Visit Koko's site just type in Koko you'll find it. She has a very serious message that needs everyones attention. I think she is smarter then half the humans I know.

Of course animals have emotions. Have you never seen a horse, grieve for a dead foal? Or cows that get their calves taken away from them? How about when a mother raccoon gets killed by a car and the babies, lay beside her, practically crying?

When I was a kid, if I fell and scraped my knee and cried....either my dog or cat would know I was sad and they'd lick my face and do anything to cheer me up.

I think you are confusing autonomic response....with .........intuition.


Slim

Originally posted by mad dog
Visit Koko's site just type in Koko you'll find it. She has a very serious message that needs everyones attention. I think she is smarter then half the humans I know.

That monkey is not smarter than "half the humans you know" unless you work at a funeral home, or live in Mississippi. For that primate is trained to do certain tasks that many apes, as well as animals in general, are capable of doing. It lacks the mental ability and capacity to surpass a human being.

Originally posted by She-devil
Of course animals have emotions. Have you never seen a horse, grieve for a dead foal? Or cows that get their calves taken away from them? How about when a mother raccoon gets killed by a car and the babies, lay beside her, practically crying?

When I was a kid, if I fell and scraped my knee and cried....either my dog or cat would know I was sad and they'd lick my face and do anything to cheer me up.

I believe you are confusing the physical manifestation of reactional emotion with deep inner-feelings. You are confusing their instinctual and behavioral reactions to what is happening with their ability to "feel" on an emotional level.
Your pets, having been around you for years, as well as their inherent behaviors, would be able to sense your state and respond accordingly because of their relationship to you.

Surely animals have emotional displays, you see them in contented or blissful moods, dazed moods, angered states, lethargic states, repressed or threatened phases. But those are very simple hereditary mannerisms that don't go into depth with intellectual workings as seen with the complexity of humans.We've evolved beyond the animal kingdom in our phrenic potence, and so remain rather feeble physically.
But to say that they feel emotionally like we humans do, that is a different matter, and one that we can say they do not. No animal can feel, reason, build, imagine, love, hate, grieve, in the ways that we can. That is not to say they are totally apathetic to their surroundings, but their depth of feeling does not begin to dip as deep as ours.

Just my 2 cents :)

I beleive animals have some emotions, but like those above, I doubt they can be explained to the depths of our own. After all animals don't need counselors or medications to help them control theirs. Yeah dogs can be cranky happy, and what not. And I had a cat who stayed beside out bird cage all day because a bird we had for years was dying. Her and the cat were quite used to eachother...

Originally posted by Evakian
That monkey is not smarter than "half the humans you know" unless you work at a funeral home, or live in Mississippi.

MONKEY!!! that's just plain racist, she is a gorilla. :D

yeh, humans are so smart that's why half are on drugs and the other half is over weight out of shape buying crap that they don't need stressing out polluting there own enviro, etc etc etc.... Well you can get my point, we are suppose to be smarter but someone really needs to show how. We have the "brain power" not to do stupid things but we still do.

For that primate is trained to do certain tasks that many apes, as well as animals in general, are capable of doing. It lacks the mental ability and capacity to surpass a human being.

I also could easly reverse the above, humans lack the mental ability and capacity to surpass animals, lets simply start with not being so damn self destructive?????????



I believe you are confusing the physical manifestation of reactional emotion with deep inner-feelings. You are confusing their instinctual and behavioral reactions to what is happening with their ability to "feel" on an emotional level.

So you are saying it is in there make up to feel sorrow? It really isn't sorrow but just a trained physical reaction? I'ld have to disagree{if this is what you are saying}

Your pets, having been around you for years, as well as their inherent behaviors, would be able to sense your state and respond accordingly because of their relationship to you.

same could be said for children, raise them one way they act like this, raise them another they act like that?

Surely animals have emotional displays, you see them in contented or blissful moods, dazed moods, angered states, lethargic states, repressed or threatened phases. But those are very simple hereditary mannerisms that don't go into depth with intellectual workings as seen with the complexity of humans.

I will agree we are different then other things but maybe they don't have time for a funneral, wedding, etc... :)

We've evolved beyond the animal kingdom in our phrenic potence, and so remain rather feeble physically.

I can't say I agree with this completely yes we are feeble physically. The part that I'm not I sure of is have we evolved more in emotion. Can an animal feel just as sad happy excited etc.. as us, I believe some can. We may be able to drive a car punch keys on a key board etc... but does this also mean we feel worse when something bad happens to us?


But to say that they feel emotionally like we humans do, that is a different matter, and one that we can say they do not.

how can we prove this, I may feel different about death then another human just as a pet may feel even worse about its best freind{man}. Look at the mother ape that saved the little boy that fell into the gorilla cage she new that the other gorillas would have torn that kid to shreds but she put herself on the line to save a human{WITH NO TRAINING}.

No animal can feel, reason, build, imagine, love, hate, grieve, in the ways that we can.

This is interesting because I have seen animals do some pretty neat things that I've never seen humans do. Also didn't some of our engineering come from ideas that animals created? I agree we are on a different level but I don't see one as being higher then the other. Sure we make things stronger etc.... that's easy to figure out but are we better/more emotional. I know we can act out emotion more then an animal but that is all it is acting, and some people are very good at it


That is not to say they are totally apathetic to their surroundings, but their depth of feeling does not begin to dip as deep as ours.
Just my 2 cents :)

And why would this be, because they don't have Jerry S or Oprah? They don't need magic pills to help them with depression? I quess my question is are our emotions deeper or have we created our own mental stress and just feel because we are human then our problems{emotions} must be more important.

Evakian, thanks for your 2 cents :)

Originally posted by cheerios
I beleive animals have some emotions, but like those above, I doubt they can be explained to the depths of our own. After all animals don't need counselors or medications to help them control theirs. Yeah dogs can be cranky happy, and what not. And I had a cat who stayed beside out bird cage all day because a bird we had for years was dying. Her and the cat were quite used to eachother...

Do we need meds and counselors to survive, the true answer is no. The answer that most would give is yes, but even if a depressed person killed themselfs it would not kill off the human race, just weed out the weak. We have created our little world of crying on everyones shoulder through TV etc... this is our invention, it does not make our emotion stronger just more public.

Originally posted by mad dog
yeh, humans are so smart that's why half are on drugs and the other half is over weight out of shape buying crap that they don't need stressing out polluting there own enviro, etc etc etc.

If you have verifiable proof that 3.25 billion people are drug addicts and the other 3.25 billion are over-weight and "shopaholics", please share your source.

... Well you can get my point, we are suppose to be smarter but someone really needs to show how. We have the "brain power" not to do stupid things but we still do.

Let us take your drug example, and visit a plantation where cocaine is refined.

