Why do animals suffer?

[warpspeedpetey]

Then why would they say it is wrong to make animals suffer, if they don’t suffer? As you assert.

because the writer is anthropomorphizing also. they simply assumed it the way others do, yet clearly, we can program machines to give the same signals that people interpret as emotions and suffering in animals, so that assumption isnt evidence of anything but an assumption.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

because the writer is anthropomorphizing also. they simply assumed it the way others do, yet clearly, we can program machines to give the same signals that people interpret as emotions and suffering in animals, so that assumption isnt evidence of anything but an assumption.

So, it is safe to assume that you believe the authors of the Catechism are mistaken?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So, it is safe to assume that you believe the authors of the Catechism are mistaken?

do you believe that infallibility covers more than faith and morals? that it also covers science, or anything the Church speaks on?

 

[JDaniel]

1. the Church is not an authority on science, thats the whole point of the doctrine of infallibility only applying to matters of faith and morals, not science.
2. the syllogism is invalid regardless of who the authority is that is appealed to, its still fallacious reasoning.
3. if you quote an authority you are taking the position that they are correct, so yes, it is your authority too.
4. this chain of fallacious reasoning began with cherry picking a statement that wasn’t a teaching, but rather the opinion of the author.
5. you admit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

you may really want to believe that animals have emotions, that they can suffer, but you lack any evidence that such a thing is true. now you are trying to force me to agree with you based on a faulty understanding an authority you dint accept yourself.

Pete:

Would you not accept that animals, though they may not suffer precisely as people do, can, in fact, suffer? For example, although they seem to have higher thresholds for pain, could they not suffer (meaning, “endure”, “put up with”, “be subjected to”) something like food, or water, deprivation? Could they not suffer from continuous torture, or, infestations of fleas, etc.?

Without anthropomorphizing, would not a significant alteration of behavior, such as lack of normal movement, eye contact, excitement to see its caretaker, signify that there is something that the animal is enduring that is beyond normalcy? Now, it may not be exactly as human suffering, but, it is sufficiently like our suffering to cause us to know that something is wrong, isn’t it?

Having worked for an animal hospital, some years ago, that happened to be about a half a mile away from a slaughtering facility, I did have the occasion to walk down there to witness for myself what took place. I have to say that the slaughtering of the livestock did not appear to be cruel at all. It certainly did not cause any suffering, and, if there was any pain, it was only for a second. If you have seen the movie, No Country for Old Men, the instrument they used to kill the cows was a larger version of the pneumatic contraption the killer used. Death was instantaneous. Prior to death, the livestock was fed well and watered well.

Based partly upon my experience with a slaughter house, I eat meat. I am certain that the absence of meat in a human’s diet is deleterious to his health. You will never see a professional weight lifter, or, body builder, not eat meat. If you did, it would be an extreme rarity. Do you agree with any of this?

jd

 

[Bill_Cherry]

do you believe that infallibility covers more than faith and morals? that it also covers science, or anything the Church speaks on?

I believe that if they put it in the catechism it is a tenet of the faith and therefor it is a moral issue. I also believe they have their own scientists and that they put a lot of time and research into everything they do. To guarantee that when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra, or when the put forth a doctrine, that it is based on sound principles. I believe that is part of the Magisterium and the Infallibility.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Pete:

Would you not accept that animals, though they may not suffer precisely as people do, can, in fact, suffer? For example, although they seem to have higher thresholds for pain, could they not suffer (meaning, “endure”, “put up with”, “be subjected to”) something like food, or water, deprivation? Could they not suffer from continuous torture, or, infestations of fleas, etc.?

Without anthropomorphizing, would not a significant alteration of behavior, such as lack of normal movement, eye contact, excitement to see its caretaker, signify that there is something that the animal is enduring that is beyond normalcy? Now, it may not be exactly as human suffering, but, it is sufficiently like our suffering to cause us to know that something is wrong, isn’t it?

Having worked for an animal hospital, some years ago, that happened to be about a half a mile away from a slaughtering facility, I did have the occasion to walk down there to witness for myself what took place. I have to say that the slaughtering of the livestock did not appear to be cruel at all. It certainly did not cause any suffering, and, if there was any pain, it was only for a second. If you have seen the movie, No Country for Old Men, the instrument they used to kill the cows was a larger version of the pneumatic contraption the killer used. Death was instantaneous. Prior to death, the livestock was fed well and watered well.

