Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[Salonika]

Originally Posted by Salonika
Hope your “I tend more” includes taking you dog to the vet when it’s sick!!!

About “Rainbow Bridge” and similar ideas - I too find them over the top but I see the value in them if they help people not to remain enmeshed in grief over their animals’ death.

I think that marking an animals death is fine - and cannot understand how someone would not do so if especially if the animal has been a loved family member for a number of years.

this was posted by Cracker Mom

warpspeedpetey, please check post 422 for who posted this.

 

[Sair]

see what i mean? there all just robots without some serious objective evidence.

If you want to argue for the relative importance of humans from a genuinely objective viewpoint, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any argument that holds water.

Firstly, from an evolutionary perspective, every animal has evolved to fill an ecological niche, and while some people like to fancy that humans are the ‘pinnacle’ of evolution, we’re actually just the end of one branch of a vast evolutionary tree. It’s hard to argue objectively that humans are more important to the world than any other animal, or that we have more of a ‘right’ to be here.

In fact, from the point of view of global ecology, humans have been a disaster. Most of our technological developments have been designed to take as much from the planet as we possibly can. We have altered environments at an unprecedented rate. We have found ways to circumvent many of the natural controls that normally keep animal populations at sustainable levels. We are, without doubt, the most destructive and wasteful species on Earth.

Even the argument that humans are most important to other humans has flaws. From an objective, biological standpoint, every other human who is not related to you by kinship or social connection is competition for resources. And we have already proved ourselves very accomplished at killing each other.

One might also argue that humans are the only ones with the power to fix the problems we have caused. The strength of that argument, however, rests entirely upon our will to be a force for positive change. I doubt the rest of the world would be adversely affected if humans disappeared altogether. The rats and the cockroaches might have to move back into more natural environments, but they’d survive the change. Most other species would benefit from our absence.

So much for the objective arguments. Every other argument for human importance is wholly subjective and thus open to dispute. Objectively speaking, it’s rather ludicrous to argue that all the vastness of the universe was created especially for a small bunch of naked apes on a small, blue planet.

So, as I’ve said several times before, I will continue to choose to help humans and other animals whenever I can, because my interpretation of both the objective and subjective evidence available to me is that humans and other animals are equally important in their different ways.

 

[Sair]

no, im asserting that there is no evidence of animals having emotions of any kind,

Which is a false assertion, because clearly there is evidence; what you are saying is that the evidence is not enough to convince you, which is a completely subjective statement, and therefore open to question and requiring an explanation. If others are convinced on the basis of the same evidence, that doesn’t make them wrong, or poorer judges than yourself.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

I recently received an email from a friend who knew I was an animal lover. It was a video of a busy thoroughfare. A dog was trying to cross the road and was hit by oncoming traffic, not once, but twice. After the 2nd hit, the dog lay motionless in the road. Out of nowhere came another dog, worked his way through the traffic and went to the stricken, injured dog. With his paws around the neck of the dog he slowly, inch by inch managed to get that dog out of harm’s way and to the side of the road. Construction workers who then saw what was happening came to their assistance. Thankfully, the injured dog recovered.

Haven’t any of you heard of instances when dogs alerted their sleeping homeowners to a fire that would destroy the house and would have killed them if not for their dog’s warning?

Is this all just a chemical reaction in the brain? Come on…

There have been times when you hear of the human animal not doing as much for their fellow man as the dog did who recused the dog hit by a car.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by Salonika
Hope your “I tend more” includes taking you dog to the vet when it’s sick!!!

About “Rainbow Bridge” and similar ideas - I too find them over the top but I see the value in them if they help people not to remain enmeshed in grief over their animals’ death.

I think that marking an animals death is fine - and cannot understand how someone would not do so if especially if the animal has been a loved family member for a number of years.

warpspeedpetey, please check post 422 for who posted this.

cracker mom, posted it originally in post #403

but if everyone used their qoute button this wouldnt really be a problem

 

[Sair]

your a human being, thats all i need to know, you would eat the dog in a starvation situation.