The complex is littered with buildings involving intricate architecture and the materials carefully measured and crafted to support the building's structural integrity. The workers drive in on an automobile from their villages that they constructed, and begin working in the field using a variety of tools to gather up their raw material. When the physical labor is complete, they then take it to the storehouse, where it is then taken through some extensive lab work by the top refiners at the plantation. When the product is finally finishedm, it is packaged and set off by truck to a harbor, where it is put on a motorboat and taken north to another country---from there guards armed with firearms take the packaged product via plane to the border of the United States, and it is then transported via truck to Los Angeles.
Amongst the factories, cars, electrical lines, power plants, dams, televisions, radios, newspapers, sewers, roads, railways, and all manner of other man-made contraptions lies Los Angeles, full of people. It then makes it hands from the dealer to a customer who then takes their hypodermic and has fun.

There is an enormity of technological prowess and tools involved there that are because of mankind's mental ingenuity.

All an animal could do is suckle on the leaves and hope to get some form of "goofy" feeling off of it, not consciencely being able to extract the parts, understand what they are, give it labels, understand the feeling and work on ways to use it for pleasure in the body.

I also could easly reverse the above, humans lack the mental ability and capacity to surpass animals, lets simply start with not being so damn self destructive?????????

So because humankind can create technology that brings harm to them and the enviroment, they are less potent mentally?

That is a very shaky and illogical stance.

So you are saying it is in there make up to feel sorrow? It really isn't sorrow but just a trained physical reaction? I'ld have to disagree{if this is what you are saying}

their*
I'd*
Yes, animals are not conscience of their state in the same extent and way that humans. It is a complex array of inherent reactions and instincts that causes them to act out in the varying ways they do.

same could be said for children, raise them one way they act like this, raise them another they act like that?

If a child is nutured in the way of the uncivilized world or in the wild, there is a great chance of hindrances and disabilities and may function no more than an animal would.

I will agree we are different then other things but maybe they don't have time for a funneral, wedding, etc... :)

Yes, they are too busy scrounging for food or killing each other or piling together mediocre nestings to work on advancing their knowledge and capabilities.

I can't say I agree with this completely yes we are feeble physically.

You can't agree that we are more robust cerebral workings than animals, and our bodies are for the most part weaker than theirs?

The part that I'm not I sure of is have we evolved more in emotion.

That wasn't part of my statement, but yes, because of our superior capabilities, mentally we are.

Can an animal feel just as sad happy excited etc.. as us, I believe some can.

Sure, they can display it...but not be understanding fully of what is taking place.

We may be able to drive a car punch keys on a key board etc... but does this also mean we feel worse when something bad happens to us?

A wolf pack is running through the woods in its hunting territory, one of the members is running slower, the others tell he is sick and aging. They leave him behind, the wolf cubs of the pack are now taken care of solely by the mother wolf, who feels the weight of more duties. Sadness may be felt for the loss, but it is a fading one, one of less importance, or triggered for different reasons than if a family member died in a human tribe.


how can we prove this, I may feel different about death then another human just as a pet may feel even worse about its best freind{man}. Look at the mother ape that saved the little boy that fell into the gorilla cage she new that the other gorillas would have torn that kid to shreds but she put herself on the line to save a human{WITH NO TRAINING}.

We've a greater range of proficiency in using our brain, and so we are able to think things at a greater level, imagine, build, etc. It is reasonable to say without experimentation that humans have greater emotional depth in them because of the sheer vastness of feeling they are in control of. Animals act on instinct, they are little more than machines of nature.


This is interesting because I have seen animals do some pretty neat things that I've never seen humans do.

Your point?
Their physical prowess means nothing, no animal can function to the same extent of reasoning as a human. That is clearly seen.

Also didn't some of our engineering come from ideas that animals created?

We once were mere animals, it has taken eons of evolution to get to this stage.

I agree we are on a different level but I don't see one as being higher then the other.

Why not? We can do things no other species on this planet is capable of.

And why would this be, because they don't have Jerry S or Oprah?

When you can find a species of animals (humans don't count :D) that can concoct a language, elements of writing such as humor and news briefings, build a set and building to film in, write plots, broadcast it via satellite and using cameras and editing technology, create the craft of acting, have telephones and computers to contact guests so that they can be flown in through airplanes from another vast metropolis of human technology, as well as an economic system to pay the employees, keeping tabs on the positions of the company and currency and so forth....call me.

They don't need magic pills to help them with depression?

When you can find a species of animals (once again, humans don't count :D) that can harness the elements of the natural world to build labs, create languages, conduct elaborate experiments and create drugs that target chemical reactants in the human cerebrum and so forth....call me

I quess my question is are our emotions deeper or have we created our own mental stress and just feel because we are human then our problems{emotions} must be more important.

Our emotions are deeper because our understandings are.

Evakian, thanks for your 2 cents :)

You're welcome, have a cookie :)
/givetreat

Originally posted by Evakian
If you have verifiable proof that 3.25 billion people are drug addicts and the other 3.25 billion are over-weight and "shopaholics", please share your source.

Kinneys CVS walmart riteaid, there is some sort of happy pill at every corner it doesn't just have to be crank.



Let us take your drug example, and visit a plantation where cocaine is refined.

The complex is littered with buildings involving intricate architecture and the materials carefully measured and crafted to support the building's structural integrity. The workers drive in on an automobile from their villages that they constructed, and begin working in the field using a variety of tools to gather up their raw material. When the physical labor is complete, they then take it to the storehouse, where it is then taken through some extensive lab work by the top refiners at the plantation. When the product is finally finishedm, it is packaged and set off by truck to a harbor, where it is put on a motorboat and taken north to another country---from there guards armed with firearms take the packaged product via plane to the border of the United States, and it is then transported via truck to Los Angeles.
Amongst the factories, cars, electrical lines, power plants, dams, televisions, radios, newspapers, sewers, roads, railways, and all manner of other man-made contraptions lies Los Angeles, full of people. It then makes it hands from the dealer to a customer who then takes their hypodermic and has fun.

There is an enormity of technological prowess and tools involved there that are because of mankind's mental ingenuity.

so what I got from that is that we aren't smart enough to have fun unless we take a drug that could possibly kill us, sounds smart to me :) I did understand your point, but I figured we allready knew this.

All an animal could do is suckle on the leaves and hope to get some form of "goofy" feeling off of it, not consciencely being able to extract the parts, understand what they are, give it labels, understand the feeling and work on ways to use it for pleasure in the body.

The funny thing is that drugs{plants} and the goofy feeling has been around for thousands of years. So who is smarter the animal for finding a drug for free or the human that would shoot his own mother to get one?



So because humankind can create technology that brings harm to them and the enviroment, they are less potent mentally?

Nope, what I was saying is that we have the smarts not to take the drug in the 1st place but we are ignorant and do it anyway. How smart are we to know better but don't, is this really being smart. If an animal knew that eating a certain plant could kill them they leave it alone. Not humans we try to see how high we can get before it kills us.

