|
 Post in Forums
Create a Profile
Upload Pictures
|
Keep a Journal
Meet Friends
It's FREE!
|
|
Sign Up!
|
Forum Index > News & Politics > Animal Rights | >> Animals have no moral status | | |
|
buffalobill90
Minister
10092 points
18/M/Whitehaven, United Kingdom
Join Date: Jun 2007 | vaboom said:
Have you ever had an animal??
It doesn't sound like you have... and if you have, then I'm very sorry for the animal you cared for.
You seem to think you are some sort of scientist, but you don't seem to have done any REAL studies of your own.
SCIENCE is: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. You seem to have skipped a few of these steps. You have the theoretical explanation part down, but I highly doubt you have done any experiments, or ANYTHING that would even begin to prove your "theory" right.
If you are going to post some bull s**t "scientific evidence" then please do some research first...
Ooh, lets see... I've had a pet dog called Jess, three hamsters called Jaws, Tarzan and Boris, three sheep called Bess, Shawn and Leah, and I've had geese, cockerels and hens. In case you're wondering, I did used to live at a farmhouse, and my dad now has an alottment.
I apologise for not having conducted my own scientific studies. Have you? Or do you, as I naturally assume, also have internet access and therefore have access to published research? |  | | Edited: April 03, 2008 @ 15:02 |  |
|
|
azzad
Mega Über-Meister
4301 points
38/M/, Australia
Join Date: May 2007 | buffalobill90 said:
Actually, according to one of my friends, at the point of death the body loses nineteen grams in weight. Upon investigating this, it turned out to be an urban myth started by a old film called 19 grams, or something like that.
You really don't have any reason to believe that a soul exists at all. You just believe it because you've been told to, and you must or you are being 'unfaithful'.
That's interesting buffalobill, I haven't heard of that film before.
I don't believe that I have a soul because I have been told to believe that, or even that I will be unfaithful to believe otherwise.
My reason is internal, and a charged frequency, feeling and inner voice that I feel. Internal just like the soul I have that has not scientifically been proved to exist!
So if science says that the soul cannot be measured, I don't have to accept that my soul doesent exist, and by me not accepting that doesn't make me wrong.
Well, in my eyes anyway. lol  
 | | | |
|
vaboom
Über-General
692 points
20/F/Oakland,
Join Date: Mar 2008 | buffalobill90 said:
Ooh, lets see... I've had a pet dog called Jess, three hamsters called Jaws, Tarzan and Boris, three sheep called Bess, Shawn and Leah, and I've had geese, cockerels and hens. In case you're wondering, I did used to live at a farmhouse, and my dad now has an alottment.
I apologise for not having conducted my own scientific studies. Have you? Or do you, as I naturally assume, also have internet access and therefore have access to published research?
I, like you, have also had many animals including dogs, cats, rats, hamsters, snakes, lizards, goats, birds and the like. I have many friends that have, or still do, live on farms or ranches of some sort that I have spent a lot of time at.
You are right, I have not conducted my own scientific studies, but I am not claiming to have SOUND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to back up my theories. I DO NOT rely on published research to form my theories. I have, however, been very observant of many different types of animals; and I have constructed some beliefs and theories of my own, based on my observations and interactions with those animals.
I believe animals do have morals (although they are not the same as ours, because they are ANIMALS), I believe that they can get angry, and happy, and sad, and feel pain (both physical and emotional).
Example: A friend of mine used to live on an ostrich farm. There was a mating couple of ostriches named Hansel and Gretel that lived together in a pen. Hansel (the male) was very healthy, well mannered, and never fought with any of the other ostriches. When Gretel (the female) was ready to mate again, they moved her to another pen, with another male ostrich to mate with. They mated, she got pregnant. Hansel went into depression (an EMOTIONAL condition) after the removal of Gretel from the pen, and would not eat. Hansel jumped his pen, went into the pen of Gretel and her new mate, and killed them both (whether this is morally right, or not, it is still a reaction <ANGER> to his depression). He still would not eat, and ended up dying (which is what I call suicide).
Example #2: My family and I took my parents dog to the lake. She is pretty dense, and she would swim until nearly sinking. We constructed a make-shift lifejacket for her out of rope and those little floaty things kids wear around their arms, and tied it onto her. At that point, her morale improved (the same way we can observe a humans morale improving: body mannerisms, facial expression, etc.) and she became really happy (based on my observation). She started to wag her tail, and swim all around the lake. When we left, we all walked up the hill and walked past a group of kids who started laughing and pointing at the dog's ridiculous life jacket. At that point, her morale worsened. She put her head down, her tail went in between her legs, and she walked past the group of people without even looking at them (embarassment).
