Wow! You wouldn't happen to have decended from the same people who came to Canada and tried to sophisticate the 'savages' whom they believed were immoral, do you?



Skunky is very sensitive about odor! Thanks Googlism!

So what you're saying that it's not cool for animals to learn new tricks, like being able to speak Ameslan or recognize themselves in the mirror?



Skunky is very sensitive about odor! Thanks Googlism!

buffalo. I think you've made a mistake in assuming that, if as you say these animals aren't consciously aware that they have felt/are feeling pain, they therefore hurt any less. Hurt has nothing to do with recognising intellectually that something has caused damage. To further muddy the waters by trying to make a matter of human ethics objective is hugely confusing. Is it ethical to hurt animals even if they forget it instantly on a personal (i.e. not evolutionary) level? Well, that depends on what humanity considers a moral action. That is all.

And it has been proved that the Earth is not perfectly spherical (and nothing trully could be, all is fractal not conceptual)


Don't think, just press it



Clare <3

Ok firstly lets just address this issue of "consciousness" shall we?

You are going on scientific results which, lets be 'frank' for a minute, are extremely fallible as we all know one piece of "proof" right now can be disproved following any discovery of counter proof. Correct? ok good your following.

Secondly you cannot assume consciousness is the single best way of discerning a sentient being as consciousness is a human concept and as you have no access to direct animal thoughts you are going on assumptions and NO making assumptions in science is how u make mistakes.

I respect your premises, and your conclusion is sound assuming they are correct. But its not hard to realise most people here with any subjective thinking / basic logic even have picked your premises apart.

As said above, do not use human concepts of "life" to justify your arguments as animals do not qualify as human.

Gogo reply anyone please


"anyone who says nothing is impossible, try slamming a revolving door!"

avidity. Just a side note, don't want to go off topic, but the fact that science is oipen to continual development does not mean every theory is wrong. The central scientific theory is that there is an ultimate truth to get to, any could be that truth (and yes perhaps this does contradict my everything is fractal thing, but we are talking of human truth).

Agreed on everything else


Don't think, just press it



Clare <3

i'm sorry but i disagree with the idea that domestic animals (dogs and cats in particular) are not aware and do not have emotions as we would recognise them. i will give specific examples regarding my own pets.

my dog is very emotional. he is a very loving animal. this dog will literally climb up and give you a hug around the neck with his front legs in the same way a small child would hug you. he is also very sneaky. he has developed a series of hiding spots in my home to squirrel away his stolen treasures. when i find one spot, he stops using it and finds another. i would consider that to be problem solving, which i'm sure you would agree is a sign of conciousness.

as far as the mirror test goes, let me refer to one of my cats who has since died. she was extremely vain. she would sit in front of the mirror, study herself carefully, and then groom herself. after grooming, she would again study herself, then groom again. she would continue to do this until she was satisfied with herself, then amble off to find other things to do. she did this nearly every day.

this same cat was one of two cats that i had for many years. they grew up together. when the other cat died, she was unbelievably depressed. she refused to eat, refused to play. she would take one of the other cats toys (a toy in which she showed no interest previously) and sleep with it at night. this cat was grieving.

conciousness is not as black and white as you make it out to be. there are many shades of gray.

suicide_blonde. Not that i disagree with your central point that animals are emotional, but to equate the human brain and the animal one is a bit silly. None of us can know what goes on in the animal brain, using anecdotal evidence with animals you have an emotional relationship with doesn't really prove anything. Personaly i see emotion as largely relating to the relationship between chemicals (or hormones, whatever) and the brain; animals do not feel as we do, but they do not feel any less and their emotions are no less real. To liken an animal emotion with a human one is convenient and perhaps sometimes accurate, but their emotions are not as ours are, it's just not possible.

And to be fair to buffalo in one thing; he did say quite specifically that consciousness is not black and white. I don't agree with that either, you are either self-conscious or not, but it should be said.


Don't think, just press it



Clare <3

point one: you never assume you draw conclusions!

i had a point 2 but i cant remember lol gregs been telling me about diving.

oh it was, if a human doesnt recognise themselves, or seemingly doesnt (example in a shopping centre when you see a reflection you just don't see it then) does that mean that that person at that particular moment in time cannot have morals.



If only for today, I am unafraid