This is, of course, assuming that I had the strength to overpower the dog, which would be just as keen to eat me, if it were starving. This will to survive is as much canine nature as it is human; because I am human, and have the ability to imagine the consequences of my actions, I can exert effort of will to avoid eating the dog, or if I am given food, I can share it.

Does this, in effect, mean that as you would eat the dog, you are therefore no ‘better’ than the dog?

Moreover, knowing that I am human is insufficient evidence for you to determine how I will behave in a given situation. As already well established, you can’t take your own behaviour and use it to assume that my behaviour will be the same. We are very different people - you are a Catholic, I am an atheist; your worldview is homocentric, mine is more broadly inclusive; you require absolute proof (supposedly) to be convinced of something, I am content to work with probabilities. These are just the differences I can establish from reading this thread. What makes you think that my actions in any given situation would be the same as yours?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

see what i mean? there all just robots without some serious objective evidence.

If you want to argue for the relative importance of humans from a genuinely objective viewpoint, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any argument that holds water.

i dont think so, our ability to predate any other species, and the massive civilisation that we constructed, art lit, science.

these things all seem to scream our importance in comparison.

Firstly, from an evolutionary perspective, every animal has evolved to fill an ecological niche

thats backwards, the environmental ‘niche’ set the conditions for evolution.

and while some people like to fancy that humans are the ‘pinnacle’ of evolution, we’re actually just the end of one branch of a vast evolutionary tree. It’s hard to argue objectively that humans are more important to the world than any other animal, or that we have more of a ‘right’ to be here.

we are more important than animals becuase they are chemically driven meatbots. i dont give my roomba ‘rights’ to be here, the dinosuars, had no ‘right’ to be here. appartently the only ‘right’ to be here belongs to the ones who can hold the territory.

the ‘world’ has nothing of import, from the worlds point of view, it doesnt matter if its an airless planetoid, or covered in life.

do you see the massive anthropomorphism here?

In fact, from the point of view of global ecology

the global ecology is a chemical system lacking a ‘point of view’

humans have been a disaster. Most of our technological developments have been designed to take as much from the planet as we possibly can. We have altered environments at an unprecedented rate. We have found ways to circumvent many of the natural controls that normally keep animal populations at sustainable levels. We are, without doubt, the most destructive and wasteful species on Earth.

all part of evolution, we are simply evolutionary presseure, are you asking evolution to stop? or to change its developement into something you like more?

Even the argument that humans are most important to other humans has flaws. From an objective, biological standpoint, every other human who is not related to you by kinship or social connection is competition for resources. And we have already proved ourselves very accomplished at killing each other.

from an objective biological point, we would see that we are all related by kinship, we are all the same species. regardless of our inability to act like it.

One might also argue that humans are the only ones with the power to fix the problems we have caused.

here is where you imply we should alter the course of evolution to fix problems?

would you have stopped the extinction of the dinosuars? because it was a problem? no, because the current biosphere wouldn’t have evolved.

so why are we as an evoltutionary pressure a problem now?

The strength of that argument, however, rests entirely upon our will to be a force for positive change. I doubt the rest of the world would be adversely affected if humans disappeared altogether.

yes, you would be removing the strongest evolutionary pressures in hundreds of millions of years

you would essentiall truncate the tree of evolution, forcing it back, to the level environmentalists have decided is the correct way to do it?

arbiters of evolutions progress is a mighty high horse to place humaniy, and you all have been calling me arrogant.

The rats and the cockroaches might have to move back into more natural environments, but they’d survive the change. Most other species would benefit from our absence.

a world of meatbots, neither knowing or caring about anything. clean of us nasty, evil humans. thats just beautiful, but you wouldn’t be here to enjoy it. and the animals could careless

So much for the objective arguments

.

yeah

Every other argument for human importance is wholly subjective and thus open to dispute.

you seem to believe there is some other view point than ours. i need some evidence of that.

Objectively speaking, it’s rather ludicrous to argue that all the vastness of the universe was created especially for a small bunch of naked apes on a small, blue planet.

it may have well been created for lots of groups of naked apes scattered among the stars, either us or aliens.

what is really ludicrous is to believe that there was a creation for no reason at all.