Based partly upon my experience with a slaughter house, I eat meat. I am certain that the absence of meat in a human’s diet is deleterious to his health. You will never see a professional weight lifter, or, body builder, not eat meat. If you did, it would be an extreme rarity. Do you agree with any of this?

jd

say we constructed a robotic cat programmed and built to respond just as a real cat does, when i step on its tail, it hollers and runs off, would the the robotic cat really be suffering ?or would i simply be anthropomorphizing that behavior as “suffering”. fact is theres no evidence that doesnt amount to anthropomorphization, that animals can suffer. it just looks like it to us.
projective pareidolia.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I believe that if they put it in the catechism it is a tenet of the faith and therefor it is a moral issue. I also believe they have their own scientists and that they put a lot of time and research into everything they do. To guarantee that when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra, or when the put forth a doctrine, that it is based on sound principles. I believe that is part of the Magisterium and the Infallibility.

then surely you can point out an official church teaching as to how we know animals suffer. if that is a matter of faith and morals as your now claiming then there should be an ex cathedra statement on it.

your letting emotions cloud your judgement, i am quite happy to let you hold any belief you choose, but dont put words in the churchs mouth.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

then surely you can point out an official church teaching as to how we know animals suffer. if that is a matter of faith and morals as your now claiming then there should be an ex cathedra statement on it.

your letting emotions cloud your judgement, i am quite happy to let you hold any belief you choose, but dont put words in the churchs mouth.

**Everybody has given you lot’s of evidence, but you ignore it. But, whatever. . Pride can be a dangerous thing, my friend. **

 

[JDaniel]

say we constructed a robotic cat programmed and built to respond just as a real cat does, when i step on its tail, it hollers and runs off, would the the robotic cat really be suffering ?or would i simply be anthropomorphizing that behavior as “suffering”. fact is theres no evidence that doesnt amount to anthropomorphization, that animals can suffer. it just looks like it to us.
projective pareidolia.

Pete:

But, they do sense pain, right? And if that pain was of a continuous nature, would it not meet the definition of “suffering”?

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

**Everybody has given you lot’s of evidence, but you ignore it. But, whatever. . Pride can be a dangerous thing, my friend. **

you have no scientific evidence.

you have no teaching from the church.

you have no evidence of any kind whatsoever.

what do you have? feelings, emotion, sentimentality. surely you dont expect rational people to accept those things as evidence do you?

your the one that isnt admitting that lack of evidence. so if pride is the issue, its not my issue.

anthropomorphism.org/psychology2.html

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Pete:

But, they do sense pain, right? And if that pain was of a continuous nature, would it not meet the definition of “suffering”?

jd

sure they can sense stimuli, that doesnt mean that their reaction is “suffering”. this is a very old problem, it has more to do with our psychology than any evidence of animal emotions.

anthropomorphism.org/psychology2.html

lets be clear, if one allows this irrationality, then how long before we are nothing more than animals ourselves? the first step to genocides have always been the destruction of someones humanity. it has happened to the Jews, africans, muslims, and on and on. the marxist regimes of the last century did it to political opponents, they werent human because they didnt hold the political/economic/atheistic positions of the elite.

think about preference utilitarianism, those singerites are in government now. one may think that could never happen to us, but in just the last century it happened to more than a 100 million of our fellow man. it is occuring in darfur now, and it will undoubtedly happen again.

luckily the truth is on our side, there is no evidence for animal emotions or suffering. i refuse to abandon the truth as buffalos tag line says, it would be easier for me to simply go along, join the crowd, but its not the truth. we are people, animals are things.

 

[redhen]

sure they can sense stimuli, that doesnt mean that their reaction is “suffering”. this is a very old problem, it has more to do with our psychology than any evidence of animal emotions.

A working definition of emotion from my textbook;

“A universal, functional reaction to an external stimulus event, temporarily integrating physiological, cognitive, phenomenological, and behavioral channels to facilitate a fitness-enhancing, environment shaping response to the current situation.” Kalat WJ, Shiota NM. Emotion. (2006) Belmont (CA): Thomson Wadsworth.

Rats seem to be a favourite test subject for conditioned **fear ** tests.

“The role of hippocampus in the anxiolytic-like effect of buspirone in the conditioned emotional response test”

sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0G-4GV985K-9&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=980685135&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8ccbc6fc3f8541311eeba9ebf75153b8

Receptors in the amygdala (a primitive part of brain shared by many vertebrates) can be blocked to reduce or eliminate fear.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11356900

(I’m surpised Kim Jong-il is not using this method on his soldiers yet.)

lets be clear, if one allows this irrationality, then how long before we are nothing more than animals ourselves?

Slippery slope fallacy.

the first step to genocides have always been the destruction of someones humanity. it has happened to the Jews, africans, muslims, and on and on. the marxist regimes of the last century did it to political opponents, they werent human because they didnt hold the political/economic/atheistic positions of the elite.

