242 replies to this topic

[Alakhriveion]

The fact you're wealthy enough to compensate for it in your diet doesn't mean people, MOST people, still needs 'em some meat. And the fact you're a pacifist won't make the population keep itslef down.

[Selena]

Well, I'm sure you certainly could. So forget everyone else in the world, because that isn't really relevant. And the plant point is ridiculous, and designed to stop people from doing anything at all. I'm not going to make it a secret that pesticides used on plants kill millions of insects. But that stuff is going on anyway. You really can't argue that things will be bad whatever, because then you'll never get anything done.

I'm sure he could too if he wanted. But you weeere saying all of humanity should stop eating animals since we've 'evolved' out of that whole primitive thing. So it is relevant. And hey, plants are alive after all, and cause less harm than anything that can move. Except for blackberry bushes. Stupid thorns... *grumble grumble*

I have.

Sorry for everyone who eats meat being less-than-thou.



As for the soulless animal thing... I do wanna ask if any of you guys who think that have ever owned a few pets in your lifetime? 'Cause all of mine have or have had distinct personalities and quirks. Kinda like, well, people. When I hear that animals don't have the ability to think and to feel, then I think 'bullshit' in response.

But... even though I'm an animal lover, I realize that its a vital part of our world, humans here or not, for animals to eat other animals. Just so long as you make the most of their death. If you wanna abstain, that's cool. You're an omnivore so you've got the choice. Just don't condemn people for eating corpses. It's the...erm... circle of life.

And if people had evolved to the point where they weren't ruled by instinct, they'd be robots. Instincts will always be a part of us, and influence us. You can suppress them and ignore them if you can manage, but you'll never be free of them so long as you're alive. Even you, Catt.

[Doopliss]

Dogs aren't called man's best friend for nothing. They are extremely loyal, and will show more loyalty to a person than a person will usually show to another person. At times, a dog will display more evidence of a soul than any human. Until you know the secrets of life and death, I doubt you will be able to discern what does and does not have a soul.

Oh, really? I thought the dog stays with you just because you give it food and care of it, you know, it's better than having to take care of your own predators, having to junt for your food and having to protect your shelter from intruders.

Oh, and, by the way, people, I believe (though I'm not completely sure) that psychology determines that humans don't have any instinct (this means someone needs to teach you everything). What we have are reflexes (that allow us, for example, to start breathing, or that make us draw away when we touch a hot surface).

Plus, we have no need to eat animals, actually, it's much better for health to not consume animal-derivated food.

Edited by Doopliss, 20 December 2005 - 06:22 PM.

[Doopliss]

Now that's a ridiculous statement. If you tread on a dog's tail, will it not yelp in pain?

Your argument can just as easily be applied to human beings. All pain is a reaction to an environmental stimulus to guarantee the individual's survival. If you were to stab me in the hand right now, you would see signs of pain. But how would you know that I was actually feeling pain? You can't. You merely think I'm in pain, because you are attributing human feelings to me because I share similar outward characteristics to you. I could be nothing more than a biological robot, just like the animals you think of, and your attribution of feelings to me could be unjustified.

Likewise, if I were to stab you in the hand, how would I know you were really suffering? How would I know that you were really feeling pain, merely because you displayed outward characteristics that are similar to mine? Assuming you feel pain because I would feel pain if I were stabbed in the hand, could be wholly unjustified.

However, as someone who has seen the options, it is insane to think that there are current alternatives to animal testing. There aren't as of yet. All these protestors I see, however, aren't contributing much in the way of providing alternatives. All they do is bitch and whine. Can't they see that it's the Governments and the public that want animal testing? If it were up to the companies, they'd cancel the costly animal testing in order to save money.

It's different to experience pain and to suffer. Pain is a stymulus generated by the body to warn the organism about a dangerous situation, or about an injury. However, the animals (except humans)can't determine if they like it or not, which is to suffer. For example, people who suffer from algolagnia don't suffer while they're feeling pain, while animals feel anything, and interpret the pain just as a message.

While if you slap me, I can decide to defend or not, an animal can't, because it's dominated by its instincts and has no free will.

[Selena]

Oh, really? I thought the dog stays with you just because you give it food and care of it, you know, it's better than having to take care of your own predators, having to junt for your food and having to protect your shelter from intruders.