So, as I’ve said several times before, I will continue to choose to help humans and other animals whenever I can, because my interpretation of both the objective and subjective evidence available to me is that humans and other animals are equally important in their different ways.

what objective evidence? you’ve consistently said that phrase, and then presented none. assumptions, faulty logic and enviro-speak, hardly count as objective evidence. thats why your arguments get massacred, they are just your opinion.

if you wish to commit the immoral act of giving charitable dollars to animals while humans suffer, go ahead. just dont pretend that you have a reason its ok.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

no, im asserting that there is no evidence of animals having emotions of any kind,

Which is a false assertion, because clearly there is evidence;

then please post such evidence, and i will re explain why thats not evidence, again.

what you are saying is that the evidence is not enough to convince you,

no, i am saying that there is no objective evidence that animals have emotions to convince a person an a purely ratioanl basis.

anthropomorphizing animals, to have emotions, and rights, and viewpoints, etc are not evidence of enyhting but your desire to believe animals have emotions.

If others are convinced on the basis of the same evidence, that doesn’t make them wrong, or poorer judges than yourself.

oh yes it does, anthropomorphism is a welll known error in reasoning. if you choose to believe an error, because it seems right, as opposed to being objectively right. then that is an intellectual flaw.

that makes them both poor judges and wrong.

but you can solve this by systematically presenting the evidence that you think concludes animals have emotions, and i will be happy to give them a rational deconstruction, here in plain view.

 

[Sair]

anthrocentrism isn’t the opposite of anthropomorphism,

also anthrocentrism is sustainable in its own right by the evidence of civilisation,

Actually, this depends upon your notion of what ‘superiority’ means. Humans are better at building cities and writing literature than other animals, but that alone isn’t enough to conclude that we are objectively superior.

if sophistication is our standard, that still supports my argument, we are much more sophisticated.

It should be fairly clear by now that sophistication isn’t the standard we are using.

If it is the standard you are using, how do you justify any moral preference for those among the human race who do not exhibit sophistication in either reason, emotion or action?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This is, of course, assuming that I had the strength to overpower the dog, which would be just as keen to eat me, if it were starving. This will to survive is as much canine nature as it is human; because I am human, and have the ability to imagine the consequences of my actions, I can exert effort of will to avoid eating the dog, or if I am given food, I can share it.

use tools, you know, gun, knife, trap, pit, pointy stick

fear of the dog is a poor excuse

Does this, in effect, mean that as you would eat the dog, you are therefore no ‘better’ than the dog?

for me it works both ways, if i am better than the dog, i have a right to eat him,
if i am no better than the dog i have the right to eat him.

Moreover, knowing that I am human is insufficient evidence for you to determine how I will behave in a given situation. As already well established, you can’t take your own behaviour and use it to assume that my behaviour will be the same.We are very different people - you are a Catholic, I am an atheist; your worldview is homocentric, mine is more broadly inclusive; you require absolute proof (supposedly) to be convinced of something, I am content to work with probabilities. These are just the differences I can establish from reading this thread. What makes you think that my actions in any given situation would be the same as yours?

you have the same physical systems, i do, we arent different species, there have been many famines throughout history, the behavior pattern in them is welll established, people will eventually eat whatever they need to to stay alive, including eachother.

so its not credible when you claim it wont be you.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Actually, this depends upon your notion of what ‘superiority’ means. Humans are better at building cities and writing literature than other animals, but that alone isn’t enough to conclude that we are objectively superior.

why not, i can do what any animal can do, better, and then i can learn an entirely new abilities, that i only imagined.

It should be fairly clear by now that sophistication isn’t the standard we are using.

 

[Sair]

ok, prove it to me.

cogito ergo sum? thats only proof to you, its not objective, plus i dont get the relevance

The relevance is that in many cases, absolute proof is impossible. Most of what we take to be proof, in anything other than mathematics and chemistry, which are exact sciences, is in fact subjective.

thats just it, you want us to believe that similar things, like chemical reactions, create in animals emotion like we have.

