Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Ethics of Neutering

Page 6 of 7 [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

28 Feb 2017, 8:39 pm

Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
devilSpawn wrote:
yes, it is morally wrong to intentionally end the life of another living being who's life you are not responsible for giving. It is traditionally known as "murder", technically. adopting strict "respect for the living" and "equal rights" practices in the nearest future is absolutely, fundamentally essential in preventing the extinction of the human species. But, economic and political GAMES are so much more important. "humans are the top of the food chain" Puke

That thinking has us at the bottom of the ethical totem pole; below maggots, pigs, cockroaches and everything else we make war on and kill ourselves (and children) in the process.
stupid humans.

you must be "very high functioning", you seem to be lesser gifted with "reality vision" and more susceptible to indoctrination than most on the spectrum I have encountered...

*edit, hey, I thought you were someone else I was ripping on. My mistake but your argument and reasoning IS foolish. Read "Myth of Human Supremacy" by Derrick Jensen if you want a breakdown on the scientific proof that contends starkly with your reasoning.


I have no idea who/what you are referring to.

Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
So, the typical response is that neutering a pet is the right thing to do because otherwise it will get pregnant, then there will be too many of that pet, and their descendants will be miserable because overpopulation. However, neutering just comes across of a fundamentally immoral act to me, and I've figured out why: it's the nature of animals to reproduce, they WANT to reproduce, and you're denying that from them in a very invasive manner by altering their anatomy. It's wrong to do to a person, so should it also be wrong to do to an animal? However, if the animals breed out of control their descendants won't be able to breed due to a lack of resources, so that's no good by much of the same reasoning. So how is this ethical dilemma resolved?



They don't want to reproduce. They want to have sex, and they have no knowledge that having sex can result in reproduction. Removing the reproductive organs relieves them of the desire to have sex. When you neuter male cats and dogs, you eliminate the variable of sexual frustration from their lives, and with cats, you also reduce the desire of the male to roam and fight. When you spay female cats and dogs, you reduce their risk of developing cancer and eliminate their risk of dying from birth complications.


How do you know they don't want to reproduce? Just because they don't understand the causality doesn't mean the desire isn't there in some form. The purpose of sex is not for pleasure, but to reproduce. The rest of it I've previously covered with my firm anti-hedonism stance.


Because to want to reproduce, they would have to have a concept of reproduction. The desire nature uses to get mammals to reproduce is sexual desire.


They care for their young, do they not? That has nothing to do with sex. You also missed all my non-hedonistic reasoning.


That also has nothing to do with wanting to reproduce.


Yes, it does, because young are the result of reproduction.


Cats and dogs don't know that. With respect to reproduction and child rearing, they know two things.

1. They want to get it on...they don't know why.
2. The female wants to care for her offspring. She doesn't know why.
They probably never even ponder the why.

Here is an interesting observation. When one of the cats that lived in my house was pregnant, she went around and rounded up all of her toys, and put them in a nest she had made in a bag on the floor. That was her maternal instinct kicking in.

Female cats and dogs who have recently given birth have also been known to "foster" baby animals of other species. They act on instinctive compulsions and emotions with respect to reproduction and offspring rearing, and don't have the capacity to equate it with species propagation.


The problem is you are reducing want to semantic knowledge of consequences. Animals don't have semantic knowledge because they don't have the mental hardware for symbolic reasoning. As such, a different approach needs to be taken.


I'm not particularly familiar with those terms. Could you please rephrase in a more colloquial fashion?



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,777
Location: USA

02 Mar 2017, 12:30 am

Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
devilSpawn wrote:
yes, it is morally wrong to intentionally end the life of another living being who's life you are not responsible for giving. It is traditionally known as "murder", technically. adopting strict "respect for the living" and "equal rights" practices in the nearest future is absolutely, fundamentally essential in preventing the extinction of the human species. But, economic and political GAMES are so much more important. "humans are the top of the food chain" Puke

That thinking has us at the bottom of the ethical totem pole; below maggots, pigs, cockroaches and everything else we make war on and kill ourselves (and children) in the process.
stupid humans.

you must be "very high functioning", you seem to be lesser gifted with "reality vision" and more susceptible to indoctrination than most on the spectrum I have encountered...

*edit, hey, I thought you were someone else I was ripping on. My mistake but your argument and reasoning IS foolish. Read "Myth of Human Supremacy" by Derrick Jensen if you want a breakdown on the scientific proof that contends starkly with your reasoning.