Oh, and, by the way, people, I believe (though I'm not completely sure) that psychology determines that humans don't have any instinct (this means someone needs to teach you everything). What we have are reflexes (that allow us, for example, to start breathing, or that make us draw away when we touch a hot surface).

Plus, we have no need to eat animals, actually, it's much better for health to not consume animal-derivated food.

And here I thought it was healthy to eat a well balanced diet that has all the main food groups. Including meat. Since it has a lot of valuable protein, and contrary to popular belief, certain amounts of fat (the natural kind found in meats and not the man made kinds) are actually good for you. But, again, you can survive without animal meat and replace it with (blech) legumes and the like. You need the protein, of which I believe meat has more, but where you get it is up to you. But I'm with OC. Plants live too, and hey, things die to keep other things alive. Deer eat the plants, and lions eat the deer. World order. We've just gotten overly gluttonous about it. It's a trade off you make when you settle down and stop being nomadic.

As for the no-instinct thing, I'd be interested in knowing how you would explain infants being able to swim. You can't exactly teach them that when they're that young. Well, that's just the only example I can think of off the top of my head that wouldn't automatically go to teaching. I'll see if I can't think of more if that example's unsatisfactory.

Canines may love the food you give it, but they're also pack animals. Which means that if they're raised with humans, they'll think they're a part of that pack (a family, in this case) and remain there with you. Dogs put up with a lot of hell from abusive owners, but stay with them regardless. If dogs only registered pain and nothing else, then why does my timid yellow lab shrink away from me when I yell at him after he does something wrong? No hitting, just shouting. And if I yell good enough, he goes off, lies down and whines whilst looking at me with sorrowful eyes, and then slowly approaches me later and licks my hand to 'apologize'. Not from pain.

[Doopliss]

I really have no explanation for the swimming thing. Is it a fact, or a geek myth?

I know it's difficult to accept animals don't have feelings, but it's a fact that they can't think (proven scientifically). As I mentioned before, people believe them to have feelings (for example, to feel guilty) because they compare them with human behaviors, but your dog doesn't feel guilty, and doesn't know the big and wide-open eyes mean that you're aopolgising among humans. Anyway, I don't know much about animal behavior, so I can't explain why it licks you.

[Toan]

Don't double post, Dooplis. On IPB, if you want to quote more than one post, press "Quote" on it. It turns orange with a minus sign. Then press "Post Reply" at the bottom, and the quotes are on the next page.

Where do you base the statement that it's healthier to eat something not derived from an animal? Take a read here: http://www.newtreatm...tarian Dangers/ The dangers of being a vegetarian are extreme, and likewise, eating only meat is dangerous too.

That said, the instincts of dogs tell them, regardless of where they live, they protect it. A passing car by the house will cause the dog to chase it because it feels the car is a threat. However, I fully agree with Laz's statement of a dog's loyalty justifying it's soul and emotions.

Edited by Toan, 20 December 2005 - 07:48 PM.

[Selena]

Is it a fact, or a geek myth?

I know it's difficult to accept animals don't have feelings, but it's a fact that they can't think (proven scientifically). As I mentioned before, people believe them to have feelings (for example, to feel guilty) because they compare them with human behaviors, but your dog doesn't feel guilty, and doesn't know the big and wide-open eyes mean that you're aopolgising among humans. Anyway, I don't know much about animal behavior, so I can't explain why it licks you.

Saw the infant thing on the Discovery channel.

As for the scientific proof that dogs cannot think, I'd like to see a source? Because while I'm sure they don't think as humans do, I'm pretty sure they still do think.

Edited by Selena, 20 December 2005 - 07:52 PM.

[Fyxe]

I know it's difficult to accept animals don't have feelings, but it's a fact that they can't think (proven scientifically).

Um, excuse me, that sounds like utter BS to me. Prove that humans 'think'.

In fact, scratch that. I KNOW it's BS. It's just wrong to say animals do not think. That simply does not make any sense.

As I mentioned before, people believe them to have feelings (for example, to feel guilty) because they compare them with human behaviors, but your dog doesn't feel guilty, and doesn't know the big and wide-open eyes mean that you're aopolgising among humans.

