and any extra money goes to my kid’s school, investing in the future! (However, when my kids outgrow clothing, it does go to the shelter for women and children, so I guess I am supporting it in that way - through clothing donations.)

i dont have a problem with feeding your own household, its when charitable dollars goes to pet charities when some people are suffering.

I am just glad WSP is not my neighbor! He sounds like the kind of guy who would turn my dog over to the pound if it walked into his yard! (or feed it to homeless guys).

i dont hate meat bots, i just dont assign them actual emotions.

As a side note: A few years ago, our youth group took small groups of teens to one of our shelters/food kitchens that caters to primarily homeless men to help for a morning/lunch period. I volunteered to drive and chaperone. NEVER AGAIN! I was supervising a group of 5 13-14 year olds. These homeless men catcalled, whistled, asked the girls out, and were outright rude. The coordinators talked to the men, telling them to leave the girls alone, but it was very uncomfortable - they really made a bad name for themselves. I have never supported that particular shelter again and have not allowed my kids to go there to help out. Why should they be subjected to the abuse?

yeah, i could have told you not to take a bunch of girls to a homeless shelter, but that bad behavior doesn’t disqualify them from our moral imperative to help them.

but i love the fact you were showing your children what G-d expects of us. thats beautiful

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You raise some interesting points.

I completely agree that dissolving in stomach acid would be a horrid way to go. But such is the nature of predator-prey relationships. It could certainly be argued that saving all animals from suffering is unwarranted interference in the processes of nature. Indeed, the balance of nature requires that no animal take more than it needs, and throughout the animal kingdom, the predator-prey ratio is weighed such that prey outnumber their predators many times over.

This was true amongst all species until the human population began to expand at an exponential rate.

From what I have seen, most animal rights groups are concerned with the direct effect of human action upon other animals, now that we have effectively remade the world to our own desires, mostly with little thought for how it would affect other species, or indeed the Earth as a whole.

There are a couple of reasons behind this approach, I believe. In a human-dominated world, most other animals are weakened in their ability to take care of themselves or follow their natural behaviour patterns. It is up to us, being that we have the power to change the environment and effectively govern our actions, to allow these animals their right to occupy the world, and help them when they need it. This is also the practical reasoning behind movements to preserve wilderness areas, so that those animals who remain wild are afforded a fighting chance.

The second major reason, at least as far as I can discern, is more metaphysical. This is the argument that cruel, inconsiderate and thoughtless treatment of other sentient creatures diminishes the dignity of the human person. If we believe this, we are obliged to act towards other animals in consideration of their basic rights to have their lives respected and to be spared unnecessary suffering.

Neither of these arguments advocates that we start treating other animals as if they were human. What they do demand is that we consider the claims of other creatures where they are commensurate with our own.

if we are just animals, then we are evolutionary pressure.

other animals dont make claims, you do, they only respond to evolutionary pressure.

if the adapt great, if they go extinct, great, evolution worked they way it was supposed to.

surely you arent upset that evolution isn’t leading where the enviomentalist set thought it should.

we are simply an agent of evolution, if not us, then something else.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

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.

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?

While it is tragic that a homeless person freezes to death…many times they don’t want help. I have seen many instances of the homeless on our local station who are perfectly happy living on the streets. Why…I do not know. But that is their choice. Many are men tally ill and that is society’s problem. The animals have NO choice. They don’t have the ability to come to a homeless animal shelter and asked to be taken in. Do we have to show our heartlesness towards animals to make ourselves feel better about the fact that we dcan’t help all our human man? Many cities send vans out on the streets when it is cold to bring the homeless in to the warmth. Can’t we do the same for other creatures? Good grief…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If I may add a bit more perspective here… moral order trumps emotion… what God is happy about. . is what everyone ultimately should be and is happy about… but perhaps a little excerpt that nearly illustrations it like this might help lead people to understand how that can work in an ultimate fashion…

This is quoted from a little bit of a sci-fi comedy book, called, ‘The Restaurant a the End of the Universe’… probably familiar to some people here.