They are evidence that increases the likelihood that animals experience emotion. Why are you so afraid of this possibility?

im a theist, from the logical necessity of a non-physical first caused linked with the mathematical evidence of convergent messianic prophecies, through a reduction of possible universes, to an independent actor. thats why im a theist.

Some questions arising from this inadequately explained statement - why assume that a god is the first cause? Physicists acknowledge the possibility that something actually could arise from nothing. Do your ‘convergent messianic prophecies’, which create your mathematical evidence, take into account every prophecy ever made, by every prophet of every faith throughout recorded history? How do you, as a naked ape on a small blue planet in our only known universe, reduce every possible universe to a known actor?

In short, how can you be sure that your evidence for the existence of a god is anything other than subjective?

the default should be no emotion, as in you need proof to assign them emotions.

Why should ‘no emotion’ be the default? Why should one not need proof to suppose that animals are emotionless? How is this not merely your bias raising its ugly head?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The relevance is that in many cases, absolute proof is impossible. Most of what we take to be proof, in anything other than mathematics and chemistry, which are exact sciences, is in fact subjective.

which is why its not called proof, its callede opinion. which is what you have an opinion that animals have emotions.

They are evidence that increases the likelihood that animals experience emotion. Why are you so afraid of this possibility?

im not afraid of it, im pointing out that it is an assumption, thats all it is, an assumption

Some questions arising from this inadequately explained statement

its succinct, and to the point, since you implied i didn’t hold my belief in G-d to ratioanal standards

why assume that a god is the first cause? Physicists acknowledge the possibility that something actually could arise from nothing

.

um no they dont, recheck you physics, thats a popular misconception.

Do your ‘convergent messianic prophecies’, which create your mathematical evidence, take into account every prophecy ever made, by every prophet of every faith throughout recorded history?

only if they came true

How do you, as a naked ape on a small blue planet in our only known universe, reduce every possible universe to a known actor?

a random act has an infinite range of possibilities. the odds against any particular universe are 1:infinity

In short, how can you be sure that your evidence for the existence of a god is anything other than subjective?

because its all based on logic, and ratioanal examination, of the available evidence

if you really care than you know where the philosophy and apologetics foruma are.

Why should ‘no emotion’ be the default?

because there is no evidence of aniumal emotion.

Why should one not need proof to suppose that animals are emotionless?

because you cant prove a negative, or you cant prove that something does not exist. remember santa clause?

How is this not merely your bias raising its ugly head?

because we are using some basic rules of logic, they dont have anything to do with me

 

[Sair]

from warpspeedpetey*anthro is the symptom of seeing the world through the human context.

and there is still no evidence of animal emotions, there are ipionions and projections, no actual evidence.*

First of all, how else might we be expected to see the world, other than through a human context?

Secondly, it is worth pointing out that the argument from ignorance works both ways: whilst you claim that I am assuming animals have emotions because there is no evidence that disproves it (despite my presentation of evidence that supports the notion), it is equally invalid for you to assert that because (at least in your view) there is no evidence that proves animal emotions, they cannot exist.

 

[Sair]

*we are more important than animals becuase they are chemically driven meatbots. i dont give my roomba ‘rights’ to be here, the dinosuars, had no ‘right’ to be here. appartently the only ‘right’ to be here belongs to the ones who can hold the territory.

the ‘world’ has nothing of import, from the worlds point of view, it doesnt matter if its an airless planetoid, or covered in life.

do you see the massive anthropomorphism here?*

Actually, what I see is nothing more than an expression of massive pigheadedness (look it up - you might find it instructive), a demonstration of inabilitiy to comprehend or even perceive subtlety, a belief in a might=right morality, and a determination to stick to a narrow worldview and dismiss any possibility that others’ viewpoints may be valid.

But that’s just me…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

i dont think there is another context from which we can view the world. at least i dont see any immediate evidence of one.