Just because an animal doesn't KNOW doesn't mean it doesn't think or feel. Infants don't feel 'guilt', in fact, humans only feel guilt because they are trained by society to think that way.

Also, animals recognise charity. Experiements with chimps, for instance, have shown that if you give one chimp lots of food, and another chimp no food, the chimp with the food will share it's food with the other, even if it has no immediate reason to do so.

Anyway, I don't know much about animal behavior, so I can't explain why it licks you.

Yes, clearly you don't.

Edited by Fyxe, 20 December 2005 - 07:57 PM.

[Toan]

Of course animals think; it's ludicrous to think otherwise! If you can't think, you can't learn, and dogs learn. It requires logic to think and discern that when you hear or see something, you doing something in return. A dog might not know what a leash is in it's younger years, but if you repeat the method of leashing up a dog for a walk, it will soon know that a leash means walk.

I know it's difficult to accept animals don't have feelings, but it's a fact that they can't think (proven scientifically).

Like Lena said, prove it. And cut the elitism out here; in no way are you right until you prove it.

[Fyxe]

Oh, and I just want to point out that humans definitely have instincts. Just because you don't recognise that your body is making decisions based on chemical reactions in your brain, hormones and external forces doesn't mean it's not happening.

For instance, prick someone and their body will react before their brain does. The brain will simply rationalise the decision it's already taken. That's a very simplistic example.

[Doopliss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think

This defines what is a thought and expressively mentions that animal cannot think, but are guided by instincts.

Intelligence is different than thinking. An animal can be intelligent if it can overcome problems that it faces because of its brain capbility. While animals' mental processes are limited to the number of processes they need to survive (and which are determined by their genetic information), humans can use it freely to make decisions and set goals as they please.

Fyxe, what you're mentioning are reflexes, different from instincts. I was wrong, though, humans have instincts, but are the only animals capable of choosing not to follow them.

As a personal comment, I believe I have demonstrated since I rejoined this forum that I'm an impartial and objective person. I'm not elitist, and even if I were, I wouldn't let my personal beliefs to affect my posts. I'm not saying bullshit, I wouldn't come here if I dodn't know something about the topic.

Edited by Doopliss, 20 December 2005 - 08:13 PM.

[Toan]

The word "Animal" is nowhere on that page. Furthermore, while Wikipedia is typically accurate, anyone can edit it... so anything could appear on the page.

[Nevermind]

When my uncle's dog peed on my carpet, and I got mad at it, and later it came to lay down in front of me in order to gain some positive attention and affection from me, what do you think would motivate that behaviour? I'd say that's guilt if I ever saw it. And I bet that if it could speak my language and think like a human, she would've apologised.


That article defines what a human thought process is, that's all.

From the same source, here's an article on dreams. And here's a direct quote from it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream

"With this method it has been discovered that a cat seems to dream mostly about chasing prey and playing with it. On a more basic level, many dog owners have also noted that their pets sometimes move their legs as if running or even make weak barking noises while asleep, or that their pets suddenly wake up and appear to think that a character from a nightmare is actually real."

Maybe it is because of this, I don't know, but my cat has on several occasions awoken suddenly and started meowing until seemingly 'getting her bearings'.

Edited by Lazurukeel, 20 December 2005 - 08:19 PM.

[Fyxe]

Fyxe, what you're mentioning are reflexes, different from instincts. I was wrong, though, humans have instincts, but are the only animals capable of choosing not to follow them.

Prove that humans are actually 'chosing' to follow them, and that animals are not? How would we know that an animal is not choosing to ignore an instinct? And what defines 'chosing'? What stops that from being a choice defined by a combination of instinct and learned behavior?

Intelligence is different than thinking. An animal can be intelligent if it can overcome problems that it faces because of its brain capbility. While animals' mental processes are limited to the number of processes they need to survive (and which are determined by their genetic information), humans can use it freely to make decisions and set goals as they please.

Again, who says humans are using it freely? Who says our goals are not simply changed by our society and our basic genetic nature?

[Dryth]

We've had a surprising number of topics of late that relate directly to philosophy of the mind.

Like Lena said, prove it. And cut the elitism out here; in no way are you right until you prove it.

