Peta employees arrested on animal cruelty charges

[valvano]

http://www.wavy.com/global/story.asp?s=3482974&ClientType=Printable


Sounds like the democrats have something new to compare Gitmo to................PETA!!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

:p

[EN[i]GMA]

Yeah valv, that's a REAL funny story.

You should have added more smiley faces.

Anyone with a brain knows this is isn't surprising, the type of extremists PETA attracts and the things it calls for are almost crazy.

[Jasonik]

GMA']Anyone with a brain knows this is isn't surprising
d o w n p l a y i n g m a k e s m e L O L

[QueenAdrock]

The PETA people always set up a booth outside of the student union at UMD, and hand out pamphlets that show sick animals and anti-McDonalds crap. In return, my brother and I are going to set up a booth to "celebrate our rich animal-eating heritage" and hand out free samples of bacon.

[EN[i]GMA]

d o w n p l a y i n g m a k e s m e L O L

No, i'm not downplaying anything; this act typifies the sort of extremists PETA attracts.

[cosmo105]

PETA makes real vegetarians and vegans look bad. they're too extreme and not "all about the animals." they're a fucked up organization that's all about advertising tie-ins and sponsorship and media exposure.

[Echewta]

Its cool to let people legally hang live animals on a hook before slaughter, let them bleed to death, inject them with disease, live in conditions where they can barely move, keep the lights on all day so they produce eggs, put chemicals in their eyes, etc. but man are these PETA people crazy!

Seriously. There are bad apples in PETA, the government, Japan, everywhere. Doesn't mean that the group they work for are all bad.

I'm sending a check to PETA today. Thanks.

[cosmo105]

not that i condone the meat industry at all. i'm all for exposing the truths about the meat industry and the cruelty that goes into each burger and mcnugget. i care deeply about animal rights but PETA as an organization is terrible in so many ways. i suppose the fact that they're getting the message out overrides their failings, but really...some of the things i know about them make me ashamed for them.

[EN[i]GMA]

Its cool to let people legally hang live animals on a hook before slaughter, let them bleed to death, inject them with disease, live in conditions where they can barely move, keep the lights on all day so they produce eggs, put chemicals in their eyes, etc. but man are these PETA people crazy!

Seriously. There are bad apples in PETA, the government, Japan, everywhere. Doesn't mean that the group they work for are all bad.

I'm sending a check to PETA today. Thanks.

Did you even read the article?

PETA does this all the time:

PETA has euthanized animals for years. In Virginia last year, the activist group euthanized 2,278 animals, sterilized 7,641 and found homes for 361.

PETA doesn't give a shit about helping animals, other than helping them die.

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2003/gibson/qtr3/0903.htm

That doesn't piss you off?

How about funding terrorist groups?

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/columns/guest_columnist/1349596.html

How about this?

PeTA

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is under scrutiny for possible violations of its tax exempt status for its support of violent groups such as the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. More than one spokesmen for the organization has advocated violence as the solution for achieving animal rights’ goals3 which include the abolition of pet ownership.4 PeTA opposes dog breeding5 and the use of service dogs.6

PeTA received a “needs improvement” rating from Charity Navigator because its organizational capacity is shrinking with both program expenses and revenue growth showing a slight decline in 2002. Charity guidelines recommend that organization boards include at least five independent members who are volunteers with no conflict of interest for their service. PeTA’s board has three members; the vice-president receives a salary as the organization’s chief executive officer.

Perusal of PeTA’s tax returns shows that the organization contributed thousands of dollars to a convicted arsonist who now teaches activists how to make incendiary devices with $2 worth of materials.7 PeTA founder Ingrid Newkirk called this criminal “a fine young man.”8

Service dogs? Like seeing eye dogs? Abolition of pet ownership?

SIGN ME UP!

http://www.canismajor.com/dog/charity1.html


Do I need to go on with the litany of outrageous quotes, hilariously stupid goals, ties to vandals and all the other shit they do?

You're money isn't going to help animals, it's going to piss people outside KFC's, burn Hummers, throw fire bombs, abolish pets, take away seeing eye dogs, pick up and murder random pets off the street.

I hope you're happy with your donation.

And I hope to God you never use a single-product that has been animal tested you hypocritical bastard.

[Medellia]

GMA']PETA has euthanized animals for years. In Virginia last year, the activist group euthanized 2,278 animals, sterilized 7,641 and found homes for 361.
You do realise that if animals weren't sterilised there would be more animals being euthanised, right? It's sad, and I wish it wasn't the case, but it is necessary.

[EN[i]GMA]

You do realise that if animals weren't sterilised there would be more animals being euthanised, right? It's sad, and I wish it wasn't the case, but it is necessary.

How many of those animals were people's pets?

[ASsman]

And I hope to God you never use a single-product that has been animal tested you hypocritical bastard.
Or do anything but live in a tree and eat grass... leave some for the cows you bastards...

Fucking hippies.

[RT400z]

The PETA people always set up a booth outside of the student union at UMD, and hand out pamphlets that show sick animals and anti-McDonalds crap. In return, my brother and I are going to set up a booth to "celebrate our rich animal-eating heritage" and hand out free samples of bacon.

Yeah, how terrible of them to expose the torture and killing of animals how dare they. I don't understand why you would sound defensive because of somebody exercising their beliefs. Believe it or not, people seem to have a reaction when they open up those pamphlets. Actually most of the people I've known have stopped eating meat after seeing one of those pamphlets. They are there to open people's eyes and show them another side of thinking.


PETA makes real vegetarians and vegans look bad. they're too extreme and not "all about the animals." they're a fucked up organization that's all about advertising tie-ins and sponsorship and media exposure.

I understand what you are saying. There are better things that PETA could do instead of pay $50,000 to have a street name changed to something more animal friendly or harass people at Mcdonalds, but the good definetly outweighs the bad. PETA has done a whole list of things that have changed so much for animals. I used to dismiss them myself, but they really have done a number of great things. They have put a stop to abuse of animals in some laboratories and experiments (the first confiscation of abused laboratory animals happened thanks to PETA), slowed down the fur trade, helped abused animals, and a load more. They sometimes go about things the wrong way, but they have overall educated people about animal cruelty. Before PETA came about people could get away with animal abuse and have no problems. Obviously they have done something, right? I mean people know about their pamphlets.

[Ace42]

They are there to open people's eyes and show them another side of thinking.

I'd rather see another side of bacon. Wrapped around some turkey.

[EN[i]GMA]

Yeah, funding quasi-terrorist organizations really does so much to help out animals.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, how terrible of them to expose the torture and killing of animals how dare they. I don't understand why you would sound defensive because of somebody exercising their beliefs. Believe it or not, people seem to have a reaction when they open up those pamphlets. Actually most of the people I've known have stopped eating meat after seeing one of those pamphlets. They are there to open people's eyes and show them another side of thinking.


Wow, way to totally take what I was saying and transform it into something different! I applaud you.

If you READ my post, I say that they hand out pamphlets with sick animals and anti-McDonalds crap. This is true. However, after that, you will not see me say "OHMIGOD THEY'RE SO HORRIBLE, HOW CAN THEY DO THIS? I AM SO PISSED OFF THAT THEY DO THIS! SCREW PETA, I'M EXTREMELY OFFENDED!" Do you? Because I could swear it's not in my post.

I'm just saying, I love eating meat. And the PETA people there have the right to hand out pamphlets, just as much a right as my brother and I have in setting up a meat-eating booth. It's a free world, and they're entitled to their side, and I'm entitled to my side. And my side is that meat is delicious. I hate for my campus to be so biased towards one side of any issue, I just believe people should be informed on the merits of eating meat, such as nutritional value, and deliciousness.

Sorry if that bothers you, but we live in America and I'm RIGHTFULLY ENTITLED TO MY GODDAMN MEAT TABLE!

With that said, who wants some terriyaki chicken samples? :D

[Echewta]

bastard? You can cram meat, PETA, loggers, and my fist with a check in it up your ass.

[RT400z]

GMA']Yeah, funding quasi-terrorist organizations really does so much to help out animals.

Yeah, obviously it does help animals. Throughout history people have had to break the law to stop injustice. The Underground railroad, for instance. Plus, they probably wouldn't have found out about all the animals being tortured and killed in laboratories in they hadn't broke the law. They recently caught a case like this on tape. After having it on tape, the laboratories are confiscated in most cases. Breaking the law is sometimes the procedures that have to be taken to stop injustice. I'm not saying this is the only way, but sometimes it is. If you really don't think PETA helps animals then you really have some reading up to do.

Wow, way to totally take what I was saying and transform it into something different! I applaud you.

If you READ my post, I say that they hand out pamphlets with sick animals and anti-McDonalds crap. This is true. However, after that, you will not see me say "OHMIGOD THEY'RE SO HORRIBLE, HOW CAN THEY DO THIS? I AM SO PISSED OFF THAT THEY DO THIS! SCREW PETA, I'M EXTREMELY OFFENDED!" Do you? Because I could swear it's not in my post.

I'm just saying, I love eating meat. And the PETA people there have the right to hand out pamphlets, just as much a right as my brother and I have in setting up a meat-eating booth. It's a free world, and they're entitled to their side, and I'm entitled to my side. And my side is that meat is delicious. I hate for my campus to be so biased towards one side of any issue, I just believe people should be informed on the merits of eating meat, such as nutritional value, and deliciousness.

Sorry if that bothers you, but we live in America and I'm RIGHTFULLY ENTITLED TO MY GODDAMN MEAT TABLE!

With that said, who wants some terriyaki chicken samples? :D

Obviously you were aggrivated or bothered by PETA handing out pamphlets or you wouldn't have mentioned it, right? The fact that you would go out of your way to say you are going to hand out free meat samples just because PETA bothers you shows that you are defensive. I think you know that would be ridiculous to inform people about the "merits" of meat since obviously most people eat meat. Since everyone pretty much knows all about meat, this shows you just want to set up a booth just because you are threatened by PETA. If I saw someone passing out pamphlets about how good meat is I would find that as pointless as someone passing out pamphlets on how good of a president Bush is. Yeah, that is a opionion, but pretty much pointless since he already has won. Same with meat.



Thanks for the applause!
;)

[QueenAdrock]

just because PETA bothers you shows that you are defensive.
Where do you keep getting this? Where do I say that PETA bothers me? I said they're entitled to their opinion, and I to mine.

Believe it or not, I have no aggrevation towards PETA. I just think my campus needs to balance out the hippies. If they come out and say plowing down the rainforest is wrong, I'm going to tell people how rainforests are plowed down to make for delicious whoppers. If people say global warming is bad, I'll tell them that it makes for better tanning when the ozone gets depleated. And when the goddamn PETA hippies come out and tell people that eating meat is bad, I'm going to tell them it's delicious! I think at my meat-eating table, I'm going to have a special display on how we don't eat *enough* meat. There's thousands of species of animals, and we basically stick to just chicken, cow, and pig for the most part. We need to talk about eating more lamb, because the lamb in America are becoming seriously overpopulated. It's becoming an epidemic, and we need to thin out the herds. Not only that, but there are plenty of animals that have come OFF the endangered species list, so they're okay to hunt and eat them again. It's not just about EATING meat, it's about informing people why too many animals is a bad thing.

[QueenAdrock]

this shows you just want to set up a booth just because you are threatened by PETA.




























































P.S. Go here. (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=satire) ;)

[RT400z]

just because PETA bothers you shows that you are defensive.
Where do you keep getting this? Where do I say that PETA bothers me? I said they're entitled to their opinion, and I to mine.

Believe it or not, I have no aggrevation towards PETA. I just think my campus needs to balance out the hippies. If they come out and say plowing down the rainforest is wrong, I'm going to tell people how rainforests are plowed down to make for delicious whoppers. If people say global warming is bad, I'll tell them that it makes for better tanning when the ozone gets depleated. And when the goddamn PETA hippies come out and tell people that eating meat is bad, I'm going to tell them it's delicious! I think at my meat-eating table, I'm going to have a special display on how we don't eat *enough* meat. There's thousands of species of animals, and we basically stick to just chicken, cow, and pig for the most part. We need to talk about eating more lamb, because the lamb in America are becoming seriously overpopulated. It's becoming an epidemic, and we need to thin out the herds. Not only that, but there are plenty of animals that have come OFF the endangered species list, so they're okay to hunt and eat them again. It's not just about EATING meat, it's about informing people why too many animals is a bad thing.


So pretty much you are repeating what you said earlier, right? So I guess I'll just repeat what I said earlier. There is no point in supporting meat since most people eat it. The fact that PETA would inspire you to support animal torture shows that you don't care about the issue. Maybe you were offended that they were questioning you eating habits? I think you know that meat isn't a alternative lifestyle so it really doesn't need support. I think we both know that you really don't care about the "merits" of meat. You just think it tastes good. In fact, it sounds like you just like to blow off hippies and everything they do just to do it.