Secondly, it is worth pointing out that the argument from ignorance works both ways: whilst you claim that I am assuming animals have emotions because there is no evidence that disproves it (despite my presentation of evidence that supports the notion), it is equally invalid for you to assert that because (at least in your view) there is no evidence that proves

animal emotions, they cannot exist.

you just made the same inadequate argument for proving a negative, as you did withy santa clause.

i dont believe there is any evidence of animal emotions. you have tried to ‘cunningly’ change that into a positive position.

but you still cant prove a negative, or, if you want the flip, disrpove the existence of sopmething.

as there is no evidence to support animal emotions, i dont just assume they have them, you do. without evidence.

if you want to rehash the evidence then simply post it. but you havent so far .

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Actually, what I see is nothing more than an expression of massive pigheadedness (look it up - you might find it instructive),

do you have evidence to offer, at all?

must not as this post was nothing but insults

 

[Sair]

I recently received an email from a friend who knew I was an animal lover. It was a video of a busy thoroughfare. A dog was trying to cross the road and was hit by oncoming traffic, not once, but twice. After the 2nd hit, the dog lay motionless in the road. Out of nowhere came another dog, worked his way through the traffic and went to the stricken, injured dog. With his paws around the neck of the dog he slowly, inch by inch managed to get that dog out of harm’s way and to the side of the road. Construction workers who then saw what was happening came to their assistance. Thankfully, the injured dog recovered.

Haven’t any of you heard of instances when dogs alerted their sleeping homeowners to a fire that would destroy the house and would have killed them if not for their dog’s warning?

Is this all just a chemical reaction in the brain? Come on…

There have been times when you hear of the human animal not doing as much for their fellow man as the dog did who recused the dog hit by a car.

Lovely post That’s really quite a beautiful story. I certainly agree that anyone who has ever had a relationship with a dog - especially if they are a service dog, such as a seeing-eye dog or a hearing dog, would assert the profoud effect that the dog has had upon their lives, and the ability of the dog to sense and respond to human needs. Historically - or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say prehistorically - the relationship between humans and dogs has been deep and mutually beneficial.

 

[Sair]

i dont think there is another context from which we can view the world. at least i dont see any immediate evidence of one.

Indeed. So how do we prove beyond doubt that anything exists independently of our own perception?

you just made the same inadequate argument for proving a negative, as you did withy santa clause.

My intention was to demonstrate the extent to which one can make an honest attempt to prove a negative, to a standard that exposes the positive to reasonable doubt. That was certainly more intellectually honest than your clear intent to set me a challenge that I was doomed to fail, according to the standards you impose. In starting this thread, it appears that you did not expect to be challenged in your beliefs. You posted with every expectation that others would confirm your self-righteous view, and your presumption to judge others’ actions as immoral, without even understanding their motivations. You know this. Others who have read this thread have seen as much. In view of our evidentiary impasse, where you have failed to acknowlege even the objective evidence, I will, as I have repeatedly declared, reserve my right to do as I choose with my own resources, as, I suspect, will others. If other animals benefit from that as well as humans, I believe that is all to the good. You may think what you wish, but it will have no effect on my actions.

i dont believe there is any evidence of animal emotions. you have tried to ‘cunningly’ change that into a positive position.

I notice that you consistently failed to rise to the challenge.

but you still cant prove a negative, or, if you want the flip, disrpove the existence of sopmething.

What you can do is make a negative seem highly unlikely. You haven’t done that.

as there is no evidence to support animal emotions, i dont just assume they have them, you do. without evidence.

With* evidence, as far as evidence is possible. It is absolutely as valid as your belief in a deity.

if you want to rehash the evidence then simply post it. but you havent so far .

I don’t rehash. I employ the technique of multiple explanation, to make my point as clear as I can to as many people as possible. If necessary, I add more information. May I respectfully suggest that you peruse the thread entitled, “How to Argue”?

 

[Sair]

It amazes me that you can’t see the subjectivity of your arguments.

our ability to predate any other species, and the massive civilisation we constructed, art lit, science.

these things all seem to scream our importance in comparison.

Importance to whom, apart from you? To the biosphere? We seem to be engaged on a mission to destroy it.

thats backwards, the environmental ‘niche’ set the conditions for evolution.