Yes, animals are not conscience of their state in the same extent and way that humans. It is a complex array of inherent reactions and instincts that causes them to act out in the varying ways they do.

Now you are talking about actions being taken not the actual emotion itself. Lets say Bob and Joe's mother die, they both loved her very much and feel the same about the death. Bob goes back to work and on with his life. Joe goes on Oprah crys every chance he gets and writes a book. Now most people would say Joe was more caring or whatever but in reality he just likes to be more public. Humans can afford to do this animals can not, they either do or die.



If a child is nutured in the way of the uncivilized world or in the wild, there is a great chance of hindrances and disabilities and may function no more than an animal would.

Agreed, but this does not mean they don't feel the same pain it just means they have to deal with it in a different way.



Yes, they are too busy scrounging for food or killing each other or piling together mediocre nestings to work on advancing their knowledge and capabilities.

I don't know if they are anymore busy they we are they are just content with how they live. OF course they are different so they don't need to drive a car to walmart for a gallon of milk :)



You can't agree that we are more robust cerebral workings than animals, and our bodies are for the most part weaker than theirs?

I did agree with that.



That wasn't part of my statement, but yes, because of our superior capabilities, mentally we are.

This is the part I wanted proof of, how can we prove that we feel worse over a loved one then an animal does? Just because we go on drugs see a counselor, or show our booty on Jerry S doesn't mean we feel worse or better. It just shows that we act different which would be obvious.



Sure, they can display it...but not be understanding fully of what is taking place.

agreed



A wolf pack is running through the woods in its hunting territory, one of the members is running slower, the others tell he is sick and aging. They leave him behind, the wolf cubs of the pack are now taken care of solely by the mother wolf, who feels the weight of more duties. Sadness may be felt for the loss, but it is a fading one, one of less importance, or triggered for different reasons than if a family member died in a human tribe.

That wasn't a very good example wolf packs are very family oriented, when one dies the others all chip in and take care of the young. Infact researchers feel they do this because of how they felt about the one they lost. They also leave the weak behind so that the strong can survive they need there kind to live. There are also studies that have been done that show they will try to help the weak{to a point of course, as long as it does not risk the entire pack}. Humans don't need to worry about this{at one time we did} there is WAY MORE then enough of us to go around.



We've a greater range of proficiency in using our brain, and so we are able to think things at a greater level, imagine, build, etc. It is reasonable to say without experimentation that humans have greater emotional depth in them because of the sheer vastness of feeling they are in control of. Animals act on instinct, they are little more than machines of nature.

We have created a life where we can afford to "act" more emotional, animals don't have that luxury.




Your point?
Their physical prowess means nothing, no animal can function to the same extent of reasoning as a human. That is clearly seen.

I was talking on an emotional level not reasoning, I have spent many years in the woods and just watched and listen. One year I shot a mother doe she had a young button buck with her. The reason I took her is because I wanted the buck to stay in that area. Mothers will push their males out after a certain amount of time{deer don't like incests either:)}. Well it was not a pleasent seen or audio, the babe screamed not in terror {otherwise he'ld have ran} but he sat next to his mother and screamed for close to half an hr. Now if you have never witnessed this then of course you may not know what I'm trying to say??? He was old enough to know danger was near but he was{the way I felt} caught up in a great loss and did not want to leave. I apologize to anyone that reads this for being so blunt but it was a fact. I have also talked with many other hunters that have experienced the same sort of thing. Infact some have quit hunting because of it.



We once were mere animals, it has taken eons of evolution to get to this stage.

Which stage are we talking about prozac{sp} oprah acting follish???



Why not? We can do things no other species on this planet is capable of.

My point is why is a loss to us worse then a loss to an animal, and how can it be proven? Just because we can make an arse warmer for a car seat doesn't mean we have higher feelings. take a look at our marriage system it's a joke, but there are animals that mate for life no divorce. Maybe they have a higher emotional value???;)



When you can find a species of animals (humans don't count :D) that can concoct a language, elements of writing such as humor and news briefings, build a set and building to film in, write plots, broadcast it via satellite and using cameras and editing technology, create the craft of acting, have telephones and computers to contact guests so that they can be flown in through airplanes from another vast metropolis of human technology, as well as an economic system to pay the employees, keeping tabs on the positions of the company and currency and so forth....call me.

Now you are comparing acomplishments done by a {I'll use the term loosly} smarter species to one that works on a simpler scale. Take a look at a dolphin wolf even a bear they have comunication emotion happy sad etc... Does this make them less feeling?



When you can find a species of animals (once again, humans don't count :D) that can harness the elements of the natural world to build labs, create languages, conduct elaborate experiments and create drugs that target chemical reactants in the human cerebrum and so forth....call me

I'm not sure what your doing here but your getting way off track. I think we all know humans can build trucks and dogs can't



Our emotions are deeper because our understandings are.

prove it, our actions are carried out farther because we have that luxury. I think we should consider the act of expression

For the most part I think we understand each other{atleast I hope}. I'm not questioning who can't fly a plane, I'm trying to understand why humans think they are "it", anything other is less then. Makes me look back in history to the slaves, if a person was the owner he would consider himself a greater being all together{slaves had no emotion they were simple beast} Humans are on an ego trip this is alot of our problem, we can't understand because we think we are high and mighty{allmost god like}. Maybe your missing my point{not only because I bad at explainging :)} because we're mixing emotion with expression. I agree we express more then animals after all we are different, but I find it very hard to believe that animals don't have emotions.



You're welcome, have a cookie :)
/givetreat

Thankyou this is the time of year to stuff ourselfs, you have one also :)

I think that some of you are over-analyzing this and mistaking cognitive ability with emotions. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that animals are more capable than humans of experiencing emotions, or even that they're equal. They do however, experience emotions.

Originally posted by She-devil
I think that some of you are over-analyzing this and mistaking cognitive ability with emotions. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that animals are more capable than humans of experiencing emotions, or even that they're equal. They do however, experience emotions.

Indeed...

Originally posted by mad dog
Kinneys CVS walmart riteaid, there is some sort of happy pill at every corner it doesn't just have to be crank.

Do 3.25 billion people have access to said stores and use them to abuse drugs?

Once again, if you've proof that 3.25 billion are drug addicts and another 3.25 billion are over-weight and "shopaholics", share your source.

so what I got from that is that we aren't smart enough to have fun unless we take a drug that could possibly kill us

Had you read the passage, you should've gathered the vague idea of the enormity of intellect and technology applied into creating commercial narcotics, how humans are capable of such advanced activities that other animals cannot dream of; if they in fact, "dream".

Your claim was not implied in that passage.

sounds smart to me :) I did understand your point, but I figured we allready knew this.

already*

Judging from your response, it was not already common knowledge.