By the way, why would you want more animals to go on the endangered list? I can understand people's opinions and why they eat meat, but that just sounds like you are a cruel person. People are overpopulated, should we kill them too?? (y)

[EN[i]GMA]

Yeah, obviously it does help animals. Throughout history people have had to break the law to stop injustice. The Underground railroad, for instance. Plus, they probably wouldn't have found out about all the animals being tortured and killed in laboratories in they hadn't broke the law. They recently caught a case like this on tape. After having it on tape, the laboratories are confiscated in most cases. Breaking the law is sometimes the procedures that have to be taken to stop injustice. I'm not saying this is the only way, but sometimes it is. If you really don't think PETA helps animals then you really have some reading up to do.

And of course, there were the labs that weren't doing anything wrong, that were broken into anyway.

Can I break into house and see if you're doing something illegal? Perhaps I'll find some bodies hidden in your freezer or something, and break open some murder cases!

And I think the Underground Railroad comparision is very apt. The conducters always used to break into random buildings, vandalize them, spray paint their logos on the wall and possibly burn them.

Oh, my mistake, they didn't.

Do you support PETA giving money to groups that destroy Hummer dealerships and set fire to housing subdivisions?

[QueenAdrock]

So pretty much you are repeating what you said earlier, right? So I guess I'll just repeat what I said earlier. There is no point in supporting meat since most people eat it. The fact that PETA would inspire you to support animal torture shows that you don't care about the issue. Maybe you were offended that they were questioning you eating habits? I think you know that meat isn't a alternative lifestyle so it really doesn't need support. I think we both know that you really don't care about the "merits" of meat. You just think it tastes good. In fact, it sounds like you just like to blow off hippies and everything they do just to do it.

By the way, why would you want more animals to go on the endangered list? I can understand people's opinions and why they eat meat, but that just sounds like you are a cruel person. People are overpopulated, should we kill them too?? (y)


JESUS CHRIST GO LOOK AT THE LINK, I WAS BEING FACETIOUS.

it sounds like you just like to blow off hippies and everything they do just to do it.


ding ding ding! tell him what prize we have for him today! Why, it's this lovely box set of The Daily Show, the best of! Looks like he can take it home and study it, so he can tell in the future when people are being serious about anything!

Yay!

[EN[i]GMA]

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/nov03/031101a.asp

http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1999/04/26_protests.html

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR62001b.html

http://www.swaebr.org/cfaar/newsletters/1991/October%201991%20News.pdf

http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2004/11/alf_takes_credi.html

Even animalrights.net doesn't support these fuckers: http://www.animalrights.net/archives/related_topics/organizations/pro_ar/earth_liberation_front.html

I expect your refutation on each and every one of these charges of errant vandalism, vandalism that did nothing to further the cause of animal rights.

And you should be fucking ashamed of yourself for the Underground Railroad comparison.

When did anyone on the underground railroad commit a crime as heinous as any of these?

How can you even compare the stated goals of these organizations? All the animals in the world don't add up to anything close to a single human.

[EN[i]GMA]

http://wave.prohosting.com/antiar/ARterrorism.html

Dr. Marilyn Carroll, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who for over 14 years has been threatened, stalked and terrorized by animal rights activists.


You make me sick.


And I'm only on page 3 of my google search. Need I continue, or will you kindly shut the fuck up?

[Funkaloyd]

GMA']Even animalrights.net doesn't support these fuckers

Uh, what do you mean "Even animalrights.net"?

(Domain names aren't everything).

[RT400z]

GMA']And of course, there were the labs that weren't doing anything wrong, that were broken into anyway.


WRONG! There isn't one single lab that is right for testing on animals. ALL labs torture animals. That is why they have them there in the first place. They do countless tests, most of which arn't even important (makeup, etc). Sometimes the tests are done more than once, even when they know the results. Please explain how using a living creature for sick torture is "okay".

GMA']
I expect your refutation on each and every one of these charges of errant vandalism, vandalism that did nothing to further the cause of animal rights.

And you should be fucking ashamed of yourself for the Underground Railroad comparison.

When did anyone on the underground railroad commit a crime as heinous as any of these?

How can you even compare the stated goals of these organizations? All the animals in the world don't add up to anything close to a single human.

I have no problem with vandalism if it is for a good cause. Vandalism or animal torture? I think we know which one outweighs the other.

Why should I be ashamed?? I'm pretty damn sure the underground railroad was concidered a "heinous" crime at the time. It was illegal to help runaway slaves since they were considered property. I guess they thought of it as stealing someone's property. Harriet Tubman sometimes served as a spy for the union army and took place in a military campaign that resulted in destroying millions of dollars' worth of enemy property.

PETA rescues animals, damages property for what they believe in (destroying labs to save animals) and uses resistance even if it is in an illegal way. I'm seeing similarities, but I guess you wouldn't get that since you don't seem to think animals add up to a human. I guess that goes for the mentally disabled and babies, too. It goes without saying how similar animals and humans are since were both mammals so is it intelligence? At one time woman and black people were compared to dogs when it came to what rights they should have. The leaders of the civil rights movement were once thought of as radicals. Their arguments were that they were the same despite their sex or race. I believe in equality whether it's sex, race or species. :D

[RT400z]

JESUS CHRIST GO LOOK AT THE LINK, I WAS BEING FACETIOUS.

it sounds like you just like to blow off hippies and everything they do just to do it.


ding ding ding! tell him what prize we have for him today! Why, it's this lovely box set of The Daily Show, the best of! Looks like he can take it home and study it, so he can tell in the future when people are being serious about anything!

Yay!

I guess that was why you spent your time typing a few paragraphs worth about the topic, right? ;)

[QueenAdrock]

Actually, yeah. :)

[EN[i]GMA]

WRONG! There isn't one single lab that is right for testing on animals.

A google search, taking all of 5 seconds provided me with this: http://www.sarswatch.org/comments.php?id=94_0_1_0_C

Is it wrong to test SARS on monkeys? Would you say that to SARS victims? Would you say that if you had SARS?


ALL labs torture animals.

Wow, with well-documented proof like that, I HAVE to agree with your position!


That is why they have them there in the first place.

Well shit, don't you have it figured out?! Every single lab ever built was created for sole purpose of torturing animals. That's why the government, universities, corporations, private donors, public groups, and NGOs fund and maintain hundreds and thousands of labs: To torture animals.

No other purpose than that, those sick fucks.

Thanks for showing me the light! I was under the impression that a lab, somewhere, at some point, did something other than torture animals, but you sure prooved me wrong!


They do countless tests, most of which arn't even important (makeup, etc).

Yeah, pointless tests like trying to cure dieseases, find vaccines for viruses, develop anti-biotics, and develop new medical proceduers; shit like that.

How can we blind rabbits with these tests? It's obviously a much more moral position to blind people; innocent vicitms!


Sometimes the tests are done more than once, even when they know the results.

Of course! These scientists are payed by their benefactors not do actual research or accomplish anything, but to pointlessly repeat the same test over and over again for malfeant effect.

They have no budgets, no missions, and no goals other than hurting poor defenseless animals!

THE NERVE! P


Please explain how using a living creature for sick torture is "okay".

If the torture of that creature results in a benefit to mankind; kill the furry shits, I don't care.

But thankfully most labs are far more conscientious and humane than that.


I have no problem with vandalism if it is for a good cause.

Me either.


Vandalism or animal torture? I think we know which one outweighs the other.

I too think vandalising a lab that potentially is mere days away from developing a drug that could save millions upon millions of lives is worth it, as long as a few mice are saved!

And I think instead of just letting the animals out, they should rough up the lab, trash the equipment, tag the walls, set fire to the building, stalk, harrass, and assualt the workers there, release their personal information including address, names of family members and phone numbers, and use this is a mafioso-inspire 'message' to any other sick fuck wanting commit some heinous crime like trying to create a drug that might save your dying, though doubtlessesly worthless, mother.


Why should I be ashamed??

Because, by your own addmissions, you would rather your own mother die a horrible, horrific death than a field mouse die in a lab.


I'm pretty damn sure the underground railroad was concidered a "heinous" crime at the time.

And murder is still considered a heinous crime.

What's your point?


It was illegal to help runaway slaves since they were considered property.[/quote[

I agree, that was horrible.

[quote]
I guess they thought of it as stealing someone's property.

I guess they did. Of course, they were wrong.


Harriet Tubman sometimes served as a spy for the union army and took place in a military campaign that resulted in destroying millions of dollars' worth of enemy property.

I agree, the Civil War was criminal.


PETA rescues animals, damages property for what they believe in (destroying labs to save animals) and uses resistance even if it is in an illegal way.

Resuces animals? Did you even read those links? They busted into one lab to vandalize it, and didn't even 'rescue' a single animal.

And how are they 'rescuing' anything? These animals will just die in the wild. Is that some kind of better life, being eaten by a dog? Being ran over?


I'm seeing similarities, but I guess you wouldn't get that since you don't seem to think animals add up to a human.

That's because they don't.

Animals have no intrinsic value. They only have the value we humans give them, which is almost nothing.

Prove to me animal has any intrinsic worth.


I guess that goes for the mentally disabled and babies, too.

The exact same people who benefit from drugs and treatments that were once tested on animals?

Those people?

Perhaps we should be more like these animals you so empathize with, and allow our weaker members to die out? Do you propose that?

Coming from someone who would rather millions of infants die from easily curable dieseases than see Rabbit #486 get snuffed, I don't think you have any room to talk.

The difference, though perhaps your mind isn't accute enough to make the distinction, is that these are humans, and the other creatures are not.

Humans have rights, animals do not. Humans can reason, animals cannot.


It goes without saying how similar animals and humans are since were both mammals so is it intelligence?

It is the faculty of reason, and the fact that we humans are our own distinct species.


At one time woman and black people were compared to dogs when it came to what rights they should have.

So to rectify this, you compare ALL humans with dogs.

Brilliant.


The leaders of the civil rights movement were once thought of as radicals.

They were. They just happend to be right.

The Russian nihilists were also radicals. They were wrong.


Their arguments were that they were the same despite their sex or race. I believe in equality whether it's sex, race or species. :D

A species is a definition of 'not the same'.

None has made the claim that we are 'all the same'. Anyone doing so is a dumbass, as people are obviously different.

[Funkaloyd]

GMA']A google search, taking all of 5 seconds provided me with this: http://www.sarswatch.org/comments.php?id=94_0_1_0_C
:o

Surely you're not advocating the genocide of the poor little SARS Coronavirus?! Equality among kingdoms!

[RT400z]

GMA']A google search, taking all of 5 seconds provided me with this: http://www.sarswatch.org/comments.php?id=94_0_1_0_C

Is it wrong to test SARS on monkeys? Would you say that to SARS victims? Would you say that if you had SARS?

Wow, with well-documented proof like that, I HAVE to agree with your position!

Well shit, don't you have it figured out?! Every single lab ever built was created for sole purpose of torturing animals. That's why the government, universities, corporations, private donors, public groups, and NGOs fund and maintain hundreds and thousands of labs: To torture animals.

No other purpose than that, those sick fucks.

Thanks for showing me the light! I was under the impression that a lab, somewhere, at some point, did something other than torture animals, but you sure prooved me wrong!

Yeah, pointless tests like trying to cure dieseases, find vaccines for viruses, develop anti-biotics, and develop new medical proceduers; shit like that.

How can we blind rabbits with these tests? It's obviously a much more moral position to blind people; innocent vicitms!

Of course! These scientists are payed by their benefactors not do actual research or accomplish anything, but to pointlessly repeat the same test over and over again for malfeant effect.

They have no budgets, no missions, and no goals other than hurting poor defenseless animals!

THE NERVE! P

If the torture of that creature results in a benefit to mankind; kill the furry shits, I don't care.

But thankfully most labs are far more conscientious and humane than that.

Me either.

I too think vandalising a lab that potentially is mere days away from developing a drug that could save millions upon millions of lives is worth it, as long as a few mice are saved!

And I think instead of just letting the animals out, they should rough up the lab, trash the equipment, tag the walls, set fire to the building, stalk, harrass, and assualt the workers there, release their personal information including address, names of family members and phone numbers, and use this is a mafioso-inspire 'message' to any other sick fuck wanting commit some heinous crime like trying to create a drug that might save your dying, though doubtlessesly worthless, mother.

Because, by your own addmissions, you would rather your own mother die a horrible, horrific death than a field mouse die in a lab.

And murder is still considered a heinous crime.

What's your point?

[quote]
It was illegal to help runaway slaves since they were considered property.[/quote[

I agree, that was horrible.

I guess they did. Of course, they were wrong.

I agree, the Civil War was criminal.

Resuces animals? Did you even read those links? They busted into one lab to vandalize it, and didn't even 'rescue' a single animal.

And how are they 'rescuing' anything? These animals will just die in the wild. Is that some kind of better life, being eaten by a dog? Being ran over?

That's because they don't.

Animals have no intrinsic value. They only have the value we humans give them, which is almost nothing.

Prove to me animal has any intrinsic worth.

The exact same people who benefit from drugs and treatments that were once tested on animals?

Those people?