I also believe the mirror test is bull s**t. I saw your previous posts about the mirror test, but have a different point that no one has brough up yet. I think animals react differently to mirrors than humans do, because they don't know what mirrors are. If there was some way we could explain it to them, then maybe they would be the ones primping themselves in front of a mirror each day.
Example: My dog used to bark and growl at her reflection, because when she first saw a mirror, she didn't know what it was. Now that she has LEARNED that it is a reflection, she pays no heed to her reflection, because I believe she realized it was her she was looking at. If she is in front of the mirror, looking at it, and someone walks into the room behind her, she sees them in the reflection, and turns around to greet them.
We (humans) react to mirrors the way we do because we were TAUGHT what mirrors are. If you put a human in front of a mirror that had never seen a mirror before, they wouldn't know what to think either. If people would take the time to TEACH animals what a mirror is (which may be impossible), then do the test, the mirror test would actually make sense.
You keep referring to "consciousness" and "suffering" as if they go together. Just because someone/something doesn't apparently "suffer", does not mean they are not conscious, and vice versa.
On the physical side: Lets say a person has no feeling in their feet. If someone sticks a pin in that persons foot, they are not going to suffer, they are not going to feel physical pain, but they are going to be conscious of the fact that there is someone sticking a pin in their foot, and they will react accordingly.
On the mental side: Let's say there is someone who has gone to war, killed many people, and has seen many people die, thus forming an emotional wall. That person witnesses their mother getting murdered. They are not going to suffer, and they are not going to feel emotional pain because their brain has adapted not to. They will, however, be conscious of the fact that they just witnessed their mother getting murdered.
It goes the other way too: I believe someone can suffer and be unconscious at the same time. Lets take an example from one of your previous posts: "An unconscious person does not feel pain or pleasure, nor do they have any emotional stimulation, until they regain consciousness." If a person is unconscious, and has major surgery, their BODY is still physically suffering. They are conscious of the fact that their body is physically suffering when they regain consciousness.
"Consciousness" and "Suffering" are very vague terms that are not exactly defined. There are many interpretations of both of these terms that cannot be proven right or wrong because there is no way to measure consciousness or suffering, because they are intangible.
...life doesn't begin until you start living it...
So don't be sad when I speak my mind! | | | |
|
buffalobill90
Minister
10092 points
18/M/Whitehaven, United Kingdom
Join Date: Jun 2007 | vaboom said: I, like you, have also had many animals including dogs, cats, rats, hamsters, snakes, lizards, goats, birds and the like. I have many friends that have, or still do, live on farms or ranches of some sort that I have spent a lot of time at.
You are right, I have not conducted my own scientific studies, but I am not claiming to have SOUND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to back up my theories. I DO NOT rely on published research to form my theories. I have, however, been very observant of many different types of animals; and I have constructed some beliefs and theories of my own, based on my observations and interactions with those animals.
I believe animals do have morals (although they are not the same as ours, because they are ANIMALS), I believe that they can get angry, and happy, and sad, and feel pain (both physical and emotional).
Example: A friend of mine used to live on an ostrich farm. There was a mating couple of ostriches named Hansel and Gretel that lived together in a pen. Hansel (the male) was very healthy, well mannered, and never fought with any of the other ostriches. When Gretel (the female) was ready to mate again, they moved her to another pen, with another male ostrich to mate with. They mated, she got pregnant. Hansel went into depression (an EMOTIONAL condition) after the removal of Gretel from the pen, and would not eat. Hansel jumped his pen, went into the pen of Gretel and her new mate, and killed them both (whether this is morally right, or not, it is still a reaction <ANGER> to his depression). He still would not eat, and ended up dying (which is what I call suicide).
Example #2: My family and I took my parents dog to the lake. She is pretty dense, and she would swim until nearly sinking. We constructed a make-shift lifejacket for her out of rope and those little floaty things kids wear around their arms, and tied it onto her. At that point, her morale improved (the same way we can observe a humans morale improving: body mannerisms, facial expression, etc.) and she became really happy (based on my observation). She started to wag her tail, and swim all around the lake. When we left, we all walked up the hill and walked past a group of kids who started laughing and pointing at the dog's ridiculous life jacket. At that point, her morale worsened. She put her head down, her tail went in between her legs, and she walked past the group of people without even looking at them (embarassment).