The funny thing is that drugs{plants} and the goofy feeling has been around for thousands of years.

Billions

So who is smarter the animal for finding a drug for free or the human that would shoot his own mother to get one?

If you are suggesting that animals are superior intellectually to humans because they cannot develop market systems and currency, as well as languages, transportation, chemical experimentation, electronic communication, etc (as used in the elaborate scheme of drug trafficking), that is a slippery slope that you will find yourself losing the argument over.

Nope, what I was saying is that we have the smarts not to take the drug in the 1st place but we are ignorant and do it anyway. How smart are we to know better but don't, is this really being smart. If an animal knew that eating a certain plant could kill them they leave it alone. Not humans we try to see how high we can get before it kills us.

Yes, because of our reasoning skills we are able to control the amount we take in, as well as refine the plant for easier, and higher quality usage.

If you care to argue the moral dilemma raised by drug usage that animals would shy away from out of natural inborn instinct and that humans forgo the acknowlegment of the dangers in order to attain pleasure, that does not denote "intelligence", just a sign that we are still very carnally driven as we are still apart of the ecosystem of these animals and plants. That is a topic for another thread.

Now you are talking about actions being taken not the actual emotion itself. Lets say Bob and Joe's mother die, they both loved her very much and feel the same about the death. Bob goes back to work and on with his life. Joe goes on Oprah crys every chance he gets and writes a book. Now most people would say Joe was more caring or whatever but in reality he just likes to be more public. Humans can afford to do this animals can not, they either do or die.

Your point?
These rebuttals you are using grow tiresome and everso indirect.

Agreed, but this does not mean they don't feel the same pain it just means they have to deal with it in a different way.

The case of a wolf cub losing its paternal figure, and a human doing the same, is a differing scenario because of the animals lack of relationship bondage attained by our human interaction and does not understand the full ramifications of losing the parent.

I don't know if they are anymore busy they we are they are just content with how they live. OF course they are different so they don't need to drive a car to walmart for a gallon of milk :)

If you are stating that because of mankind's natural traits of curiosity, greed, and imagination push them forward to build and develop civilization and technology, and that animals don't do the same only because they are "content with how they live", is absurdity.

I did agree with that.

Then you should've phrased it in a more effective manner.

This is the part I wanted proof of, how can we prove that we feel worse over a loved one then an animal does?

Rather simple answer, we feel worse over the death of a loved one because we loved them. Animals do not emotionally 'love' so so to speak, and so they have no "loved ones", regardless of what you would raise up over your attachment to your pets.

Just because we go on drugs see a counselor, or show our booty on Jerry S doesn't mean we feel worse or better.

I have never watched the Jerry Springer show, nor plan to, but do they actually have nudity on that? Perplexing...

It just shows that we act different which would be obvious.

It shows how more advanced we are, that we can develop the capabilities to have television, culture, language, medicine, and so on.

Infact researchers feel they do this because of how they felt about the one they lost.

Or the fact that there is one less member of the pack and so more effort has to be put in to raising the cubs. Are these researchers out of kindergarten?

They also leave the weak behind so that the strong can survive they need there kind to live. There are also studies that have been done that show they will try to help the weak{to a point of course, as long as it does not risk the entire pack}. Humans don't need to worry about this{at one time we did} there is WAY MORE then enough of us to go around.

Humans have the emotional capacity to pass over the logical standpoint of letting the weaker die, and so we build to make a society where all are cared for and respected. Animals do not have such affectations afforded them.

We have created a life where we can afford to "act" more emotional, animals don't have that luxury.

That also ties into the fact that they can't go in-depth with them, nor have the dependency that we do.
They do not trade sonnets while courting, they do not need to laugh every so often, they do not feel the frustration of growing up, they do not experience their emotions on the cognitive levels that we do.

Its not a matter of luxury, it is a matter of ability.

I was talking on an emotional level not reasoning, I have spent many years in the woods and just watched and listen. One year I shot a mother doe she had a young button buck with her. The reason I took her is because I wanted the buck to stay in that area. Mothers will push their males out after a certain amount of time{deer don't like incests either:)}. Well it was not a pleasent seen or audio, the babe screamed not in terror {otherwise he'ld have ran} but he sat next to his mother and screamed for close to half an hr. Now if you have never witnessed this then of course you may not know what I'm trying to say??? He was old enough to know danger was near but he was{the way I felt} caught up in a great loss and did not want to leave. I apologize to anyone that reads this for being so blunt but it was a fact. I have also talked with many other hunters that have experienced the same sort of thing. Infact some have quit hunting because of it.

scene*

Hunting stories are always interesting to hear, I do not hunt out of the lack of necessity to do so, also I feel it brings me and the animals unnecessary grief.
I fathom you hunt because you grow tired of eating the processed and altered meats found at the grocer's, as you share with me a seated respect for the animal kingdom.

Which stage are we talking about prozac{sp} oprah acting follish???

Prozac is the proper spelling for that drug. :)

My point is why is a loss to us worse then a loss to an animal, and how can it be proven?

Because of our advanced psyche, that enables us to do so.

Just because we can make an arse warmer for a car seat doesn't mean we have higher feelings. take a look at our marriage system it's a joke, but there are animals that mate for life no divorce.

Rarely are truly monogamous beasts found in nature, but those that do, it can be pointed to necessity and/or instinct, as well as attraction to that mate, perhaps out of physical stature, smell, or markings.

Maybe they have a higher emotional value???;)

Your arguments are rather poor, please save me the anguish of reading them unless you care to have a interesting debate, not one of such simplicity.

Now you are comparing acomplishments done by a {I'll use the term loosly} smarter species to one that works on a simpler scale.

loosely*
And don't use it loosely, use it flagrantly if you so wish, as it is nothing but absolute truth.

Take a look at a dolphin wolf even a bear they have comunication emotion happy sad etc... Does this make them less feeling?

Well, let us beget echolocation and smell sensitivity, and I will say that commincating with you is roughly as difficult as doing it with those species.

I'm not sure what your doing here but your getting way off track. I think we all know humans can build trucks and dogs can't.

you're*

Yes, and this higher functioning mindset ties into how humans experience life apart from animals, from all standpoints, physically, mentally, emotionally, and for some, spiritually.

For the most part I think we understand each other{atleast I hope}. I'm not questioning who can't fly a plane, I'm trying to understand why humans think they are "it", anything other is less then. Makes me look back in history to the slaves, if a person was the owner he would consider himself a greater being all together{slaves had no emotion they were simple beast} Humans are on an ego trip this is alot of our problem, we can't understand because we think we are high and mighty{allmost god like}. Maybe your missing my point{not only because I bad at explainging :)} because we're mixing emotion with expression. I agree we express more then animals after all we are different, but I find it very hard to believe that animals don't have emotions.

almost*
explaining*

Yes, for the most part I feel we are at a common understanding of each other's viewpoints, but what I wish to profess is that our different and more evolved workings than those of the animal kingdom, clearly show a vast differentiation from animals that carries over to feelings versus emotions. It is rather obvious that animals have emotion, as they show it and react to things in similar fashion than we do, but their lack of understanding and comprehension, as well as less autonomy than humans, is indicative that they do not "feel" in the way that we do.