Perhaps we should be more like these animals you so empathize with, and allow our weaker members to die out? Do you propose that?

Coming from someone who would rather millions of infants die from easily curable dieseases than see Rabbit #486 get snuffed, I don't think you have any room to talk.

The difference, though perhaps your mind isn't accute enough to make the distinction, is that these are humans, and the other creatures are not.

Humans have rights, animals do not. Humans can reason, animals cannot.

It is the faculty of reason, and the fact that we humans are our own distinct species.

So to rectify this, you compare ALL humans with dogs.

Brilliant.

They were. They just happend to be right.

The Russian nihilists were also radicals. They were wrong.

A species is a definition of 'not the same'.

None has made the claim that we are 'all the same'. Anyone doing so is a dumbass, as people are obviously different.

Pretty much all you responded with was sarcasm. Like I said before, testing on animals is wrong. It's cruel. Just because you benefit from it does not make it better. Plus, I think they already have cures for pretty much everything, but that is a different story. In fact, there is more money funding diseases like cancer more than ever, but there has never been as many people with cancer until today. Point is, the tests are unecessary and they can find the answer some other way instead of taking advantage of a helpless animal. Hell, use child molesters. With all the technology today they could find another way, but they want to go the cheaper route. Plus, ever heard of natural anti-biotics? They work, I use them. They do retest the same test over and over to make sure they get the same result. What they do is illegal. That is why the labs are confiscated. What they do is against the law! Last time I checked animal cruelty was against the law. Pretty much I don't care if the lab gets vandalized. What they do is illegal and morally wrong.

"Resuces animals? Did you even read those links? They busted into one lab to vandalize it, and didn't even 'rescue' a single animal.
And how are they 'rescuing' anything? "

Like I said the first time, you got some reading up to do. PETA has been around since the 80s. I could list a few recent things, but the list goes waaaaay back. PETA has done way a hell lot more than probably anyone else has. Like I said before, the first lab was confiscated because of PETA. Animal cruelty has become more of an issue because of them. They even rescue local animals that have been abused. More importantly, they obviously have so many members because of their pamphlets they hand out. I know people who still eat meat who have seen those pamphlets. Now they make sure they don't get products that test on animals. Really, the list goes way back. Hey, since you are looking everything up why don't you look up all PETA's accomplishments?

Animals can't reason? ............... :confused: Bullshit and you know it.

"The difference, though perhaps your mind isn't accute enough to make the distinction, is that these are humans, and the other creatures are not."

Duh! Yet you still don't say why this matters.


By the way, I never compared humans to dogs, I said before woman and black people had rights people would compare their intelligence and reason to dogs. As a joke they would say,"should we give rights to dogs too??".

"The Russian nihilists were also radicals. They were wrong."

Are you saying the radicals of the civil rights movement were somehow wrong?

[Ace42]

testing on animals is wrong. It's cruel. Just because you benefit from it does not make it better.

Now apply that to plants.

[EN[i]GMA]

Pretty much all you responded with was sarcasm.

Why of course. It's the most effective way to make you look like a moron.


Like I said before, testing on animals is wrong.

And obviously just because you state something, that makes it wrong!


It's cruel.

Excepting the cases when it isn't cruel.


Just because you benefit from it does not make it better.

Sure it does.


Plus, I think they already have cures for pretty much everything, but that is a different story.

Cancer? AIDS? Huntingtons Diesease? Sickle Cell Anemia? Need I go on?


In fact, there is more money funding diseases like cancer more than ever, but there has never been as many people with cancer until today.

Thats because there are more people in total, today.


Point is, the tests are unecessary and they can find the answer some other way instead of taking advantage of a helpless animal.

Can you back this up with actual evidence?

How is it wrong to take advantage of an animal? Is it wrong to crush and animal, rip it apart, and mutilate while it's alive, then eat it?

Is it wrong when a person does that? Is it wrong when a dog does that?

Since humans and animals are so similar, if we animals have rights, don't they also have responsibilities?

Those fucking dogs are just going to have to learn! Rabbits have rights to!

Why is it wrong for us to kill and hurt animals (Often for good reasons, like curing dieseases) when dogs will kill animals for absolutely no reason other than fun?

Isn't this a double standard? You say animals are equal to humans, but they don't have to do any of things we do?


Hell, use child molesters.

What right do you have to do that?


With all the technology today they could find another way, but they want to go the cheaper route.

Or the more effective route.

Are you criticizing every single scientist who has ever tested on animals?

Do you continue to use products that were tested on animals?


Plus, ever heard of natural anti-biotics?

I've heard of that genocide! Those anti-biotics killing those poor, helpless bacteria!

What is the prime difference between animals and bacteria that makes it alright to kill one, but not the other?

Bacteria are alive too, and viruses may be alive.


They work, I use them.

Murderer.


They do retest the same test over and over to make sure they get the same result.

WHy do something so pointless?


What they do is illegal.

Then take them to court. Surely the courts know legality better than you do.


That is why the labs are confiscated.

What labs have been confiscated?


What they do is against the law!

Some of the time.


Last time I checked animal cruelty was against the law.

Should it be?


Pretty much I don't care if the lab gets vandalized.

I pretty much don't care if a few animals get killed, as long as humans benefit.


What they do is illegal and morally wrong.

You saying it obviously makes it so!


Like I said the first time, you got some reading up to do.

You have some comprehending to do. I'm not saying that everything PETA or the groups they fund is bad, just that the bad stuff they do is numerous and horrific.


PETA has been around since the 80s. I could list a few recent things, but the list goes waaaaay back. PETA has done way a hell lot more than probably anyone else has.

Sure they have.


Like I said before, the first lab was confiscated because of PETA. Animal cruelty has become more of an issue because of them.

And so has the assualt of lab workers, viva la PETA!


They even rescue local animals that have been abused.

And then euthanize them.


I know people who still eat meat who have seen those pamphlets.

I've watched one of their videos, and I still eat meat without any problem.


Now they make sure they don't get products that test on animals.

Good for them. Have they burnt down any labs recently?


Really, the list goes way back. Hey, since you are looking everything up why don't you look up all PETA's accomplishments?

Because they are irrelevent.


Animals can't reason? ............... :confused: Bullshit and you know it.

Show me an animal that can logically prove its own existence, and you might have a case.


Duh! Yet you still don't say why this matters.

Humans have rights animals dont'. Bacteria don't. Viruses don't. Rocks don't. Trees don't. Dirt doesn't. Planets don't. Stars don't. People do.


By the way, I never compared humans to dogs, I said before woman and black people had rights people would compare their intelligence and reason to dogs.

You said we are the same; that we have the same rights, that animals are able to reason, that we are equal.

You were saying animals have all the properties humans have, that means you were saying we were the same.


As a joke they would say,"should we give rights to dogs too??".

And to answer that joke, no.


Are you saying the radicals of the civil rights movement were somehow wrong?

No, you twat, I was saying that just because someone is a 'radical', has no effect in the inherent worth of their cause.

You compare these sickos to the civil rights radicals, I compare them to nihilists.

[Ace42]

GMA']
Show me an animal that can logically prove its own existence, and you might have a case.

Firstly, great apes can reason (Gorillas can). The Gorilla "King" was able to solve logic puzzles through methods other than trial and error. IE deductive reasoning.

Secondly, I think you mean "self-awareness" which has nothing to do with "reasoning."

Numerous animals are self-aware, specifically Dolphins. When a mark is painted on a Dolphin, they will inspect themselves in a mirror to try and get a better view. When a young child (who has not yet fully developed cognitavly) has a mark painted on their nose, they do not realise it is on themselves until a couple of years old.

Thus, toddlers are not fully self-aware and dolphins are.

[EN[i]GMA]

Firstly, great apes can reason (Gorillas can). The Gorilla "King" was able to solve logic puzzles through methods other than trial and error. IE deductive reasoning.

Point taken, but we don't do tests these lab tests on Gorrilas, to my knowledge.

Differences between Gorillas and lab rats or rabbits are nearly as prounounced as humans compared them.

But I was incorrect in labeling all animals this way.


Secondly, I think you mean "self-awareness" which has nothing to do with "reasoning."

Numerous animals are self-aware, specifically Dolphins. When a mark is painted on a Dolphin, they will inspect themselves in a mirror to try and get a better view. When a young child (who has not yet fully developed cognitavly) has a mark painted on their nose, they do not realise it is on themselves until a couple of years old.

Thus, toddlers are not fully self-aware and dolphins are.

Yes, I meant self-aware.

[Ace42]

GMA']Point taken, but we don't do tests these lab tests on Gorrilas, to my knowledge.

Not so much these days (if at all) but it was very common in the 70s.

[RT400z]

Now apply that to plants.

Plants do not have a central nervous system or nerve endings so they do not feel pain. Animals do. There is no comparison between the two.


GMA']
"Why of course. It's the most effective way to make you look like a moron."

Actually, it makes you seem like you are devoid of an intelligent response.



GMA']"And obviously just because you state something, that makes it wrong!"

Yes, somewhat.




GMA']"Excepting the cases when it isn't cruel."

It's always cruel.



GMA']"Cancer? AIDS? Huntingtons Diesease? Sickle Cell Anemia? Need I go on?"

No, you don't. Read my response from before.


GMA']"Thats because there are more people in total, today."

Or maybe it's because the drug industry makes more money off of selling medication to cancer patients and without cancer and other diseases there wouldn't be a drug industry.

GMA']"Can you back this up with actual evidence?"

Have they found a medical cure for Cancer or AIDS? Oh yeah.... Viagra(n)

GMA']"How is it wrong to take advantage of an animal? Is it wrong to crush and animal, rip it apart, and mutilate while it's alive, then eat it?"

Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

GMA']"Is it wrong when a person does that? Is it wrong when a dog does that?"

Yes, don't you agree? What if you saw someone do that to a dog for "fun". Would you find that okay? No, it's different than when an animal does it. They do it for feeding purposes. We as people have the technology to eat differently than animals.

GMA']"Since humans and animals are so similar, if we animals have rights, don't they also have responsibilities?"

No. Animals are not always able to choose to change their behaviors, but adult human beings have the intelligence and ability to choose between behaviors that hurt others and behaviors that do not hurt others. They do not understand consequences like adult humans do. The same goes with a child or a person who is mentally disabled.

GMA']"Why is it wrong for us to kill and hurt animals (Often for good reasons, like curing dieseases) when dogs will kill animals for absolutely no reason other than fun?"

When does that happen? Animals usually kill for the feed. Also what I said above applies here.

GMA']"Isn't this a double standard? You say animals are equal to humans, but they don't have to do any of things we do?"

Once again, there is a difference between intelligence.


GMA']"What right do you have to do that?"

So you think it's okay to test on animals, but wrong to test on child molesters? .......:eek:

GMA']"Or the more effective route."

Prove it. Sorry to inform you of this, but the world is run on money.

GMA']"Are you criticizing every single scientist who has ever tested on animals?"

Yes.

GMA']"Do you continue to use products that were tested on animals?"

No.

GMA']"I've heard of that genocide! Those anti-biotics killing those poor, helpless bacteria!"

No, bacteria can infect your body and kill you. If you were attacked by a bear would you shoot it?

GMA']"What is the prime difference between animals and bacteria that makes it alright to kill one, but not the other?"

What is the prime difference between humans and bacteria? Humans could be considered the bacteria of the earth.

GMA']"Bacteria are alive too, and viruses may be alive."

Apply what applies above.


GMA']"Murderer."

I could say the same for you.


GMA']"WHy do something so pointless?"

Hell, ask your precious scientists.


GMA']"Then take them to court. Surely the courts know legality better than you do."

Nah, I'll let PETA do that for me. :D

"An undercover PETA operative recently went inside Covance, Inc., owners of some of the world’s largest animal-testing labs. Over 11 months, she used a hidden camera to secretly videotape lab workers hitting, choking, taunting, and deliberately tormenting terrified monkeys—all in violation of federal law."
-PETA

"PETA just went public with its exposé of Princeton-based Covance and filed a 272-page complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture detailing the abuse found by PETA’s investigator"

This is their newest case with animal testing labs. Hey look, no vandalization!


GMA']"What labs have been confiscated?"

Plenty. Like I said before, the first lab was confiscated by PETA. It was called the Silver Springs case, which happened in the early 80s. It was the first arrest of an animal experimenter in the US.


GMA']"Some of the time."

No, most of the time. There were a lot of things in history that wern't illegal, but that didn't make it okay on a moral stance.



GMA']"Should it be?"

No, there isn't a question to be asked here. Animal abuse is against the law, no matter how you feel about it.



GMA']"I pretty much don't care if a few animals get killed, as long as humans benefit."

I pretty much do care if a few animals get killed, no matter how humans benefit.


GMA']"You saying it obviously makes it so!"

Yes, and obviously the people who make the laws in this country. And PETA!(y)


GMA']"You have some comprehending to do. I'm not saying that everything PETA or the groups they fund is bad, just that the bad stuff they do is numerous and horrific."

