NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.rppi.org/phprint.php

according to Stuart Derbyshire, an expert in the neurophysiology of pain at the University of Pittsburgh, the fact that an animal might scream or recoil when trapped doesn't show that it has an appreciation of pain, much less a conscious thought process. "Chop the head off a chicken and it will continue to run around. If you catch the headless chicken—quickly!—and stick a pin in its foot, it will STILL flinch, despite no longer having a head or a brain," he says. "These reflex responses are coordinated by a spinal-motor loop and do not involve the brain or require conscious experience."

It is different for humans—and profoundly so. A beast runs away out of an instinct for survival, bestowed on it by the evolutionary process. A human, with his self-awareness, meaningful relationships with others, and consciousness, would leg it from a knife-wielding hunter from a dire appreciation of what being skinned alive and killed would entail—for himself, his future, his family and friends. A hunted human might think to himself "I could die today," and what a terrifying thought that would be! An animal is incapable even of thinking "I could die today," as Derbyshire explains: "Animals do not understand the concept of 'today', unless we think foxes use calendars and keep diaries; or 'die', unless we think that mink have funeral rites; or 'could', because they have no sense of probabilistic inference; or even 'I', because they also have no sense of self." Such concepts, says Derbyshire, are "uniquely human."


Oh yeah, please be sure to note how loony Stuart Derbyshire is... http://www.cnbc.cmu.edu/faculty/derbyshire.shtml no way would he know what he is talking about... :rolleyes: So before anybody tries to pigenhole him as a "lackey for the bunny killers" My work focuses on the central mechanisms of pain and the abnormalities that occur in chronic pain disorders. Using functional imaging, we have demonstrated that the central processing of pain extends well beyond primary sensory cortex - the classical projection of the spinothalamic tract. Regions of activation during pain include the insular, anterior cingulate, parietal, secondary somatosensory and prefrontal cortices. This large "matrix" of regions responding to pain reflects the multidimensional nature of pain experience, which includes sensory, affective and cognitive components. ... Recently we have begun to use hypnosis to modulate pain experience. In a group of normal volunteers we were able to generate entirely “psychogenic” pain, i.e., noxious experience in the absence of any noxious stimulus. This experience produced very similar neuronal activity to that during an actually delivered noxious stimulus. In future work we expect to use hypnosis to provide the reverse effect, analgesia to an actually present stimulus.

Dear Animals=People folks, let me know when you can hypnotize a Rabbit into feeling or not feeling pain. Maybe then I'll believe you.

I would not even care of animals really did feel pain in a meaningful way. Wouldn't stop me from eating meat. And people who place rodents above humans do not belong in our society.

I will eat meat regardless, but

I will also choose to regard third-party assessments of pain experienced or not by other than the third-party with skepticism.

If someone tells me they feel pain, I will believe them, because I am currently unable to become one with them to see if they are lying or not.

And if an animal flinches, I will accept that as them feeling pain, regardless of whether they react just as much without their heads attached.

Especially if it is one of my pets.

Of course, I don't plan to eat my pets.

Certain parts of women are quite tasty, however...;)

"Animals do not understand the concept of 'today', unless we think foxes use calendars and keep diaries; or 'die', unless we think that mink have funeral rites; or 'could', because they have no sense of probabilistic inference; or even 'I', because they also have no sense of self." Such concepts, says Derbyshire, are "uniquely human."

Ignoring the evidence that elephants display mourning behaviour, no?

Ignoring the evidence that elephants display mourning behaviour, no?
Meh, no use going all antropomorphic on them. That's just people transferring their preconceptions of emotional responses to the animals.

Meh, no use going all antropomorphic on them. That's just people transferring their preconceptions of emotional responses to the animals.

No, if I said that 'elephants mourn' then that might be the case, I stated that they display 'mourning behaviour', which labels it as behaviour which we interprete as similar to mourning behaviour in humans. The distinction goes back to discussions about solipsism and the possibility of others feeling pain: we can never be sure that they are feeling pain, but we can label their reaction to pain stimuli as 'pain behaviour'.

Animals do not understand the concept of 'today', unless we think foxes use calendars and keep diaries; or 'die', unless we think that mink have funeral rites; or 'could', because they have no sense of probabilistic inference; or even 'I', because they also have no sense of self." Such concepts, says Derbyshire, are "uniquely human."

apes man, apes.

game, set, match - this guy is holding behaviorist assumptions as if they were actually fact.

No, if I said that 'elephants mourn' then that might be the case, I stated that they display 'mourning behaviour', which labels it as behaviour which we interprete as similar to mourning behaviour in humans. The distinction goes back to discussions about solipsism and the possibility of others feeling pain: we can never be sure that they are feeling pain, but we can label their reaction to pain stimuli as 'pain behaviour'.

clearly only i can feel pain. the rest of you just have reflex responses to stimuli that require no conscious thought.

No, if I said that 'elephants mourn' then that might be the case, I stated that they display 'mourning behaviour', which labels it as behaviour which we interprete as similar to mourning behaviour in humans. The distinction goes back to discussions about solipsism and the possibility of others feeling pain: we can never be sure that they are feeling pain, but we can label their reaction to pain stimuli as 'pain behaviour'.
"mourning behaviour" is quite a bit different than "funeral rites". One is the simple recognition that a habitual positive stimulus now reeks of death, the other requires a certain amount of forthought and planning.

I'm a PETA opponent largely because I think that people who think that rats are more important than people need to have their heads examined.

That said, I have no problem with animals being eaten, or used for fur, as long as you are humane about it.

Shooting an animal in the head is a painless thing. Shooting an animal in the chest has got to hurt (depending on the animal - obviously, a chicken might expire instantaneously).

There's a website I saw yesterday that has film of Chinese fur vendors skinning animals alive.

While there might be scientific opinion on chickens, it's pretty obvious that something bad is happenning in the film.

Once again, I would post the link, but it's probably the grossest thing I've seen in a few years on the Internet.

clearly only i can feel pain. the rest of you just have reflex responses to stimuli that require no conscious thought.
what's a conscious thought?

EDIT: And I don't care whether it hurts or not. If it's tasty I'll eat it.
And if it's unneeded cruelty then it doesn't matter if they feel it or not that person has mental problems and probably would do the same to people.

There's a website I saw yesterday that has film of Chinese fur vendors skinning animals alive. What the hell? Isn't that sort of needless and wasteful? I'd think skinning animals would be much easier if they're dead. Plus, that's just gross.

I'm for eating meat if the animal is killed as quickly and painlessly as possible.

I'm against fur because I don't really see the need for it in today's society.

What the hell? Isn't that sort of needless and wasteful? I'd think skinning animals would be much easier if they're dead. Plus, that's just gross.

I'm for eating meat if the animal is killed as quickly and painlessly as possible.

I'm against fur because I don't really see the need for it in today's society.

Well, I don't know why they're doing it that way.

It's horrific. It has to be the worst thing I've seen on the Internet yet.

"Chop the head off a chicken and it will continue to run around. If you catch the headless chicken—quickly!—and stick a pin in its foot, it will STILL flinch, despite no longer having a head or a brain," he says. "These reflex responses are coordinated by a spinal-motor loop and do not involve the brain or require conscious experience."

wait, it was my understanding that the major example of a headless chicken actually had a significant portion of it's brain intact (or maybe it was just the brain stem).