Thankyou this is the time of year to stuff ourselfs, you have one also :)

ourselves*
Forgive me, I'm just a grammar nazi :p
::munches cookie gratefully::

Several years ago, I read of a black tomcat who followed his master, who had moved from the East Coast to Oregon, across the entire continental US.

The kitty crossed the Mississippi, the Great Plains, the Rockies. His journey took over 3 years.

By the time the cat found his master, he weighed but a few pounds and was missing a few toes and an ear, but his owner recognized him by his distinctive crooked tail and collar. The cat staggered up the driveway, up to the porch, but was too tired to jump into the guy's lap. He was also too tired to even eat but did drink a great deal. After a few weeks of r and r he was once again plump and glossy, and no worse the wear.

An absolutely astounding and true tale.

Now, some would say it was homing instinct that drove the cat to cross 3 thousand miles across the continent. Yet his master had only been living in Oregon a few weeks when the cat ran away from his new home on the East coast, where the guy had left him with friends.

Why did the cat do this then?

It could only be love.

Originally posted by rendova
Why did the cat do this then?

It could only be love.

It could "only" be 'love'? Nothing else?
Absolutely no other reason, nothing, no plausible cause in the entire universe could have led to that aside from 'love'?
I'm sorry, but that does not give a convincing, nor truthful, assessment of inherent bestial nature.

I see what you're getting at Evak, and, in a way, I agree.
Who of us knows what really goes on in an animal's mind?

After all, we cannot really communicate with them, except in very basic ways.

Still tho, to me, it does seem that this cat dearly loved his friend. It couldn't have been because he was hungry. He was well-fed at the guy's friend's house, and well taken care of...when I think of the li'l scudder crossing the Rockies, it brings a tear to my eye.

But I'm a sappy sort.

Originally posted by Evakian
Do 3.25 billion people have access to said stores and use them to abuse drugs?

Abuse comes in many sorts do we need a drug to lose weight do we need coffee to keep us going, do we need a drug for the common cold. NO NO NO so yes it is simple to prove just trun on the TV or check out how much these drug companies make. Alot of drugs today are not needed so when society uses them it is a form of abuse. Sure it isn't like a crack head on the street but it is abuse on a small scale.

Once again, if you've proof that 3.25 billion are drug addicts and another 3.25 billion are over-weight and "shopaholics", share your source.

like I said watch commercials look around drugs are big $$$$ and most of them are BS. Most folks fall into atleast one of the topics if not more, I'm not trying to sound harsh, just showing something that is common knowledge.



Had you read the passage, you should've gathered the vague idea of the enormity of intellect and technology applied into creating commercial narcotics, how humans are capable of such advanced activities that other animals cannot dream of; if they in fact, "dream".

Your claim was not implied in that passage.

Judging from your response, it was not already common knowledge.

I explained I agreed


Billions

so man as been around for billions of years hmmmmm can show me where you found this? I was using thousands because I wanted to show that we did use drugs before meth labs came to be. Plus has our{so called} intelligence helped us with the birth of cocaine crank etc.....{meaning what good has this done}? Sure we can build a bomb now lets see if we can build one big enough to explode the planet. There that'll show everyone/thing how smart we are. We were so smart we blew or arses to kingdom come. Aliens in outer space must watch us like a comedian show. Gluff Gluff whats on the tube tonight, Earth they're bulding some better hard core drugs electing another a** as a leader and making another bomb.

Sorry just having fun with us being super smart.



If you are suggesting that animals are superior intellectually to humans because they cannot develop market systems and currency, as well as languages, transportation, chemical experimentation, electronic communication, etc (as used in the elaborate scheme of drug trafficking), that is a slippery slope that you will find yourself losing the argument over.

come on, you can correct me on my spelling{which I don't mind :)} but then you try to make me look like a total idiot, why? you know I never said this infact I said the opposite.


Yes, because of our reasoning skills we are able to control the amount we take in, as well as refine the plant for easier, and higher quality usage.

this is why we see so many overdose deaths in the paper every week. I still get your point though.

If you care to argue the moral dilemma raised by drug usage that animals would shy away from out of natural inborn instinct and that humans forgo the acknowlegment of the dangers in order to attain pleasure, that does not denote "intelligence", just a sign that we are still very carnally driven as we are still apart of the ecosystem of these animals and plants. That is a topic for another thread.

agreed on both.



Your point?
These rebuttals you are using grow tiresome and everso indirect.

I was just trying to say how do we know how an animal feels? You seem to think because they are not human then they can not be emotional, they only act on instinct. I disagree with this, only this, I agree with you that we can build trains planes and automoblies. But I still feel animals have emotions mostly because of what I have seen read etc.... Sorry to tire you, get some sleep :)



The case of a wolf cub losing its paternal figure, and a human doing the same, is a differing scenario because of the animals lack of relationship bondage attained by our human interaction and does not understand the full ramifications of losing the parent.

How can you prove this to me, what proof do you have that shows a wolf cub wouldn't care about its parent. Lets say your not close to your parent, you'ld probably care less when they pass. Now lets say the wolf has been with their parent for years who would feel worse. I can't talk to the animals anymore then you can so how can we prove who is correct?



If you are stating that because of mankind's natural traits of curiosity, greed, and imagination push them forward to build and develop civilization and technology, and that animals don't do the same only because they are "content with how they live", is absurdity.

This may be my fault I figured you would allready have this answer the way you poked at me before:) Animals brains are different then ours so of course they are content with how they live they don't have the same drive that we do. Our brain wants to learn and create/invent. There brain wants to survive and on a much smaller scale build and learn. Even with that said how does it prove animals don't have emotions. An animal has the instinct to kill we also have this, now death is death and we can only kill as much as an animal. We can not over kill something when it is dead it is dead. My loved one dies thats it, I feel bad an animals loved one dies thats it, they feel bad. Now I can act out my emotion has hard as I want but does it really make me feel worse then an animal? You say yes I want to know were the real doc. dolittle lives so he could tell me what he told you.



Rather simple answer, we feel worse over the death of a loved one because we loved them. Animals do not emotionally 'love' so so to speak, and so they have no "loved ones", regardless of what you would raise up over your attachment to your pets.

I want solid proof of this, this is exactly what I've read over and over from you, show me the proof? Show me how you know for a fact that animals don't know love hate anger saddness? I am not talking about pets I'm trying to speak about all animals.