Really? This is new information to me since I could have sworn you have typed more than a few paragraphs worth of hate towards PETA. I mean seriously, didn't you just say they do "horrific" things? I think my comprehension is completely intact. Last time I checked "horrific" also meant "subjected to outrageous cruelty". That is what PETA is against.



GMA']"Sure they have."

I'm glad you've noticed!


GMA']"And so has the assualt of lab workers, viva la PETA!"

So? It's okay to assault the animals, but wrong to assault the lab workers? I'm seeing something wrong here.


GMA']"And then euthanize them."

That was because they wanted to euthanize the animals instead of other shelter's gas chambers or really outdated ones that shoot the animals in the head. Most animal shelters have very bad conditions and extremely small cages. I would rather PETA do it than any of those other shelters. Like they said, it was a last option.


GMA']"I've watched one of their videos, and I still eat meat without any problem."

Well, that is you, not my friends. The friends I'm referring to eat meat also, but they admitted that what those animals went through was terrible. I'm more concerned about how animals are tested on instead of the meat process. I'm kind of worried for you if you don't feel a thing when you see those videos. I, personally saw one of those videos when I ate meat and used products that were tested on animals. Even then I felt bad for them. Maybe you never had a dog or a cat?


GMA']"Good for them. Have they burnt down any labs recently?"

No, of course not. Like I said before, they still eat meat. They are not involved with animal rights. Just because they don't use products tested on animals doesn't make them animal rights activists.


GMA']"Because they are irrelevent."

How is that possible? Haven't we been debating about PETA?


GMA']"Show me an animal that can logically prove its own existence, and you might have a case."

Are you serious? Have you even seen an animal!? Kick a Pit bull and see what happens. I'm pretty damn sure it will defend it's self. Should this go for the mentally disabled and babies, too?


GMA']"Humans have rights animals dont'. Bacteria don't. Viruses don't. Rocks don't. Trees don't. Dirt doesn't. Planets don't. Stars don't. People do."


Your point? Women and Black people didn't have rights at one point. That didn't mean they didn't count.
....... by the way, animals do have rights, actually. If they didn't it wouldn't be illegal to abuse one.


GMA']"You said we are the same; that we have the same rights, that animals are able to reason, that we are equal."

Yeah, but you were referring to the time when I said, "At one time woman and black people were compared to dogs when it came to what rights they should have." Note that I said "were compared", not "are compared".
Although, I do believe animals should have freedom because they can reason, love and have somewhat the same capabilities as a baby.



GMA']"And to answer that joke, no."

Thats okay. People said that about women and black people, too. It took open minded, strong thinkers to break that barrier. Hopefully we will keep going foward into the future as a society and disregard the traditions of history that held us back.


GMA']"No, you twat, I was saying that just because someone is a 'radical', has no effect in the inherent worth of their cause."

Why do something as child like as name calling? That is as pointless as your sarcasm. It seemed as if you were questioning the movement....

"The leaders of the civil rights movement were once thought of as radicals."

Your response:

"The Russian nihilists were also radicals. They were wrong."

It seemed as you were questioning the civil rights movement because I never said, " all radicals are right" so therefor, there would be no point in mentioning how some radicals are wrong.

GMA']"You compare these sickos to the civil rights radicals, I compare them to nihilists."

No, a sicko is someone like a child molester, not somebody who cares about speaking up for those who don't speak.

"Hell, use child molesters."

You response?

"What right do you have to do that?"


..... I guess child molesters arn't considered sickos
to you and deserve the right to keeping fucking up
the next generation of people while animals contribute
and always have contributed more to society than some
sicko child molester. It's weird that the question of a child
molester being taken advantage of sparks something in you
yet animals don't.

[Ace42]

Plants do not have a central nervous system or nerve endings so they do not feel pain. Animals do. There is no comparison between the two.

Actually, plants do feel pain, Google for it. When damaged they emit ultra-sonic waves. Sorry, but you better check the facts on this. What you mean is that 'plants have a different brain structure to us (IE non-existant in the cerebral sense), and thus feel "pain" in a way that is alien to us.'

That can be applied to any organism whatsoever, including higher primates. Thus it boils down to "we find it easier to anthropomorphise with animals that are similar to ourselves, thus we find it easier to put faith in the logical fallacy that their experiences are similar or even merely analogus to our own."

There is clearly a comparison between the two, as the two are on a continuum, and it is merely a case of personal preference as to where on that line you draw your stand.

When does that happen? Animals usually kill for the feed. Also what I said above applies here.

Just plain wrong. Numerous animals commit various brutalities that were considered solely the province of humans. Many primates and animals perform rapes - dolphins, a particularly intelligent social mammal, often group up and bully less popular members of a pod (or more often, a rival pod) and can murder them by taking it in turns to press them at the bottom of the ocean, by "buzzing" them with ultra-sonic clicks at the most sensitive areas, and even performing gang-rape on them. Chimpanzees often take part in "wars" between groups, and take part in cannibalism even when other food is more easily available. Ants even abduct eggs from rival colonies, and use the offspring to perform menial or dangerous tasks, a form of slavery.

The examples go on and on. Sorry, but your wishy-washy clap trap that is inspired by Disney is quite frankly a nonsense.

[RT400z]

Actually, plants do feel pain, Google for it. When damaged they emit ultra-sonic waves. Sorry, but you better check the facts on this. What you mean is that 'plants have a different brain structure to us (IE non-existant in the cerebral sense), and thus feel "pain" in a way that is alien to us.'

Actually, when I said it before I did google it and I also have a book on plants. This is not what I read at all. My ex boyfriend told me this before (even though I read differently). If plants feel pain then how do they show signs of it? How can they feel pain when they don't seem to show love or hate? Plus, I'd rather use plants since at least they isn't much of a connection as there is to animals. I believe there is difference between animals and plants on more than a physical level and beyond a logical level.

That can be applied to any organism whatsoever, including higher primates. Thus it boils down to "we find it easier to anthropomorphise with animals that are similar to ourselves, thus we find it easier to put faith in the logical fallacy that their experiences are similar or even merely analogus to our own."

There is clearly a comparison between the two, as the two are on a continuum, and it is merely a case of personal preference as to where on that line you draw your stand.

We need to draw a line somewhere, don't you think? If we can draw the line for humans we should draw the line for animals since they can physically show compassion and pain. You could apply this theory to everything in life (that where you draw the line is your preference). If we do this there will be no order. Animals should not be compared to plants since we have to research that they have pain and feelings and obviously there is still a debate on this, while you can see animals express pain with the human eye.



Just plain wrong. Numerous animals commit various brutalities that were considered solely the province of humans. Many primates and animals perform rapes - dolphins, a particularly intelligent social mammal, often group up and bully less popular members of a pod (or more often, a rival pod) and can murder them by taking it in turns to press them at the bottom of the ocean, by "buzzing" them with ultra-sonic clicks at the most sensitive areas, and even performing gang-rape on them. Chimpanzees often take part in "wars" between groups, and take part in cannibalism even when other food is more easily available. Ants even abduct eggs from rival colonies, and use the offspring to perform menial or dangerous tasks, a form of slavery.

The examples go on and on. Sorry, but your wishy-washy clap trap that is inspired by Disney is quite frankly a nonsense.


Sorry, but you informed me of nothing. I already knew that animals are capable of murder for other reasons than feeding. I'm pretty sure I said, "Animals usually kill for the feed." Note that I said "usually" not always. Like I said before, animals cannot always choose their feelings and do not always know consequences like people do. This is apparent. I was once bitten by a dog because I came up from behind him. He was not a bad dog nor did he probably mean to do harm. Humans are not run by instinct as much as animals are. We are able to choose whether we want to harm someone or not. This is probably because there is a difference in intelligence. By the way, I don't know how you got that my ideas are inspired by disney.

[Ace42]

If plants feel pain then how do they show signs of it?

Again, they emit ultra-sonic waves when they feel "pain." In so much as you can apply the abstract concept of "pain" to things not capable of conceiving of an abtract concept. If you define pain as a reaction to unfavourable stimulus, then plants do indeed react. Your inability to perceive it does not diminish the fact.

How can they feel pain when they don't seem to show love or hate?

The ability to feel pain is not in any way shape or form related to the ability to show "love or hate" - the former is a physiological reaction, the latter are emotional abstracts that are only given meaning by the ability of humans to conceive of them.

A person with extreme amoral pathologia can theoretically be devoid of emotion(s) - this person still responds to pleasure / pain stimulus.

Plus, I'd rather use plants since at least they isn't much of a connection as there is to animals.

YOU don't have as much of a connection to them because you draw the line at extending the pathetic (logical) fallacy of anthropomorphism to plants. That is just a prejudice.

I believe there is difference between animals and plants on more than a physical level and beyond a logical level.

And many people believed there was a difference between black people and white people on more than a physical and beyond a logical level. Doesn't make it right.

We need to draw a line somewhere, don't you think?

Not need necessarily. It is useful, certainly. And you are perfectly entitled to draw that line anywhere you choose. But don't try to pretend that your personal preference on the matter is anything other than arbitrary. And don't think that your arbitrary preference has any more merit than anyone elses.

we should draw the line for animals since they can physically show compassion and pain.

Animals can't show "compassion" - compassion is a strictly human concept. What they do is demonstrate traits which you (incorrectly) attribute to a compassionate response. Through operant conditioning you can make dumb animals do pretty much anything - it merely shows that their behaviours are a response to stimulus. Plants respond to stimuli (Venus fly-trap, anyone?) but this does not make them sentient. Likewise, paralysed (but mentally functioning) people can be physically incapable of physically showing compassion and pain, it does not mean they cannot feel it. Even if they were incapable of feeling pain (through paralysis) that does not diminish their humanity.

As I stated, plants physically show a response to pain (by emitting soundwaves) - by your own argument that makes them equal in standing to animals.

while you can see animals express pain with the human eye.

You can see animals respond to a stimulus - but so do plants. Someone paralysed cannot be seen to express pain with the human eye, that doesn't disqualify them from being "above butchery".

Like I said before, animals cannot always choose their feelings and do not always know consequences like people do.

People can't choose their feelings, otherwise everyone would choose to be happy all the time. Ubi nihil valis, ibi nihil velis. And most people are blissfully ignorant of the consequences of their actions - look at US foreign policy for an obvious example.

He was not a bad dog

Animals can be neither good nor bad - they merely act in ways we approve of disapprove of. Does this grant them some sort of immunity to the will of men? No.

Humans are not run by instinct as much as animals are.

I've heard of the white man's burden, but the thinking man's burden?

We are able to choose whether we want to harm someone or not.

And if someone is unable to, IE they have a personality disorder / compulsion? Would that make them an animal and thus beyond human censure?

By the way, I don't know how you got that my ideas are inspired by disney.

Because Disney films tend to feature singing dancing talking cutesey animals, etc. Even when they use real animals (not animated ones) - they need dozens of them in order to correctly train the desired actions in order to make the animals seem more human.

To attribute human characteristics to animals is entirely unscientific and thus devoid of merit.

While you are perfectly entitled to draw your own lines, so to speak, you have no moral or ethical authority to prounounce on others without some hard scientific evidence.

[RT400z]

Again, they emit ultra-sonic waves when they feel "pain." In so much as you can apply the abstract concept of "pain" to things not capable of conceiving of an abtract concept. If you define pain as a reaction to unfavourable stimulus, then plants do indeed react. Your inability to perceive it does not diminish the fact.

I believe you are referring to an article there, right? Those are not “screams”. The plant isn’t the one emitting ultra- sonic waves it’s the interaction between combined gas and a laser that was pointed toward the plant. This combination made a noise and now it’s labeled as a “scream”. You are referring to an experiment that scientist did that didn’t even have to do with the plant at all. The plant is not making the scream, the chemical released is. To experience an unfavorable sensation, they would have to have a nervous system. Stimulation and perception would have to happen for pain to happen. Stimulation is the reaction of nerves to a stimulus. Humans and animals can feel if something is hot or cold by the nerves that send messages to the brain. Your nerves don’t know feelings, your brain does. Things without brains cannot feel pain nor love. They cannot feel a favorable or unfavorable stimulus. No nerves, no brains, no pain. Plants have cell processes, a xylem and phloem for transport and etc, but nothing that could allow pain to be detected. Plants cannot react to an unfavorable stimulus because they can’t feel nor detect it.



The ability to feel pain is not in any way shape or form related to the ability to show "love or hate" - the former is a physiological reaction, the latter are emotional abstracts that are only given meaning by the ability of humans to conceive of them.
A person with extreme amoral pathologia can theoretically be devoid of emotion(s) - this person still responds to pleasure / pain stimulus.

Yes it is. Pain can be a physical or emotional discomfort. Love, hate and pain are also favorable or unfavorable reactions to a stimulus. If pain is only on a physical level then we could say the same for non living objects like when someone drops a plate so it "reacts to a stimulus" and breaks. Just because some is devoid of physical pain doesn't mean they can't feel emotional pain.


And many people believed there was a difference between black people and white people on more than a physical and beyond a logical level. Doesn't make it right.