It's horrific. It has to be the worst thing I've seen on the Internet yet. I don't doubt it, ugh. The thought alone is very disturbing.

I would not even care of animals really did feel pain in a meaningful way. Wouldn't stop me from eating meat. And people who place rodents above humans do not belong in our society.

Last time I checked most animal rights activists called for *equal* treatment[1] - not for putting the animals above the humans.
The most often used reasoning is that distinguishing between indiviual creatures based on their species is just as wrong as distinguishing on race, gender, religion, sexual preference and so on. The term "speciesm" was created to reflect this.

A main argument for this view is that there is no real and verifiable reason (other than religious assumptions) to make a statement like "all humans are superior to all animals" (which indeed is a very similar statement to the ones once made about negroes, women etc).

If you for instance claim humans are superior to animals because they are more intelligent, consistency demands you also claim that an ape is worth more than an infant baby or a severely retarded human.
Add to that many animals seem able to display things like fear, pain, loyalty, happyness and so on and you have the reasoning "why should *we* be allowed to mistreat creatures that are so similar to us".

This research however attempts to show these emotions are fundamentally different between humans and animals. For chickens it seems not unlikely he might be right. But if the same is true for seemingly bright animals like dogs, or for the very humanlike great apes or reasonably intelligent dolphins...

[1] Or at least some consideration. *If* animals are worthy of less consideration than humans, does that automatically mean they are worthy of none at all ? Is it ok to mutilate a few dozen puppies if it makes you - a superior human- feel good, or should the feelings of the puppies be taken into account ?

I don't doubt it, ugh. The thought alone is very disturbing.

They first pull the animals from cages, then hold them by the tail and slam them headfirst on the ground to stun them.

The animals appear semi-conscious at that point, and some even revive, but can't walk.

Then they chop all four legs off. Hang the animal by a hook in its back, and then pull the skin off like a suit.

Toss the writhing carcass in a pile. A HUGE pile of living skinned animals.

apes man, apes. Trained or Wild? Show that they have a ritualized understanding of death, i.e. preparing an elder for passage or gathering the family group to inter (post death) a not yet dead, but dying member of the clan rather than just a recognition of another's loss of lifefunction, the loss of habitual positive stimulous associated with that living creature's smell (which changes in death) and/or the presence of new food.
game, set, match - this guy is holding behaviorist assumptions as if they were actually fact.
"Behaviorist assumptions" are founded on empiric research. This guy is a pain researcher. It's all he does, so he works with the research (outside of his field) that he has available and coorelates it with his research into the modes and modalities of pain.

They first pull the animals from cages, then hold them by the tail and slam them headfirst on the ground to stun them.

The animals appear semi-conscious at that point, and some even revive, but can't walk.

Then they chop all four legs off. Hang the animal by a hook in its back, and then pull the skin off like a suit.

Toss the writhing carcass in a pile. A HUGE pile of living skinned animals.
The only "reason" I could see for this method would be that, being in China, they have insufficient storage facilities to keep carcases without spoilage before skinning. The method of skinning described allows the head skin to remain intact and realatively unsoiled.

Not that I approve of it, just offering a 3rd-world explanation.

snip [1] Or at least some consideration. *If* animals are worthy of less consideration than humans, does that automatically mean they are worthy of none at all ? Is it ok to mutilate a few dozen puppies if it makes you - a superior human- feel good, or should the feelings of the puppies be taken into account ?No, but that, however, is not what the "Animal Rights" types agitate for/against. Look at their website. They want NO pets. They want NO animal consumption. They want NO research being done on animals. They firmly believe Rat = Human and will perform, advocate or fund violence done against animal husbandry.

And if an animal flinches, I will accept that as them feeling pain, regardless of whether they react just as much without their heads attached.
The problem is, while an animal might flinch (yelp) to a pinprick or having its tail stepped on, the same animal will "say nothing" when seriously injured.

A human will tell you about chronic pain, or localized injury - animals can't. That's the difference. A human can cognitavely recognize that there is a problem that needs fixing (or bad things might happen), whereas an animal with an injury - at most - will go into hiding to avoid being eaten because they cannot get away NOW.

Animals have some concept of time and death. Of course, the concept of time is limited to day-dusk-night-dawn/spring-summer-fall-winter. If a member of a wolf pack died, whether alpha or omega, the wolves display sadness. The only reason animals don't go into minutes and days is because they have other priorities. If you were a fox and you had to worry about dogs ripping you apart until you bled to death every waking minute of your life, would you care if it was 9:07 AM on Friday, October 14, 2005? If you just survived a plane crash in the middle of nowhere and the nearest town was no closer than a few hundred miles, would you keep your system of time? Wouldn't most of your previous worries seem distant now that you have to find a source of food and drinkable(as in not salty) water above all else? Wolves don't have thumbs that they could use to make things with. Does that mean they don't feel pain or love? Since we are supposedly superior to dogs, why should we care if Rover strangled and shot in the belly just to be left to die? Why should we care if a cow was slowly killed by being ground, hind-legs first, into hamburger meat with no pain killers? Why feed our pets if they aren't worthy? Heck, babies have less brain power than a gorrilla. Let's not give a damn if they are slaughtered too. After all, we are superior because of our intellect, which our offspring are lacking. Case in point, if we care so much about those less intelligent than us, are we really that much superior?
The one species whose behaviors are closest to ours is the wolf species. These, supposedly vicious, solitary, and evil, animal displays heirarchy and family structure, which is close to ours. They have alphas being booted out. They have members quitting to form new packs. They display sympathy for the lowest ranking members, while maintaining their superiority. They have both cooperation and competition. Communism and capitalism. Democracy and dictatorships. Are they unworthy of our respect? I guess they are once you realize that we treat our fellow men and women with a much worse hatred and a much more lasting love. While we had people burning wolves alive just because wolves eat the same animals we hunt, we've had dictators killing people in much more inhumane ways. If hatred and ignorance means superiority, then we humans really are superior to all other known forms of life. If love means superiority, then we are lower than teenage fungle cream fuzz. If intelligence means superiority, then we should bow down to the superior wolf...and fox...and sponge...and tree.

*Is relieved to see this thread isn't about people beating up on Peta Wilson.*

*Wonders if Syniks dislikes all animal rights groups, or just PETA.*

Last time I checked most animal rights activists called for *equal* treatment[1] - not for putting the animals above the humans.
The most often used reasoning is that distinguishing between indiviual creatures based on their species is just as wrong as distinguishing on race, gender, religion, sexual preference and so on. The term "speciesm" was created to reflect this.

A main argument for this view is that there is no real and verifiable reason (other than religious assumptions) to make a statement like "all humans are superior to all animals" (which indeed is a very similar statement to the ones once made about negroes, women etc).

If you for instance claim humans are superior to animals because they are more intelligent, consistency demands you also claim that an ape is worth more than an infant baby or a severely retarded human.
Add to that many animals seem able to display things like fear, pain, loyalty, happyness and so on and you have the reasoning "why should *we* be allowed to mistreat creatures that are so similar to us".