Appeal to fear (see how important the emotion of fear is?)

luckily the truth is on our side, there is no evidence for animal emotions or suffering. i refuse to abandon the truth as buffalos tag line says, it would be easier for me to simply go along, join the crowd, but its not the truth. we are people, animals are things.

Violation of the 1st constitutive rule of argumentation: The truth-seeking principle.

This is not an argument. Your mind is made up. No matter how much evidence I give, you refuse to even take it into consideration.

There’s no point in continuing this discussion with you.

Have a nice day.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

lets be clear, if one allows this irrationality, then how long before we are nothing more than animals ourselves? we are people, animals are things.

Technically, we are animals. Mammals. “Homo Sapiens”. But, you already knew that.

The XVIII International Conference organised by the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers was held on the 13th of November 2003 in the New Hall of the Synod of Bishops. Cardinal Paul Poupard spoke on the theme Depressive Ideas in the Contemporary World, examining the major weaknesses of the dominant culture which trouble man in his different dimensions as homo faber, homo amicus, homo politicus, homo sapiens e homo religiosus. He concluded with the antidote to depressive ideas: He who is the way, the truth and the life.
from
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/cultr/documents/rc_pc_cultr_20033011_doc_iv-2003-syn_en.html

 

[warpspeedpetey]

A working definition of emotion

from my textbook;

“A universal, functional reaction to an external stimulus event, temporarily integrating physiological, cognitive, phenomenological, and behavioral channels to facilitate a fitness-enhancing, environment shaping response to the current situation.” Kalat WJ, Shiota NM. Emotion. (2006) Belmont (CA): Thomson Wadsworth.

Rats seem to be a favourite test subject for conditioned **fear ** tests.

“The role of hippocampus in the anxiolytic-like effect of buspirone in the conditioned emotional response test”

sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0G-4GV985K-9&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=980685135&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8ccbc6fc3f8541311eeba9ebf75153b8

Receptors in the amygdala (a primitive part of brain shared by many vertebrates) can be blocked to reduce or eliminate fear.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11356900

(I’m surpised Kim Jong-il is not using this method on his soldiers yet.)

yes, i know we anthropomorphize a rats reaction to stimuli as fear, i could just as easily characterize a roombas reaction to a drop off staircase as fear too, it avoids it, ergo the roomba must fear dropoff staircases! if i turn its sensor off, then it doesnt have any “fear” amazing!

maybe we could save all those rats lives and just use roombas.

really though, maybe your not understanding what it means to anthropomorphize an animal, when animal behaviorists characterize the rats reactions as “fear” that is anthropomorphization, why do they do it? projective pareidolia, the tendency for people to find patterns where there are none. what you have been calling evidence all falls under this rubric

Slippery slope fallacy.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Technically, we are animals. Mammals. “Homo Sapiens”. But, you already knew that.

The XVIII International Conference organised by the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers was held on the 13th of November 2003 in the New Hall of the Synod of Bishops. Cardinal Paul Poupard spoke on the theme Depressive Ideas in the Contemporary World, examining the major weaknesses of the dominant culture which trouble man in his different dimensions as homo faber, homo amicus, homo politicus, homo sapiens e homo religiosus. He concluded with the antidote to depressive ideas: He who is the way, the truth and the life.
from
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/cultr/documents/rc_pc_cultr_20033011_doc_iv-2003-syn_en.html

yes, we are taxonomically classified as animals, from a purely physical standpoint. that doesnt mean that other animals have emotion or can suffer, i know we do, because i know i do.

 

[liquidpele]

This is not an argument. Your mind is made up. No matter how much evidence I give, you refuse to even take it into consideration.

There’s no point in continuing this discussion with you.

Have a nice day.

I think that about sums it up right there.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think that about sums it up right there.

yeah he based that on an explanation to JD of why im unwilling to go along to get along. do you have any evidence that animals can suffer?

 

[Bill_Cherry]

yeah he based that on an explanation to JD of why im unwilling to go along to get along. do you have any evidence that animals can suffer?

Do you have any evidence that they don’t?

 

[po18guy]

Actually I am vegetarian. I know how the Muslims slaughter - not very pleasant.

Just because plants lack the vocal cords necessary to scream when they are torn from the earth does not mean they do not suffer. For you to live, something has to die.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

Just because plants lack the vocal cords necessary to scream when they are torn from the earth does not mean they do not suffer. For you to live, something has to die.

Jesus in the Eucharist as the bread of life and the body and blood of Christ is the closest thing to meat I want in my mouth.

The suffering plant thing is just dumb. No offense. But it is.