Yes, they were wrong. Black people and white people both have brains and can feel. Plants cannot.


Not need necessarily. It is useful, certainly. And you are perfectly entitled to draw that line anywhere you choose. But don't try to pretend that your personal preference on the matter is anything other than arbitrary. And don't think that your arbitrary preference has any more merit than anyone elses.

There is a need for order or there would be chaos. I guess that matters if you base things on logic. If we base it on that then my opinion could have more merits than someone elses.


Animals can't show "compassion" - compassion is a strictly human concept. What they do is demonstrate traits which you (incorrectly) attribute to a compassionate response. Through operant conditioning you can make dumb animals do pretty much anything - it merely shows that their behaviours are a response to stimulus.

Can you prove this? The definition of compassion says nothing about strictly being a human concept. Animals do show compassion....

"Minnie, a stray dog, for example, ran across the street and pushed a little boy out of the way of an oncoming car and saved his life. She'd never seen him before. She had absolutely nothing to gain by risking her own life for him, but she did it -- in just the same way that people sometimes show great courage for helping strangers."

"Animals take in orphans and nurse and nurture them, orphans of an entirely different species. What do the animals have to gain from that? Nothing."

"The story of Tia, a three-legged dog in Canada. She was in a boat with two fishermen during an icy storm. The boat started to sink. The men, terrified, were hanging onto the side in rubber chest-waders, which were filling with water.
If the men let go of the boat, they would sink immediately to the bottom of the ocean. They also only had a few minutes to live before exposure to the cold would kill them.
So, hopeless, they just hung there and prepared to die. Suddenly, they noticed that the boat was moving toward shore. They looked and realized that Tia -- with just three legs -- had taken the boat's mooring line in her teeth and was swimming with all her might and towing the boat to safety.
They could not kick or help her because of the chest-waders. But she got them to shallow water, where they stood up and walked up to the beach. Even though she was disabled, she saved their lives."

"A dog who befriended a man in his neighborhood. The man was slowly dying of cancer, and the dog seemed to understand his increasing frailty and kept going to visit him and cheer him up.
On the very day when the man was about to die, the dog broke through a screen in his house and ran down the street to the man's house to be with him in his last hours.
The dog somehow knew that the end was coming and wanted to be with his friend."

"A stray dog in Detroit who came upon a newborn baby, whose mother had left in an alley because she did not want him. The dog, even though she was starving and dirty and pathetic, curled up around the baby, licked him clean, and kept him warm until police came and found him."

"A dog covered a kitten's body with his own to keep a hawk from swooping down and getting her for breakfast."

Also, I know from my personal experience from having cats and dogs. Whenever I would cry one of my cats would come over and lick my hand. If I was ever in an argument she would come between me and the person. There is nothing she could gain from this.


You can see animals respond to a stimulus - but so do plants. Someone paralysed cannot be seen to express pain with the human eye, that doesn't disqualify them from being "above butchery".

Plants cannot respond to a stimulus. They do not have the nerves or the brains to do so. Animals can respond to a stimulus. Paralysed people have emotions and a brain.

People can't choose their feelings, otherwise everyone would choose to be happy all the time. Ubi nihil valis, ibi nihil velis. And most people are blissfully ignorant of the consequences of their actions - look at US foreign policy for an obvious example.

They have the intelligence to choose how they react to those feelings and how they affect others. If a child or a mentally challenged person murders someone it isn't the same as when an adult does it. Plus, if I really choose I'm going to be happy one day, then I can feel happy.


Animals can be neither good nor bad - they merely act in ways we approve of disapprove of. Does this grant them some sort of immunity to the will of men? No.

There is a common knowledge in society of what is right and what is wrong. I know when I do something wrong and I think most people do. Animals do not have the knowledge we do.


And if someone is unable to, IE they have a personality disorder / compulsion? Would that make them an animal and thus beyond human censure?

Personality disorders are the equivilent of moods or feelings. If they choose to react to hurting someone then they are wrong. We are not run on merly instinct.

Because Disney films tend to feature singing dancing talking cutesey animals, etc. Even when they use real animals (not animated ones) - they need dozens of them in order to correctly train the desired actions in order to make the animals seem more human.

What does this have to do with anything I said? I think animals can feel pain, pleasure, fear and etc. What does this have to do with singing, dancing and talking (even though when a dog barks it's a form of communication similar to talking)?


To attribute human characteristics to animals is entirely unscientific and thus devoid of merit.

Humans have feelings. Animals have feelings. The only things I saw in disney movies that animals don't do is sing and use human voices. Although, birds chirping can somewhat sound musical. Bambi felt pain. Humans feel pain. It would be ridiculous to act like animals don't have human characteristics since they both have similar reactions to a stimulus. Anger, love, pain, etc.

While you are perfectly entitled to draw your own lines, so to speak, you have no moral or ethical authority to prounounce on others without some hard scientific evidence.

Yes I can. Anyone can. Doesn't religion rule most people's moral stances? Is everything in the bible backed up by hard scientific evidence?

[Ace42]

I believe you are referring to an article there, right? Those are not “screams”. The plant isn’t the one emitting ultra- sonic waves it’s the interaction between combined gas and a laser that was pointed toward the plant. This combination made a noise and now it’s labeled as a “scream”.

No, I wasn't, however you could equally argue that a person isn't making a scream, the gas coming out of the mouth is.

To experience an unfavorable sensation, they would have to have a nervous system.

It depends what you mean by "experience" - to be aware of in the sense we think of it, then possibly. However if plants were "unaware" of unfavourable "sensations" then they would be unable to heal themselves.

Stimulation and perception would have to happen for pain to happen.

stim·u·late Audio pronunciation of "stimulation" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stmy-lt)
v. stim·u·lat·ed, stim·u·lat·ing, stim·u·lates
v. tr.

1. To rouse to activity or heightened action, as by spurring or goading; excite. See Synonyms at provoke.
2. To increase temporarily the activity of (a body organ or part).
3. To excite or invigorate (a person, for example) with a stimulant.

You can cause plants to react to stimuli such as hot / cold / damp / dry.

Humans and animals can feel if something is hot or cold by the nerves that send messages to the brain. Your nerves don’t know feelings, your brain does.

Wrong. Many physical reactions occur in the nervous system, not the brain. That is why if you scold your hand, it jumps away from the heat before you are aware that you are burnt. It is a mechanism which saves valuable seconds when you are in danger by ignoring the time taken to convey information to and process in the brain.

Furthermore, plants react to all manner of environemental conditions. How / Cold / Damp / Dry, pressures, movement, light. If they were oblivious to these things, they would not be able to function at all. For example, sun-flowers follow the path of the sun in the sky. They do not need to process the raw data in a "brain" in order to do this.

Things without brains cannot feel pain nor love.

Animals cannot feel "pain" nor "love" because their brains are not capable of comprehending the abstract concepts you just cited.

They cannot feel a favorable or unfavorable stimulus.

That would suggest they live in a void, removed from the outside world. Patently absurd - even the smallest amount of common sense should demonstrate that plants react to stimulus in different ways. Sunlight is a favourable stimulus, and plants often turn to face it.

Plants have cell processes

And what is an animal's brain other than cell processes? "Magic" ?

Plants cannot react to an unfavorable stimulus because they can’t feel nor detect it.

Cacti change their structure and internal processes to suit the environment. Depending on how wet or dry it is will effect how they store or utilise their water supplies. If they cannot "detect" stimuli from the outside world, they could not react to it, QED.

Love, hate and pain are also favorable or unfavorable reactions to a stimulus.

By that argument, a plant turning to face the sun "loves" it. Poetic, but quite clearly nonsense.

There is a need for order or there would be chaos.

An arbitrary order can be little better than chaos. Usually an arbitrary order is merely the illusion of order.

I guess that matters if you base things on logic. If we base it on that then my opinion could have more merits than someone elses.

You yourself said your opinion was not based on logic. If we are going to base it on logic, then I'm afraid your opinion so far pretty much falls flat.

Can you prove this? The definition of compassion says nothing about strictly being a human concept. Animals do show compassion...

No, they do not. Read the definition again:

com·pas·sion Audio pronunciation of "compassion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (km-pshn)
n.
Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it.

An animal that is not self-aware cannot be aware of others and thus cannot be compassionate.

And in all the examples you give, the animals is solely responding via either conditioned responces or instincts. All those cases demonstrate is your inability to think clinically about them without projecting your human sentiments onto a dumb animal. An animal following its instincts is no more "special" or "intelligent" than a plant going to seed.

Cats, for example, ONLY show affectionate responses because it results in pleasurable results for them. When you are pleased with your cat, you show this in numerous ways (not solely consciously either) including giving it treats, petting it more, etc etc. It is nothing more than operant conditioning. You can train cats to run when they hear a bell, that doesn't mean squat.

Plants cannot respond to a stimulus. They do not have the nerves or the brains to do so. Animals can respond to a stimulus.

Plants can too. The venus fly trap responds to the stimulation of three "hairs" on its inside, which cause it to close around a fly, which allows it to digest protein and other nutrients.

Paralysed people have emotions and a brain.

Again, there are people who do not have emotions. And what do you define as a "brain" - many "animals" (IE insects) have a hive-consciousness. That isn't a centralised brain, but is still capable of incredibly sophisticated co-ordination and reactive and adaptive behaviour. The physiology of the brain in numerous animals is incredibly diverse.

Literally, the brain is a vertebrate only component, although that definition has been extended over time to include (and I quote) " A functionally similar portion of the invertebrate nervous system." Thus to refuse to extend the definition to "a functionally similar portion of non-animal nervous systems" is strictly semantic. I have used the term (among others) within quotation marks to illustrate that the terminology used is animal specific, even though the functionality is not.

Plus, if I really choose I'm going to be happy one day, then I can feel happy.

Try it when your mother dies, see how far that gets you.

Animals do not have the knowledge we do.

They (with almost no exceptions) do not have the cognitive structures needed to store that knowledge, nor use it in a productive manner. This is why they are unable to feel the things you ascribe to them. It is no more accurate than saying my computer "hates" getting dusty, and reacts poorly when it is.

If I said "but you can hear it struggling like an asthmatic" you'd think me barmy. Well there is no more reason to ascribe human sentiments to an animal than a computer.


Personality disorders are the equivilent of moods or feelings.

What does that mean? If you have neurological damage you can have a personality disorder such as psychopathia and thus be physically unable to feel empathy. That isn't a "mood or feeling."

We are not run on merly instinct.

Many people with mental illness do. According to you they are animals, or quite possibly "sub-animals."

What does this have to do with anything I said? I think animals can feel pain, pleasure, fear and etc.

Because in Disney films, along with the obvious flaws I pointed earlier, animals are shown to feel pain, pleasure, fear, etc. These are things they do not and cannot feel in real life.

even though when a dog barks it's a form of communication similar to talking)?

Whole new area of discussion, but dog barks are NOTHING like talking. If you did any research into the area of animal language, you'd know that to be a "language" - animal behaviour must meet numerous criteria. Barking barely meets a handful. While some animals (notably chimps) can learn proper language (Nim Chimpsky learned Amerslan) dogs aren't one of them.

And please try not to confuse a conditioned response with actual comprehension. That is the worst of rookie mistakes.

Animals have feelings.

Not in the sense you mean. Yes animals "feel" things (they can respond to a shove, or an angry word) but these are purely instinctual or conditioned responses. A dog cowering when someone shouts at it is no more "intelligent" than it slobbering when Pavlov rung his bell. It is purely reactive, not conscious.

It would be ridiculous to act like animals don't have human characteristics since they both have similar reactions to a stimulus. Anger, love, pain, etc.

It would be ridiculous to assume that because the reactions bear superficial similarities that makes them the same, or even essentially the same. That is what psychologists call "projection." It is a bonding mechanism humans have which helps them socialise and fit in to a family unit. It is empathy (the ability to put oneself in another's shoes) such as this that allows co-operation and forms the basis for much of human society.

You see a dog cowering / whimpering after getting shouted at, and you think "what would I be feeling if I just got shouted at and was acting like that."

This is totally illogical and fallacious. You are not a dog, so trying to transpose your feelings and responses onto something that is so different to you is as ridiculous as suggesting that plants like being sung to. Many gardners would say that plants respond favourably to being sung to. Does that mean they "like" it? No.

Yes I can. Anyone can. Doesn't religion rule most people's moral stances? Is everything in the bible backed up by hard scientific evidence?

How does your arbitrary beliefs give you authority to pass judgements on other people? You could think that people who don't cover their mouths when they sneeze deserve to die. Does that mean you have the moral / ethical authority to execute them? Would the bible saying people who don't cover their mouths deserve to die alter the fact?

I think it is very sweet that you attribute human characteristics to your pets, it shows that you are a very empathic and caring person. But in practical terms, your relationship with your pets is no more relevant than the personalities you attributed to your dollies as a kid.