I have no idea who/what you are referring to.

Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
So, the typical response is that neutering a pet is the right thing to do because otherwise it will get pregnant, then there will be too many of that pet, and their descendants will be miserable because overpopulation. However, neutering just comes across of a fundamentally immoral act to me, and I've figured out why: it's the nature of animals to reproduce, they WANT to reproduce, and you're denying that from them in a very invasive manner by altering their anatomy. It's wrong to do to a person, so should it also be wrong to do to an animal? However, if the animals breed out of control their descendants won't be able to breed due to a lack of resources, so that's no good by much of the same reasoning. So how is this ethical dilemma resolved?



They don't want to reproduce. They want to have sex, and they have no knowledge that having sex can result in reproduction. Removing the reproductive organs relieves them of the desire to have sex. When you neuter male cats and dogs, you eliminate the variable of sexual frustration from their lives, and with cats, you also reduce the desire of the male to roam and fight. When you spay female cats and dogs, you reduce their risk of developing cancer and eliminate their risk of dying from birth complications.


How do you know they don't want to reproduce? Just because they don't understand the causality doesn't mean the desire isn't there in some form. The purpose of sex is not for pleasure, but to reproduce. The rest of it I've previously covered with my firm anti-hedonism stance.


Because to want to reproduce, they would have to have a concept of reproduction. The desire nature uses to get mammals to reproduce is sexual desire.


They care for their young, do they not? That has nothing to do with sex. You also missed all my non-hedonistic reasoning.


That also has nothing to do with wanting to reproduce.


Yes, it does, because young are the result of reproduction.


Cats and dogs don't know that. With respect to reproduction and child rearing, they know two things.

1. They want to get it on...they don't know why.
2. The female wants to care for her offspring. She doesn't know why.
They probably never even ponder the why.

Here is an interesting observation. When one of the cats that lived in my house was pregnant, she went around and rounded up all of her toys, and put them in a nest she had made in a bag on the floor. That was her maternal instinct kicking in.

Female cats and dogs who have recently given birth have also been known to "foster" baby animals of other species. They act on instinctive compulsions and emotions with respect to reproduction and offspring rearing, and don't have the capacity to equate it with species propagation.


The problem is you are reducing want to semantic knowledge of consequences. Animals don't have semantic knowledge because they don't have the mental hardware for symbolic reasoning. As such, a different approach needs to be taken.


I'm not particularly familiar with those terms. Could you please rephrase in a more colloquial fashion?


I don't think I really can, because it's a very technical distinction between human thought and animal thought. Basically humans can use language because think using symbols, and no other animals has been found with that capacity. When tackling animal motivation, you need to get out of that box.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

02 Mar 2017, 12:59 am

Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
devilSpawn wrote:
yes, it is morally wrong to intentionally end the life of another living being who's life you are not responsible for giving. It is traditionally known as "murder", technically. adopting strict "respect for the living" and "equal rights" practices in the nearest future is absolutely, fundamentally essential in preventing the extinction of the human species. But, economic and political GAMES are so much more important. "humans are the top of the food chain" Puke

That thinking has us at the bottom of the ethical totem pole; below maggots, pigs, cockroaches and everything else we make war on and kill ourselves (and children) in the process.
stupid humans.

you must be "very high functioning", you seem to be lesser gifted with "reality vision" and more susceptible to indoctrination than most on the spectrum I have encountered...

*edit, hey, I thought you were someone else I was ripping on. My mistake but your argument and reasoning IS foolish. Read "Myth of Human Supremacy" by Derrick Jensen if you want a breakdown on the scientific proof that contends starkly with your reasoning.


I have no idea who/what you are referring to.

Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
So, the typical response is that neutering a pet is the right thing to do because otherwise it will get pregnant, then there will be too many of that pet, and their descendants will be miserable because overpopulation. However, neutering just comes across of a fundamentally immoral act to me, and I've figured out why: it's the nature of animals to reproduce, they WANT to reproduce, and you're denying that from them in a very invasive manner by altering their anatomy. It's wrong to do to a person, so should it also be wrong to do to an animal? However, if the animals breed out of control their descendants won't be able to breed due to a lack of resources, so that's no good by much of the same reasoning. So how is this ethical dilemma resolved?



