Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[BlyssfulDreamer]

I wonder if you, stranded in the wilderness and having to choose between eating Joe or Joe’s dog, would choose Joe instead?

Just curious. I’m not planning on going on any camping trips with you soon.

Have we strayed from the topic of the thread perhaps? This is getting a little more than morbid…

BTW…I would starve before doing either of those aforementioned…

 

[Shin]

Have we strayed from the topic of the thread perhaps? This is getting a little more than morbid…

BTW…I would starve before doing either of those aforementioned…

Now now, suicide is a mortal sin. If God provides you with with a dog and a fire. . . hot dog!

Eat! Mangia mangia!

Think of the poor starving children in China.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Well, then you have truly missed out. Haven’t you heard of dogs who go to nursing homes and visit residents? My elderly aunt is such a person and her biggest joy is when the dogs come to visit. They go from one resident to another and bring comfort and joy. I know I have been the recipient of such comfort from my precious furry friend.

You know, I enjoy the humor & banter in these posts.Sometimes the truth can be more clearly seen through the outrageous.
No one’s seriously considering eating their dog any time soon but we’re just pointing out it is a choice that can be defended morally, if not gastronomically.
Sure, I know folks in nursing homes get a lot of enjoyment from animals.Who knows? God created animals & perhaps He might use them in ways we don’t understand with reason.St.John Bosco had encounters with a large dog who may have been used supernaturally or have been an angel.Remember Balaam’s donkey in the Bible?
The problem is “animal rights.” Animals do not have rights so to speak, because they’re not human.However we do have the responsibility of being good stewards of God’s Creation.
I really enjoy my dog, too.And don’t have any recipes pending that include him.But he is a dog. People come first.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, then you have truly missed out. Haven’t you heard of dogs who go to nursing homes and visit residents? My elderly aunt is such a person and her biggest joy is when the dogs come to visit. They go from one resident to another and bring comfort and joy. I know I have been the recipient of such comfort from my precious furry friend.

sure, i achieve the same effect at my mothers nursing home, wearing a tony the tiger costume.

ok, maybe not,but the point is that the dog isn’t trying to comfort people, he is just a dog, he doesnt even know what that means, the people are projecting that ability on him.

comfort, shmumfort, give the dog some kibble and he is the same either way

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Now now, suicide is a mortal sin. If God provides you with with a dog and a fire. . . hot dog!

Eat! Mangia mangia!

Think of the poor starving children in China.

as to eating joe or his dog, being a kansas citian, its really going to come down to how sweet this batch of BBQ sauce turns out.

 

[limerick]

I wonder if you, stranded in the wilderness and having to choose between eating Joe or Joe’s dog, would choose Joe instead?

Just curious. I’m not planning on going on any camping trips with you soon.

The wilderness offers more to eat than Joe or his dog.

Limerick

 

[Sair]

Exactly, which is why I explicity stated that it was the suggestion of some scientists and philosophers. Not stated as fact, but opinion. After all, that’s a get-out-of-jail-free card according to your reasoning.

Having said that, there is of course a qualitative difference between an informed opinion and an opinion that is based on little more than a stubborn refusal to consider all the possibilities.

 

[Sair]

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?

Nice post

The whole charity-begins-at-home thing is something that seems to have been overlooked so far in this thread, but the point is certainly relevant. Our greatest responsibilities are to care for those nearest to us, and spreading ourselves too thin in attempting to aid those for whom we have no direct responsibility can impinge upon our ability to look after our own.

And when it comes down to it, every person is responsible for their own actions, whether you believe you are answerable to God or merely to your own conscience, and regardless of the views of ill-natured, small-minded little people.

 

[Sair]

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…

Another relevant point. Some people just don’t want help. That is their choice, ultimately. I remember working a soup-patrol shift (Red Cross van distributing soup to people who otherwise might not be able to eat) and having some people who were so intent upon fighting with each other that they threw the soup in each other’s faces instead of eating it. When they did this a second time, we had to refuse them a refill - there were other people who needed to eat who were willing to accept it, and they took priority.

 

[Salonika]

Sair:

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.