I have never watched the Jerry Springer show, nor plan to, but do they actually have nudity on that? Perplexing...

I don't watch it either but I do know they have quite a collection of nude shows.



It shows how more advanced we are, that we can develop the capabilities to have television, culture, language, medicine, and so on.

like I said that is obvious


Or the fact that there is one less member of the pack and so more effort has to be put in to raising the cubs. Are these researchers out of kindergarten?

Cubs take alot of time and energy is it worth it to raise them or just feed the healthy? Your starting to crasp at straws? this shows me that you feel the way you do because you are human and how dare an animal be anything but a smelly beast. Sorry but I am missing your reason as to why an animal can not have emotion other then the fact it is not human. Down slave you'll get your cup of muck when it's your turn you filthy beast{just being a smart a** not a personal attack :)} I am also showing that at one time the super smart owners believed the same thing about their slaves.



Humans have the emotional capacity to pass over the logical standpoint of letting the weaker die, and so we build to make a society where all are cared for and respected. Animals do not have such affectations afforded them.

Then why is it that there are animals that will take care of their sick weak etc...?



That also ties into the fact that they can't go in-depth with them, nor have the dependency that we do.
They do not trade sonnets while courting, they do not need to laugh every so often, they do not feel the frustration of growing up, they do not experience their emotions on the cognitive levels that we do.

Now I'll bring up pets; It is a fact that a happy pet will live longer. The rest I agree somewhat with.

Hunting stories are always interesting to hear, I do not hunt out of the lack of necessity to do so, also I feel it brings me and the animals unnecessary grief.

Agreed I enjoy watching, hunting, getting as close as possible to an animal, but it eats my insides out when the trigger as been pulled. One thing I do know is that the animal I hunt has had a better life then that of one raised in a cage. I eat meat if I can not accept the responsiblitiy of killing it then I feel I should eat lettuce JMO of myself.


I fathom you hunt because you grow tired of eating the processed and altered meats found at the grocer's, as you share with me a seated respect for the animal kingdom.

Yes we discussed this sometime back and I believe we are on the same note.



Prozac is the proper spelling for that drug. :)

thanks wasn't sure.



Because of our advanced psyche, that enables us to do so.

How do we know this 100% without being able to understand animals 100%?


Your arguments are rather poor, please save me the anguish of reading them unless you care to have a interesting debate, not one of such simplicity.

Your right my argument is very simple show me the proof that animals have no feelings. Not proof that we are humans and can build cars I have agreed with all of that. I want to know how you came to 100% positive answer?

Thanks alot for calling me simple :(



And don't use it loosely, use it flagrantly if you so wish, as it is nothing but absolute truth.

Nope, it is not absolute truth an intelligent being would not purposely hurt themselfs when they know better. I understand our quest for life and knowledge but when we are obess unsafe etc... why do we get food from from Mc D's. If we were so intelligent then we would be alot better off then we are now. This is another topic


Yes, for the most part I feel we are at a common understanding of each other's viewpoints, but what I wish to profess is that our different and more evolved workings than those of the animal kingdom, clearly show a vast differentiation from animals that carries over to feelings versus emotions. It is rather obvious that animals have emotion, as they show it and react to things in similar fashion than we do, but their lack of understanding and comprehension, as well as less autonomy than humans, is indicative that they do not "feel" in the way that we do.

I agree, my point is not they would feel the same as a human, but that doesn't take away the fact that they still could have feelings on a strong level.



Forgive me, I'm just a grammar nazi :p
::munches cookie gratefully::

I don't mind I make alot of mistakes don't really pay attention to what I'm doing. Of course I'm not here for english 101 I just like to hear ideas from others and see what all of life is like. So far the human race has brought much sorrow to how I use to look at things. Sometimes I can almost here the earth getting ready to blow its top and suck the human race away.

Originally posted by mad dog
Abuse comes in many sorts do we need a drug to lose weight do we need coffee to keep us going, do we need a drug for the common cold. NO NO NO so yes it is simple to prove just trun on the TV or check out how much these drug companies make. Alot of drugs today are not needed so when society uses them it is a form of abuse. Sure it isn't like a crack head on the street but it is abuse on a small scale.

You've failed to support your ludicrous claim, probably because you can't...as it is entirely false.

like I said watch commercials look around drugs are big $$$$ and most of them are BS. Most folks fall into atleast one of the topics if not more, I'm not trying to sound harsh, just showing something that is common knowledge.

Once again, no proof that 3.25 billion abuse drugs and that the other 3.25 billion are over-weight and "shopaholics". As it is a false claim, there is no reason to bother justifying it by claiming "common knowledge" or redefining the terms.

so man as been around for billions of years hmmmmm can show me where you found this?

Excuse me? That reference was at plants, not humanity.

The funny thing is that drugs{plants} and the goofy feeling has been around for thousands of years.

They have been around for billions of years, and I was merely point that out that it goes beyond "thousands", but further on.

Plus has our{so called} intelligence helped us with the birth of cocaine crank etc.....{meaning what good has this done}?

The good or bad of a product and or idea does not denote the intellect involved by their creators.

Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, which can be used in mining as well as other uses, such as a tool to kill people with. Does that make him a fool? Not at all.

Sure we can build a bomb now lets see if we can build one big enough to explode the planet.

Then have all the humans move to Mars and blow up that planet, that the evil, stupid humans will all die and the wonderful animals can frollick about slaying each other! Yay!

Sorry just having fun with us being super smart.

It is not in our best interests to make such an abomination like a bomb that could destroy a planet, as it will wield enormous danger for our domain here on Earth.

That does not mean the huge scientific and technological accomplishments involved in making such a device would be "stupid", just because the byproduct of their workings is lethal.

come on, you can correct me on my spelling{which I don't mind :)} but then you try to make me look like a total idiot, why? you know I never said this infact I said the opposite.

I do not wish to make you look like an idiot of any sort, we are having a discussion about the pros and cons of human intellect and how it ties into our emotional state in comparison with animals. You are on the stance that animals are no different than humans in their ability to experience feelings, I differ on that view, as I see it as faulty and untrue.

this is why we see so many overdose deaths in the paper every week. I still get your point though.

We've many irresponsible moronic individuals among us that intake too much narcotics, sometimes it may be accidental. However, that does not reveal any sort of faltering in the idea that humans are far more intelligent and capable than animals. And I'm sure we agree on that like you've stated. :)

I was just trying to say how do we know how an animal feels? You seem to think because they are not human then they can not be emotional, they only act on instinct. I disagree with this, only this, I agree with you that we can build trains planes and automoblies. But I still feel animals have emotions mostly because of what I have seen read etc.... Sorry to tire you, get some sleep :)

I'll sleep when I'm dead, as for the emotional status...I wish to point a difference between emotion and "feeling".