They don't want to reproduce. They want to have sex, and they have no knowledge that having sex can result in reproduction. Removing the reproductive organs relieves them of the desire to have sex. When you neuter male cats and dogs, you eliminate the variable of sexual frustration from their lives, and with cats, you also reduce the desire of the male to roam and fight. When you spay female cats and dogs, you reduce their risk of developing cancer and eliminate their risk of dying from birth complications.


How do you know they don't want to reproduce? Just because they don't understand the causality doesn't mean the desire isn't there in some form. The purpose of sex is not for pleasure, but to reproduce. The rest of it I've previously covered with my firm anti-hedonism stance.


Because to want to reproduce, they would have to have a concept of reproduction. The desire nature uses to get mammals to reproduce is sexual desire.


They care for their young, do they not? That has nothing to do with sex. You also missed all my non-hedonistic reasoning.


That also has nothing to do with wanting to reproduce.


Yes, it does, because young are the result of reproduction.


Cats and dogs don't know that. With respect to reproduction and child rearing, they know two things.

1. They want to get it on...they don't know why.
2. The female wants to care for her offspring. She doesn't know why.
They probably never even ponder the why.

Here is an interesting observation. When one of the cats that lived in my house was pregnant, she went around and rounded up all of her toys, and put them in a nest she had made in a bag on the floor. That was her maternal instinct kicking in.

Female cats and dogs who have recently given birth have also been known to "foster" baby animals of other species. They act on instinctive compulsions and emotions with respect to reproduction and offspring rearing, and don't have the capacity to equate it with species propagation.


The problem is you are reducing want to semantic knowledge of consequences. Animals don't have semantic knowledge because they don't have the mental hardware for symbolic reasoning. As such, a different approach needs to be taken.


I'm not particularly familiar with those terms. Could you please rephrase in a more colloquial fashion?


I don't think I really can, because it's a very technical distinction between human thought and animal thought. Basically humans can use language because think using symbols, and no other animals has been found with that capacity. When tackling animal motivation, you need to get out of that box.


I think they just feel sexually aroused and never think about why. Just like when they feel thirsty and drink, or hungry and eat, and itchy and scratch. I don't think they have any idea why, or even question why, or that they know they will die if they don't eat and drink. I'm talking about cats and dogs with respect to this example. I think the great apes might be able to learn that sex results in babies if they were told so. I'm not sure they would gather this from observation. There are a few human societies that didn't make the connection on their own.



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,777
Location: USA

03 Mar 2017, 5:42 am

Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
devilSpawn wrote:
yes, it is morally wrong to intentionally end the life of another living being who's life you are not responsible for giving. It is traditionally known as "murder", technically. adopting strict "respect for the living" and "equal rights" practices in the nearest future is absolutely, fundamentally essential in preventing the extinction of the human species. But, economic and political GAMES are so much more important. "humans are the top of the food chain" Puke

That thinking has us at the bottom of the ethical totem pole; below maggots, pigs, cockroaches and everything else we make war on and kill ourselves (and children) in the process.
stupid humans.

you must be "very high functioning", you seem to be lesser gifted with "reality vision" and more susceptible to indoctrination than most on the spectrum I have encountered...

*edit, hey, I thought you were someone else I was ripping on. My mistake but your argument and reasoning IS foolish. Read "Myth of Human Supremacy" by Derrick Jensen if you want a breakdown on the scientific proof that contends starkly with your reasoning.


I have no idea who/what you are referring to.

Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
So, the typical response is that neutering a pet is the right thing to do because otherwise it will get pregnant, then there will be too many of that pet, and their descendants will be miserable because overpopulation. However, neutering just comes across of a fundamentally immoral act to me, and I've figured out why: it's the nature of animals to reproduce, they WANT to reproduce, and you're denying that from them in a very invasive manner by altering their anatomy. It's wrong to do to a person, so should it also be wrong to do to an animal? However, if the animals breed out of control their descendants won't be able to breed due to a lack of resources, so that's no good by much of the same reasoning. So how is this ethical dilemma resolved?



They don't want to reproduce. They want to have sex, and they have no knowledge that having sex can result in reproduction. Removing the reproductive organs relieves them of the desire to have sex. When you neuter male cats and dogs, you eliminate the variable of sexual frustration from their lives, and with cats, you also reduce the desire of the male to roam and fight. When you spay female cats and dogs, you reduce their risk of developing cancer and eliminate their risk of dying from birth complications.