Purely devil's advocate here, but cartesian dualism as it was conceived denies intelligence in animals. And while many consider it antiquated (certainly many minor premises of Descartes' argument have in themselves been found false), it remains pretty sound on the theological level: The brain is a machine (that can be honed, mind you), but the human mind is also defined by the soul, which is unique to humans. It's through this dualism that we become intelligent, have feelings, etc.

As stated in other recent topics, it's sound because we know little enough about what the human mind is and how it works that we can still only theorize, and it's extremely difficult to to disprove any given theory since none seem to be scientific. So while cartesian dualism is pretty unpopular in favor of more modern theories, it still stands up pretty well against proof.

It's not so far off from popular modern theories either: The notion of semantics is in some ways just a rationalization of the cartesian soul. It's just generally held nowadays that animals are capable of parsing semantics.

And again, not that I agree with it. But I for one am not in a position to disprove it either.

[Nevermind]

The younger generations will lead the way, right?

Possibly the most popular places that the younger generations like to hang out are clubs and pubs.

You want to see humans running on nothing but instincts, those are the places to visit.

What a future we have to look forward to.

[Doopliss]

Prove that humans are actually 'chosing' to follow them, and that animals are not? How would we know that an animal is not choosing to ignore an instinct? And what defines 'chosing'? What stops that from being a choice defined by a combination of instinct and learned behavior?

Animals have never been observed to freely choose to not behave as they are 'programmed' to.

[Nevermind]

Animals DO choose not to do things because they learn a lesson...or a few lessons....from getting in trouble for doing something. Now, they can go and do it as their instincts tell them to, but do not, because they are aware of consequences.

Edited by Lazurukeel, 20 December 2005 - 08:34 PM.

[Doopliss]

That's completely different. To ensure its own survival it must obvey its owners, but it can't think of not doing it by its own.

I'm getting tired of this, why don't you look for solid and scientifical arguments --though I doubt you will-- against what I'm saying instead of mentioning examples that I've explained before why not prove animals can't think before?

Edited by Doopliss, 20 December 2005 - 08:41 PM.

[Selena]

Like how humans have to obey the laws of society to not get in trouble and thrown in prison?

Edited by Selena, 20 December 2005 - 08:41 PM.

[Nevermind]

Yes, we choose on our own because we are mentally superior to a dog, obviously. But does a human's choice not initially come down to his or her own survival anyway? In some rare cases, the survival of someone else, which can also be witnessed in a dog's actions anyway. We all live for self-preservation, but a dog is willing to stand up for its master on more numerous occasions than I have witnessed any human in any context stand up for another person.

Intellectually, we are superior to most other creatures, yes, but as far ethics and morals go, well, as ridiculous as it may sound, we are steeping lower and lower than the rest.


And Doopliss, if you proved that animals don't think, then that means I must have proved that they dream, which I didn't, and nor did you. You used one piece of "evidence", and I used one in response from the exact same source. So don't start this bullshit with people refusing to use scientific sources and all that, not until you've produced your own. More than one. From a science that has yet to prove how animals act, and what drives them to act, in the first place.

Edited by Lazurukeel, 20 December 2005 - 08:51 PM.

[Fyxe]

I'm getting tired of this, why don't you look for solid and scientifical arguments --though I doubt you will-- against what I'm saying instead of mentioning examples that I've explained before why not prove animals can't think before?

I haven't actually seen you come up with a proper 'scientific' arguement. You're just saying 'animals don't choose because we can't see them choose'.

I don't see humans choose. If you put a person in the exact same sitution, at the exact same moment in time, with the exact same outside forces and the exact same chemical makeup in the brain, the person will make the SAME decision every single time. There's no reason to believe otherwise. The only difference between humans and animals is that the concept of 'choice' is more complex in humans than it is in animals.

Edited by Fyxe, 20 December 2005 - 08:47 PM.

[Doopliss]

To Fyxe: I'm saying it has never been observed, I'm not just talking about our everyday lives. The example you gave doesn't prove a human can't decide. It's as if you were just repeating everything what happened, but if the person was thinking something different, he/she could have decided something different, or if it was another person. The decision was influenced by that person's own experiences, while all the other animals would do the same in the same situation.

[Nevermind]

In that case, every human action observed can be placed down to instinct. Instincts on a more complex level for a more complex brain, but instincts nonetheless.

