Congrats. Another content-free post.
No, it is not a “negative proof”. You are just using semantics to confuse the issue. If you do not understand logical fallacies, then there is not really much we can discuss intelligently.
Really? So when has an animal ever consented to being killed by a human? Or when has an animal consented to sex with a human? When has an animal consented to having its property taken by a human?
My guess is that you have no idea what the word “rational” means, because this is really pretty basic stuff. Again, we cannot really discuss things intelligently if you have no idea what ideas or words mean.
It has nothing to do with “like”. It just has to do with the fact that a just system has a consistent philosophy, whereas injustice has an arbitrary philosophy. A just system of law results in prosperity and happiness, whereas an unjust system of law and governance results in misery and poverty. My guess is that no one likes misery or poverty.
Really? When was the last time a retard told you they were insulted at being called a retard?
Actually the medical term is down-syndrome, autism, etc. The concept of calling someone a ‘retard’ is degatory in nature and I’m just asking if we really need to use insulting language while discussing innocent individuals.
Well I am smart enough to know that people don’t have to tell me they are insulted by using an insulting term to describe them.
No.//
we also cut their tails off.
Your first reply just doesn’t accept the fact that you’re requesting others to prove a negative. It had nothing to do with semantics.
Animals consent/don’t consent quite often, by the way; try to take a dogs bowl of food away while he’s eating.
As for rationality’s definition, it’s basically about the ability to use deductive reasoning. Macaca mulatta monkeys have been shown to be capable of deductive reasoning using visual cues in Puerto Rico as apart of a study featured in Current Biology on July 14th this year. So it does indeed seem that the scientific evidence does suggest that some animals outside of human beings do possess rationality.
I didn’t think retard was an insult. Instead of me writing out down-syndrome, autism, etc… individually, what is a broad term that includes them all. And by the way the concept was mentally retarded and when I divided retard from mentally it was when I copied and pasted the dictionary definition and term. That’s why I pointed out the dictionary term didn’t even have anything to say about an insult. It was a very proper definition for a general category of undeveloped humans.
I’ve done that numerous times. And?
So what was in these monkey’s heads?
But that would make sense.
Yes it does, and it is sad that I should have to educate you on what a negative proof is. It is impossible to prove not because it is a negative proof (which it is not), but because the animal cannot communicate with us rationally.
Instinct and rationality are two different things. Again, it is sad that I should have to educate you about the difference.
And again, I ask the same questions that you obviously refuse to answer. When has an animal ever consented to sex with a human, to being killed by a human, or to being “tortured” by a human?
I am am smart enough to know that retards do not have the mental capacity to understand what retard means, and as such they cannot be offended by the term.
Well your wrong. There is a percentage of individuals who have mental handicaps who are able to lead furfilling lives on their own and have the ability to conceptualize, rationalize and deduce. Really I think it petty to insult those individuals but what do you care? If you are so dismal as to insult the mentally disabled then you probably have no qualm about insulting really anyone.
I want to make a point. I was not insulting. I was using the best term available to describe something. So hopefully nobody was insulted. I take my leave of this discussion…[:)]
Well I’m not the word secret police. You are absolutely free to use the word, even Spidey who is being a petty brute about it can, hence why I didn’t say ‘no you can’t use that word’ but merely asked why should we?
Then you are no where near as smart as you think you are. Retard is a pejorative. While there are many mentally retarded people who will have no idea what you are talking about, the vast majority will understand that you are insulting them. it will hurt their feelings.
Please don’t take this to mean I’m telling you how to speak. I’m as sick of political correctness as anyone. If you want to use retard or nigger or any other perjorative, go right ahead. Screw those who are offended. But beyond offense, you make actually hurt someone’s feelings. It’s not like these people don’t realize they’re different. It’s not like they can just choose to be smarter. I’ve never seen the sense in insulting people for having traits they cannot change.
Oh, I was under the impression that when you ask us to prove the animal didn’t want to be tortured, you were asking us to prove the animal was fine with being tortured because we can’t prove he didn’t want it.
My mistake.
[8-)]
That doesn’t sound like instinct to me - or the rest of the scientific community who don’t really use the term anymore. Instinct is more like mating patterns or hibernation, not feasting and feeding. Some animals are fine with one person taking their food bowl away but not another. If this were instinctual, it wouldn’t really matter.
Already addressed that.
So you’re just going to completely ignore the scientific evidence for deductive reasoning in high primates outside of the human race? You do realize deductive reasoning is central to the definition of rationality, right?
I’m done with this, no further fruit can be gained from discussing the matter with you. Your opinions are as fixed as instincts. [;)]
Sometimes they snap and other times they don’t. Either way, they’re “consenting” or “not consenting.” The interesting thing, however, is that it’s usually dependant on the person taking the food bowl away and not on levels of hunger. It would seem that this is a learned behavior then instead of an “instinct.”
Apparently the ability to read your mind.
I’m sorry, I just think that the article has the best title ever.
Buckley is not expected to be ready for adoption until mid-August, but is already recovering.
“They don’t hold grudges,” Ms Conroy said.
"This little dog is just looking for the best in everybody.
“He’s cautious when he first meets people and obviously is quite sensitive around his head . . . but once he feels safe in your company, he’s bouncing around.”
Curlz.
This is a dog. It’s not a human being. As proof, I present the quotes above, from the article. If this were a human being, it probably wouldn’t be so happy and cute, bouncing around, after being tortured and mutilated.
When we jail people for hurting animals, where does it end? With cute little puppies? kittens? cows? pigs? rats? spiders? amoeba?
You’re anthropomorphizing this animal because it’s a cute companion, a pet. But it’s still only an animal, it’s not a human.
Sorry if this offends some of you, but stop being irrational–don’t attribute human feelings and human rights to nonhumans. If you care this much about puppies, start a fund to buy puppies from people who think they’re going to abuse them. Worried about rent-seeking behavior? Figure something else out. But don’t try to use the harsh apparatus of the state to coerce all of us into seeing the world the way you do. And use your own money, not ours.