A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox’s table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips.
“Good evening,” it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, “I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in parts of my body?” It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters into a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them.
Its gaze was met by looks of startled bewilderment from Arthur and Trillian, a resigned shrug from Ford Prefect and naked hunger from Zaphod Beeblebrox.
“Something off the shoulder perhaps?” suggested the animal, “Braised in a white wine sauce?”
“Er, your shoulder?” said Arthur in a horrified whisper.
“But naturally my shoulder, sir,” mooed the animal contentedly, “nobody else’s is mine to offer.”
Zaphod leapt to his feet and started prodding and feeling the animal’s shoulder appreciatively.
“Or the rump is very good,” murmured the animal. “I’ve been exercising it and eating plenty of grain, so there’s a lot of good meat there.” It gave a mellow grunt, gurgled again and started to chew the cud. It swallowed the cud again.
“Or a casserole of me perhaps?” it added.
“You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?” whispered Trillian to Ford.
“Me?” said Ford, with a glazed look in his eyes, “I don’t mean anything.”
“That’s absolutely horrible,” exclaimed Arthur, “the most revolting thing I’ve ever heard.”
“What’s the problem Earthman?” said Zaphod, now transferring his attention to the animal’s enormous rump.
“I just don’t want to eat an animal that’s standing here inviting me to,”
said Arthur, “it’s heartless.”
“Better than eating an animal that doesn’t want to be eaten,” said Zaphod.
“That’s not the point,” Arthur protested. Then he thought about it for a moment. “Alright,” he said, “maybe it is the point. I don’t care, I’m not going to think about it now. I’ll just … er …”
The Universe raged about him in its death throes.
“I think I’ll just have a green salad,” he muttered.
“May I urge you to consider my liver?” asked the animal, “it must be very rich and tender by now, I’ve been force-feeding myself for months.”
“A green salad,” said Arthur emphatically.
“A green salad?” said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at
Arthur.
“Are you going to tell me,” said Arthur, “that I shouldn’t have green salad?”
“Well,” said the animal, “I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am.”
It managed a very slight bow.
“Glass of water please,” said Arthur.
“Look,” said Zaphod, “we want to eat, we don’t want to make a meal of the issues. Four rare steaks please, and hurry. We haven’t eaten in five hundred and seventy-six thousand million years.”
The animal staggered to its feet. It gave a mellow gurgle.
“A very wise choice, sir, if I may say so. Very good,” it said, “I’ll just
nip off and shoot myself.”
He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur.
“Don’t worry, sir,” he said, “I’ll be very humane.”
It waddled unhurriedly off into the kitchen.
A matter of minutes later the waiter arrived with four huge steaming steaks. Zaphod and Ford wolfed straight into them without a second’s hesitation. Trillian paused, then shrugged and started into hers.
Arthur stared at his feeling slightly ill.
“Hey, Earthman,” said Zaphod with a malicious grin on the face that wasn’t stuffing itself, “what’s eating you?”

…

what is that the hitch hikers guide?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

While it is tragic that a homeless person freezes to death…many times they don’t want help. I have seen many instances of the homeless on our local station who are perfectly happy living on the streets. Why…I do not know. But that is their choice. Many are men tally ill and that is society’s problem. The animals have NO choice. They don’t have the ability to come to a homeless animal shelter and asked to be taken in. Do we have to show our heartlesness towards animals to make ourselves feel better about the fact that we dcan’t help all our human man? Many cities send vans out on the streets when it is cold to bring the homeless in to the warmth. Can’t we do the same for other creatures? Good grief…

do you collect roombas from the dump and repair them? would it be moral to use charitable funds to repair roombas when people needed food?

no of course not, as i have stated before, robots are robots regardless of meatiness

(yes, i love that meatiness phrase)

 

[limerick]

" … just put yourself in the starving persons shoes. if someone gave ffood to an animal, while you lay starving, would that be ok? no, of course not. you would rightly be mad as a all get out."

The slighted person who “lay starving” might be angry about the animal being offered the food, but the anger would stem from fear (of further hunger) and not from indignation that his own moral code and his own ideas about the true order of things had been breached.

I believe that in this case, warpspeedpetey is assigning an uncharacteristically level-headed, cause-and-effect human emotion to the person who “lay starving”: this individual would, instead, be biochemically driven to react to the situation more as an animal under duress from extreme hunger.

Limerick

 

[Cracker_Mom]

opcorn:All this talk of starving dogs and people…opcorn:made me hungry…opcorn:The dog and cats sit at my feet as I eat this popcorn, begging for scraps (the cats like the butter).

Having grown up on a farm, I, too, raised and slaughtered cows, chickens, pigs, and ducks. I also had and have dogs and cats as pets. All were named.

ANYONE who has had pets and is COMPLETELY HONEST with themselves knows some pets do show some emotion (excitement, guilt, etc.) Not all do, though. Can’t the same be said for people ,though? Some show lots of emotion - others seemingly have no emotion - no remorse, no guilt, no empathy.