[Selena]

I'm getting tired of this, why don't you look for solid and scientifical arguments --though I doubt you will-- against what I'm saying instead of mentioning examples that I've explained before why not prove animals can't think before?

Ask and ye shall receive.


On animal behavior similar to that of humans, proving that our behavior isn't unique:
Here

There's more around that site, too.

And on, as I was mentioning earlier:
Wolf Pack Behavior
Which relates to domesticated dog behavior in human families.

And on:
Infant Swimming

Although it seems to lump instinct and 'reflex' together. You probably won't like that and assume it's the latter.

[Fyxe]

The decision was influenced by that person's own experiences, while all the other animals would do the same in the same situation.

Wrong. Tell a dog that knows how to sit, and if it chooses to obey you, it will sit. Tell a dog who has not learnt what to do, and it will not sit.

[Doopliss]

I'd like to mark again what I think so there aren't any confusions:

I believe animals have no rights over humans. This is becuase I believe that animals can't think nor reason. I admit, though, that some animals are intelligent and that can learn, but they have no free will and can't decide to do something against what their geneitc information tells them to do. This is what differences humans from the rest of the animals --I believe humans are animals--. While humans present instinctive behaviors as well, they can choose to not follow them (if someone physically hurts me, I won't hurt him/her too).

You're right Selena, humans have instincts as well. Though I don't think the BBC article and the wolves' article prove that they can think. That behavior is the result of evolution, since wolves can survive more easily by hunting in packs, they developed the instinct to do so.

You're right Fyxe, the dog will sit because the humans have enforced it into doing so. But, will a dog decide by itself to sit down if it isn't taught by humans? No, becuase it's not genetically programmed to do so, and it's useless for it to do so. Now, can the tamed dog decide to not do so? No, because it must ensure its survival, and thus, it can't disobey because it will be hurt otherwise. On the other hand, I can decide to do something that will harm me (which means I can disobey my genetical information and go against emotions, which is why I can reason).

[Fyxe]

While humans present instinctive behaviors as well, they can choose to not follow them (if someone physically hurts me, I won't hurt him/her too).

If you really think human instincts would be as simplistic as that, then you're totally misunderstanding the entire concept.

If someone hits a dog, a dog will choose to fight back or not. Just like you do. Some dogs will hide, some will bite back.

But, will a dog decide by itself to sit down if it isn't taught by humans? No, becuase it's not genetically programmed to do so, and it's useless for it to do so.

Ok, what the hell. You don't think dogs sit down now?

Now, can the tamed dog decide to not do so? No, because it must ensure its survival, and thus, it can't disobey because it will be hurt otherwise.

Just like humans obeying the laws of society.

On the other hand, I can decide to do something that will harm me (which means I can disobey my genetical information and go against emotions, which is why I can reason).

If you make the choice to harm yourself, you are doing it because you want to. If you want to, then it's not harming yourself. It may be physically hurting yourself, but when it comes to your survival, which is both mental and physical, you are helping yourself, because you are doing something that you have somehow learnt will help you.

A baby won't purposely hurt itself, because it has not learned of any reason to do so.

You are not distinguishing between learnt behavior and 'choice'.

[Doopliss]

If you really think human instincts would be as simplistic as that, then you're totally misunderstanding the entire concept.

If someone hits a dog, a dog will choose to fight back or not. Just like you do. Some dogs will hide, some will bite back.

That's right, but if the same dog is hit again, it will always bite or hide.

Ok, what the hell. You don't think dogs sit down now?

Of course I was referring to a particular way an owner teaches dogs to sit, not their natural way.

Just like humans obeying the laws of society.

Not all of them obvey them.

If you make the choice to harm yourself, you are doing it because you want to. If you want to, then it's not harming yourself. It may be physically hurting yourself, but when it comes to your survival, which is both mental and physical, you are helping yourself, because you are doing something that you have somehow learnt will help you.

I was referring to physical harm. As you said, I can do it if I want to, even if I know it will be harmful for me.

A baby won't purposely hurt itself, because it has not learned of any reason to do so.

That's because the baby is guided by instincts until s/he learns how to go against them. If a dog learns how to kill itself, it won't do it, because it can't disobey its instincts. As well, animals can't learn new things by themselves, humans must teach to them.

Edited by Doopliss, 20 December 2005 - 09:43 PM.