This research however attempts to show these emotions are fundamentally different between humans and animals. For chickens it seems not unlikely he might be right. But if the same is true for seemingly bright animals like dogs, or for the very humanlike great apes or reasonably intelligent dolphins...

[1] Or at least some consideration. *If* animals are worthy of less consideration than humans, does that automatically mean they are worthy of none at all ? Is it ok to mutilate a few dozen puppies if it makes you - a superior human- feel good, or should the feelings of the puppies be taken into account ?

You could always argue that we're on top of the food chain, therefore we get to eat any and everything we want. There is no such thing as equal treatment in nature. The lion eats the gazelle, the gazelle doesn't even bother thinking about eating the lion. Why? Because nature selected certain species as more capable of survival by certain means. And we, humanity, have made it to the top of the food chain. The food chain is vertical.

*Is relieved to see this thread isn't about people beating up on Peta Wilson.*

*Wonders if Syniks dislikes all animal rights groups, or just PETA.*

I don't hate all animal rights groups.

Just PETA, ALF, and ELF.

Other than having to deal with annoying PETA people during hunting season, I once had to restrain a PETA protester who had just sprayed paint on a woman exiting a store in Bethesda.

Spraying paint on someone without their permission is assault. So I restrained the protester face down on the sidewalk until the police arrived.

Go ahead - protest, sing songs, chant slogans, hold up signs - I'm fine with that.

Just don't assault people, interfere with hunts (it's illegal), commit arson, or damage labs.

*Is relieved to see this thread isn't about people beating up on Peta Wilson.*

*Wonders if Syniks dislikes all animal rights groups, or just PETA.*
Just the radical ones. I support my local no-kill shelters & my LOCAL humane societies (not to be confused with HSUS, which is only barely less radical than PETA)

I am a Hunter, therefore, I am a wildlife/habitat Conservationist. Without good hunting practices and wilderness maintenance I would be out a hobby/lifestyle... which is what the PETArds and their ilk want anyway - unmanaged "wilderness" - despite the fact that it would become an ecological disaster.

wait, it was my understanding that the major example of a headless chicken actually had a significant portion of it's brain intact (or maybe it was just the brain stem).
while there WAS a chicken who had most of its head cut off and lived another 18 months, that is not what is being referrred to.

when you cut a chickens head cleanly off, it can run away, spurting blood from the cut. it can get pretty far before the blood loss kicks in and it dies. yeah i have seen it with my own eyes. *shudder*

i have also seen catfish heads in a bucket still moving their mouths as if gulping for water. no bodies, just the heads.

Trained or Wild? Show that they have a ritualized understanding of death, i.e. preparing an elder for passage or gathering the family group to inter (post death) a not yet dead, but dying member of the clan rather than just a recognition of another's loss of lifefunction, the loss of habitual positive stimulous associated with that living creature's smell (which changes in death) and/or the presence of new food.

in other words, show that they ritualize death in the way that certain human cultures do. why should we expect that? we have bigger brains and put them to work acting out more elaborate rituals in response to stimuli. so what?

the great apes display evidence of having a sense of self. signing apes have appropriately used the terms today, yesterday, tomorrow, etc. they lie to both humans and each other when they have reason to, which indicates not only a sense of self, but also a conception of the minds of others. if stuart wants to talk about features that are uniquely human in a meaningful sense, he's going to have to try a bit harder than that. most everything we do has analogs outside the species that we have clearly just elaborated on.

"Behaviorist assumptions" are founded on empiric research. This guy is a pain researcher. It's all he does, so he works with the research (outside of his field) that he has available and coorelates it with his research into the modes and modalities of pain.

no, they really aren't. the entire behaviorist idea is about either methodological usefulness (behavior is visible, mental states aren't), or a statement of belief about the lack of internal mental states in entities.

pain is pain, whether the entity in question can respond to it with words or not. the worst thing about the behaviorist bullshit is when its only halfway applied; treating speech-acts and the like in humans as actually counting for internal metnal states, while denying their existence in other species. as if this shit sprung fully formed out of the head of zeus.

and when we teach an ape to speak to us and tell us about its mental states, they write that off as mere mimicry and reward seeking.

httq://wearepathetic.blogspot.com
replace the q with a p and all will be explained partially.

while there WAS a chicken who had most of its head cut off and lived another 18 months, that is not what is being referrred to.

when you cut a chickens head cleanly off, it can run away, spurting blood from the cut. it can get pretty far before the blood loss kicks in and it dies. yeah i have seen it with my own eyes. *shudder*

i have also seen catfish heads in a bucket still moving their mouths as if gulping for water. no bodies, just the heads.

on a similar note, cutting off a person's head can leave the head alive for about 13 seconds if done quickly and cleanly. and the body sans head will be a bit twitchy.

in other words, show that they ritualize death in the way that certain human cultures do. No, they don't ritualize at all, and that is the point. We have a pretty fair database of the human response to death and incipient death, and no other animal reacts anywhere close to any of them. why should we expect that? we have bigger brains and put them to work acting out more elaborate rituals in response to stimuli. so what?The point is, the human response is not to stimuli, it is to the anticipation of an event. That is a high-order abstraction. Animals do not recognize incipient death - except to keep away from an obviously sick member of a clan... an instinct a human will suppress because he/she can abstract the idea of incipient death and concomitant loss.
the great apes display evidence of having a sense of self. signing apes have appropriately used the terms today, yesterday, tomorrow, etc. they lie to both humans and each other when they have reason to, which indicates not only a sense of self, but also a conception of the minds of others.Apes in a lab are no more representative of the species than domestic dogs are to dingos. A domestic dog will develop aytipical (to the wild species) behavior patterns derived from the proximity to humans, i.e. "Real Dogs don't Beg". Wild Great Apes don't do those things - because there has been no human influence that they would need to mimic for reward.
if stuart wants to talk about features that are uniquely human in a meaningful sense, he's going to have to try a bit harder than that. most everything we do has analogs outside the species that we have clearly just elaborated on.So, his research is not meaningful because you see analogues? That's called anthropomorphization. Why is it more valid than research?
no, they really aren't. the entire behaviorist idea is about either methodological usefulness (behavior is visible, mental states aren't), or a statement of belief about the lack of internal mental states in entities.

pain is pain, whether the entity in question can respond to it with words or not.That is categorically untrue. "Pain" is entirely dependant on the mental state of the reciever of stimuli. That is why some people need Vicoden just to get stiches, I hardly need novacaine at all for a root canal, and Lunatic Goofballs has "kick me in the nards" contests. the worst thing about the behaviorist bullshit is when its only halfway applied; treating speech-acts and the like in humans as actually counting for internal metnal states, while denying their existence in other species. because it is not observable in other species. Speech acts can be verified when applied to pain-response experimentation. as if this shit sprung fully formed out of the head of zeus.non sequiter ... and when we teach an ape to speak to us and tell us about its mental states, they write that off as mere mimicry and reward seeking.You really haven't looked into "signing" apes too deeply have you? There is no evidence of originality (novelty) or other key linguistic markers in "signing" apes that would indicate more than mimicry and wishful thinking... including Washoe and the "water-bird" incident and/or NimChimsky... A trained response to sign a particular mental state (must piss = sign for "dirty") is hardly equivilent to an abstract thought. Likewise, knowing that your experimenter will stop the experiment when "dirty" is signed (to lead the chimp to the WC) then using that sign to stop boring experiments is hardly novel either - since the result (being led to the WC) is the same.