Surely animals can have emotion, they show it in awkward displays and behaviors just like we do. The question of whether they are in control of their mind and have the cognitive depth to understand the world that we do in order to "feel" on a mental level, which we can deduce that they do not.

We see a starving child, and do what we can to help it, our emotions take hold of us and we assist the child with food, shelter, support, etc.
An animal sees one of its youth, does it help the animal if it can, or only if it is convienient, does it shun the creature and let it die (as often seen in the previous example we've used with wolves). And if it does go through the trouble of bringing aid to said weak, is that out of pity, sadness, and guilt...or is it instinct. Based on our understanding of bestial behavior, their reactions and behaviors are entirely inherent instincts, they act without comprehension of the greater things going on, they act as "machines" of nature so to speak. Not autonomous beings as we are, or to the extent that we are.

How can you prove this to me, what proof do you have that shows a wolf cub wouldn't care about its parent.

It is an animal, the real question would be to prove that it would care. Its actions alone could be taken as instinct, its "feelings" (which are absent in creatures aside from humans) on the issue are impossible to determine.

Lets say your not close to your parent, you'ld probably care less when they pass.

you'd*

When you contract "would" (you'd, what'd, I'd, etc), you do not include the L. :D

Now lets say the wolf has been with their parent for years who would feel worse.

The human would have the ability to feel anguish over the passing, while the animal would not.
If the human does, is questionable.

[I can't talk to the animals anymore then you can so how can we prove who is correct?[/b]

By observance, study of behavior, diet, patterns, etc as well as examining their anatomical structure to determine that, it provides the best idea about the animal and how its workings occur.

This may be my fault I figured you would allready have this answer the way you poked at me before:) Animals brains are different then ours so of course they are content with how they live they don't have the same drive that we do. Our brain wants to learn and create/invent. There brain wants to survive and on a much smaller scale build and learn.

Yep...

Even with that said how does it prove animals don't have emotions.

They do. From the very beginning I have argued that they have emotions, but whether they experience the feelings that we do, is not realistic.

An animal has the instinct to kill we also have this, now death is death and we can only kill as much as an animal. We can not over kill something when it is dead it is dead.

We also can control ourselves to decide when to kill, and why.
Animals kill regardless, they will cannibalize their young rather than starve.

[]b]My loved one dies thats it, I feel bad an animals loved one dies thats it, they feel bad. Now I can act out my emotion has hard as I want but does it really make me feel worse then an animal?[/b]

I seem to not be getting my point across that animals have emotions, and have emotional displays. Humans on the other hand, have their natural, basic emotions, and deep-seated feelings that go on in the inner workings of the brain. That is a cause of the complexity of chemical reactions and "wirings" of our more advanced cranium, not present in theirs, so we can in fact determine if they "feel" on that mental level, like we do...

already*
their*
cannot*

I want solid proof of this, this is exactly what I've read over and over from you, show me the proof? Show me how you know for a fact that animals don't know love hate anger saddness? I am not talking about pets I'm trying to speak about all animals.

I could spend time doing research on the subject, analyze the differences in brain functions, read zoology reports on animal behavior, and type up a dissertation on the subject. It is the holidays, and I come here out of leisure, so I'd rather not take part in such an action.

Animals are inferior in their cognitive function, and so do not have the same gravity of the emotional understanding and spectrum as that. If you do not grasp this concept I shall have to cease the entire conversation.

Cubs take alot of time and energy is it worth it to raise them or just feed the healthy? Your starting to crasp at straws?

The word is grasp*
And no, I am not "grasping at straws".

this shows me that you feel the way you do because you are human and how dare an animal be anything but a smelly beast. Sorry but I am missing your reason as to why an animal can not have emotion other then the fact it is not human.

Once again, they have emotion. The reason they do not feel as we do is because they have a biologically differently structured cranium. You went over that, I went over that. Bigons be bigons, stop the conversation if you want to repeat the same points religiously.

Then why is it that there are animals that will take care of their sick weak etc...?

In the cases where animals of the same brood decide to care for the sick and/or weak among them, they do it out of an instinctual base that draws them to have that. If one animal dies, they will have more work on their hands in the ways of hunting, gathering, and protection.

Now I'll bring up pets; It is a fact that a happy pet will live longer.

It is rather elementary to determine that an animal given proper nutrition, medical attention, grooming, breeding, controlled enviroment, and regular attention, will live longer.

How do we know this 100% without being able to understand animals 100%?

Examining their anatomy, behaviors, and reactions will conjure up that result. If you wish to argue that animals have more advanced minds than humans, by all means show me the communication, transportation, enviromental manipulation, culture, and clothing that an animal species has made.

show me the proof that animals have no feelings...I want to know how you came to 100% positive answer?

I know that animals cannot have feelings, we've gone over this, differentiated between emotion and "feeling", defined terms, settled certain things, argued over specific species, gone on about the behaviors of humans versus animals, as well as our very society. I do not wish to go over it again.

Thanks alot for calling me simple :(

I called your position simple...and we traded cookies, I thought we were friends! :D

Nope, it is not absolute truth an intelligent being would not purposely hurt themselfs when they know better. I understand our quest for life and knowledge but when we are obess unsafe etc... why do we get food from from Mc D's. If we were so intelligent then we would be alot better off then we are now. This is another topic

Once again, if you are implying in any way, shape, or form that because of some faulty human indecision or poor decisions we've made that we are "not as intelligent" as animals, that is inane.

I agree, my point is not they would feel the same as a human, but that doesn't take away the fact that they still could have feelings on a strong level.

This is a fine statement, I do not wish to argue its premise. Can we halt the argument now, is this satisfactory? We are in terms of agreement on the subject.

I don't mind I make alot of mistakes don't really pay attention to what I'm doing. Of course I'm not here for english 101 I just like to hear ideas from others and see what all of life is like. So far the human race has brought much sorrow to how I use to look at things. Sometimes I can almost here the earth getting ready to blow its top and suck the human race away.

English 101*
used*
hear*

Yes, we've brought alot of changes to nature, we are an enigmatic breed of creatures. We do not function in the same way that the rest of nature seemingly does, but perhaps we shouldn't look at how different we are from nature and how that carries over to a negative viewpoint, but see ourselves as having a different purpose entirely because of our potency and supposed "superiority" over nature.

Originally posted by Evakian
You've failed to support your ludicrous claim, probably because you can't...as it is entirely false.

I disagree I showed a point but this topic doesn't matter:)

Excuse me? That reference was at plants, not humanity.

I was being a smart a--

Then have all the humans move to Mars and blow up that planet, that the evil, stupid humans will all die and the wonderful animals can frollick about slaying each other! Yay!

I was just trying to show that even though we think we are so smart we are slowly destroying the very thing that gives us life{the planet earth}. This to me doesn't seem so smart???