Great post, Sair.

Think if we treat other animals as if they are human we are morally reprehensible - they also have the right to be treated as the animal they are. That’s why I do not approve of dressing domesticated them in human clothes, keeping them inside all the time and/or treating them as an accessory.

 

[Salonika]

warpspeedpetey:

no one is saying be inhumane to anything, i dont beat my roomba, or not give it electricity. same with animals, i like my cats, i just know they are meaty little robots, i feel about them the same as my roomba. at least my roomba doesn’t shed

If I had a roomba, and reading about them that would be great, I certainly would be very grateful for what it did but I would not feel the same way as I feel about my cats. The roomba would only do what I told it to do (or not if something was wrong with it) whereas my cats respond.

I think just from that feature you can’t say that animals and robots are the same. We may not know why animals respond the way they do or what it means, but they do respond.

Also I do know that if I accidentally stand on my cat’s tail they respond. The roomba wouldn’t.

warpspeedpetey:

that aside, how can we be abusing the planet, because we are successful?

Because we are polluting it, we make decisions that humancentric, we forget we have a responsibility for maintaining a balance in the world. That the world without such a balance may not survive and if the world does not survive then that is the end of humanity (unless it colonises another planet and does the same thing again).

warpspeedpetey:

just put yourself in the starving persons shoes. if someone gave food 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.

Have always had real questions about people why people argue taking the most extreme situation to try and demolish someone’s views or beliefs or make them change.

The reality is that almost all situations it can be support for both the human and the animal. Am I expected to say now I shouldn’t help both in this situation because sometime I might not be able to do so.

As Sair has said “The argument should never be to feed a homeless person or a stray dog. Why cannot we do both?”

warpspeedpetey:

did Christ pray for strays? get real.

Yes, those people who had strayed from the path.

Doesn’t he still want people to return to the straight and narrow.

warpspeedpetey:

ive never had an animal give me comfort when i was sad. that would be projecting anthropomorphism on the animal.

Or it could be the truth. Think some animals, especially cats and dogs do tune into our feelings and respond to them. Maybe they pick up a scent, maybe we treat them differently and they know. I’m not anthropomorphising (saying they feel the emotion as us) but they do pick something up.

 

[Sair]

boy, that really seems to bother you doesn’t it? woulde it be better if i called myself a facts based reductionist? or a fliflamublated tortugermer? whats the hang up here?

No particular problem, only that materialism is a very limited philosopical approach, and that many of your posted comments are incompatible with rationalism. Even if you said you were an empiricist, I would suggest that you need to do a lot more research.

Actually, when I googled “rational materialism”, the first hit was the following: therationalgod.com/archives/22

frankly a normal person would have eaten the dog long before their own death was imminenet.

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.

really in that situation would be a whole different matter. what your saying simply isnt credible

yeah, thats not credible either. i dont think you could take a night out in the cold by yourself, much less act with such incredibly inhuman reserve

the truth about people in these situations is ‘the donner party’

not ‘lassie’

attacking the dog and eating it, would be the nost ratioanl response a predator could make.

ok, then, as long as there wasnt a person starving on the other side of the dog, thats ok

i know, remember the donner party?

Ooh, temper, temper. Are you getting mad because you’re feeling outclassed, or are you really this much of a brute? I’ll be charitable and assume it’s the former.

gee, now that i see you would not bbe angry that a person fed a dog, while you starved to death, you must be right after all

For all you know of me, this may well be the case. Have you never heard of personal sacrifice for an ideal? What about all those martyrs you Catholics admire so much?

 

[Sair]

I realise that what I’m about to post might find a more fitting home on the Philosophy forum, but given that the issue of the relative moral merit of humans and animals has already been raised, and certainly bears some relevance to the original topic, I’ll include it here as food for thought.

Humans are, to the best of our knowledge, unique among mammal species in possessing extensive powers of abstract imagination. This, above all others, is the ability that has enabled us to change the face of the world with our technology.

