Unregistered bull, how about defecating here instead?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@davenportavenger

Humans have a consciousness. We have complex systems of communication. We have the ability to make decisions. We are one of the few animals who can change our environment, for better or worse, and we’re the only ones who do it intentionally.

Many animals have consciousness. It’s true that no other animal has a language that’s anything like human language–but then, no other animal has a nose that’s anything like an elephant’s nose. Dogs can and do make decisions, and one of the best ways to calm a dog in an animal shelter is to give it some simple decisions that it can make (e.g., put a platform in the cage, so that the dog can choose whether to sit on the platform or under the platform). Many, many animals change their environment–the theory of ecological succession is predicated on this ability of organisms. (For a simple exmaple, look at coral). You’re right that no other creature can intentionally change its environment on a macro scale.

We’re the only animals who can plan for, or even imagine, the future, and one of the only species who can think about or care about the past (apparently chimps and elephants have death rituals that point to their being able to understand the past, but it is not definite).

Dogs bury bones, and then later they go out and get the bones from the spot where they buried them, even if they are unable to perceive visually or olfactorily evidence of the bone’s burial. Surely that points to an ability to think about the past? A dog wags its tail by the door, anticipating that the owner will take it for a walk; what explanation for this behavior is better than hypothesizing that the dog is thinking about the future, when it will be outside and taking a walk?

All of this is due to differences in the brain. A lot of people treat animals as if they were just little furry retarded human beings, but in fact the differences between the species are very deep. We share the majority of our genes with flatworms, too. A lot of those genes are stuff that just codes for “life in general,” meaning that all living things have those genes.

Agreed; that’s why I say that a simple lesson in biology won’t require a person to support animal rights. (And FTR, I’m using the term to refer to folks like Tom Reagan, who have comprehensive philosophies in which animal rights are central and who are traditionally referred to as supporters of animal rights). However, I’ll also point out that, while the differences between humans an dflatworms behaviorally are very deep, the differences between humans and bonobos are much, much less deep.

It ignores the true reality of human-animal relations

I apologize for this blow-by-blow response to your post; everything above is my suggestion that the differences between humans and our closer nonhuman relatives are not as monumental as you suggest (although they certainly exist–language being the best example of a qualitative difference).

However, if you respond to only one thing in this post, I’d appreciate its being this question:

What is the true reality of human-animal relations?

Daniel

[liberty3701]

@davenportavenger

If you seriously think that the differences between humans and animals are skin deep, or end at the animals’ lack of opposable thumbs, you need a biology lesson stat.

When, oh when, did I say there was no difference between humans and animals?! I’m talking about value, not biology, dumbass. Things can be different but equal. One American dollar and 200 hungarian Forints are different, but monetarily equal. Of course, I’m not comparing living things to money, just using a little metaphor for your convienience. If you’re going to be condescending, at least base it on something I actually said or infered.

There’s that qualifier “probably” again.

Yeah, there is a qualifier becuase I can’t predict the fucking future. And what if there was no way I could save the person, like if they were too heavy for instance and the person was being swept away by a current, but there was a kitten in the same current that I could easily scoop up? I would save the kitten and try to save the person, but obviously things don’t always work out the way you want.

We are one of the few animals who can change our environment, for better or worse, and we’re the only ones who do it intentionally. We’re the only animals who can plan for, or even imagine, the future, and one of the only species who can think about or care about the past (apparently chimps and elephants have death rituals that point to their being able to understand the past, but it is not definite). All of this is due to differences in the brain.

Cite? Cite?! *CITE?!! *How can we know any of this for sure? We used to think animals couldn’t feel pain, but we were very, very wrong. You can’t make broad sweeping statements like this for which you cannot prove. Adding a few qualifiers would be nice. That’s all I ask.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

I’ll need some time to compile my retort to your reponse to my request for elaboration, davenportavenger, but in the meantime, I’ll ask you a few more questions.

I support animal rights–the right of animals not to suffer needlessly, the right of animals to be left alone in their natural environments. I just don’t believe their lives are equal to human ones, or even close to it.

What about the ever-increasing conflict of humans expanding into the natural environments of other species? If human life is worth more than the life of other species, does that mean, in your view, that our claim to the environment trumps theirs? If the human population continues to expand, in your view, is it an acceptable outcome to have the entire globe devoid of all species who are not directly exploited for the benefit of humans? If not, where do you draw the line? When, if ever, are the immediate needs of humans not the highest priority of existence?

[LavenderBlue]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

I doubt this story will make a dent in UB’s willful ignorance, but cnn.com is reporting on Evacuees anguished at leaving pets behind:

That story should make anyone cry. I certainly felt that way when reading it.