How do you know they don't want to reproduce? Just because they don't understand the causality doesn't mean the desire isn't there in some form. The purpose of sex is not for pleasure, but to reproduce. The rest of it I've previously covered with my firm anti-hedonism stance.


Because to want to reproduce, they would have to have a concept of reproduction. The desire nature uses to get mammals to reproduce is sexual desire.


They care for their young, do they not? That has nothing to do with sex. You also missed all my non-hedonistic reasoning.


That also has nothing to do with wanting to reproduce.


Yes, it does, because young are the result of reproduction.


Cats and dogs don't know that. With respect to reproduction and child rearing, they know two things.

1. They want to get it on...they don't know why.
2. The female wants to care for her offspring. She doesn't know why.
They probably never even ponder the why.

Here is an interesting observation. When one of the cats that lived in my house was pregnant, she went around and rounded up all of her toys, and put them in a nest she had made in a bag on the floor. That was her maternal instinct kicking in.

Female cats and dogs who have recently given birth have also been known to "foster" baby animals of other species. They act on instinctive compulsions and emotions with respect to reproduction and offspring rearing, and don't have the capacity to equate it with species propagation.


The problem is you are reducing want to semantic knowledge of consequences. Animals don't have semantic knowledge because they don't have the mental hardware for symbolic reasoning. As such, a different approach needs to be taken.


I'm not particularly familiar with those terms. Could you please rephrase in a more colloquial fashion?


I don't think I really can, because it's a very technical distinction between human thought and animal thought. Basically humans can use language because think using symbols, and no other animals has been found with that capacity. When tackling animal motivation, you need to get out of that box.


I think they just feel sexually aroused and never think about why. Just like when they feel thirsty and drink, or hungry and eat, and itchy and scratch. I don't think they have any idea why, or even question why, or that they know they will die if they don't eat and drink. I'm talking about cats and dogs with respect to this example. I think the great apes might be able to learn that sex results in babies if they were told so. I'm not sure they would gather this from observation. There are a few human societies that didn't make the connection on their own.


And I'm saying that's wrong way to approach it because it's not how they think about things.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

03 Mar 2017, 10:32 pm

Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
devilSpawn wrote:
yes, it is morally wrong to intentionally end the life of another living being who's life you are not responsible for giving. It is traditionally known as "murder", technically. adopting strict "respect for the living" and "equal rights" practices in the nearest future is absolutely, fundamentally essential in preventing the extinction of the human species. But, economic and political GAMES are so much more important. "humans are the top of the food chain" Puke

That thinking has us at the bottom of the ethical totem pole; below maggots, pigs, cockroaches and everything else we make war on and kill ourselves (and children) in the process.
stupid humans.

you must be "very high functioning", you seem to be lesser gifted with "reality vision" and more susceptible to indoctrination than most on the spectrum I have encountered...

*edit, hey, I thought you were someone else I was ripping on. My mistake but your argument and reasoning IS foolish. Read "Myth of Human Supremacy" by Derrick Jensen if you want a breakdown on the scientific proof that contends starkly with your reasoning.


I have no idea who/what you are referring to.

Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
So, the typical response is that neutering a pet is the right thing to do because otherwise it will get pregnant, then there will be too many of that pet, and their descendants will be miserable because overpopulation. However, neutering just comes across of a fundamentally immoral act to me, and I've figured out why: it's the nature of animals to reproduce, they WANT to reproduce, and you're denying that from them in a very invasive manner by altering their anatomy. It's wrong to do to a person, so should it also be wrong to do to an animal? However, if the animals breed out of control their descendants won't be able to breed due to a lack of resources, so that's no good by much of the same reasoning. So how is this ethical dilemma resolved?



They don't want to reproduce. They want to have sex, and they have no knowledge that having sex can result in reproduction. Removing the reproductive organs relieves them of the desire to have sex. When you neuter male cats and dogs, you eliminate the variable of sexual frustration from their lives, and with cats, you also reduce the desire of the male to roam and fight. When you spay female cats and dogs, you reduce their risk of developing cancer and eliminate their risk of dying from birth complications.


How do you know they don't want to reproduce? Just because they don't understand the causality doesn't mean the desire isn't there in some form. The purpose of sex is not for pleasure, but to reproduce. The rest of it I've previously covered with my firm anti-hedonism stance.


Because to want to reproduce, they would have to have a concept of reproduction. The desire nature uses to get mammals to reproduce is sexual desire.