I don’t have a lot of resources right now. I support my pets. I support those pets because I have a made a committment to them (and to my family) when I adopted those animals to care for and feed them. Does it mean that $100 a month I now spend on pet food does not go to a homeless shelter? Yes, BUT if I had the extra $100, it may or may not be going there anyway (actually probably not)! There are SO MANY charities that are worth supporting - so for me, right now, charity begins at home - feeding my pets and my children, and any extra money goes to my kid’s school, investing in the future! (However, when my kids outgrow clothing, it does go to the shelter for women and children, so I guess I am supporting it in that way - through clothing donations.)

I am just glad WSP is not my neighbor! He sounds like the kind of guy who would turn my dog over to the pound if it walked into his yard! (or feed it to homeless guys).

As a side note: A few years ago, our youth group took small groups of teens to one of our shelters/food kitchens that caters to primarily homeless men to help for a morning/lunch period. I volunteered to drive and chaperone. NEVER AGAIN! I was supervising a group of 5 13-14 year olds. These homeless men catcalled, whistled, asked the girls out, and were outright rude. The coordinators talked to the men, telling them to leave the girls alone, but it was very uncomfortable - they really made a bad name for themselves. I have never supported that particular shelter again and have not allowed my kids to go there to help out. Why should they be subjected to the abuse?

Re. the side note: a homeless men’s shelter might not be the best place to take adolescent girls.Someone didn’t have their best thinking cap on when that decision was made.Our shelters here are populated in part by alcoholics, drug abusers,ex-cons, sex offenders, and the mentally ill.
Re. Mr. WSP: I think he’d be a great neighbor, especially if he’s as entertaining as his posts.
Come on folks, lighten up a bit.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

do you collect roombas from the dump and repair them? would it be moral to use charitable funds to repair roombas when people needed food?

no of course not, as i have stated before, robots are robots regardless of meatiness

(yes, i love that meatiness phrase)

No offense, but I wish I could make heads or tails out of what you are saying. I didn’t think my post was that hard to understand, but i will try again. It is very sad that anyone man or animal has to freeze and starve in the winter. Why begrudge an animal safety and warmth? Maybe as a society we could do our best for BOTH. Let us remember…animals have NO choice…many homeless do. They can partake of shelter that is available to them…many don’t…for whatever reason.

 

[Shin]

what is that the hitch hikers guide?

Yes, it’s a sequel.

I wanted to make the point by example that animals can possibly be ultimately happy in a sense to be eaten, to be killed, etc. While the impulse to survive is in every animal… there is an ultimate purpose for their existence…

We are happiest when we fulfill our role and purpose in Creation. Animals roles purposes are very often to be eaten, to provide sustenance for people, or pleasure from sport, or simply viewing them.

Jesus Christ, God Himself, ate fish. He fished as a fisherman with the apostles, and called the fish into the nets… What happier fate for these fish than to be food for God Himself and the apostles, hmm?

Now, there might’ve been some pain involved for the fish… perhaps the fish emotions… perhaps not… I am not going to discuss that the moment… but I will say, everything is good if God does it and He provides the examples for us.

So it is fine to catch fish in nets, it is fine to sacrifice animals on altars if God asks for it – in fact, this throughout the Old Testament was very prevalent. If you are Catholic today, you should be willing and capable to sacrifice an animal on an altar as Jew of yesterday, it is the same.

Why did God ask mankind to sacrifice animals? Why were the Egyptians who worshipped cats, all condemned by God? Why were the Israelites who worshipped a gold calf condemned?

Animal idolotry is condemned throughout scripture and God forces the people to sacrifice their animals to Him. This proves an important spiritual point – one can idolize and be too attached to animals, and this is something that is a sin.

So… I do what I can to avoid causing unnecessary pain but, I am not so adverse to causing animals suffering that I will not do so for good purpose. We can discuss the minutiae of what good purpose is, but hunting is not condemned by God, neither is farming, and so sport is permitted…

Basically… the right view is pretty much the normal view… without the animal rights activists involved… One is not harsh unnecessarily, does not cause unnecessary pain, but a moral purpose overrides the problem of pain.