Try reading: Chomksy (his non ranting bits), Pinker, McWhorter, etc.

III. Apes’ language ability.
A. Apes seem eerily “like us,” and this includes their ability to communicate with us on certain levels. In his famously colloquial, quotidian diary, Samuel Pepys, man of affairs of Restoration England, wrote: It is a great baboone, but so like a man in most things, that… yet I cannot believe but that it is a monster got of a man and she-baboone. I do believe it already understands much english; and I am of the mind it might be taught to speak or make signs. (Latham, R.C., and W. Matthews, eds. The Diary of Samuel Pepys, Vol. 2. Berkeley:University of California Press, 1970.)

B. Early attempts to teach apes language. In actuality, when people have tried to teach chimpanzees to talk, the results have been limited. In 1909, one chimp learned to say mama. In 1916, an orangutan learned to say papa and cup. In the 1940s, another chimp learned to say papa, mama, cup, and sometimes up.

C. Apes and sign language. More recently, researchers have tried to teach chimpanzees sign language. The results have been somewhat more successful.

1. Starting in 1966, Washoe, at about a year old, took three months to make her first signs, and by four, she had 132 signs.
2. She could extend open from referring to a door to opening containers and turning on faucets, and she once signed "water bird" when a swan passed. She could even put a few words together into “sentences,” such as you me out for “Let’s go out.”

D. Ape language versus human language. But these chimpanzees are not using “language” in the human sense.

1. Inconsistency. They tend to respond properly to strings of two or more words only most of the time rather than all of the time.
2. Grammar or context? Some researchers have argued that understanding these strings of words shows that chimpanzees are using “grammar” in the sense of subject versus object and so on. But the correspondence between the words and the immediate context generally makes the meaning of the string clear without any sense of “grammar.” One ape knew that cooler sour cream put meant, “Put the sour cream in the cooler,” but obviously, this was
the only rational meaning those words used together could have.
3. Imitation versus communication. One ape signed along with humans while they were communicating with him 40 percent of the time, while children overlap with adults speaking to them only about 5 percent of the time. This suggests that chimpanzees are imitating more than speaking on their own.

E. What is missing from apes’ language? The linguist Charles Hockett listed 13 features of language in the human sense. Among them, what is missing from chimpanzees’ (and other creatures’) communication are:
1. Displacement: communicating about things and concepts beyond the immediate context and urgency (an animal cannot tell its fellow animals about the giant squid carcass it saw washed up on the beach).
2. Productivity: being able to combine the basic elements of language in infinite combinations (as opposed to restricting communication to a small array of requests for food or announcements of where food is).

IV. Animals do not communicate spontaneously.
A. Initiation. Chimpanzees do not usually initiate a conversation, except to indicate what they want and within a narrow range of activities, such as eating. Washoe’s comment on the swan was a once-off surprise.
B. Parrots. Irene Pepperberg (professor of psychology at Brandeis) has trained an African grey parrot named Alex since the late 1970s to answer such questions as “What object is green and three-cornered?,” to count things up to six, to ask for food in such sentences as “Want a nut,” and even to put names to sounds. Once, asking for a nut each time after being asked questions to name sounds, he slit his eyes and said, “Want a nut—nn, uh, tuh.”
1. But language is largely a trick to Alex: asked what color something is, he will often give every color but the right one, showing intelligence but not a sense of language as communication rather than trick.
2. He also answers questions with only 80 percent accuracy, because he gets bored; language is a game, not a mode of expression.

C. In nature, vs. in the lab. No apes sign in the wild; no parrots communicate in the wild.


The key is abstraction. Animals are "concrete" thinkers. They identify, catalogue, compare and respond. A computer can do that. But they cannot think abstractly. A deer may feel pain at the slap of a branch, but they will not abstract out that nibbling off the branch will stop it from causing a slap when it walks through. A human will see the branch, abstract out its potential then break it off BEFORE it causes pain. No great ape has ever shown that capacity IN captivity, much less in the wild. Thus, the behaviorist model holds.

Last time I checked most animal rights activists called for *equal* treatment[1] - not for putting the animals above the humans.

I have seen more than one make the claim that we should do medical research on human beings, but not on animals. In fact, they usually single out handicapped human beings as those we should do research on.

The problem with many of these tests is that they only look for one cause. The headless chicken thing is flawed because it never mentioned anything about testing to see if anything else can cause it besides pure reflex. Animals are capable of learning. There was once this famous behavior guy, whose name I forgot, who rang a bell every time he would give his dog a treat. Soon, the dog began to realize that he would get a treat if the bell rang. Soon, the man rang the bell. This time, there was no treat. He did the treatless-bell thing several more times and the dog still came.

If we barely understand ourselves, then what right do we have with explaining animals? If we don't even know ourselves, then how can we know animals? We don't know if they can think or not. We can't prove if they can or can't. Therefore, we should stop just thinking in human terms. Maybe they have concepts of time that we don't. How will we ever know? We can't speak dog. We can't speak bird. They might have a more complex verbal language than us. They might have thought of inventions not invented yet because they have no means of making them. How will we know? Sure, we have bigger brains than them. Whales and elephants have bigger brains than us. Maybe they're smarter than us.

Think about this: If we had to live in constant fear of getting eaten, would we have cars or rockets now? Would we have guns? We wouldn't have guns if we always lived in constant danger because no one would have the time to design them. Everyone would have greater priorities. We've been lucky when we created our safety. Most species haven't been lucky. Excuse me while I weep for humanity.

"mourning behaviour" is quite a bit different than "funeral rites". One is the simple recognition that a habitual positive stimulus now reeks of death, the other requires a certain amount of forthought and planning.

Quite possibly, but if you allow that animals display 'mourning behaviour' then it appears inevitable that the statement " Animals do not understand the concept of ... 'die'" is deeply flawed.

No, but that, however, is not what the "Animal Rights" types agitate for/against. Look at their website. They want NO pets. They want NO animal consumption. They want NO research being done on animals. They firmly believe Rat = Human and will perform, advocate or fund violence done against animal husbandry.

Speaking as an '"Animal Rights" type' - I am quite happy with people owning pets, I would prefer if animal consumption was lessened greatly in the Western World, I want any research which must be done on animals to be steringently controlled and done in the most humanitarian fashion as possible. I do not believe that a rat = human, and I do not, nor have I ever performed, advocated or funded violence done against animal husbandry.

The point is, the human response is not to stimuli, it is to the anticipation of an event. That is a high-order abstraction.

Any reason for putting forward the ability to perform abstraction as the ultimate defining characteristic of our species and to place a value upon it which is greater than other different defining characteristics of other species?

Sure, we have bigger brains than them. Whales and elephants have bigger brains than us. Maybe they're smarter than us.

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2004/11/brains_of_white.php

Bigger brain =/= smarter.

I would like the idea that animals donot suffer when they are killed for my food, but frankly I would eat meat regardless. Unless of course thye were tortured, in which case the meat would be tough from the stress prior to death, and noone likes tough meat.