Additional stuff for your consideration I found through google (I am unwilling to dig out my old psychology books notes and essays from under what is approaching a decade's worth of dust):

Pain is usually thought to be perceived in the higher brain centers, such as the thalamus and pre-frontal lobes, which "lower" animals lack in part or in total.

The reason I am reluctant to debate the question is that it rapidly becomes philosophical, and devolves to conundrums parallel to the tree falling in the forest.

It revolves around "What is the point where stimulus becomes perception?"

2) Plants lack a central nervous system and it is unlikely for them to feel pain in the way animals or humans do.

Just as Descartes managed to ignore the obvious when he said that animals were unfeeling machines, there is considerable evidence that plants are much more aware than we commonly believe. Using a definition of pain that is based on possession of a nervous system deliberately and arbitrarily excludes plants. Yet plants are clearly aware of when they are being attacked because they mobilize chemical defenses. Just as meat eaters try to deny the fact that animals feel pain, vegans try to deny the fact that plants feel something akin to pain--something that could be used to justify not killing them. If we ever encounter aliens, the chances that they have a nervous system like ours is vanishingly small, but we would nonetheless assume that they feel what we would categorize as pain.

http://www.vegetus.org/essay/plants.htm

While plants do send ionic potential signals in response to harm, that are similar to action potentials in animal nerves, the difference is in the processing of those signals to become the perception of pain.

www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/BetCD/Bet2.doc

Many of the more voracious anti-meat activists scrawl "meat is murder" on city walls, commit arson at meat-processing plants and laboratories and wage media campaigns equating meat consumption with cannibalism. Many vegetarians argue that killing less sentient beings is morally wrong and unnecessary, but such arguments give rise to long-winded discussions of what "sentient" and "necessary" mean. For instance, it is not necessary to kill plants for sustenance either; one could become a fruitarian. Plants have even been catalogued as being "sentient" in certain scientific circles, and there is some question about whether plants can, indeed, feel pain of a sort. As a result, ethical concerns usually stay in the realm of belief and opinion, rather than fact.

http://aetherealforge.com/~aeon/library/mw/veggie.shtml

And so it goes on. So far the ONLY arguments against vegetables feeling pain is that "they don't have a brain / central nervous system" - an arbitrary distinction. The latter is clearly irrelevant, as plants have bio-electric systems which serve the same function, etc etc. The presence of a brain is immaterial, as merely having a brain does not guarantee you can feel pain, and an inability to feel pain would not make you any less human and thus worthy of respectful treatment.

It was also interesting to note the number of vegan / vegetarian sites repeating the same fallacious rhetoric.

[RT400z]

No, I wasn't, however you could equally argue that a person isn't making a scream, the gas coming out of the mouth is.

No, because when a human screams it's a reaction to a stimulus. Plants don't have nerves to feel, therefor there is no feeling. Without feeling they can't react to a stimulus such as fear or pain.

It depends what you mean by "experience" - to be aware of in the sense we think of it, then possibly. However if plants were "unaware" of unfavourable "sensations" then they would be unable to heal themselves.

Yes, I mean they are not aware and cannot feel pain. That isn't necessarily true. They heal because that is what their cells are programmed to do, not because they felt the feeling and choose to heal the wound. Our bodies heal without us having to decide for it to heal.

stim·u·late Audio pronunciation of "stimulation" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stmy-lt)
v. stim·u·lat·ed, stim·u·lat·ing, stim·u·lates
v. tr.

1. To rouse to activity or heightened action, as by spurring or goading; excite. See Synonyms at provoke.
2. To increase temporarily the activity of (a body organ or part).
3. To excite or invigorate (a person, for example) with a stimulant.

You can cause plants to react to stimuli such as hot / cold / damp / dry.

That doesn't mean they have feeling. They still can't feel if something is pleasurable or unpleasurable.

Wrong. Many physical reactions occur in the nervous system, not the brain. That is why if you scold your hand, it jumps away from the heat before you are aware that you are burnt. It is a mechanism which saves valuable seconds when you are in danger by ignoring the time taken to convey information to and process in the brain.

I don't know about that one. I think before your body reacts to any feeling a message has to be sent to the brain first for the body to know what to do. Physiologically, a central nervous system is necessary for someone to process the complex sequence of events that makes it aware that it is experiencing discomfort or about to. Just because you don't have to stop and think about something doesn't mean a message wasn't sent to your brain.


Furthermore, plants react to all manner of environemental conditions. How / Cold / Damp / Dry, pressures, movement, light. If they were oblivious to these things, they would not be able to function at all. For example, sun-flowers follow the path of the sun in the sky. They do not need to process the raw data in a "brain" in order to do this.

This still doesn't mean they can feel. This would require a brain and nerve endings.


Animals cannot feel "pain" nor "love" because their brains are not capable of comprehending the abstract concepts you just cited.

Impossible. Animals have brains and nerve endings. This means they can feel and react to a pleasant and unpleasant stimulus.

That would suggest they live in a void, removed from the outside world. Patently absurd - even the smallest amount of common sense should demonstrate that plants react to stimulus in different ways. Sunlight is a favourable stimulus, and plants often turn to face it.

It is impossible to feel without a brain, a central nervous system and nerve endings. They absorb sunlight and water because of the RNA in their cells. Like I said before, that is how their cells are programmed. It has nothing to do with plants enjoying the sunlight.

And what is an animal's brain other than cell processes? "Magic" ?

Uh, no. All living things are runned by cell processes. What I originally said was, "Plants have cell processes, a xylem and phloem for transport and etc, but nothing that could allow pain to be detected."

The point of that statement was that there is nothing in a plant's cell process that would be able to detect pain. You make it seem like I was saying only plants have cell processes, which I didn't say.


Cacti change their structure and internal processes to suit the environment. Depending on how wet or dry it is will effect how they store or utilise their water supplies. If they cannot "detect" stimuli from the outside world, they could not react to it, QED.

This still doesn't mean they can feel. All living things react to a change in environment, but this still doesn't make up for it's sensory neurons which detect feelings like pain.


By that argument, a plant turning to face the sun "loves" it. Poetic, but quite clearly nonsense.

No, the two arguments are very different. I'm saying love, hate and pain are reactions to a pleasant or unpleasant stimulus. Just because a plant faces the sun doesn't mean it feels feelings that are pleasant or unpleasant, it just means that it's reacting to it's environment. It still can't feel feelings without the necessary functions that animals and humans both have.



You yourself said your opinion was not based on logic. If we are going to base it on logic, then I'm afraid your opinion so far pretty much falls flat.

I never said that. I believe I said something among the lines of that my opinion is based on logic and more. If I didn't use logic in my opinion at all I wouldn't be debating this.

No, they do not. Read the definition again:

com·pas·sion Audio pronunciation of "compassion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (km-pshn)
n.
Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it.

An animal that is not self-aware cannot be aware of others and thus cannot be compassionate.

And in all the examples you give, the animals is solely responding via either conditioned responces or instincts. All those cases demonstrate is your inability to think clinically about them without projecting your human sentiments onto a dumb animal. An animal following its instincts is no more "special" or "intelligent" than a plant going to seed.

Cats, for example, ONLY show affectionate responses because it results in pleasurable results for them. When you are pleased with your cat, you show this in numerous ways (not solely consciously either) including giving it treats, petting it more, etc etc. It is nothing more than operant conditioning. You can train cats to run when they hear a bell, that doesn't mean squat.

I don't think you read any of those examples at all. First of all, animals are self aware. If animals wern't self-aware they wouldn't defend themselves. If animals can't express compassionate feelings then how come a mother bear will protect her baby bear cubs? Or any animal that mothers her babies? What would that bear get out of that in return? I don't even think you took any of those examples into consideration. Every single one of those examples was an example of compassion. What if we applied that to humans? What if we said the only reason you love your mother is that you were trained to or you got something out of it (love, attention, etc) so therefor it's not compassion? It makes no sense applied to humans or animals.


Again, there are people who do not have emotions. And what do you define as a "brain" - many "animals" (IE insects) have a hive-consciousness. That isn't a centralised brain, but is still capable of incredibly sophisticated co-ordination and reactive and adaptive behaviour. The physiology of the brain in numerous animals is incredibly diverse.

Literally, the brain is a vertebrate only component, although that definition has been extended over time to include (and I quote) " A functionally similar portion of the invertebrate nervous system." Thus to refuse to extend the definition to "a functionally similar portion of non-animal nervous systems" is strictly semantic. I have used the term (among others) within quotation marks to illustrate that the terminology used is animal specific, even though the functionality is not.

These people do not feel psychological emotions?

My definition of a brain: brain Audio pronunciation of "brain" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (brn)
n.

1.
1. The portion of the vertebrate central nervous system that is enclosed within the cranium, continuous with the spinal cord, and composed of gray matter and white matter. It is the primary center for the regulation and control of bodily activities, receiving and interpreting sensory impulses, and transmitting information to the muscles and body organs. It is also the seat of consciousness, thought, memory, and emotion.

Even though ants have a "hive consciousness" each ant still has it's own brain


Try it when your mother dies, see how far that gets you.

It works most of the time. I never said all of the time.



They (with almost no exceptions) do not have the cognitive structures needed to store that knowledge

What knowledge?

This is why they are unable to feel the things you ascribe to them. It is no more accurate than saying my computer "hates" getting dusty, and reacts poorly when it is.
If I said "but you can hear it struggling like an asthmatic" you'd think me barmy. Well there is no more reason to ascribe human sentiments to an animal than a computer.

How is this? They have sensory neurons and stimulation. Animals are complex (traits as complex as pain perception and transmission) therefor if it feels unpleasant sensations it will flee. A computer has no feelings so it isn't as complex as an animal.



What does that mean? If you have neurological damage you can have a personality disorder such as psychopathia and thus be physically unable to feel empathy. That isn't a "mood or feeling."

When I said that I was really referring to disorders like Bipolar and ADD (a mood disorder).


Many people with mental illness do. According to you they are animals, or quite possibly "sub-animals."

I never said that. They are not run merly on instinct. Maybe more than the usual human, but not completely on instinct. They may have neurological damage in a part of their brain to make them act a certain way, but they still have intelligence somewhat so they arn't "sub-animals".



Because in Disney films, along with the obvious flaws I pointed earlier, animals are shown to feel pain, pleasure, fear, etc. These are things they do not and cannot feel in real life.

So you believe that plants feel pain despite the fact that they need a central nervous system, brain and nerve endings for that yet you do not believe animals feel pain although science would tell you differently? It is impossible. They have nerve ending in their bodies, they respond to the pain (similar to when a human yells), they defend themselves when being attacked or avoid pain and have physical traits that are related to humans (that is why there is the theory of evolution). Logically you have a harder time proving animals don't feel pain and etc.


Whole new area of discussion, but dog barks are NOTHING like talking. If you did any research into the area of animal language, you'd know that to be a "language" - animal behaviour must meet numerous criteria. Barking barely meets a handful. While some animals (notably chimps) can learn proper language (Nim Chimpsky learned Amerslan) dogs aren't one of them.

And please try not to confuse a conditioned response with actual comprehension. That is the worst of rookie mistakes.

Yeah, that may apply if I had called barking an animal language. I said it was
similar to talking in the way that it is a form of communication. What conditioned response are you talk about specifically that I am confusing? How do we know you fully understand when an animal shows a conditioned response? You seem to think animals have no thought process even though they have enough to be conditioned? Wouldn't animals have to have feelings to be conditioned? I though you believe they didn't feel pain, love, fear, etc.


Not in the sense you mean. Yes animals "feel" things (they can respond to a shove, or an angry word) but these are purely instinctual or conditioned responses. A dog cowering when someone shouts at it is no more "intelligent" than it slobbering when Pavlov rung his bell. It is purely reactive, not conscious.

Consciousness and feelings go hand in hand. Whether instinctual or not, those are still physical and psychological feelings. For an animal to cower from shouting shows fear (psychological) which means it is consious.



It would be ridiculous to assume that because the reactions bear superficial similarities that makes them the same, or even essentially the same. That is what psychologists call "projection." It is a bonding mechanism humans have which helps them socialise and fit in to a family unit. It is empathy (the ability to put oneself in another's shoes) such as this that allows co-operation and forms the basis for much of human society.

Why would it be ridiculous? Then how do you compare things if you don't look at the obvious first? Instead of trying to separate the two I'm comparing the two since there are more similarities than differences.

You see a dog cowering / whimpering after getting shouted at, and you think "what would I be feeling if I just got shouted at and was acting like that."

This is totally illogical and fallacious. You are not a dog, so trying to transpose your feelings and responses onto something that is so different to you is as ridiculous as suggesting that plants like being sung to. Many gardners would say that plants respond favourably to being sung to. Does that mean they "like" it? No.

Personally, I wouldn't try to relate in that situation since the dog's reaction is cowering/whimpering. This just shows me that the dog is frightened. I would be able to feel and see the reaction of the dog instead of putting myself in it's place. I wouldn't find it that illogical though. If you understand fear then you could relate that to the dog's similar reaction to yelling. I'm not a child, but I can try to relate when a child is being yelled at. I don't remember being a baby, but I can try to relate to a baby's reaction to yelling. It's not illogical to try and relate to things you may not understand. There is no saying that you can or cannot relate. Some people may be able to and some may not. In fact, trying to relate to different things may even expand your consciousness.