Life evolves to suit the conditions, filling a biological niche. Each lifeform has its place in the global ecosystem. Hence the fact that we can’t claim more objective importance than any other species.

we are more important than animals becuase they are chemically driven meatbots.

Except that, objectively speaking, we are chemically-driven meatbots also. Thus far we are equal to other animals. Everything else is subjective.

i dont give my roomba ‘rights’ to be here. the only ‘right’ to be here belongs to the ones who can hold the territory.

So when the artificially intelligent robots start taking over the world, you’ll happily lie down and let them, 'cause they’ve clearly outclassed us mere meatbots. We get it, already.

Seriously, no-one cares about your Roomba, no matter how determinedly you try to make it the subject of meaningful discourse. Many, however, care for animals. If the difference isn’t evident to you, may I say how much I pity you, but your - at times rather odd - perceptions don’t dictate those of anyone else.

the ‘world’ has nothing of import, from the worlds point of view

do you see the massive anthropomorphism here?

I do, but I doubt you’d appreciate the irony. Perhaps my figure of speech was unclear - I meant “in reference to” global ecology.

all part of evolution, we are simply evolutionary presseure, are you asking evolution to stop? or to change its developement into something you like more?

Humans have effectively stalled our own biological evolution. You can’t call technological development an ‘evolutionary pressure’, just our attempt to overcome nature.

from an objective biological point, we would see that we are all related by kinship, we are all the same species. regardless of our inability to act like it.

We are in competition for resources, as are the members of any species. Equal again.

you imply we should alter the course of evolution to fix problems?

If we don’t want to wipe ourselves out with the rest of the world, yes.

would you have stopped the extinction of the dinosuars?
so why are we as an evoltutionary pressure a problem now

I’ve explained this before. And your question is inherently meaningless. The dinosaurs did not destroy the land they occupied.

yes, you would be removing the strongest evolutionary pressures in hundreds of millions of years

arbiters of evolutions progress is a mighty high horse to place humaniy, and you all have been calling me arrogant.

We can be arbiters of our own actions, if we choose. You can’t have it both ways - either we have the ability to care about ecological balance, or we are entirely subject to our animal nature, just mindlessly consuming and reproducing like locusts.

a world of meatbots, neither knowing or caring about anything. thats just beautiful, but you wouldn’t be here to enjoy it.

I appreciate the value of biodiversity in and of itself, as well as its importance for the wellbeing of all species, including humans. The perception of human importance is entirely subjective.

you seem to believe there is some other view point than ours. i need some evidence of that.

I have at least demonstrated a different viewpoint than yours. That is sufficient for our present purposes.

it may have well been created for lots of groups of naked apes scattered among the stars, either us or aliens.

The possibility has appeal, but before I can see it as anything other than a nice story, I need either more evidence or some personal experience that will turn acknowledgement of possibility into conviction. And, yes, I am subjectively applying standards of proof, as you have done when it has suited your purposes and has aligned with your doggedly-held beliefs about the world.

what is really ludicrous is to believe that there was a creation for no reason at all.

Nope, that’s a dispassionate assessment. To suppose there was a reason for it is not only anthropomorphic and anthropocentric, but it is also supposing that we are capable of knowing the mind of God, even if such a God exists. As a self-professed proponent of mathematical probability, you should know that given a sufficient number of years - let’s say hundreds - perhaps thousands - of millions, chance alone could have produced the variety of life living today and preserved in the fossil record. Surely you’ve heard the analogy of the infinite number of monkeys…

what objective evidence? assumptions, faulty logic and enviro-speak, hardly count as objective evidence. thats why your arguments get massacred

Yes, you’re a legend in your own mind. Massacred? ‘Enviro-speak’? You are revealing nothing but your own prejudices.

if you wish to commit the immoral act of giving charitable dollars to animals while humans suffer, go ahead.

Oh, I do wish it, if only because you have yet to offer any objective proof of said immorality. That and the fact that I actually care about the welfare of nonhuman animals. That’s ample reason to use my own resources as I see fit.