[QUOTE=Gary Kumquat]
II’m sorry, but the level of bonding between a human and an animal is far less than that between a parent and child.
[/QUOTE]
Again, I wasn’t talking about bonding or the social aspects of love. I was talking about the emotion itself. Whole 'nother kettle of fish.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
Again, I wasn’t talking about bonding or the social aspects of love. I was talking about the emotion itself. Whole 'nother kettle of fish.
[/QUOTE]
Lissa, why don’t you take a stab at answering my questions above in post 32.
[QUOTE=me]
The closest I can come to it are these questions. It also assumes you love your Mom or Dad and they are still alive.
Jim
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
[/QUOTE]
Of course I would save the human before I would save my pet. I said (twice I believe) that a human’s life is far more valuable than an animal’s.
As for the second part, it’s not exactly a fair question. My respone is, “I’d try to save them both, going to the one which is easiest to save first and then going back for the other one. I’d assume that the adult is better prepared to deal with the situation than the child, so I’d probably try to save the kid first if they were both equidistant.”
But that’s not what you want, is it? You want me to say whether I’d value my kid’s life over my mother or father’s life. Well, I don’t know. That’s a whole 'nother debate in itself. Since I trust I’ll never be in one of those situations, I’ll just leave it to be one of those late night philospohy questions that you ask your friends after a bottle of wine.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
Again, I wasn’t talking about bonding or the social aspects of love. I was talking about the emotion itself. Whole 'nother kettle of fish.
[/QUOTE]
Erm, no it’s not. How can you exclude aspects such as depth of bond or emotional involvement from an analysis of “Can a Person Love a Pet as Much as a Child?” Hell, talking about quantifying love is dangerously close to a “length of string” question as it is, but if you then decide to exclude some of the most vital aspects of the emotion then really how can any comparison be made?
[QUOTE=Lissa]
Of course I would save the human before I would save my pet. I said (twice I believe) that a human’s life is far more valuable than an animal’s.
As for the second part, it’s not exactly a fair question. My respone is, “I’d try to save them both, going to the one which is easiest to save first and then going back for the other one. I’d assume that the adult is better prepared to deal with the situation than the child, so I’d probably try to save the kid first if they were both equidistant.”
But that’s not what you want, is it? You want me to say whether I’d value my kid’s life over my mother or father’s life. Well, I don’t know. That’s a whole 'nother debate in itself. Since I trust I’ll never be in one of those situations, I’ll just leave it to be one of those late night philospohy questions that you ask your friends after a bottle of wine.
[/QUOTE]
However, I think that does answer the question, I do not believe most people can love their pet as much as someone loves their child. I know if push came to shove, my parents would demand I save my kids first and that would be my first instinct if I only had time to save just one or the other. I guess they are leading questions, but if you value a human’s life over a pet’s life, I think you already answered your own question.
Let me throw in a new question:
Would you rescue a complete strange before your beloved pet?
I think this is tougher, and I think I understand where some people might choose their pet over a stranger; I also do not believe most people would admit this, even on a message board. I will be honest, if it was a child, I would rescue the child, if it were an adult, I might have a much harder time deciding. This probably makes me a bad person. As with all these questions, I hope I never need to find out which way I would decide.
Jim
[QUOTE=Gary Kumquat]
Erm, no it’s not. How can you exclude aspects such as depth of bond or emotional involvement from an analysis of “Can a Person Love a Pet as Much as a Child?” Hell, talking about quantifying love is dangerously close to a “length of string” question as it is, but if you then decide to exclude some of the most vital aspects of the emotion then really how can any comparison be made?
[/QUOTE]
Look at it like a salad. Emotion is the lettuce. All of the social aspects we build around love is the dressing.
The social structure built around love has varied enormously throughout the years. People have had the “lettuce” since the dawn of time but the “dressing” has changed in enormous ways. Essentially, you’re saying that you can’t exclude *modern American *sensibilities when talking about love and I just don’t think that’s true.
Emotion is a very simple but powerful thing. A chimp mother looking at her baby excretes the same chemicals in her brain as a human mother. Likely, she’s *feeling *the same thing as a human. The social structure surrounding her love for her baby is going to be vastly different than a human’s, but the emotion is probably the same.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
Look at it like a salad. Emotion is the lettuce. All of the social aspects we build around love is the dressing.