However, I would suggest this doesn’t translate to making us the most important species in the natural order, nor does it mean the earth was made for us, for our use. To assume so is to assign human abstract imagination to an impersonal material universe, and as we have been repeatedly assured by the OP, ascribing human qualities to nonhuman entities is a big no-no, because it skews our perception of reality.

It is of course natural that humans should feel the importance of fellow humans, because every species displays an affinity for its own kind. Humans differ from most other animals, however, in exhibiting a strong affinity and affection for other creatures. We can perceive their needs and we have the power to meet those needs if we so choose.

Now here’s the moral conundrum - if we suppose, as the OP has suggested, that we are just another force of nature, a mere evolutionary pressure, then this is to say that we are qualitatively the same as any other animal, and it gives the lie to any supposition that we are “better”, and more entitled to moral consideration than the rest of animal life. This approach has the advantage of giving us a blank cheque, of justifying, in terms of evolutionary success, our exploitation of the rest of the world for our own material gain. It does, however, remove any possible claim to moral superiority.

On the other hand, if we accept that those powers of abstract imagination I mentioned earlier go beyond those of other animals, then we are no longer a mere evolutionary pressure, an entity completely subject to the laws of the natural world. Instead, we become entities who have a choice in how we act, a choice that isn’t necessarily circumscribed by the challenges of simple survival. We have the choice to work in harmony with the natural world or against it. The difficulty with this approach comes from the resulting moral implications. If we wish to claim that we are morally superior to the animals that are completely subject to nature, as many seem to believe, then we are obliged to use our power over nature for positive ends, for protection of the rights of all other creatures to inhabit the world. But if we knowingly use our power for selfish and destructive ends, are we not then morally inferior to animals who act largely from natural compulsion, and cannot knowingly choose between good and evil?

 

[Sair]

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.

They would be hilarious as an exercise in absurdism, were it not for the frightening possibility that he actually thinks that way…

 

[Sair]

the dog aint fixing to let him eat it without a fight.

Why not, if it was fulfilling God’s plan for it?

This is turning into a big game of “Spot the Contradiction”. Keep it up folks - I’m having a great time!

 

[Sair]

Well, then you have truly missed out. Haven’t you heard of dogs who go to nursing homes and visit residents? My elderly aunt is such a person and her biggest joy is when the dogs come to visit. They go from one resident to another and bring comfort and joy. I know I have been the recipient of such comfort from my precious furry friend.

Dogs are awesome. I don’t think I appreciated just how wonderful they really are until I took my dog into my home almost six years ago, when he was a tiny little puppy (not that you would think he’d ever been tiny, to look at him now!) Having such a close bond with a dog, such that you are ultimately responsible for his welfare, and he trusts you to take care of him, is really a beautiful experience. When he is a little older and a little calmer, I’m hoping to get approval to take him to visit nursing homes.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Having said that, there is of course a qualitative difference between an informed opinion and an opinion that is based on little more than a stubborn refusal to consider all the possibilities.

the qualitative difference between an informed opinion and a

‘‘opinion that is based on little more than a stubborn refusal to consider all the possibilities’’

would seem to be the lack of evidence.

anything is possible, it only becomes more than a wish when you have some evidence.

not conjecture based on the well known logical fallacies of anthropomorphism, and emotional projection, etc.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Nice post

The whole charity-begins-at-home thing is something that seems to have been overlooked so far in this thread, but the point is certainly relevant. Our greatest responsibilities are to care for those nearest to us, and spreading ourselves too thin in attempting to aid those for whom we have no direct responsibility can impinge upon our ability to look after our own.

 

[Sair]

the qualitative difference between an informed opinion and a

‘‘opinion that is based on little more than a stubborn refusal to consider all the possibilities’’

would seem to be the lack of evidence.

anything is possible, it only becomes more than a wish when you have some evidence.

not conjecture based on the well known logical fallacies of anthropomorphism, and emotional projection, etc.

Actually, anthropomorphism and emotional projection are not, strictly speaking, logical fallacies. However, whilst we are on the subject, I could point out a few logical fallacies in your reasoning:

Ad hominem - you assume that because the people making statements about animal emotions (in this case, biologists, biochemists and naturalists) are necessarily (to your way of thinking) biased in favour of animals, then their conclusions about animal emotion and affective consciousness must be false, based on the possibility that they are exercising anthropomorphism.