That was my point. Why did you think I mentioned that? We are probably dumber than foxes and wolves. Foxes outsmart people all the time. Can't say the achievement of one is an achievement of all. We, humans, don't all make nuclear reactors or create elements in labs(Yes, we now make the newer elements). Therefore, that argument is heavily flawed. Given the lifespan, the safety, and a reason, a fox could probably make a wheel or something. We understand little about ourselves and next to nothing about animals. Therefore, we have no grounds to say which is superior.

Given the lifespan, the safety, and a reason, a fox could probably make a wheel or something.

Opposable thumbs would probably help, but then the koala has two on each hand and hasn't shown any remarkable signs of creativity.

That was my point. Why did you think I mentioned that? We are probably dumber than foxes and wolves. Foxes outsmart people all the time. Can't say the achievement of one is an achievement of all. We, humans, don't all make nuclear reactors or create elements in labs(Yes, we now make the newer elements). Therefore, that argument is heavily flawed. Given the lifespan, the safety, and a reason, a fox could probably make a wheel or something. We understand little about ourselves and next to nothing about animals. Therefore, we have no grounds to say which is superior.

A fox has an EQ (the brain/body increase ratio) of 1, the norm for most animals. Humans have an EQ of 7 or 8.

It's also about arrangement.

Humans also have an extremely different make-up on the brain itself than most animals, which allows us to think like we do.

If you kept a fox in perfect safety and making a wheel was the only way to better food/a mate, it wouldn't be able to make the wheel. It simply doesn't think like that... and lacks the right equipment for it.

I would not even care of animals really did feel pain in a meaningful way. Wouldn't stop me from eating meat. And people who place rodents above humans do not belong in our society.I would argue that people who have no problem causing needless suffering to any living creature have no place in our society.

what's a conscious thought?

EDIT: And I don't care whether it hurts or not. If it's tasty I'll eat it.Humans taste like pork, by all acounts. "It's yummy, so let's eat it" is not exactly a smart philosophy. You'll either become a canibal or win yourself a Darwin award.

A main argument for this view is that there is no real and verifiable reason (other than religious assumptions) to make a statement like "all humans are superior to all animals" (which indeed is a very similar statement to the ones once made about negroes, women etc).
Is the fact that we've built cities, cars, planes, mailboxes, hammocks, computers, chairs, billboards, modems and so on [while animals obviously haven't] a "religious assumption?" Is the fact that we can reason at an unprecedented level a "religious assumption?"

Humans are quite clearly superior to animals in every conceivable cognitive sense. We've put satellites in space and they're still struggling for food and land; hell, about the best they can come up with structurally is a beaver dam; and even that's not very hard. Humans are superior to animals if you'd care to open your eyes and take a look at the glaring differences in the scope of our respective accomplishments. If, however, you'd prefer to emulate an ostrich, then by all means proceed.

I would argue that people who have no problem causing needless suffering to any living creature have no place in our society . . .

. . . And should be gassed to death! MUAHAHAHAHA!

When it comes to reports on animal welfare I would always trust the RPPI after all there mission statement of "Reason Public Policy Institute is a public policy think tank promoting choice, competition, and a dynamic market economy as the foundation for human dignity and progress" obviously has the best interests of animals at heart.

Is the fact that we've built cities, cars, planes, mailboxes, hammocks, computers, chairs, billboards, modems and so on [while animals obviously haven't] a "religious assumption?"

Did you personally build all those things ?
Is a random baby capable of designing a computer ? Is a random adult ?
Can someone with an IQ of 40 operate a car ?

No ? Then I fear that those accomplishments were made by individuals and say little about superiority of every single member of the species. All you can conclude is that some members of our species have demonstrated superior skills compared to others - both human and animal. Which - unfortunately- does not mean they behaved in a superior way though; Stalin and Hitler were quite bright for instance.

In short however: you cannot use the intelligence or technical accomplishments of some human individuals or groups to differentiate between all humans and all other animals, unless you are convinced the dumbest human is still smarter than the brightest animal. Which, of course, is untrue. Show me your baby daughter outsmarting a hungry lion if you disagree...[1]

Is the fact that we can reason at an unprecedented level a "religious assumption?"

Again the "we". How exactly did *you* aid Newton when he devised his laws ?
And how exactly is "I can reason" justification to say "so I am allowed to oppress those who cannot" ? To me that sounds very much like.. animal reasoning ;)

[1] Which of course shows another aspect: the relativity of "superior". A rocket scientist is generally considered smarter than a plumber. Still, the plumber would probably win a plumbing contest. So who is the superior one ?

If you kept a fox in perfect safety and making a wheel was the only way to better food/a mate, it wouldn't be able to make the wheel. It simply doesn't think like that... and lacks the right equipment for it.There was a recent instance of birds making a primitive hook from a piece of wire in order to get food.

We've put satellites in space and they're still struggling for food and land; hell, about the best they can come up with structurally is a beaver dam; and even that's not very hard.

Yes, we have put satellites in space. I was unaware that we had conquered qoeld hunger and resolved all territorial disputes - I must have missed that memo.

Hey...Syniks...
:D PETA should complain about this:
http://www.urban75.org/useless/bush.html

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushpriceless.htm

There was a recent instance of birds making a primitive hook from a piece of wire in order to get food.

A hook is different.

And birds are smart/evil little animals.

A hook is different.

And birds are smart/evil little animals.
Lol. But you don't find it interesting that animals can create tools?

Is the fact that we've built cities, cars, planes, mailboxes, hammocks, computers, chairs, billboards, modems and so on [while animals obviously haven't] a "religious assumption?" Is the fact that we can reason at an unprecedented level a "religious assumption?"

Humans are quite clearly superior to animals in every conceivable cognitive sense. We've put satellites in space and they're still struggling for food and land; hell, about the best they can come up with structurally is a beaver dam; and even that's not very hard. Humans are superior to animals if you'd care to open your eyes and take a look at the glaring differences in the scope of our respective accomplishments. If, however, you'd prefer to emulate an ostrich, then by all means proceed.while I agree that Humans are superior to animals, I do have to point out that some animals dig a vast and complex series of tunnels, some species of birds do build complex nests as well as "community" nests. others birds do build structures for the sole purpose of mating. and I don't know if Insects are also counted in this comparasion as well.

however, we as humans can reason as well as change our behavior to fit the situation. we can be kind and loving to strangers, showing compassion and giving aid when needed, but when the situation changes, we can be ruthless and show no mercy. we understand the concept of Exceptions, things that go against the norm, and except these exceptions as the norm.

Lol. But you don't find it interesting that animals can create tools?

I know some animals can make tools. Monkeys make tools out of sticks and stuff.

But, a wheel is different. A wheel is different than grabbing a stick, poking it in an ant hill, then pulling it out, seeing what happens and repeating.

I ate a meaty sandwich in front of a PETA display once. It was fun.

I ate a meaty sandwich in front of a PETA display once. It was fun.I wonder... do any of these PETA members own pets? if so, they should be berated for keeping animals in Slavery! Animals are meant to be free... and let's not get into the removing of their Reproductive freedoms by Spayed and Neutering them! :mad:

Yes, we have put satellites in space. I was unaware that we had conquered qoeld hunger and resolved all territorial disputes - I must have missed that memo.
The point is that we could if we really wanted to. It's just not profitable to do so.