The social structure built around love has varied enormously throughout the years. People have had the “lettuce” since the dawn of time but the “dressing” has changed in enormous ways. Essentially, you’re saying that you can’t exclude *modern American *sensibilities when talking about love and I just don’t think that’s true.
[/QUOTE]
One simple correction - it’s hardly likely that a non american would be applying modern american sensibilities.
More important point - I think your definition of love is completely incorrect. You describe love as a thing of itself, which is then surrounded by other factors such as emotional bonds, shared experience. I think that is completely, 100% wrong, and that “love” as much as it can be defined consists of a series of complex, interleaved components such as those I’ve mentioned above. I think for you to take your thesis any further on whether a person can love a pet more than their child, you’d be better off starting a new thread trying to define love.
Passing shot - your reduction of love to a simple chemical reaction can be fairly easily disproved by the lack of working love potions. If it really was as simple and singular as that, love drugs would replace rohypnol as the date rape chemical of choice.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
Emotion is a very simple but powerful thing. A chimp mother looking at her baby excretes the same chemicals in her brain as a human mother. Likely, she’s *feeling *the same thing as a human. The social structure surrounding her love for her baby is going to be vastly different than a human’s, but the emotion is probably the same.
[/QUOTE]
You keep pointing to the role of neurotransmitters in emotions as if they must be equal for each emotion and for all people. We don’t know nearly enough about emotions and neurotransmitters to make such a statement. It seems unlikely, however, that there could or would not be any neurological mechanism by which differing intensities of emotional feeling could be perceived. I mean, one may feel different levels of pain on a completely neurological basis, right? Why would there be one level of emotion based on neurochemistry, and why would this one level be consistent across people and species?
[QUOTE=Lissa]
Look at it like a salad. Emotion is the lettuce. All of the social aspects we build around love is the dressing.
The social structure built around love has varied enormously throughout the years. People have had the “lettuce” since the dawn of time but the “dressing” has changed in enormous ways. Essentially, you’re saying that you can’t exclude *modern American *sensibilities when talking about love and I just don’t think that’s true.
Emotion is a very simple but powerful thing. A chimp mother looking at her baby excretes the same chemicals in her brain as a human mother. Likely, she’s *feeling *the same thing as a human. The social structure surrounding her love for her baby is going to be vastly different than a human’s, but the emotion is probably the same.
[/QUOTE]
I do not believe that is the same thing. You are probably correct that a chimp “loves” her baby as much as a human. But that does not mean that most humans can love their pet as much as a child. I had pets before I had children. Almost every parent that posts in these threads, universally says the same thing, “it is not the same”. People with only Pets can love them more than anything else in their life but for most people when that first child comes along, it takes love to a new level that was not imagined before. Maybe it is more chemicals, related to species preservation. Maybe it is some spiritual connection. Maybe it is something strongly built into the Genetics of Humans and our closest cousins.
Jim
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Would you rescue a complete strange before your beloved pet?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not really sure what the answer to this might tell you about the question at hand as it says nothing about love.
Try this, would you rescue your spouse or a 5 year-old stranger (assuming you could only manage one but knew you could get either)?
We are socialized to value humans over animals. We are socialized to value children over adults. This says nothing about your love for the animal or an adult.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I’m not really sure what the answer to this might tell you about the question at hand as it says nothing about love.
Try this, would you rescue your spouse or a 5 year-old stranger (assuming you could only manage one but knew you could get either)?
We are socialized to value humans over animals. We are socialized to value children over adults. This says nothing about your love for the animal or an adult.
[/QUOTE]
I would in all probability rescue my wife. But I agree, my question is not a great follow-up in retrospect. I will just stick to my two original questions.
[QUOTE=Gary Kumquat]
One simple correction - it’s hardly likely that a non american would be applying modern american sensibilities.
[/quote]
Pardon me. I didn’t know. Let’s revise my comment to say, “modern Western sensibilities.”
Riddle me this: can a two-year-old child love its parents? How would it be possible without the self-reflection and memory that you think are requisite to love?