I also believe the mirror test is bull s**t. I saw your previous posts about the mirror test, but have a different point that no one has brough up yet. I think animals react differently to mirrors than humans do, because they don't know what mirrors are. If there was some way we could explain it to them, then maybe they would be the ones primping themselves in front of a mirror each day.
Example: My dog used to bark and growl at her reflection, because when she first saw a mirror, she didn't know what it was. Now that she has LEARNED that it is a reflection, she pays no heed to her reflection, because I believe she realized it was her she was looking at. If she is in front of the mirror, looking at it, and someone walks into the room behind her, she sees them in the reflection, and turns around to greet them.
We (humans) react to mirrors the way we do because we were TAUGHT what mirrors are. If you put a human in front of a mirror that had never seen a mirror before, they wouldn't know what to think either. If people would take the time to TEACH animals what a mirror is (which may be impossible), then do the test, the mirror test would actually make sense.
You keep referring to "consciousness" and "suffering" as if they go together. Just because someone/something doesn't apparently "suffer", does not mean they are not conscious, and vice versa.
On the physical side: Lets say a person has no feeling in their feet. If someone sticks a pin in that persons foot, they are not going to suffer, they are not going to feel physical pain, but they are going to be conscious of the fact that there is someone sticking a pin in their foot, and they will react accordingly.
On the mental side: Let's say there is someone who has gone to war, killed many people, and has seen many people die, thus forming an emotional wall. That person witnesses their mother getting murdered. They are not going to suffer, and they are not going to feel emotional pain because their brain has adapted not to. They will, however, be conscious of the fact that they just witnessed their mother getting murdered.
It goes the other way too: I believe someone can suffer and be unconscious at the same time. Lets take an example from one of your previous posts: "An unconscious person does not feel pain or pleasure, nor do they have any emotional stimulation, until they regain consciousness." If a person is unconscious, and has major surgery, their BODY is still physically suffering. They are conscious of the fact that their body is physically suffering when they regain consciousness.
"Consciousness" and "Suffering" are very vague terms that are not exactly defined. There are many interpretations of both of these terms that cannot be proven right or wrong because there is no way to measure consciousness or suffering, because they are intangible.
I've mentioned earlier in the thread about the assumptions people make about animal 'emotions' based on their facial expressions and body language. We are built to recognise those expressions in humans and when the same bahaviour is exhibited in animals we make the same assumptions about their mental state. However, the displays made by animals to show apparent changes in emotion are only accompanied by conscious changes in the case of conscious creatures, whereas in non-conscious animals they are an expression of physiological changes only, such as hormonal activity; when an animal is described as stressed or depressed, this is usually based on observations of their physical state, since they can hardly be asked how they feel. Like I said, dogs and ostriches are not capable of conscious thought because it would be an anatomical disadvatage for them to be equipped with the necessary cranial apparatus.
It is true that while most animals tested react to reflections as if they are another member of their species, dogs eventually become indifferent to them. It is conjectured that this is due to the fact that dogs recognise each other mainly by smell, and therefore if their visual perception of another dog is not accompanied by olfactory recognition, they dismiss the visual image and ignore it. Similar observations have been made of cats.
So, consciousness is not required for suffering? Are you saying that someone who is unconscious is capable of feeling emotional or physical pain? | | | |
|
buffalobill90
Minister
10092 points
18/M/Whitehaven, United Kingdom
Join Date: Jun 2007 | amish said:
i hate to repeat myself, but you're sociopathic.
just because animals don't think the same way we do doesn't mean they don't really suffer. your whole "consciousness=a kind of awareness we have" has no true scotsman fallacy all over it. you just have no ability to sympathise with anyone/anything different than yourself. anthropomorphicising isn't required, it's a simple function of consciousness to care for other creatures, you'd have to be sick not to.
Please stop calling me sociopathic. I'm perfectly capable of empathising with other people, recognising emotions and interacting socially. Admittedly, I'm quite emotionally detached, but it helps me analyse issues such as this one more objectively. I'm not 'sick' for not seeing non-human creatures as human.
So if animals are conscious, and being conscious has nothing to do with physical brain apparatus, where do you draw the line? Are insects conscious? What about fish, plants or microbes? How do you decide what seperates them from unconscious entities? | | | | Edited: April 05, 2008 @ 15:11 | |
|
Top
|
Mar 31, 2008 @ 22:56:32
"You don't get food! You aren't like us. You don't deserve it! You immoral pigs!" *Is talking to pigs.*