Argument from fallacy - even though anthropomorphism isn’t technically a logical fallacy, the fact that you claim it to be so is enough to make your argument fallacious; that argument being, of course, that because arguments for animal emotions must, in your view, be influenced by anthropomorphic tendencies in scientists, that their evidence of animal emotions is automatically negated.

False dichotomy - you propose that the only two alternatives are to help humans exclusively, or to help animals exclusively; in fact there are many alternatives that achieve a balance between the two.

And of course, your favourite, the negative proof fallacy - you assume that because animal emotions and affective consciousness (awareness of sensation) cannot be conclusively proven, that they must not exist. True, this fallacy exists in reverse - ie: the assumption that because it can’t be conclusively disproven that animals experience emotions, that they must do so. However, in this case, I can appeal for supporting evidence to my own experience, my own senses, and the extensive research of qualified scientists, so that my position becomes not one of logical fallacy, but one where I believe that sufficient evidence exists for my conclusion to be reasonable, if not absolutely certain.

Incidentally, you have also fallen into a few informal fallacies, such as the argument from ignorance and the burden of proof fallacies, but I will leave it up to you to decide if you agree or not. I too have given way to the exercise of fallacies on occasion in this thread, but unfortunately I am, like everyone else, an imperfect being, and I do sometimes let my temper get the better of me.

Having now said everything I think it is possible and reasonable for me to say regarding the subjects of this thread, I shall apologise for any offence I have caused, and respectfully withdraw from the argument. :tiphat:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If I had a roomba, and reading about them that would be great, I certainly would be very grateful for what it did but I would not feel the same way as I feel about my cats. The roomba would only do what I told it to do (or not if something was wrong with it) whereas my cats respond.

I think just from that feature you can’t say that animals and robots are the same. We may not know why animals respond the way they do or what it means, but they do respond.

Also I do know that if I accidentally stand on my cat’s tail they respond. The roomba wouldn’t.

2 things here

1. havent’ you all been trying to make the argument that the sophistication doesn’t matter?

that just supports my argument that we are demostrably superior to animals, because we are capable of things they arent, i.e. art, literature, etc

1. the roomba can be programmed to respond to stimuli in a catlike manner, the cat has just evolved certain chemical programming,

the only difference would seem to be in the programming.

Because we are polluting it, we make decisions that humancentric, we forget we have a responsibility for maintaining a balance in the world. That the world without such a balance may not survive and if the world does not survive then that is the end of humanity (unless it colonises another planet and does the same thing again).

if we are just animals, whats wrong with that?, its just evolution, we are just anolther evolutionary pressure for the biosphere to adapt to, if we go to another planet, wouldn’t that still just be applied evolution?

are you saying we should stop evolution now, because everything is ‘good enough’?

Have always had real questions about people why people argue taking the most extreme situation to try and demolish someone’s views or beliefs or make them change.

The reality is that almost all situations it can be support for both the human and the animal. Am I expected to say now I shouldn’t help both in this situation because sometime I might not be able to do so.

As Sair has said “The argument should never be to feed a homeless person or a stray dog. Why cannot we do both?”

because animals are little chemically programmed meatbots, would you take care of a roomba, or a super catlike roomba, over a human being? no

why would you care for a meat bot over a human being?

you keep assigning animals, qualities that you have no evidence of.

humans first, then, if you must care for stray roombas, than feel free. but as long as there are people suffering, it is morally wrong to give their bread to the meatbots.

Yes, those people who had strayed from the path.

Doesn’t he still want people to return to the straight and narrow.

stray animals

Or it could be the truth. Think some animals, especially cats and dogs do tune into our feelings and respond to them. Maybe they pick up a scent, maybe we treat them differently and they know. I’m not anthropomorphising (saying they feel the emotion as us) but they do pick something up.

and then what?

they offer you comfort? they put you on their little cat couches, pull a freud?

of course not, their response indicates no understanding of your emotional state.