[uglybeech]

Ordinarily I’m all for intelligent debate. But with Davenport? She’s shown an almost total lack of understanding for human nature (of which she is theoretically one) - so I can’t imagine anyone can take her speculations on animal nature seriously. Especially considering the bulk of her knowledge seems to be drawn from the odd nature program. She’s got some sort of inexplicable antipathy for people who love their pets - in other words she hates normal humans. Let it go.

[davenportavenger]

@uglybeech

She’s got some sort of inexplicable antipathy for people who love their pets - in other words she hates normal humans. Let it go.

WTF, dude? I’ve owned pets. I’m saving up for a pet right now. I LIKE ANIMALS, OK? My beef was with people who care MORE about their pets than people. Just how bad is your reading comprehension?

@liberty3701

When, oh when, did I say there was no difference between humans and animals?! I’m talking about value, not biology, dumbass. Things can be different but equal. One American dollar and 200 hungarian Forints are different, but monetarily equal. Of course, I’m not comparing living things to money, just using a little metaphor for your convienience. If you’re going to be condescending, at least base it on something I actually said or infered.

Well, I think individual humans beings have more worth than individual animals too. So there.

@LHoD

What is the true reality of human-animal relations?

I think it’s kind of a “you leave us alone, we’ll leave you alone” thing. Mostly, I just hate it when people treat animals like little humans. Because they’re not. We may share some genes with them, but their perception of the world is totally alien, and I think that is what makes animals so interesting. Because they’re not like us.

@honeydewgrrl

What about the ever-increasing conflict of humans expanding into the natural environments of other species? If human life is worth more than the life of other species, does that mean, in your view, that our claim to the environment trumps theirs? If the human population continues to expand, in your view, is it an acceptable outcome to have the entire globe devoid of all species who are not directly exploited for the benefit of humans? If not, where do you draw the line? When, if ever, are the immediate needs of humans not the highest priority of existence?

I don’t think the human claim to the environment trumps the animals’, in fact, it’s probably the other way around, or our claims are at least equal. I’m talking about humans vs. animals on a micro scale–would you save a stranger over your dog?–not saying that humans have the right to plow down whatever remains of Nature we find. On the macro scale, we’d do well to limit our population and allow animals to take up more of the planet, even if that means fewer humans would be around.

Repeat: it is on the MICRO SCALE that I think humans are more important. On the MACRO SCALE, the question becomes meaningless. It’s like asking “which do you like better, air or water?” We need both those things for life, and we need both humans and animals to sustain the world we have right now.

[liberty3701]

@davenportavenger

Well, I think individual humans beings have more worth than individual animals too. So there.

and I disagree, so nanny-nanny-boo-boo.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@davenportavenger

I think it’s kind of a “you leave us alone, we’ll leave you alone” thing. Mostly, I just hate it when people treat animals like little humans. Because they’re not. We may share some genes with them, but their perception of the world is totally alien, and I think that is what makes animals so interesting. Because they’re not like us.

I believe this is wrong in many ways.

First, the “true reality of animal-human relations” clearly does not consist of “you leave us alone, we’ll leave you alone.” Mosquitoes don’t leave us alone. Rats don’t, ravens don’t, weevils don’t, tigers don’t. And we don’t leave them alone; nor do we leave dogs, cats, cows, fighting-roosters, cane toads, or spotted owls alone. On the contrary, any sort of “true reality of animal-human relations” consists of a huge variety of neither side leaving the other alone for a single moment.

Maybe you mean that each side SHOULD leave the other side alone. While I have no idea what “should” would mean when applied to (say) German cockroaches (who would pretty much die out if they left us alone), that would at least not be evidently false. Even so, if it’s a SHOULD statement, then saying that people are ignoring this “true reality” is presumptuous at best.

Second, when you say that people treat animals like little humans, I think you’re missing the point. Clearly few people treat animals like little humans (some do, and they’re insane, I agree). Virtually everyone recognizes that spaying a pet is not the same sort of atrocity that forcibly sterilizing a person would be, for example. Virtually everyone agrees that you’d be treating a human cruelly if you forced them to subsist on Purina Cat Chow. Virtually nobody thinks that refusing to send your Siamese cat to kindergarten is against the law. Virtually everyone recognizes a spate of differences between nonhumans and humans.

Perhaps you mean that you hate it when people form strong emotional attachments toward people. In that case, read on.

Third, their perception of the world is not totally alien at all. When a dog lowers his forelegs to the ground, wiggles his butt, wags his tail, lets his tongue loll, and makes little spazzy forward motions, I know how that dog is feeling. He’s feeling excited and happy and ready to play. There’s nothing alien about any of those emotions. When a bull lowers his head, snorts, and paws the dust while staring at someone out of his eye, I know how that bull is feeling. He’s feeling angry and aggressive and like kicking some ass. There’s nothing alien about any of those emotions. Similarly, I know how a cockatiel feels when she grooms her mate, how a mother cat feels when she shoos a teething kitten away from the teat, how a hamster feels when she bites the child that’s handling her roughly. It’s almost as easy for me to understand their perception of and response to the world in these cases as it is for me to understand the perception/response of a human who doesn’t speak my language.