Let’s talk about the concept of “love at first sight.” Do you believe it exists? I do-- in a way. Perhaps it would be more accurately termed “infatuation at first sight” or “lust at first sight,” but I think anyone who’s experienced it would say it’s a very real phenomenon. Now, I’m not talking about it as a basis for a marriage or even a relationship-- I’m talking about the sensation. The heart flutters, the electric jolts of attraction, the desire to touch that person . . . It’s an emotion, regardless of what you want to call it. It’s not based on any sort of shared history or even complicated social exchanges. It’s a base, instinctual sensation which has a physiological basis (i.e chemicals in your brain are causing your pulse to elevate, your pupils to dialate, your skin to flush and giving you a slightly giddy sensation.)
Love, as I’m speaking of it, is the same way. Many mothers report that the instant they saw their new baby, they were flooded with extreme highs of emotion. It’s a feeling which requires no higher reasoning.
There actually are drugs which can replicate the physical sensations of love. Ecstasy is one of them. Many users report feeling very loving towards others. (Don’t want to break any board rules by linking to the site, but if you type in the drug name followed by .org and click on “experiences” you can read first hand accounts of users who describe very emotional experiences.)
Let’s not start a debate on rape. I’ll just say that rapists aren’t generally looking for aloving experience with their victims and leave it at that. Secondly, having the physical sensations of love doesn’t make you automatically willing to have sex.
The physical sensations, or the feelings of love can be chemically replicated. What cannot be forced is the social structure surrounding love. To liken it to another object (besides salads) the emotion is the bridge and the social structure is the supports. If you’ve got a short bridge, you don’t need a lot of suppots, but that doesn’t mean the bridge can’t be very strong. It’s when the bridge is widened that the supports are needed.
Some people dress them in clothes. They bury them in pet cemetaries. I dont think they are heavily represented on this board.But they obviously have a big connection.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
can a two-year-old child love its parents? How would it be possible without the self-reflection and memory that you think are requisite to love?.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. Of course a two year old is a rather developed wee soul, who is very capable of self-reflection and memory. The younger you look at, the less so. For instance, I wouldn’t say that the one year old I’m about to pick up from her bed and change the nappy of loves me, as such. She smiles when I come in, giggles when I splash bubbles, and does a happy dance when I sing the grumpy baby song, but I wouldn’t say she’s capable of loving a person.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
Let’s talk about the concept of “love at first sight.” Do you believe it exists?..Love, as I’m speaking of it, is the same way. Many mothers report that the instant they saw their new baby, they were flooded with extreme highs of emotion. It’s a feeling which requires no higher reasoning.
[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t believe in love at first sight. Passion, infatuation, lust, wonder - yes. Love - no. The first time I clamped eyes on my first child I was flooded with emotions, but that’s not love.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
There actually are drugs which can replicate the physical sensations of love. Ecstasy is one of them. The physical sensations, or the feelings of love can be chemically replicated. What cannot be forced is the social structure surrounding love.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I’d suggest you’ve not done a lot of E. I can state categorically that while it heightens many suggestions, and makes you open to dancing badly and hugging strangers, it’s far from being in love.
I have to be honest - none of your analogies are anything I recognise as love. I’m really not sure if there’s anything further I can say or do in this thread, as frankly it feels to me as if we’re talking about chalk and cheese. You’re talking about floods of emotions, salads and bridges - and none of these are love as I’d define it. To me, it seems like you’re trying to show that a person can love an animal as much as a child, if you restrict the definition of love to something rather trivial.
You aren’t going to get very far without defining what “love” is, which is about as easy as defining what “art” is, and so on.
But I’ll play along.
If you’re going to attach a hierarchy to love, most humans would say they love their child more than their best friend. If someone loves a pet equal to a child, then does that mean that they love their pet more than their best friend? If so, then that person is likely deranged.
I love animals. I have three cats, a dog, and about a dozen various other reptilian-type critters. I don’t have children, but I can’t imagine I’d ever love one of my animals as much as someone loves a child. Not even close. For one, I wouldn’t run into a burning house to rescue one of my cats. I love ‘em, but if it’s between me and the cat - see ya kitty. (Well I might risk my life for my turtle, he’s pretty friggin’ cool.) My 18 year old cat Toes recently died from cancer. It was terribly sad to watch him decline and eventually die - we practically grew up together. I miss his meows and stinky cat farts, but I wasn’t absolutely devastated by his passing, like I would be if my best friend or one of my parents died. I didn’t go into any deep mourning, nor did I need a counselor. I’m a 24 year old male if that means anything.