They care for their young, do they not? That has nothing to do with sex. You also missed all my non-hedonistic reasoning.


That also has nothing to do with wanting to reproduce.


Yes, it does, because young are the result of reproduction.


Cats and dogs don't know that. With respect to reproduction and child rearing, they know two things.

1. They want to get it on...they don't know why.
2. The female wants to care for her offspring. She doesn't know why.
They probably never even ponder the why.

Here is an interesting observation. When one of the cats that lived in my house was pregnant, she went around and rounded up all of her toys, and put them in a nest she had made in a bag on the floor. That was her maternal instinct kicking in.

Female cats and dogs who have recently given birth have also been known to "foster" baby animals of other species. They act on instinctive compulsions and emotions with respect to reproduction and offspring rearing, and don't have the capacity to equate it with species propagation.


The problem is you are reducing want to semantic knowledge of consequences. Animals don't have semantic knowledge because they don't have the mental hardware for symbolic reasoning. As such, a different approach needs to be taken.


I'm not particularly familiar with those terms. Could you please rephrase in a more colloquial fashion?


I don't think I really can, because it's a very technical distinction between human thought and animal thought. Basically humans can use language because think using symbols, and no other animals has been found with that capacity. When tackling animal motivation, you need to get out of that box.


I think they just feel sexually aroused and never think about why. Just like when they feel thirsty and drink, or hungry and eat, and itchy and scratch. I don't think they have any idea why, or even question why, or that they know they will die if they don't eat and drink. I'm talking about cats and dogs with respect to this example. I think the great apes might be able to learn that sex results in babies if they were told so. I'm not sure they would gather this from observation. There are a few human societies that didn't make the connection on their own.


And I'm saying that's wrong way to approach it because it's not how they think about things.


How do you think they think about things?



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,777
Location: USA

05 Mar 2017, 9:37 pm

Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
devilSpawn wrote:
yes, it is morally wrong to intentionally end the life of another living being who's life you are not responsible for giving. It is traditionally known as "murder", technically. adopting strict "respect for the living" and "equal rights" practices in the nearest future is absolutely, fundamentally essential in preventing the extinction of the human species. But, economic and political GAMES are so much more important. "humans are the top of the food chain" Puke

That thinking has us at the bottom of the ethical totem pole; below maggots, pigs, cockroaches and everything else we make war on and kill ourselves (and children) in the process.
stupid humans.

you must be "very high functioning", you seem to be lesser gifted with "reality vision" and more susceptible to indoctrination than most on the spectrum I have encountered...

*edit, hey, I thought you were someone else I was ripping on. My mistake but your argument and reasoning IS foolish. Read "Myth of Human Supremacy" by Derrick Jensen if you want a breakdown on the scientific proof that contends starkly with your reasoning.


I have no idea who/what you are referring to.

Chronos wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
So, the typical response is that neutering a pet is the right thing to do because otherwise it will get pregnant, then there will be too many of that pet, and their descendants will be miserable because overpopulation. However, neutering just comes across of a fundamentally immoral act to me, and I've figured out why: it's the nature of animals to reproduce, they WANT to reproduce, and you're denying that from them in a very invasive manner by altering their anatomy. It's wrong to do to a person, so should it also be wrong to do to an animal? However, if the animals breed out of control their descendants won't be able to breed due to a lack of resources, so that's no good by much of the same reasoning. So how is this ethical dilemma resolved?



They don't want to reproduce. They want to have sex, and they have no knowledge that having sex can result in reproduction. Removing the reproductive organs relieves them of the desire to have sex. When you neuter male cats and dogs, you eliminate the variable of sexual frustration from their lives, and with cats, you also reduce the desire of the male to roam and fight. When you spay female cats and dogs, you reduce their risk of developing cancer and eliminate their risk of dying from birth complications.


How do you know they don't want to reproduce? Just because they don't understand the causality doesn't mean the desire isn't there in some form. The purpose of sex is not for pleasure, but to reproduce. The rest of it I've previously covered with my firm anti-hedonism stance.


Because to want to reproduce, they would have to have a concept of reproduction. The desire nature uses to get mammals to reproduce is sexual desire.


They care for their young, do they not? That has nothing to do with sex. You also missed all my non-hedonistic reasoning.


That also has nothing to do with wanting to reproduce.


Yes, it does, because young are the result of reproduction.