The point is that we could if we really wanted to. It's just not profitable to do so.

Ah, so the big difference between humanity and other animals is that we are capitalist scum with all the compassion of a rotten corpse?

I want any research which must be done on animals to be steringently controlled and done in the most humanitarian fashion as possible.

Good then. It already is - at least in the US and most Western countries. In truth, lab animals are treated better than most pets.

Yes, we have put satellites in space. I was unaware that we had conquered qoeld hunger and resolved all territorial disputes - I must have missed that memo.
Sophistry. Just because we haven't fixed every problem under the sun doesn't mean we're on intellectually equal footing with animals.

Did you personally build all those things ?
I love it when people waste their time asking questions they already know the answer to. I'll save myself the trouble and not ask what difference this makes, since I already know the answer. None.

Is a random baby capable of designing a computer ? Is a random adult ?
See above.

Can someone with an IQ of 40 operate a car ?
And this pertains to our argument....how?

No ? Then I fear that those accomplishments were made by individuals and say little about superiority of every single member of the species. All you can conclude is that some members of our species have demonstrated superior skills compared to others - both human and animal. Which - unfortunately- does not mean they behaved in a superior way though; Stalin and Hitler were quite bright for instance.
And the accomplishments of these idividuals demonstrates the mental faculties which make us superior to animals. If turnabout is fair play, I get to ask you if a beaver has personally built all these things, if a random anteater is capable of building a computer, and I might also get away with asking you if the world's smartest chimp could operate a motor vehicle. Your arguments here are paper-thin at best.

In short however: you cannot use the intelligence or technical accomplishments of some human individuals or groups to differentiate between all humans and all other animals, unless you are convinced the dumbest human is still smarter than the brightest animal. Which, of course, is untrue. Show me your baby daughter outsmarting a hungry lion if you disagree...[1]
It's a gnerealization. You know, like when people say "Humans have two arms and two legs." By your logic, that would be a fallacious statement, since our population contains the occasional amputee.

....aaand I can see the rest of your post is pretty much more of the same. If I'm actually missing something here, feel free to post it again.

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=fur_farm&Player=wm&speed=_med

Watch this. Beat up a chinese person when you see one.

Sophistry. Just because we haven't fixed every problem under the sun doesn't mean we're on intellectually equal footing with animals.

Yes, but your original claim that we have been able to do X whilst the animals are still doing Y and are thus markedly different from them (when we are still doing Y) is equally sophistry.

Am I claiming that we are on the same intellectual footing as the animals? No, we have distinct modes of thought which appear uniquely human. However, on what basis does this distinction of ability lead towards granting us some kind of right to consume other animals when, at least within the Western World, our distinct modes of thought have allowed us the option of not consuming them?

Yes, but your original claim that we have been able to do X whilst the animals are still doing Y and are thus markedly different from them (when we are still doing Y) is equally sophistry.
No, my claim was that we are intellectually superior to animals. The X and Y things are examples, they're not the substance of my argument. If you think it's 'sophistry' that our technological progress is a pretty distinct measure of our intellectual superiority over animals, then I bid you good day.

Oh, and our right to consume animals comes from the fact that it's kind of... you know... how nature works.

No, my claim was that we are intellectually superior to animals. The X and Y things are examples, they're not the substance of my argument. If you think it's 'sophistry' that our technological progress is a pretty distinct measure of our intellectual superiority over animals, then I bid you good day.

I'm claiming that our intellectual differences from other animals are irrelevant to the ethical question of consuming other animals.

Oh, and our right to consume animals comes from the fact that it's kind of... you know... how nature works.

Ah, so sharks have a right to consume swimming humans as its... you know... how nature works. All very Hobbesian. Wasn't it Nietzsche that said 'Just as humanity has the intellect, the Rhino has its horn'?

I'm claiming that our intellectual differences from other animals are irrelevant to the ethical question of consuming other animals.
If that's the case, I apologise. That's a slightly seperate issue, but one we're likely to disagree on nontheless. I don't think eons of meat eating instincs and/or preferences will be pushed out of my brain because certain elements of society don't approve of it. From where I sit, this kind of argument is in the same vein as yelling at people for having sex.

Ah, so sharks have a right to consume swimming humans as its... you know... how nature works.
Well... yeah. Try walking into the Lion pen during feeding time at the zoo sometime to see if they're conscientous enough to pass and go for the leafy greens instead.

If that's the case, I apologise. That's a slightly seperate issue, but one we're likely to disagree on nontheless. I don't think eons of meat eating instincs and/or preferences will be pushed out of my brain because certain elements of society don't approve of it. From where I sit, this kind of argument is in the same vein as yelling at people for having sex.

Hang on, has your argument just changed from our possessing the right to consume animals because we are able to think differently to them, and thus escape our instincts, to one stating that we are in fact ruled by our instincts and cannot, for the most part, escape them?


Well... yeah. Try walking into the Lion pen during feeding time at the zoo sometime to see if they're conscientous enough to pass and go for the leafy greens instead.

Aside from anything else, felines are biologically predominantly carnivorous, and are unable to survive on a herbivorous diet - unlike us humans who are primarily omnivorous, and are able to survive as herbivores.

Hang on, has your argument just changed from our possessing the right to consume animals because we are able to think differently to them, and thus escape our instincts, to one stating that we are in fact ruled by our instincts and cannot, for the most part, escape them?

Jesus.


f that's the case, I apologise. That's a slightly seperate issue, but one we're likely to disagree on nontheless.
In retrospect, 'slightly seperate' is probably a worthless phrase. It's a seperate issue. Please read my posts before responding to them. Previously, I had thought we were discussing the mental faculties of animals as compared with humans. The context of our disagreement shifted [and perhaps I didn't notice it] to dietary habits and the ethical "objections" one might have with eating meat. That's probably why you reached this erroneous conclusion.

Furthermore, I never claimed we were 'ruled by our instincts,' the mere fact that we still possess a few doesn't make them the sole deciding factor in our decision-making process.

Aside from anything else, felines are biologically predominantly carnivorous, and are unable to survive on a herbivorous diet - unlike us humans who are primarily omnivorous, and are able to survive as herbivores.
I'm sorry, but every vegan I worked with at my last job ended up calling off on account of illness with alarming regularity. Sure, we can "survive as herbivores" but we can also theorietically castrate every male in society to prevent rapes. Neither supposition in and of itself means that we should actually go ahead and do it.

If you want to survive as an herbivore; fine. But don't go lording your 'morals' [I use the term loosely; the animal "rights" movement has to date been the most disgusting perversion of the concept of rights--detatching them from humanity and reapplying them altogether] over me because I like bacon and ham and slami and eggs and....*drool*

"Animals do not understand the concept of 'today', unless we think foxes use calendars and keep diaries;
I cant help but be skeptical of the reasoning abilities of anyone who would make such a silly statement as the one above.

A main argument for this view is that there is no real and verifiable reason (other than religious assumptions) to make a statement like "all humans are superior to all animals" (which indeed is a very similar statement to the ones once made about negroes, women etc).
One doesnt need to posit superiority in order to consider that eating animals is ok.