How does your arbitrary beliefs give you authority to pass judgements on other people? You could think that people who don't cover their mouths when they sneeze deserve to die. Does that mean you have the moral / ethical authority to execute them? Would the bible saying people who don't cover their mouths deserve to die alter the fact?

Yeah, at a certain level. If people follow your belief (whether right or wrong) can make it somewhat the authority. If the bible said that I definitly think it would be the authority. Isn't most law based on morals and religious beliefs?

I think it is very sweet that you attribute human characteristics to your pets, it shows that you are a very empathic and caring person. But in practical terms, your relationship with your pets is no more relevant than the personalities you attributed to your dollies as a kid.

No, every animal has it's own characteristics. Pit bulls are known for being violent dogs while Labradors are known for being loyal. If I decide to "attribute" good characteristics to my dog, wouldn't that somewhat be like teaching a child good manners?

[Ace42]

No, because when a human screams it's a reaction to a stimulus. Plants don't have nerves to feel, therefor there is no feeling. Without feeling they can't react to a stimulus such as fear or pain.

Again, you are playing with semantics. Plants can "feel" otherwise they would not be able to respond to stimulus. It is really very very simple. A stimulus like pressure can trigger a response. This is a "reaction." Fear or Pain are not "stimulus" they are abstract responses to a stimulus.

Obviously you did not read my links:

While plants do send ionic potential signals in response to harm, that are similar to action potentials in animal nerves, the difference is in the processing of those signals to become the perception of pain.
http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/BetCD/Bet2.doc

"Plants don't have nerves" - they have signals that do precisely the same thing.

That clearly shows the difference is not in the "central nervous system" - of which there is a corresponding system in plants, but in how the brain "perceives" it. Something I will come to later.


Yes, I mean they are not aware and cannot feel pain.

Again, that is what we are discussing. What this sentence actually means is "I have drawn arbitrary distinctions about what it means to be aware and what constitutes pain, and then I am pretending that my arbitrary distinctions are self-evident."

They are not.

pain Audio pronunciation of "pain" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pn)
n.

1. An unpleasant sensation occurring in varying degrees of severity as a consequence of injury, disease, or emotional disorder.

Plants can detect injury or disease, and have incredibly sophisticated mechanisms for dealing with them. This is no different to animals. The difference, according to you, is in the perception. They have no brain to perceive it.

This is wooly thinking of the worst kind. Animal brains are substantially different to humans.

again, I refer to my quotations:

Pain is usually thought to be perceived in the higher brain centers, such as the thalamus and pre-frontal lobes, which "lower" animals lack in part or in total.

Animal brains are physically incapable of perceiving pain in the way that you and I understand it. Many animals have no thalamus / pre-frontal loves to "feel" pain. Thereby rendering your argument moot.

I'm afraid you are obliged to ditch your convinient, but thouroughly illogical distinction that "you must have a brain to feel pain." As I have been saying all along, you must have a brain that is significantly similar to a human brain to feel "pain". And as no amount of neurological study or biology can show you what an animal "perceives" any more than you can know what a plant "perceives" you do not have a leg to stand on.

The best you can say is that "a few animals have mental structures which we think could mean that their perceptions could roughly approach ours in some limited way possibly."

That is not the same as arguing that animals perceive in the way as we understand it. Merely having a thalamus or pre-frontal lobes does not mean that an animal perceives "pain" any differently to any other stimulus. People and animals respond to all manner of neutral stimuli in distinct ways, this does not confer a state of it being "pleasant" or "unpleasant."

Can you demonstrate an animal feels pain? Even though it is unable to perceive of an abstract concept?


That isn't necessarily true. They heal because that is what their cells are programmed to do, not because they felt the feeling and choose to heal the wound. Our bodies heal without us having to decide for it to heal.

You are mistaken. Plants healing does not occur on a solely cellular level. Plantsare multi-cellular organisms, and as such require multi-cellular de-centralised coordination in order to repair. And "choice" is irrelevant. You said yourself that animals can't always "choose" their actions. Please try to avoid self-contradiction.

That doesn't mean they have feeling. They still can't feel if something is pleasurable or unpleasurable.

Neither can animals. To do so would require self-awareness (which most animals do not have) pre-frontal lobes and a thalamus. Not all animals have these, and pretty much none have them in the same capacity as humans.

This is text-book projection. You are attributing *your* perceptions to an animal for which there can be no evidence of perception. You assume that because there are features in a dog you personally can identify with, it must be like you. An idiotic and irrational assumption. Furthermore, a dog performing behaviours through genetically programmed instinct is no more "cognizant" than a plant healing itself through cellular functions. The two are exactly the same.

I don't know about that one. I think before your body reacts to any feeling a message has to be sent to the brain first for the body to know what to do.

Well I do, there are ganglia in the spinal column that are responsible for it. Consult a biology textbook.

Physiologically, a central nervous system is necessary for someone to process the complex sequence of events that makes it aware that it is experiencing discomfort or about to.

No, the CNS is merely a transportation mechanism for conveying sensory data to relevant areas (muscles to react, the brain to process) - clearly plants can transport sensory data, otherwise remote cells would be unable to operate in unison with the rest of the plant. Plants are not just a collection of independant loosely affiliated cells, they are an undeniably an organism. Check the dictionary on that if you are unwilling to search through a biology textbook. So you can drop the CNS from the debate altogether. It is solely a red-herring used by vegetarians to disengenuously legitimise their position.

Venus fly traps need to co-ordinate several "complex sequences of events" in order to close their "mouths" - by your own argument they qualify.

Just because you don't have to stop and think about something doesn't mean a message wasn't sent to your brain.

Your hand moves before you have thought about it. No thinking, no reaction by your argument. If you do not "think" about it, you clearly do not perceive the pain making you no better than a plant by your argument.

This still doesn't mean they can feel. This would require a brain and nerve endings.

It certainly wouldn't require nerve endings by your own argument. You (disengenuously) chose to bring up emotions earlier. Emotional pain (which animals do not feel) does not occur through nerve input. So you're going to have to drop that (along with the CNS) from your definition.

Impossible. Animals have brains and nerve endings. This means they can feel and react to a pleasant and unpleasant stimulus.

Incorrect. Firsty, we have shown having nerve-endings to be irrelevant. Secondly, having a brain does not automatically mean you can "feel." There is no reason to believe that merely having a "brain" means you can feel. Thirdly, plants can react to a "pleasant" or "unpleasant" stimulus. You have already pre-supposed to the stimulus to be "pleasant" or "unpleasant" to the animal, but do not convey the same benefit to a plant. Double-standards which are at the root of your logic error. Plants can react to an "unpleasant" or "pleasant" stimulus. And as you cannot know how a dog perceives anything (it cannot tell you and you cannot experience it) you cannot say if it finds something pleasant or unpleasant. Again, you are attributing YOUR feelings to it.

Have you offered a shred of evidence to show that animals can "feel" ? I fail to see how you can tell me how animals perceive, having no way of accessing animals perceptions.

It is impossible to feel without a brain, a central nervous system and nerve endings.

Why is it? Someone who is disconnected from their CNS and nerve-endings by a neural condition still can feel emotional pain, which you chose to include. By your argument then CNS and nerve endings are not necessary to feel pain. QED. So, what is it about a "brain" that makes sensory input "pleasure" or "pain" ? It cannot be the ability to "think" - abstracts like pleasure or pain are simply beyond an animal's cognition. It cannot be self-awareness, most animals are not self-aware.

They absorb sunlight and water because of the RNA in their cells. Like I said before, that is how their cells are programmed. It has nothing to do with plants enjoying the sunlight.

Plants, as an organism, co-ordinate their various parts. That is what it means to be an organism, look it up.

"Plants have cell processes, a xylem and phloem for transport and etc, but nothing that could allow pain to be detected."

A plant cannot react to what it cannot detect. Plants do react. Look it up. "nothing that could allow pain to be detected."

What, you mean like plants do send ionic potential signals in response to harm"?

Could we stick to the facts, please?

The point of that statement was that there is nothing in a plant's cell process that would be able to detect pain.

"While plants do send ionic potential signals in response to harm"

This still doesn't mean they can feel. All living things react to a change in environment, but this still doesn't make up for it's sensory neurons which detect feelings like pain.

Neurones don't detect "pain" they detect a physical stimulus the brain perceives as (or does not perceive as) "pain".

While plants do send ionic potential signals in response to harm

No, the two arguments are very different. I'm saying love, hate and pain are reactions to a pleasant or unpleasant stimulus.

Wrong. They are abstract concepts. Reactions to pleasant or unpleasant stimuli are smiling, blushing, increased respiration (which plants have too under certain stimuli, something which happens clear across them, even in parts that are not being directly stimulated) etc. The name you choose to give to these conditions is irrelevant. You yourself have discounted physical reactions to stimulus (for example plants and light) as evidence for feeling. Again, you are attributing your perceptions (pleasurable / unpleasurable) to an animal without evidence, something you are unwilling to do to plants. This is prejudice and totally unscientific.

Just because a plant faces the sun doesn't mean it feels feelings that are pleasant or unpleasant, it just means that it's reacting to it's environment.

And just because a dog wags its tail doesn't mean it feels feelings that are pleasant or unpleasant. It just means that it's reacting to its environment.

It still can't feel feelings without the necessary functions that animals and humans both have.

Half-right. It can't feel "feelings" without the necessary functions that humans have. You have yet to demonstrate that animals have them, nor even specify what they are. So far the best you can do is the refuted "it has to have neurones and a CNS." Even if you accept that you must have key brain functions, you have not done a single thing to illustrate most, or even just a lot of animals have these capabilities.

I don't think you read any of those examples at all.

I skimmed a handful, but as they were totally irrelevant that was immaterial. While they might give you a warm "fuzzy" they didn't support your position at all.

First of all, animals are self aware. If animals wern't self-aware they wouldn't defend themselves.

You clearly do not understand what "self-aware" means. Plants "defend themselves" without being self-aware.

With a few notable exceptions, animals are *all* incapable of self-awareness. Read up on the subject, this is immutable scientific fact. When an animal defends itself, it is operating on *instinct* - instinct is not conscious thought. Children under a certain age are not "self-aware." To be self-aware means "self-a·ware (slf-wâr)
adj.

Aware of oneself, including one's traits, feelings, and behaviors."

Children under a certain age cannot play hide and seek. Because they are not yet self-aware, they think that if they cannot see you, you cannot see them and will thus stick their head under table-clothes etc. They are unable to distinguish them and their perceptions as an individual from the perceptions of others. This applies to animals even moreso.

Another (less inscrutable but relevant) experiment involves putting a mark on an animal in a place that is inaccessible to the animal, and then putting it infront of a mirror. Nearly all animals are able to conceive of the concept of "self" and thus be aware of the fact that something has happened to them which they can see in their reflection. The inability to comprehend a reflection is a good (although not perfect) indicator of the lack of self-awareness.

If animals can't express compassionate feelings then how come a mother bear will protect her baby bear cubs? Or any animal that mothers her babies? What would that bear get out of that in return? I don't even think you took any of those examples into consideration.

I did, and I realised that you had no idea what the significance of them actually was. In all of those cases it is an instinctual response. That is a purely reactive and unconscious action. It is no different to a plant turning to face the sun. If bears did not protect their young, there would be a lower survival rate of bear cubs and those "selfish" genes would die out. Because protected young have a better survival rate, the DNA / RNA that forms the genetic makeup of the bear (which is no different in function to the DNA and RNA that permit plants to develop and grow) is passed on more sucessfully, leading to the unconscious maternal instincts being preserved and rarified.

That says nothing about the bear's "perceptions."

Every single one of those examples was an example of compassion.

No, not one of them was an example of compassion. Animals can be trained to perform any one of a number of tasks, this does not make them "compassionate." It makes them programmable. Those animals were all exclusively acting on a combination of instinct and training.

Animals (bar some) are not able to have-

"the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it"

Because they cannot "understand" anything. They are not capable of the symbolic deduction and inferences needed to understand the concepts. It just isn't possible, no matter how much you want to pretend that the two are the same thing.

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong.

What if we applied that to humans? What if we said the only reason you love your mother is that you were trained to or you got something out of it (love, attention, etc) so therefor it's not compassion?

Skinner would argue that all human behaviour is conditioned. It could be applied to humans, however there is an important distinction. Humans have the mental capabilties to empathise and conceptualise the premise. You yourself pointed out that humans have many choices in their actions that animals don't. People can "put themselves in someone elses shoes" - dogs and other animals simply cannot.

Some animals can (bonoboes for example) but the vast vast majority, nope, sorry, doesn't work like that.