Cats and dogs don't know that. With respect to reproduction and child rearing, they know two things.

1. They want to get it on...they don't know why.
2. The female wants to care for her offspring. She doesn't know why.
They probably never even ponder the why.

Here is an interesting observation. When one of the cats that lived in my house was pregnant, she went around and rounded up all of her toys, and put them in a nest she had made in a bag on the floor. That was her maternal instinct kicking in.

Female cats and dogs who have recently given birth have also been known to "foster" baby animals of other species. They act on instinctive compulsions and emotions with respect to reproduction and offspring rearing, and don't have the capacity to equate it with species propagation.


The problem is you are reducing want to semantic knowledge of consequences. Animals don't have semantic knowledge because they don't have the mental hardware for symbolic reasoning. As such, a different approach needs to be taken.


I'm not particularly familiar with those terms. Could you please rephrase in a more colloquial fashion?


I don't think I really can, because it's a very technical distinction between human thought and animal thought. Basically humans can use language because think using symbols, and no other animals has been found with that capacity. When tackling animal motivation, you need to get out of that box.


I think they just feel sexually aroused and never think about why. Just like when they feel thirsty and drink, or hungry and eat, and itchy and scratch. I don't think they have any idea why, or even question why, or that they know they will die if they don't eat and drink. I'm talking about cats and dogs with respect to this example. I think the great apes might be able to learn that sex results in babies if they were told so. I'm not sure they would gather this from observation. There are a few human societies that didn't make the connection on their own.


And I'm saying that's wrong way to approach it because it's not how they think about things.


How do you think they think about things?


They experience and they plan without words.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

05 Mar 2017, 10:03 pm

Sigh... :roll:
Ganondox, have you adopted one of these dogs or cats that are the product of non-neutering?


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


devilSpawn
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 15 Feb 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Oregon

06 Mar 2017, 6:08 pm

Ganondox wrote:
Chronos wrote:

Cats and dogs don't know that. With respect to reproduction and child rearing, they know two things.

1. They want to get it on...they don't know why.
2. The female wants to care for her offspring. She doesn't know why.
They probably never even ponder the why.

Here is an interesting observation. When one of the cats that lived in my house was pregnant, she went around and rounded up all of her toys, and put them in a nest she had made in a bag on the floor. That was her maternal instinct kicking in.

Female cats and dogs who have recently given birth have also been known to "foster" baby animals of other species. They act on instinctive compulsions and emotions with respect to reproduction and offspring rearing, and don't have the capacity to equate it with species propagation.


The problem is you are reducing want to semantic knowledge of consequences. Animals don't have semantic knowledge because they don't have the mental hardware for symbolic reasoning. As such, a different approach needs to be taken.


@chronos "they/she don't/doesn't know why" is very absurd assumption to make. 1. You are not a bird, you don't know what language the birds think in or have the faintest clue the depth of said thoughts... You ASSUME they do not think because you're convinced "only humans are capable of thought", when all the evidence in the world right before your eyes screams otherwise. This perception issue is caused by a flaw in human character not a flaw in human nature and I posit that it is entirely a product of "nurturing" and not something humans are "born with". Is what it is.

"anthropomorphism" is actually not a bad thing... it is the first step in establishing a connection where 2-way communication with other creatures is possible; first step toward "empathy". Humans are animals no greater than the animals they assume to be greater than (due to the vicious capability of the human to destroy, enslave and kill without remorse); what humans experience cognitively is not terribly different from what other animals experience, except that nearly all current human cognition is focused on "fiction" and perpetuating games of violence and conquest over the natural world... humans don't use much of their cognition connecting with the natural world, rather, they spend it "ruling over" it instead. Again, fatal flaw in human character. You are wrong to assume that animals don't know the answer to "why" about anything, you are especially wrong to assume they do not spend any of their cognition pondering things and if you are always "lord" over the animals in your experience, I doubt that you have any experience with 2-way communication with them. is what it is.

@Ganondox perhaps our "symbolic reasoning" is why we are disconnected from the natural world as a naturally occurring species in the earth?