*If* animals are worthy of less consideration than humans, does that automatically mean they are worthy of none at all ?
What has worthy got to do with it? Whether or not humans give as much consideration to non-human animals as they give to other humans, I do believe that humans ought to consider the well-being of non-human animals.

he works with the research (outside of his field) that he has available and coorelates it with his research into the modes and modalities of pain.

Well that's well and good, but judging from the rather strange statement quoted above, I think there is good reason to doubt the guys reasoning abilities.

We're supposedly superior. What good are nuclear power and satellites if our most pressing needs continuously go unanswered? Computers are getting smarter while people are still starving to death. We have better tanks and jets, yet those just make things worse. Getting rid of them just makes us vulnerable. We are supposedly superior to ants, yet we go to war against ourselves, just like them. Lord of the Flies made a good point. We are predominately evil by our own standards. We aren't really civilized. We just need really strong leaders to keep us in line. Put us in anarchy and war will spread. Democracy would have fallen it if weren't for strong leaders. Take away our oil and our electricity and we'll just go tribal again. Take away our guns and nukes and we'll just revert to spears and rocks. Try to prove that our "civilized" behaviors are not because of a few in control and technology to keep us busy. Not that easy. Yes, we're making more technology. But, how much of it do we really need? Can we survive if technological progress halted or will the lack of the latest computer and H4000 cause us all to suffer again? How will the next computers stop wars and terrorism? How will the next computers end world hunger? If we can't even solve our own problems, how are we better than animals? Aren't we animals? Aren't birds warmblooded, like us? Don't monkeys also have thumbs?

Humans are predomonately stupid. A few exceptions to this rule give us computers, wheels, and cars and we automatically say that we aren't and everything else is. Foxes display more common sense than people. WE can tell time. Big whooptydo. We have alphabets and many languages. Maybe I missed the seminar on how more than one language is vital. We have guns. Isn't that another reason on how foxes are smarter than us? They apparently haven't been to the seminar on how killing eachother is a sign of intelligence either. We have nuclear power. And that came from a weapon that was a major cause of Cold War tensions. We have politics. What good is that? We have hummers and suv's. Hard to believe that there was a time when we lived without those, isn't it. Sure, medicine is important. That isn't enough to call ourselves superior when you look at just about everything else. If a dozen monkeys got together and solves all of our problems, would we call monkeys superior? What different is it when a FEW humans do smart stuff? If it wasn't for a relatively small number of people, we wouldn't have cars or computers or rockets. How many people know how to make computers or land rockets on the moon? It took millenia of slow progress just to make a simple wheel. It took us that long to invent a new shape-round. We aren't a species of super-intelligent geniouses. We're just a few billion morons who just happened to have listened to a few smart people. Try to prove me wrong. Just try.

We're supposedly superior.
Are we?

snippage...

We are supposedly superior to ants,
Are we? Who exactly is doing all this supposing? I can see that we are different to ants, and I can also see that many of us (quite probably most of us) value other human beings more than we value ants...

We are predominately evil by our own standards.
Are we? I'm not certain that is the case....in fact which standards are 'our own standards'?

We aren't really civilized. We just need really strong leaders to keep us in line. Put us in anarchy and war will spread. Democracy would have fallen it if weren't for strong leaders. Take away our oil and our electricity and we'll just go tribal again.
Should I interpret your comments to be a value judgement against tribalism, one that equates 'civilised' with 'good' and 'tribal' with 'bad' or 'inferior'?:confused:
Or did you mean something else?

Try to prove that our "civilized" behaviors are not because of a few in control and technology to keep us busy.
Well I'm not entirely clear on what you actually mean by 'civilised'...

...snippage...If we can't even solve our own problems, how are we better than animals?
We are animals.
Aren't we animals?
Yes

We have alphabets and many languages. Maybe I missed the seminar on how more than one language is vital.
Actually I dont know that human beings having more than one language is necessarily significant, but rather that we have language at all. I understand the significance relates to aspects such as multi media functionality and (I believe most significant) infinate creative possibility.

...Snippage...
We have politics.
I suspect other animals do to.

That isn't enough to call ourselves superior when you look at just about everything else.
I dont know quite what the fuss about superiority is (and I dont just mean in the particular post I'm replying to now, but rather am referring to what appears to be a running theme in several of the posts)...?

And the accomplishments of these idividuals demonstrates the mental faculties which make us superior to animals.

No, the accomplishments of those individuals show that those *individuals* are superior in that specific field to *others*, both human and animal.

If turnabout is fair play, I get to ask you if a beaver has personally built all these things, if a random anteater is capable of building a computer, and I might also get away with asking you if the world's smartest chimp could operate a motor vehicle.

And the answer would be: "nope". Which means that each of the *individuals* we just examined is less capable to perform a certain function than the ones who could. I see no reason however to credit to *entire* human race for the accomplishments of a few - just like I see no reason to blame all Germans for Hitler, blame the son of a rapist for the crimes of his father or think whites are more worthy than blacks becuase of the colour of their skin. I think one should judge living creatures for who *they* are and what *they* can do - not for who or what their daddy was.

And in such a comparison a chimp may prove to be a better motorcyclist than a human retard or human baby. An anteater may be able to design a better computer than the late ms Schiavo, who many, many people insisted was still human and worth a lot while in the hospital. A beaver will have a better shot at rebuilding New York than a fetus - who again many people value more.

Again: unless you can show that the least capable human will always defeat the most superior non-human animal you should not make generalisations.


Your arguments here are paper-thin at best.

Maybe. But you haven't adressed them yet.

One doesnt need to posit superiority in order to consider that eating animals is ok.

Correct. One *does* need it to argue why eating animals is, but eating humans isn't.

What has worthy got to do with it? Whether or not humans give as much consideration to non-human animals as they give to other humans, I do believe that humans ought to consider the well-being of non-human animals.

I agree. But now for the hard part: can you back that up with reasoning and arguments ?

Right.

I'm going to try and break down what appears to be the crux of your argument. Please correct me if I get anythng wrong, since this will be the logical formula upon which I base my next post. Here goes:

I contend that the human race is cognitively--or even generally--superior to animals.

You disagree.

I support my hypothesis by posting various accomplishment on the part of Mankind.

You reject this support on the basis that these accomplishments are examples of individual prowess, and are unfit for comparison to other organisms living on this planet; be they animal or human.

From this, I can only conclude one of two things. The first is that you are one of the many people who regard humans as "no better" than animals in any measurable sense or that you refuse to apply the same standards of acheivement to the respective species. Is any of this wrong?

Correct. One *does* need it to argue why eating animals is, but eating humans isn't.
2 points, one doesnt necessarily have to argue that eating humans is not ok. To be entirely honest, the idea of people eating people doesnt overly excite me, although I can see the social utility in discouraging the practise in a society where widely held sensibilities mean that such behaviour would disruptive to social cohesion and well-being.

More significantly it is not necessary to posit superiority in order to argue that it is ok to eat some animals and not ok to eat other animals, especially when the animals you are arguing it is not ok to eat are one's own kind and one's own kind happens to be a socially cooperative animal.

I agree. But now for the hard part: can you back that up with reasoning and arguments ?
Mmm, yes I suspect so, (it's actually a 'preference belief' though, not a reasoned conclusion).