Again, this is scientific fact. Experimentation has shown that while humans and some social primates (and higher mammals like dolphins) are capable of empathy and transferance, and thus are able to perform complicated co-operative tasks and remote reasoning, this is not the case for nearly all of the animal kingdom. We (and a minute few animals which we tend not to eat or kill anyway) have functions that other animals do not, and the upshot of this is that the animals are not conscious in the way you would like to think they are.

These people do not feel psychological emotions?

Indeed, there are all manner of neurological impairments that can have numerous diverse effects.

My definition of a brain: brain Audio pronunciation of "brain" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (brn)
n.

1.
1. The portion of the vertebrate central nervous system that is enclosed within the cranium, continuous with the spinal cord, and composed of gray matter and white matter. It is the primary center for the regulation and control of bodily activities, receiving and interpreting sensory impulses, and transmitting information to the muscles and body organs. It is also the seat of consciousness, thought, memory, and emotion.

Even though ants have a "hive consciousness" each ant still has it's own brain

Not by your definition there, numbnut. Ants don't have spinal cords nor grey / white matter. Again you are extending (irrationally) a definition to some animals which you would not extend to plants, despite them not conforming to the litteral definition you gave. Simply - ants are not veribrates. You willingness to extend the "brain" concept to ants shows just how willing you are to bend your definition for things you can relate to, but not to things you cannot. That is incredibly unscientific and thus meritless.

What knowledge?

Any knowledge. To be able to store and apply knowledge, you must be able to seperate concepts from reality and apply them dynamically. This is something animals (with some exceptions, IE King the Gorilla) are incapable of. It requires symbolic reasoning, and animals are not capable of it. Thus animals are capable of performing acts that we would describe as "compassionate" but are unable to feel what we describe as "compassion."

How is this? They have sensory neurons and stimulation. Animals are complex (traits as complex as pain perception and transmission) therefor if it feels unpleasant sensations it will flee. A computer has no feelings so it isn't as complex as an animal.

Computers can have sensory devices which function analogously (or even identically to) neurones. Infact an English cyberneticist recently had inputs grafted into his own nerves, allowing him to control a robotic hand as if it were his own, he could even feel tingling responces to its pressure sensors. Computers can be just as complex as animals (and you have not demonstrated that animals perceive pain. You are confusing the stimulus with the perception. While I am willing to say the two are synonymous, that means they must also apply to plants) and computers can be programmed to flee from certain "sensations."

A robot mounted computer can be programmed to move away from areas its sensors determine to be dangerous (IE it can move away from hot locations towards cooler ones, etc). So what is the difference between that and a dog doing it? That you find it harder to understand the mechanisms by which a dog's stimulus-response system works, and so it has an air of mystery? Maybe to you, but certainly not to me. You have not demonstrated animals have "feelings" any more than a computer can do.

I never said that. They are not run merly on instinct. Maybe more than the usual human, but not completely on instinct.

And how would you know? We are not talking about ADHD, etc here. Plenty of psychopathologies can cause the person to respond entirely on instinct. Even neurologically healthy but unsocialised (feral) children can be seen to operate entirely on instinct. Check the case-histories of these things, you'll find it is true.

They may have neurological damage in a part of their brain to make them act a certain way, but they still have intelligence somewhat so they arn't "sub-animals".

There are plenty of people who could have sub-animal intelligence (a chimp's cognitive functions are comparable to a human toddler).

So you believe that plants feel pain despite the fact that they need a central nervous system, brain and nerve endings for that yet you do not believe animals feel pain although science would tell you differently?

Actually, science is with me on this. By your own arguments, CNS and nerves are not necessary to feel pain, and plants have functions which serve precisely the same purpose. Most animals do not have the brain-structures necessary to perceive pain in the sense that you mean, and yet you argue that what they experience is "pain." By this argument, they are no different to plants.

So, it comes down to: "If you describe 'pain' as a perceptual concept, only humans can comprehend it as it is a strictly human abstract; if you describe pain as the state of receiving unsatisfactory sensory input, the plants feel it as much as animals."

Both of which put animals and plants on pretty much the same level.

They have nerve ending in their bodies, they respond to the pain (similar to when a human yells)

Again, by this argument if a human does not have (working) nerve-endings in their bodies, or are unable to respond to pain, they are no better than plants and are lower than animals.

they defend themselves when being attacked

So do plants. Also, if an animal did not defend themselves when being attacked (some do not) then they would cease to qualify.

and have physical traits that are related to humans

This is totally and idiotically wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anthropomorphism

They are only "related to humans" because you are choosing, without any rational reasoning or evidence, to equate what are essentially to disperate things. Any first year psychology student could tell you that is without scientific merit. It is only your prejudice (or ignorance of the facts) which is stopping you relating (incorrectly) plant traits to human traits.

Logically you have a harder time proving animals don't feel pain and etc.

Not really, your only argument that animals feel pain is "they have a brain, CNS and nerves" - these things either individually or in their entirety do not necessarily confer the ability to feel pain.

What it boils down to is you deciding (for no good reason) that for damaging stimulus to be "unpleasant" and for it thus to qualify as "pain" it has to happen to something you feel comfortable ascribing YOUR sentiments to.

That is a fundamental error in animal psychology, and the first thing you are warned about on day one when you learn about this subject formally.

Yeah, that may apply if I had called barking an animal language. I said it was
similar to talking in the way that it is a form of communication.

Clearly you do not understand. Read what I said again. "The area of animal language."

an·guage Audio pronunciation of "language" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lnggwj)
n.
1. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.

If barking is a communication, it must be a language.

However, this is irrelevant. It is nothing like talking, in that talking is a language (it meets the criteria necessary to qualify) and barking is not. You'd be more accurate saying that perspiration or excretion is similar to barking in that it is a form of communication. Still wrong, but closer.

What conditioned response are you talk about specifically that I am confusing?

All of them. There is no 'natural' animal behaviour that cannot be achieved through conditioning. Why not read up on operant conditioning (search for Skinner) to see how it works and how effective it is, and then you can try to debate the limitations of it. In effect, however, it is without limits due to it being an incredibly powerful tool.

How do we know you fully understand when an animal shows a conditioned response?

Numerous means, the field and principles of Operant Conditioning has been well researched and documented over the course of more than half a century. Everything from brainscans of conditioned responses to numerous scientific tests filled with measures, counter measures, refinements, etc has been attempted. We know more about how animals behave than many of the intrinsically human conditions.

You seem to think animals have no thought process even though they have enough to be conditioned? Wouldn't animals have to have feelings to be conditioned? I though you believe they didn't feel pain, love, fear, etc.

Please, before you continue do some research on the matter. Conditioning operates on the most primitative and instinctual centres of the brain, bypassing any conscious thought whatsoever. Again, this is immutable scientific fact. "Feelings" (or at least the neurological activity that we can lable as 'feelings') occur in higher brain areas. Conditioning is more effective of creatures with less higher brain functions, this is why dogs are so easy to train. Infact, this has lead to the theory that the entire domestication of dogs has been to conflate their higher and independant brain-functions to make them more maleable. There is some evidence in this in that wolves have more sophisticated (although still pitiful compared to humans) higher brain functions.

Instincts and Conscious decisions are two completely seperate things. A person can choose to over-ride their instincts, an animal can (at best) choose one instinct over another. Even the latter is debateable, as you cannot know which instinct is currently prevalent in the animal in order to determine if it has "chosen" or "had chosen for it."

Indeed, a dog's tail wagging indicates two conflicting instincts (cautionary stance towards the pack leader, and anticipatory stance - one designed to react to dominance / threat, the other designed to react to rewarding behaviour).

Logically if a dog was self-aware, it would over-ride its instincts and know that its beloved owner was not a threat to it, and thus cease to wag its tail.

Consciousness and feelings go hand in hand. Whether instinctual or not, those are still physical and psychological feelings. For an animal to cower from shouting shows fear (psychological) which means it is consious.

No, again this is supposition which is contradictory to theory and evidence. An animal cowering is a social signal showing deference or subjugation. This behaviour trait can be seen in numerous social animals (social primates 'presenting' etc). It is an instinctual response designed solely to demonstrate what is loosely analogous to "penetance." A dog that doesn't cower from an angry suprior would be set upon by the alpha-male (or even the whole pack). Thus it is an instinctual evolutionary development. It is not showing "fear" - it is displaying a biological reaction to stimulus designed to guarantee its safety and prosperity. Emotions / feelings do not come into it.

Instinct, by its very nature, CANNOT be conscious. That is what it means.

A plant reacts physically, and you say "oh, it doesn't count" and dog does it and you say "look, look, it's a feeling!"

No, sorry, that sort of double-standard doesn't hold water.

Why would it be ridiculous? Then how do you compare things if you don't look at the obvious first? Instead of trying to separate the two I'm comparing the two since there are more similarities than differences.

You are comparing the two because Disney movies and psychological bonding mechanisms have led you to believe the two are synonymous. This isn't scientific or reasonable.

When dogs bare their teeth, the "obvious" is that it is a snarl, and an indicator of hostility. By your argument, if a dog bares its teeth, it must be hostile. In actual fact, the same facial muscular action can mean quite the opposite. Some dogs learn to "smile" after being in human company, and they do it when they are happy. This is, in humans, a sub-conscious process called "mirroring". It is instinctual evolutionary behaviour, not conscious thought.

Conclusion? Just because two things look the same doesn't mean they are the same. That is why your argument is ridiculous.

This just shows me that the dog is frightened. Except it isn't, any more than a dog bareing its teeth means it must be angry. Dogs do not get "scared" of threats (they will face down overwhelming odds with a growl) - they get "scared" of those less likely to harm them, their 'family' / pack and pack-leader. Cowering / wimpering is a physical behaviour that is supposed to ellicit a (n equally instinctual) response from its society (reassurance or appeasement).

You are misrepresenting a social behavioural device with a human emotion which is entirely divorced with. Human fear and fear in animals is subjectively different. Most animals are not self-aware, and as such are unable to internalise the world to a degree where understanding is possible.

If you understand fear then you could relate that to the dog's similar reaction to yelling.

Rubbish of the first order. Firstly, you have not demonstrated that a dog's reaction is "similar" in any except the most external and superficial ways. Secondly, you can only understand "fear" in a personal context, that is what is meant by "an abstract." To suggest that an animal's feelings must conform to your understanding of fear is totally wrong.

If you were to be objective about this, you would list the ways in which a dog's reaction is dissimilar, and note that it is really quite alien. The ability to overlook the vast differences of experience in order to focus on the similarities is, like I said earlier, a biological sociological function. It is not a valid scientific tool.

I'm not a child, but I can try to relate when a child is being yelled at. I don't remember being a baby, but I can try to relate to a baby's reaction to yelling.

You were a child once, but that is beside the point. It is adult parents ascribing their conceptions to their children which result in the majority of juvenile behavioural disorders. I doubt you get the series of documentaries about "problem children" we have recently had over here (Little Angels I think it is called, and Tiny house of tearaways or some such) - and you see parents trying to reason with children, and interact with them socially in a totally ineffective way, which results in the children running wild and being abusive.

That occurs solely because parents are unable to seperate children's behaviour patterns from their own.

Wooly thinking once more leads to trouble. As I said, if you have been around young children (I deduce you have not) you'd know that their cognitive functions are quite alien to our own. The inability to play "hide and seek" is quite a major one. Some put forwards that this is why "peek-a-boo" is intersting to very young children, because it helps demonstrate that reality is subjective depending on the individual's point of view.

So, if you were to try and infer a child's responses in relation to having seen something, or them having been hidden, you'd be more likely to get the wrong end of the stick. The same applies to animals.

It's not illogical to try and relate to things you may not understand. There is no saying that you can or cannot relate. Some people may be able to and some may not. In fact, trying to relate to different things may even expand your consciousness.

It is illogical to hold assumptions as fact without evidence or rational thinking. Your conclusions in much of the arguments here have been invalid or even self-contradictory.

Anthropomorphism is the pathetic fallacy, and as the name suggests, that makes it *false*. The proofs and arguments to this were not constructed by people who had never seen an animal.

Yeah, at a certain level. If people follow your belief (whether right or wrong) can make it somewhat the authority. If the bible said that I definitly think it would be the authority. Isn't most law based on morals and religious beliefs?

Justification; grounds: On what authority do you make such a claim?

Concensus is not justification. In the words of Orwell, sanity is not statistical. And I think you'll find that most laws that are based solely on moral / religious grounds (notably homosexuality) have been repealed or relaxed in the UK. It of course depends on the country. However, there is always room to go further

If I decide to "attribute" good characteristics to my dog, wouldn't that somewhat be like teaching a child good manners?

Nothing like it, I think you might've misunderstood me. By "attribute" I mean that you are interpreting neutral (or even non-existant) qualities / behaviours of your pet as a conscious act which thus can have a moral relevance. The fact of the matter is animals react according to instincts and conditioning, and as such you are not praising a quality your pet has, you are praising a conflux of circumstances that are not "aware" or conscious.

You might equally say that a doll that falls off the desk is "bad." Or that a doll that makes you feel secure is "good."

[Ace42]

http://www.theonion.com/nib/index.php?issue=4126&nib=4