Think about it... our "law" (government; politics) is entirely a product of "symbolic reasoning" as it is entirely made up, make-believe fiction... economics? Same thing. Religion? yep. All make-believe fiction... humans with their "symbolic reasoning" keep perpetuating it, in fact, humans are trained (direct and environmentally) to function perhaps exclusively within the entire network of fictions and those who don't take well to the training are labeled "disabled" and such. Hence, autism being considered "disabling"...
Humans are generally quite stupid, look at the consequences for all this s**t they view themselves "superior" for doing, and of course they are arrogantly so.

as far as "semantic knowledge of consequences" goes... pretty arrogant to assume they have no meaningful knowledge of the world around them... just as humans have meaningful knowledge of the things they focus their cognition on, so do the rest of earth's animals and only a flaw in character would ASSUME otherwise. A flaw that seems to be designed into the system of fiction to be maximally produced through perpetual nurturing to this effect.

I have seen a few things that you have said that are spot on but you are wrong about this part... if you are on the spectrum you should embrace the wild critter within and shed away a bunch of this "nurtured" fiction from your cognition... you will learn a whole lot about reality, but be warned, once you explore and discover the depths of the fiction you can't unlearn that s**t :/



BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

06 Mar 2017, 9:09 pm

I have heard that neutering can reduce aggression. Spaying in dogs decreases there risk of cancer. I would say creating puppies without care for them is many times more cruel than fixing them.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

08 Mar 2017, 7:41 am

Ganondox wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
starkid wrote:

You seemed to have missed my point where "no one can agree were to draw the line when it comes to ethics," and the point was that your evocation of the anthropomorphic fallacy has nothing to do with the argument. The argument is based on a scheme of ethics which would already account for that.


No, I didn't.

Speculating on what animals "want," and then using our own desires and expectations to answer that question is anthropomorphism in a nutshell.

I still haven't seen any evidence that animals "want" to reproduce, or that they're unduly distraught when that option is taken away from them.


I can turn it right back on you. The problem is you're anthropomorphizing the concept of want as needing to exist in a symbolic thought context rather than in a naturalistic context.


Well, when you can prove animals "want" to reproduce, in whatever capacity, then I'm all ears.

Until then, I'll continue fixing my pets.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


lostonearth35
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,507
Location: Lost on Earth, waddya think?

08 Mar 2017, 1:45 pm

If you can't or won't spay or neuter your pet, then you should not even be allowed to have one.:shameonyou: There are too many stray pets, many of them sick and suffering, and that is much more cruel and inhumane than a surgical procedure that will not make your pet fat and lazy. If anything they will be more content, healthier, and they will not be stressed out from sexual frustration. Cats and dogs mate only to reproduce. It's instinct. They don't do it for pleasure and they lack the intelligence and morality to know why they shouldn't mate.

Honestly, I wonder why we don't do the same thing to some humans. Especially rapists and child molesters. :twisted:



BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

08 Mar 2017, 9:27 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
starkid wrote:

You seemed to have missed my point where "no one can agree were to draw the line when it comes to ethics," and the point was that your evocation of the anthropomorphic fallacy has nothing to do with the argument. The argument is based on a scheme of ethics which would already account for that.


No, I didn't.

Speculating on what animals "want," and then using our own desires and expectations to answer that question is anthropomorphism in a nutshell.

I still haven't seen any evidence that animals "want" to reproduce, or that they're unduly distraught when that option is taken away from them.


I can turn it right back on you. The problem is you're anthropomorphizing the concept of want as needing to exist in a symbolic thought context rather than in a naturalistic context.


Well, when you can prove animals "want" to reproduce, in whatever capacity, then I'm all ears.

Until then, I'll continue fixing my pets.


All animals want to reproduce, but I agree spaying and neutering is the best choice. I have read that fixing in male dogs can help reduce aggression and that female dogs are less prone to certain cancers when spayed.



devilSpawn
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 15 Feb 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Oregon

11 Mar 2017, 2:10 am

lostonearth35 wrote:
If you can't or won't spay or neuter your pet, then you should not even be allowed to have one.:shameonyou: There are too many stray pets, many of them sick and suffering, and that is much more cruel and inhumane than a surgical procedure that will not make your pet fat and lazy. If anything they will be more content, healthier, and they will not be stressed out from sexual frustration. Cats and dogs mate only to reproduce. It's instinct. They don't do it for pleasure and they lack the intelligence and morality to know why they shouldn't mate.