A possible argument in support of such a belief is 'social utiltity'

One might argue for instance that engaging in unnecessary cruelty tends to either be indicative of or causitive of further such acts.

If society mandates against such behaviour and it is causitive of further acts of cruelty, then it is possible that potential acts of unnecessary cruelty against other human beings might be avoided. If however it is only indicitive of a desire to cause cruelty, and someone is willing to ignore society's mandate against it, then that person is more likely (than someone who will abide by the mandate even though it contravenes their wishes) to ignore society's mandate against similar acts towards it's members (aka human beings).

So either a society mandating against unnecessary cruelty to non-humans is actually preventitive of such acts being perpetrated against the members of a society, or such a mandate would potentially identify people who both wish to inflict unnecessary cruelty, and are willing to ignore societies mandates and thus present a risk to well being of the society's members.

Are we?
I know I am.
Some other animals do in fact have high intelligence, and some animals have highly developed social structures.

But no animal has ever managed to build a civilisation like ours, develop technology and philosophical justifications for our needs and wants.

Even animals that theoretically are capable of building stuff don't, because they simply lack the scope of thought necessary for that - just like very early man.

And finally, no matter whether or not animals are intelligent, rational beings, we managed to change cows, sheep, chickens etc to suit our needs. We are in a position to eat them, and eat them I shall.
In fact they only exist for that very reason (discounting milk, wool etc).
Unless you start suggesting that we don't have the right to eat wheat because we can't tell how intelligent it is, I can't follow your justification.

I'm against unnecessary cruelty, and I'm against killing animals that live in the wild, and not because we brought them into existance.
But a cow only has the rights we give to it.

By the way, I heard of a scheme by a German farmer to teach the cows that the slaughterhouse is a good place, and that they'll get food there. So when the day comes, they are much more relaxed. They suffer less, and we get better meat.

I know I am.
Some other animals do in fact have high intelligence, and some animals have highly developed social structures.

But no animal has ever managed to build a civilisation like ours, develop technology and philosophical justifications for our needs and wants.

Even animals that theoretically are capable of building stuff don't, because they simply lack the scope of thought necessary for that - just like very early man.
Simply pointing out things one animal does that another doesnt, is not proof of superiority. The fact is most animals dont (and cannot) do something that some other animal can.

And finally, no matter whether or not animals are intelligent, rational beings, we managed to change cows, sheep, chickens etc to suit our needs. We are in a position to eat them, and eat them I shall.
Good and well, but I dont see that any of these things neccessitates that we be superior or is proof that we are superior.

In fact they only exist for that very reason (discounting milk, wool etc).
Unless you start suggesting that we don't have the right to eat wheat because we can't tell how intelligent it is, I can't follow your justification.
What justification for what? :confused:

I'm against unnecessary cruelty,
as am I,
and I'm against killing animals that live in the wild,
I'm not against the killing of non-domestic animals as a general principal...I'd consider it to be a contextual kind of thing, for instance I dont think it is desirable to kill members of endangered species.

and not because we brought them into existance.
I'm not entirely clear what this comment means...:confused:

But a cow only has the rights we give to it.
Mmm, I'm not convinced that there are 'rights' independent of human intention; obviously if rights exist only because of human intentions, no animals (including human beings) have any rights other than those given to it by human beings.

By the way, I heard of a scheme by a German farmer to teach the cows that the slaughterhouse is a good place, and that they'll get food there. So when the day comes, they are much more relaxed. They suffer less, and we get better meat.
Sounds like a 'win-win' situation all 'round...;)

Zagat, try making some points for the love of God; reading you is getting very tedious. All you ever seem to do is post "I don't see how that's relevant" or "That doesn't make any sense" without bothering to explain your position on the subject, which is something of a necessity in actual debate. The only way one can really have any idea of what you think is by reading what your opponents say and assuming you hold the opposite beliefs.

Zagat, try making some points for the love of God;
Actually I made many points - I cant be held responsible for your inability to comprehend those points. None the less for your benefit I shall list the points made;

The fact that two things are different does not necessitate that either is superior

The fact that one thing eats or exerts control over another does not necessitate that either is superior

Unnecessary cruelty to animals is a negative thing

Rights are an invention of human beings

Rights do not exist independent of human intention

Rights only exist if and when human beings decide that rights exist

Better quality meat for human consumption in conjunction with less suffering for the animal about to be processed into meat for human consumption is a good thing

reading you is getting very tedious.
I dont post here for your entertainment but rather for my own. There is of course a very simple solution to your concern, you could simply choose not to read.

All you ever seem to do is post "I don't see how that's relevant" or "That doesn't make any sense" without bothering to explain your position on the subject, which is something of a necessity in actual debate.
It is untrue that I only ever post "I dont see how that's relevant" and/or "That doesnt make any sense".
If something is irrelevent, or even if a person commenting on something can not see the relevence of it, what constructive further comment is there until some relevence can be demonstrated to the one commenting? Why ever would someone make comments in responce to irrelevence?

Why need I adhere to some competitive debating format anyway? I am here because I enjoy discussing things with others. You might well be here because you enjoy arguing with others. Fine and well, to each their own. I am not however obliged to post according to your preferences anymore than you are obliged to post according to mine.

As for 'debate' it is generally considered that the onus of proof lies with the affirmitive, including if challenged, proving that there is some logical connection between statements made about a point and the point itself and illucidating the nature of that connection.

The only way one can really have any idea of what you think is by reading what your opponents say and assuming you hold the opposite beliefs.
That would in fact be rather futile since I dont percieve that I have any opponents and am quite happy to post about any particular comment that it interests me to post about. I know this might be somewhat incomprehensible to someone who seems to think that everything needs to be some kind of argument or debate.

Why ever you feel it is so important to know what I think is beyond me. Is there some particular reason for your interest? In fact your entire notion that someone necessarily has to hold a 'belief' is entirely erroneous and that in itself probably explains why interpret questions as being an attempt at debate rather than an attempt to illicit information.

Not everyone has a need to bang other people over the head with their opinions, I'm sorry if you cannot simply enjoy a discussion without some need to turn it into a competition, but I have no intention of changing my way of doing things simply to suit your preferences.

Quite possibly, but if you allow that animals display 'mourning behaviour' then it appears inevitable that the statement " Animals do not understand the concept of ... 'die'" is deeply flawed.
Let's discuss canid "mourning behavior".

My dog had a battery-powered reactive "squeeky toy". When the battery died, she got all "sad looking" and nosed her "dead" toy... a thing that can have no death smell. I put new batteries in and she "got happy".

Sometime later, the same dog was playing in the garden with somthing. Turned out to be a kitten. Unfortunately, she got involved in the game and picked up the kitten by the head and shook it to death. After killing the kitten, she displayed the exact same behaviors shown when her squuky toy "died".

When our large auxiliary backup dog (the Alpha) died of renal failure, our bitch (above) was confused for about 24 hours, but otherwise barely noticed. She occasionally looked around for the playmate, but an absence was not somthing she could relate to.

This indicates that it is not the "death" that the dog is reacting to, but the cessation of positive stimuli. The canid has no way to abstract the idea of "extended loss" - only the loss of somthing in the "now".