Yes, animals are different from us. When a student tells me that her dog knows he’s a man and that neutering him would be taking something precious away from him, she’s ignoring the reality of animal behavior and psychology. But when you claim that their perception of the world is totally alien, you’re ignoring their behavior and psychology just as much.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

I want to add that I don’t think you’re a horrible animal hater, davenport, and I hope I’m not coming across that way; while your comment to Papsett seemed unnecessarily harsh, I understand (probably better than just about anyone else here except Bull) that animal issues can raise the dander more than most other issues.

Daniel

[uglybeech]

@davenportavenger

WTF, dude? I’ve owned pets. I’m saving up for a pet right now. I LIKE ANIMALS, OK? My beef was with people who care MORE about their pets than people. Just how bad is your reading comprehension? :dubious:

Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension:

@DavenportAvenger

Originally Posted by uglybeech
Let me just get this straight - you are seriously saying that survivors who grieve over the loss of their pets are selfish whiny losers who should not be taken into consideration?

At this point in the disaster, when people are still stuck in their attics, up to their eardrums in filthy, cholera-infested swamp water, while roving gangs of “looters” and “finders” **ransack their possessions ** and fight it out with the nominal police, Mad Max style?

Yes.

Any normal person will mourn their pet. But in your bizarre worldview that’s pathological pet-love as long as any human is suffering anywhere. And apparently it’s ok with you if they were upset about their possessions being looted - but if a survivor feels bad about their pets you’re standing there ready to heap scorn upon them.

And then there’s these strange statements:

@DavenportAvenger

A lot of people treat animals as if they were just little furry retarded human beings, but in fact the differences between the species are very deep.

@DavenportAvenger

I’m thinking more of the “furparents” whose mental health may be compromised by their pathological devotion to their pets.

@DavenportAvenger

I think the way humans treat their “furbabies,” like they were children or siblings, is demeaning to both the humans and the animals. It ignores the true reality of human-animal relations, and sometimes prevents the humans from forming bonds with creatures who can reciprocate our feelings on our level.

Furbabies? Furparents? WTF are you talking about? People who love their pets a lot? Please outline what sort of love is acceptable to you? If it’s just loving animals more than humans you could have said that but didn’t. Like I said. My reading comprehension’s fine. If you can’t say what you mean that’s your problem.

[Guinastasia]

Most people who talk about their “furbabies” are just being silly, and they don’t seriously believe their pets are humans in fur.

[SnakesCatLady]

I call my cats my “furbabies” because they are my children. I know they are cats, they eat cat food, they drink water, they don’t go to school, etc. I am not deluded that they are human. They give me love and comfort, and I give them love and take care of them. We each receive from the other. I don’t understand why some people have such a problem with silly names. I mean, damn, I’m not down at the school board protesting that since I pay school taxes and have no children, my cats should be allowed to go to school. Grow up a little and realize that just because you don’t feel love toward something, be it music or art or pets, doesn’t mean it’s not valuable to someone else. I mean, your mother loved you, didn’t she? Or maybe not, and that’s why you’re so hateful.

[davenportavenger]

@uglybeech

Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension:Any normal person will mourn their pet. But in your bizarre worldview that’s pathological pet-love as long as any human is suffering anywhere. And apparently it’s ok with you if they were upset about their possessions being looted - but if a survivor feels bad about their pets you’re standing there ready to heap scorn upon them.

No dude, your reading comprehension is not fine. Where exactly did I say that people aren’t allowed to mourn their pets as long as there’s suffering? Point it out without making a huge logical leap, please. And like, I’m barely even talking about the survivors. Wasn’t the main reason this thread was started to talk about how people on this board were crying about the animals? AFAICT, none of the people posting about the animals were survivors.

@Snakescatlady

Grow up a little and realize that just because you don’t feel love toward something, be it music or art or pets, doesn’t mean it’s not valuable to someone else. I mean, your mother loved you, didn’t she? Or maybe not, and that’s why you’re so hateful.

Oh holy fuck. I HAVE HAD pets, okay? And I did love them! Just because I would choose to save a human over my pet does not make me a loveless puppy kicker. Criminy!

So a lot of people here would save a dog over another human. I can buy that. I think it’s idiotic, but there are a lot of idiots out there. What I don’t get is why my personal opinion automatically makes me a horrible person who can’t love, while the people who said they’d choose the pet get plenty of huggles from the MPSIMS crew. Bizarro world.