Honestly, I wonder why we don't do the same thing to some humans. Especially rapists and child molesters. :twisted:



judging by your ridiculous position in this very ignorant comment of yours, I highly doubt that your IQ is adequate for warranting any "curiosity" or interest on your part sufficient for reading these articles and gaining actual knowledge (as opposed to silly opinions), but, just in case I am wrong in my assumption, here is a list of articles that you can read to gain some knowledge and perspective on the subject... you know, the beginning of "wisdom" and "change"...

enjoy.


http://dialogues.rutgers.edu/all-journa ... ation/file

https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/10/ste ... sabilities

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3561518?se ... b_contents

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/1066 ... 25_eng.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12587134

https://dailyreckoning.com/animal-right ... an-rights/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/an ... mal-nature



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

11 Mar 2017, 7:47 am

devilSpawn wrote:
lostonearth35 wrote:
If you can't or won't spay or neuter your pet, then you should not even be allowed to have one.:shameonyou: There are too many stray pets, many of them sick and suffering, and that is much more cruel and inhumane than a surgical procedure that will not make your pet fat and lazy. If anything they will be more content, healthier, and they will not be stressed out from sexual frustration. Cats and dogs mate only to reproduce. It's instinct. They don't do it for pleasure and they lack the intelligence and morality to know why they shouldn't mate.

Honestly, I wonder why we don't do the same thing to some humans. Especially rapists and child molesters. :twisted:



judging by your ridiculous position in this very ignorant comment of yours, I highly doubt that your IQ is adequate for warranting any "curiosity" or interest on your part sufficient for reading these articles and gaining actual knowledge (as opposed to silly opinions), but, just in case I am wrong in my assumption, here is a list of articles that you can read to gain some knowledge and perspective on the subject... you know, the beginning of "wisdom" and "change"...

enjoy.


http://dialogues.rutgers.edu/all-journa ... ation/file

https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/10/ste ... sabilities

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3561518?se ... b_contents

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/1066 ... 25_eng.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12587134

https://dailyreckoning.com/animal-right ... an-rights/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/an ... mal-nature


In other words, a bunch of articles on why we shouldn't force sterilization on humans.

Uh-huh.

Think I'll keep having my pets sterilized. Thanks.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


devilSpawn
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 15 Feb 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Oregon

13 Mar 2017, 3:33 am

XFilesGeek wrote:
devilSpawn wrote:
lostonearth35 wrote:
If you can't or won't spay or neuter your pet, then you should not even be allowed to have one.:shameonyou: There are too many stray pets, many of them sick and suffering, and that is much more cruel and inhumane than a surgical procedure that will not make your pet fat and lazy. If anything they will be more content, healthier, and they will not be stressed out from sexual frustration. Cats and dogs mate only to reproduce. It's instinct. They don't do it for pleasure and they lack the intelligence and morality to know why they shouldn't mate.

Honestly, I wonder why we don't do the same thing to some humans. Especially rapists and child molesters. :twisted:



judging by your ridiculous position in this very ignorant comment of yours, I highly doubt that your IQ is adequate for warranting any "curiosity" or interest on your part sufficient for reading these articles and gaining actual knowledge (as opposed to silly opinions), but, just in case I am wrong in my assumption, here is a list of articles that you can read to gain some knowledge and perspective on the subject... you know, the beginning of "wisdom" and "change"...

enjoy.


http://dialogues.rutgers.edu/all-journa ... ation/file

https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/10/ste ... sabilities

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3561518?se ... b_contents

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/1066 ... 25_eng.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12587134

https://dailyreckoning.com/animal-right ... an-rights/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/an ... mal-nature


In other words, a bunch of articles on why we shouldn't force sterilization on humans.

Uh-huh.

Think I'll keep having my pets sterilized. Thanks.



Actually, if you read through the articles, you'd come to the conclusion that science confirms that sterilization is just as wrong to be forced on other animals as it is for humans... but of course, being the crummy soul that you are, you mock and go on with your atrocious, disrespectful, supremacist philosophy... people who think like you do are EXACTLY why humans deserve to go extinct... and I know, you're such a supremacist you probably believe humans will invent their way out of the extinction that they are currently facing (caused predominantly by their inventions most significantly over the past ~250 years)... is what it is... you can kill the messenger but the message is still loud and clear. You are a scummy human with scummy supremacist values. sad but true... guess what, only one who can change that is you.



devilSpawn
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 15 Feb 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Oregon

13 Mar 2017, 3:43 am

a few links for all of you hard headed nitwits....

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/art ... Passionate

http://www.livescience.com/49093-animal ... lings.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 0385a.html