And positing emotions in animals, if they in some sense or another had a kind of sense of God’s purpose for them, this would be their happiness. To be the food, the provender of man.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Re. the side note: a homeless men’s shelter might not be the best place to take adolescent girls.Someone didn’t have their best thinking cap on when that decision was made.Our shelters here are populated in part by alcoholics, drug abusers,ex-cons, sex offenders, and the mentally ill.
Re. Mr. WSP: I think he’d be a great neighbor, especially if he’s as entertaining as his posts.
Come on folks, lighten up a bit.

why thank you. though im better in person, wait till i get real ornery, i got a wild hair up my nose last year, had 2 beers for breakfast, and started riding the pony bareback around the yard, the kids were up on the fence cheering, my ex is deaf and didnt know till i rode the pony throught the front gate, she was in the garden weeding, looked up at me and darn near had a hard attack as me and the pony charged past her out onto the court house lawn. i was halfway to the county judges pickup before she caughtr up with me. madder than all get out. just another day in a south arkansas redneck rivertown.

still one of the best moments of my life.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No offense, but I wish I could make heads or tails out of what you are saying.

oh, sorry, the argument has been made earlier in the thread.

a roomba is a little robot vacuum, you know from TV?

animals are simply chemically programmed, robots, or, ‘meatbots’, from a chemistry standpoint.

i was making the point that there is no differrence between the two, other than chemistry.

 

[Shin]

oh, sorry, the argument has been made earlier in the thread.

a roomba is a little robot vacuum, you know from TV?

animals are simply chemically programmed, robots, or, ‘meatbots’, from a chemistry standpoint.

i was making the point that there is no differrence between the two, other than chemistry.

BTW, they’re making some quite realistic animal/robots these days. To the point where they can and do fool people.

Elderly in Japanese nursing homes are given robotic animals that do not die and cannot harm them, but do respond to them in ways that mentally stimulate them and improve their mood.

So the roomba example is a pretty good one! lol.

 

[limerick]

" … thats because you think you and the dog are equals. i aint buying it, its easy enough to make that arguement when you aren’t actually starving."

And just as easy for you to make your argument when you aren’t actually starving. Have you missed a meal lately? I would bet you have no idea what your mind and body would tell you under the given circumstances.

And really, what does it matter? If you would beat the tar out of the person handing food to the dog, either to seize the food for sustenance or to make a philosophical or moral point, you and your actions would come to be judged by God, who is the only being with the authority to assess your behavior. If a different man lay starving and felt empathy for the hungry dog, and found kinship with him as he was handed the food, and prayed that God would send along another soul who would treat him with equal kindness and respect, which suffering person do you believe God would look upon with more mercy in his hour of judgment?

Much earlier on this thread, you proposed that every suffering person is Christ. Which of the two suffering men referred to above bears a closer resemblance to Christ?

Old dogs can learn new tricks. Sometimes people can learn new ways of embracing God’s world.

Limerick

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

oh, sorry, the argument has been made earlier in the thread.

a roomba is a little robot vacuum, you know from TV?

animals are simply chemically programmed, robots, or, ‘meatbots’, from a chemistry standpoint.

i was making the point that there is no differrence between the two, other than chemistry.

Oh, sorry I missed that. LOL…and as I remember I have seen those on TV.

So, you are saying there is no difference between a robot vacuum and an animal? When was the last time you saw a robot vacuum assist a disabled person…or when was the last time you saw a robot vacuum give you comfort when you were sad? Yep, they are the same…no difference…uh-huh…

 

[Shin]

" … thats because you think you and the dog are equals. i aint buying it, its easy enough to make that arguement when you aren’t actually starving."

And just as easy for you to make your argument when you aren’t actually starving. Have you missed a meal lately? I would bet you have no idea what your mind and body would tell you under the given circumstances.

And really, what does it matter? If you would beat the tar out of the person handing food to the dog, either to seize the food for sustenance or to make a philosophical or moral point, you and your actions would come to be judged by God, who is the only being with the authority to assess your behavior. If a different man lay starving and felt empathy for the hungry dog, and found kinship with him as he was handed the food, and prayed that God would send along another soul who would treat him with equal kindness and respect, which suffering person do you believe God would look upon with more mercy in his hour of judgment?

Much earlier on this thread, you proposed that every suffering person is Christ. Which of the two suffering men referred to above bears a closer resemblance to Christ?

Old dogs can learn new tricks. Sometimes people can learn new ways of embracing God’s world.

Limerick

Actually if I had to choose between a starving dog and a starving homeless person, what I would do is feed the dog to the homeless person.

 

[Shin]

Oh, sorry I missed that. LOL…and as I remember I have seen those on TV.

So, you are saying there is no difference between a robot vacuum and an animal? When was the last time you saw a robot vacuum assist a disabled person…or when was the last time you saw a robot vacuum give you comfort when you were sad? Yep, they are the same…no difference…uh-huh…

Read post above please. Thank you.