Surely animals can have emotion, they show it in awkward displays and behaviors just like we do. The question of whether they are in control of their mind and have the cognitive depth to understand the world that we do in order to "feel" on a mental level, which we can deduce that they do not.

okay agreed, I thought you were saying they had no emotion.


We see a starving child, and do what we can to help it, our emotions take hold of us and we assist the child with food, shelter, support, etc.
An animal sees one of its youth, does it help the animal if it can, or only if it is convienient, does it shun the creature and let it die (as often seen in the previous example we've used with wolves). And if it does go through the trouble of bringing aid to said weak, is that out of pity, sadness, and guilt...or is it instinct. Based on our understanding of bestial behavior, their reactions and behaviors are entirely inherent instincts, they act without comprehension of the greater things going on, they act as "machines" of nature so to speak. Not autonomous beings as we are, or to the extent that we are.

Didn't we act out of instinct up until just lately, maybe the animal does have the emotion but it can not afford to sit around and cry and carry on. We have this luxury now but at one time we did not, and our brain was just as big then. Once again I agree until you say they are acting like a "machine" this takes all spirit away from a living creature. An animal is not a robot or computer that can just shut off what it does not like. It does not walk around eat crap and sleep it does do alot more. Animals live in groups they communicate they learn and yes they feel. I just thought of one animal that you'll have a more interesting look into, the elephant, they do morn the death of their kind. Atleast that is what most scientist believe.



When you contract "would" (you'd, what'd, I'd, etc), you do not include the L. :D

thanks I'll try to remember that :)



They do. From the very beginning I have argued that they have emotions, but whether they experience the feelings that we do, is not realistic.

what if one day it is proven realistic? I do agree they are different then us. I'm going to try and explain something{the way I feel} I'll probably screw it up :D It is a fact our brain is bigger and our thinking is more complex, but don't certain parts of the brain control certain things. When we strave and our body starts eating itself away our reptile brain takes over converting us back to almost a robot{no emotions/just survival}. Our outer brain basically shuts down to save energy. Now lets break down the brain we all start with a basic structure, body function the need for food emotion etc.... then this is were humans change we go on, the need to invent and question everything. Is it possible that even animals have the emotion plug, just like they have the need to survive plug body function plug etc... I hope this made some sense or maybe atleast made you see some of my point of view.



We also can control ourselves to decide when to kill, and why.
Animals kill regardless, they will cannibalize their young rather than starve.

this is not allways true infact more times not. A mother bear will smack the crap out of an invading creature with no intent to kill just and intent to say stay back. Now she may not relize her strength, comparing a human to another bear. A chimp will fight {with another}to the end if needed but more often they will just put their rival in his place. Wolves will fight for power just like many other creatures{including humans} they do not cause death they just show who is boss.



I seem to not be getting my point across that animals have emotions, and have emotional displays. Humans on the other hand, have their natural, basic emotions, and deep-seated feelings that go on in the inner workings of the brain. That is a cause of the complexity of chemical reactions and "wirings" of our more advanced cranium, not present in theirs, so we can in fact determine if they "feel" on that mental level, like we do...

I did miss your point before as I said above sorry. Also take a look at what I wrote above I hope it made sense. Parts of the brain run certain things so maybe emotion is the same how we react is different because we are more complex?


I could spend time doing research on the subject, analyze the differences in brain functions, read zoology reports on animal behavior, and type up a dissertation on the subject. It is the holidays, and I come here out of leisure, so I'd rather not take part in such an action.

That is perfectly fine I would not expect that. Plus you could come up with one study then I could come up with another that would be different, simply because no one as a solid answer at this time.

In the cases where animals of the same brood decide to care for the sick and/or weak among them, they do it out of an instinctual base that draws them to have that. If one animal dies, they will have more work on their hands in the ways of hunting, gathering, and protection.

I feel it is more complex then this, this is where we differ the most{I think}



It is rather elementary to determine that an animal given proper nutrition, medical attention, grooming, breeding, controlled enviroment, and regular attention, will live longer.

You missed my point, take an animal and give it just what it needs the above. Don't give it attention etc... now take another animal give it the above plus throw in a little compassion play time and interaction see who lives longer. This as been done I can't remember were I've seen it, if I can I'll show it.{it was a long time ago}

something a little of topic; I was watching one of those old videos on the workings of the brain one thing they did was cut the head off a dog and keep it alive to see how or what it would do. To say the least it was very sad and sick{only humans in their quest for knowledge} I can say though from watching the dog it was very scared and sad. I wonder how a human would react too the same?



Examining their anatomy, behaviors, and reactions will conjure up that result. If you wish to argue that animals have more advanced minds than humans, by all means show me the communication, transportation, enviromental manipulation, culture, and clothing that an animal species has made.

why do you keep doing this I said I agree over and over :confused:



I called your position simple...and we traded cookies, I thought we were friends! :D

we are, I did not take it wrong, or I would have quit, believe it or not our opinion is not that far apart but that last 10,000 of an inch is a pain :D I am also learning a point of view from you instead of what others have done and just said STFU.


Yes, we've brought alot of changes to nature, we are an enigmatic breed of creatures. We do not function in the same way that the rest of nature seemingly does, but perhaps we shouldn't look at how different we are from nature and how that carries over to a negative viewpoint, but see ourselves as having a different purpose entirely because of our potency and supposed "superiority" over nature.


This as nothing to do with the animal topic{my statement}

Interesting way to look at things. The only problem is that without nature we will not exist without humans nature will exist. I also can not see us having superiority over something we do not understand and can not control. If we can control nature we have harnessed God?

After reading all that .........shoot me ..plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


Slim

Originally posted by mad dog
If we can control nature we have harnessed God?

It appears many of the arguments raised here have been resolved, and I am tired of carrying on the conversation, and I suspect you are as well. As for this question...that is rather off-topic and for another time and thread; it deals with a great many more issues with greater depth and other subjects.

Originally posted by slim
After reading all that .........shoot me ..plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

I don't believe assisted suicide is entirely lawful.

Originally posted by Evakian

If a child is nutured in the way of the uncivilized world or in the wild, there is a great chance of hindrances and disabilities and may function no more than an animal would.

Yes, they are too busy scrounging for food or killing each other or piling together mediocre nestings to work on advancing their knowledge and capabilities.

There have been a few studies of feral children, the most famous being Amala and Kamala from India, the German boy Kaspar Hauser and the French child known as the Wild Boy of Averon.

Though these children after being found were raised by humans they never exhibited the emotional maturity of other people. There emotions were, for the most part, more animalistic than human. That does not mean they did not feel emotions because there is very little doubt that animals can feel not only joy but sadness. One need only look at how elephants react to the bones of a dead elephant to see that. What animals cannot do is understand their own mortality. That is something only humans can do.