Can someone love an animal as much as a child? Sure, but I don’t think they should. If one of my parents or best friends had cancer and someone told me they knew how I felt because their dog was sick, I’d want to smash their teeth in.
My first post in GD and frankly I’m scared!
I love animals (might be a surprise to anyone who knows where I work) and I was devastated for weeks when I lost my dog. He was my best buddy from the day I took him home till the day he passed. During my divorce the thought of losing him was the only thing that moved me to tears. I loved that dog.
I’m now re-married and have a 2 year old son. I love that boy, more than I ever thought possible. He is my future and everything I do is in some way connected to him. The thought that I might lose him some day is so horrific as to be unthinkable.
There-in lies the rub for me.
When I got my dog I knew he would die long before me (unless a soccer mom, on a cell phone, in a SUV took me out). That didn’t matter because I also new there would be 12 years or so of love and fun with him before that happened. I didn’t think every day that “uh-oh, only 6 years to go I’d better give him a special treat”.
If I was told the day my son was born that he would only live about 12 years every day would be a mixture of joy and sorrow. Every day I’d be looking at the calander and my heart would be breaking.
So, did I love my dog? Yes, as much as I think anyone does love a pet
Does it compair to how I love my child? No, not even in remotely.
I’ll go back into my corner now and behave I promise!
[QUOTE=SeaDog]
If I was told the day my son was born that he would only live about 12 years every day would be a mixture of joy and sorrow. Every day I’d be looking at the calander and my heart would be breaking.
[/QUOTE]
Earlier I mentioned a couple I know who have a perpetually haunted look about them after losing their son over 10 years ago. What you describe is precisely what happened to them. Their son was born premature and got a blood transfusion tainted with HIV (this was the early 80’s). He lived 12 years (although at the time they had no clue how long he might live).
I have never seen any pet have such a deep and profound affect upon someone and I say this being one of those people who deeply loves his pet. I cannot imagine what my life would have been without my dogs growing up but I promise I would be a lesser person today if not for them.
I saw this thread the other day, and skipped it, but since this is in the middle of a sleepless night caused by recent events, I thought I would check in.
[QUOTE=me]
Dead is a loss and the loss of a baby is loss of a complete life. The loss of dreams and the loss of a future. There is a 5 lb. 1 oz hole in my heart which will not mend. A river of tears has flown but the spring from which they come shows no sign of drying.
[/QUOTE]
Ian Pough was with us for an all-too-short 5 hours and 30 minutes. Although I talked to him while he was still in his mother, and could feel his kicks, we had so little time together. Yet, I love him, my first child, more than anything in the world. Were there anything I could have done to keep him in this world for even a tiny bit longer, I would gladly done anything. Tears flow from the memory as I write this.
Ian was (damn, I hate writing that in the past tense) my first child, and while I’ve owned pets, there is such a difference with the love of a child. Friends have told me that having children really changed their lives, but it was not until Ian Pough was born that I really understood this.
Thankfully, among the many kinds words offered in condolence, no one attempted to tell me how much they understand because of the loss of their cat.
[QUOTE=Carnick]
If you’re going to attach a hierarchy to love, most humans would say they love their child more than their best friend. If someone loves a pet equal to a child, then does that mean that they love their pet more than their best friend? If so, then that person is likely deranged.
[/QUOTE]
Now, I don’t know if I would go that far. Some people have rather distant relationships with their friends.
I think the prevailing assertion by those with the kid > pet perspective is that there is something overpowering about the love one has for their own child, specifically. On the continuum of close friend to acquaintence to stranger there is definitely a point after which the pet is the the more loved entity in a pet owner’s life.
Lissa? I think one could cite posts like TokyoPlayer and claim that, even if there is lots of interaction with the pet and next to no interaction with the child, the level of emotion still strongly favors the child. If one would be willing to accept these anecdotal examples as evidence, would it effect your position any?
This is pretty much what I think too. I don’t think it’s very useful to try to limit the definition of “love” to “some endorphins squirting around the brain.”