[uglybeech]

@davenportavenger

No dude, your reading comprehension is not fine. Where exactly did I say that people aren’t allowed to mourn their pets as long as there’s suffering?

Holy God. I quoted it RIGHT THERE verbatim. And quoted you about twelve times already. But OK I’ll go through the whole fucking thing AGAIN.

@DavenportAvenger

Someone who would cry over a dog while other people suffer? Definitely in the latter group, and thus a person who should not be taken into consideration.

The latter group being “whiny losers” engaged in “selfish whining” At which point I thought I’d give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe your meaning was different from what you said. So I asked for clarification:

@Uglybeech

Let me just get this straight - you are seriously saying that survivors who grieve over the loss of their pets are selfish whiny losers who should not be taken into consideration?

To which you unambiguously confirmed that was what you meant:

@DavenportAvenger

At this point in the disaster, when people are still stuck in their attics, up to their eardrums in filthy, cholera-infested swamp water, while roving gangs of “looters” and “finders” ransack their possessions and fight it out with the nominal police, Mad Max style?

Yes.

So how do those quotes not precisely mean it’s not ok to mourn for pets while other people are suffering? Please explain how what you said was actually completely different from what you said.

[davenportavenger]

@uglybeech

So how do those quotes not precisely mean it’s not ok to mourn for pets while other people are suffering?

I was talking about mourning while people were still suffering in this disaster, while the wound is still fresh, while people are still stuck there. You said that I said that it’s not okay to mourn ANY pet while ANY human is suffering ANYWHERE in the world. A pretty big leap, don’t you think?

[uglybeech]

@davenportavenger

I was talking about mourning while people were still suffering in this disaster, while the wound is still fresh, while people are still stuck there. You said that I said that it’s not okay to mourn ANY pet while ANY human is suffering ANYWHERE in the world. A pretty big leap, don’t you think?

So let me see if I follow: A survivor who has abandoned his pet to starve to death on the roof of his house is a selfish whiny loser if he feels bad about it - *if and only if * other people in New Orleans are still suffering. On the other hand it would be acceptable for him to feel about bad about it if people are suffering anywhere else. Say Darfur. Darfur is sufficiently distant that it’s ok to mourn your pet while people suffer there.

Anything to add or subtract from that before I guffaw?

[davenportavenger]

@uglybeech

So let me see if I follow: A survivor who has abandoned his pet to starve to death on the roof of his house is a selfish whiny loser if he feels bad about it - *if and only if * other people in New Orleans are still suffering. On the other hand it would be acceptable for him to feel about bad about it if people are suffering anywhere else. Say Darfur. Darfur is sufficiently distant that it’s ok to mourn your pet while people suffer there.

Anything to add or subtract from that before I guffaw?

Well, since you’re making it your mission to twist my words around to your own liking, nitpicking out the details and disregarding the actual message, seems like anything I post will make you guffaw. Personally, I think you’re a tad histrionic, but since more people agree with you than with me I guess I’m outvoted. This thread barely has a focus anymore anyway.

[uglybeech]

@davenportavenger

Well, since you’re making it your mission to twist my words around to your own liking, nitpicking out the details and disregarding the actual message, seems like anything I post will make you guffaw. Personally, I think you’re a tad histrionic, but since more people agree with you than with me I guess I’m outvoted. This thread barely has a focus anymore anyway.

All right whatever. I’m supposed to ferret out some message that’s completely different from what you actually say. You know what? If I’d actually been interested in twisting what you said I wouldn’t have TWICE asked you for confirmation of your meaning (granted the second request was asked with some sarcasm). But I’ll cop to some histrionics. I find the whole thing so overwhelmingly, utterly SAD and PITIFUL that the kind of contempt (“losing their little puppy wuppy”) you injected in there just infuriates the fuck out of me.

[Contrapuntal]

@Contrapuntal

bolding mine

How prevalent a phenomenon is this? Can you provide a reliable cite? Do you have any credentials that would qualify you to make judgements concerning “mental health” and “pathological devotion”?

davenportavenger. Can I assume that your lack of response indicates that you are unable to support your assertion of the aforementioned phenomenon, and that you are in no position to make such judgements?

[Contrapuntal]

Police rescue dog before all humans are safe. OK, maybe two of their comrades have killed themselves. And maybe 25% of the force is unaccounted for and presumed to have resigned. But what were they thinking? I don’t know about you, but after 5 days without food that kibble would be looking pretty good to me.

Human doctors renounce oath, cross species barrier. These guys, who drove 30 hours in a state-of-the art, one of a kind mobile hospital, only to balk at the red tape Our Most Esteemedly Wise Leaders quite reasonably required, showed their contempt for the human race by leaving and driving where they damned well pleased. And for what? To hydrate a sick puppy.!

Franklin Graham was right. We are living in a godless society.