Emotions are not superior to logic and reason

[Brovo]

I will never understand why people think we should promote emotions over logic and reason. "I feel" is the rallying cry of tyrants throughout the ages. "I think" is the solitary whisper of a doubting person, just as much questioning themselves as those around them. I suppose after studying history, and war, and organized religion, I've quietly come to notice an auspicious pattern to them: Emotional manipulation.

"God loves you, so you should love God back."
"If you don't love God, you will go to purgatory/hell/hades/et cetera, where you will be tortured, full of fear, pain, sorrow, for all of eternity."
"The Germans are a superior people, and we should always believe as such."
"We should purge the Jew, for he is an evil rat, of an inferior race and culture."
"We must liberate the purest of Aryans from countries run by Jewish sympathizers, such as Poland."
"There is a Patriarchy that is completely invisible but omnipresent, that affects every woman through mass brainwashing, and only I know the truth."
"Men are all scum of the Earth and we should #killallmen in order to prevent them from further oppressing women, but not before #giveyourmoneytowomen takes effect, to equalize the pay gap."
"The pay gap is not a myth! All of those volumes of data explaining that men and women get paid the same for working equal hours with equal qualifications are wrong because I can feel that the patriarchy made them up!"

"The Jew/Man is #mansplaining. Any information coming from the Christian/Atheist is obviously wrong, because my lived experiences as a Muslim/Female/Native/Transgender/German/Japanese/et cetera are always right. They're always right because I feel they are right. If you say otherwise, you're a [insert pointless discriminatory title here], and you should [insert pedantic emotional plea here], because [insert dehumanizing point here]! We should protect and enrich [insert social group here: gender, race, et cetera] against the predatory behaviours of [insert social group here: gender, race, et cetera], we have to do this with [insert form of censorship here], and [insert form of oppression here], so we can [insert pure utopian ideal here], by [insert insanely hateful comment here]. It is the only way we can preserve/ensure/create the master race/white america/pure christianity/islam/emperor's will/roman life/absolute equality [lenin/SJW's/et cetera]/paradise/et cetera."

Oh how I grow tired of the rallying cry of hatred. It comes in every colour, shape, and size on the planet. It's infectious, and rots the mind. A properly logical, reasoning person, of any walk of life--religious or irreligious, social activist or conservative, left wing or right wing, rich or poor--should be able to see through this. There's no such thing as perfection, or eternal happiness on Earth, or anything else like this--life is imperfect, and then you die. It's pretty much the one universal truth of our age.

So why on Earth are we pissing it away organizing ourselves into small camps of hate mobs that wind each other up? I could easily start screaming about feminazis in here, certainly. They're an easy target. What's the point, though? There are good feminists who are just seeking equality, who want to make the world an earnestly better place and are using logic and reason to do it. Emotion might be the motivation, but they have it under control. I could scream at extremist muslims in here, certainly. They're also an easy target. What's the point, though? There are thousands of muslims in my country who just want to live peaceful lives: Working, paying taxes, raising their children, and having a stable home. They're not my enemy: They want to live with me, not against me, or over me.

This belief that "I feel" is equitable to "I think" is absurd. "I feel" is not grounded in any sort of physical reality. A child says "I feel I want those cookies", that doesn't automatically validate his or her position because he or she "feels" it. This becomes especially problematic when you have two, opposite groups, who both "feel" they deserve a position, item, location, or otherwise, in such a manner as that they cannot share it. They have absolutely equal validation--they both "feel" they deserve it. They'll wind each other up until they decide that their absurdly extreme belief founded solely on feelings is deserving of more physically extreme ends to achieve such objectives. The rallying cry of the oppressor, throughout history, has always been to reject facts: To reject logic, and reason, to dehumanize, to disenfranchise, to spread the forces of hate, fear, and ignorance, to create a superior class, to wield the victim mentality, and blind faith. "Look, listen, and believe, for I present to you the absolute truth, where all others are wrong, because I feel it to be true."

Hell, it's very easy to be emotionally manipulated. It's not always malevolent, even, it's often innocuous: Music is just an arrangement of sounds in a manner which the human mind finds appealing, typically through a pattern. It evokes a bestial impulse--an emotion. It can move people to tears, and yet it has no physical presence beyond being an arrangement of noises, and no greater meaning than that which we attribute to it personally. Music is perhaps the single greatest example of why believing that emotions are equitable to logic and reason is patently absurd. Our emotions are very easily manipulated, and typically are on a regular basis. Entire industries--such as marketing--exist solely to manipulate us, and they do it typically through emotional pleas. This is funny, buy me. No, really, it isn't hard. Even good causes will manipulate your emotions to try and get you on their side.

So, knowing that, why do we continue to think that lived experiences and emotions have any basis in a discussion about what to do in society about various problems? I don't give a fuck how you feel about guns: Explain to me using logic and reason what we should do about them. I don't give a fuck about how you feel about mental disorders: Explain to me using logic and reason what we should do about them. I don't give a fuck about how you feel about the prison system, or racial inequality, or gender disparity: Explain to me using logic and reason what we should do about them. What can we do to improve the overall state of society by addressing the needs of specific issues or groups of persons who need it?

Hatred is not a logical position. Desiring destruction and annihilation is not a logical position. Morality, ethics, improving the overall state of a society by improving the individual lives of those who live within it--this is logical. Empathy is logical. Kindness, patience, understanding, compromises, diplomacy--all logical tools. Anything that produces a superior (or at least most favourable) future without invalidating the individual value of each person is logical.

Christians aren't my enemy. Feminists aren't my enemy. Black Lives Matter is not my enemy. Hell, even my racist uncle is not my enemy... Hatred is my enemy. Fundamentalism is my enemy. Dehumanization, the promotion of any one social group over another for physical qualities such as sex or ethnicity--those are also my enemies. Which, brings me to my ultimate point.

I am my own greatest enemy.

Do any of you understand how frustrating that realization is?

Even here on Iwaku, I've made broad, sweeping generalizations of people. I've compared people to Nazis and invoked Godwin (and gotten upvotes for that on both occasions, I might add), I've spat at feminists for no more reason than that they were feminists (usually got upvotes for this too). I look back on those later and cringe. It's so, very, easy to get self-righteous and feel vindicated by how I feel. Every single time I get into a discussion now I have to sincerely ask myself if my position is grounded in hard fact and reason, or if it's just the way I feel life should be. Even in this rant, you can detect it. It's not very hard to find it. I'm sure, reading from the start, the first thoughts were "wow, who is it that Brovo hates so much to write a rant about it?"

"Who is it that Brovo hates?"

I strive, very hard, to hate nobody. I don't want to hate anyone. I've seen what hatred does and I wish no part in it. It's very easy to say that we should all be good people. It's much harder to be a good person when you are surrounded by viewpoints opposite your own. I'm an atheist, so that obviously puts me at ideological odds with the religious--including my girlfriend, if I allowed it to. I'm ardently free thought, that puts me at odds with spiritualistic types. I tend to be left wing, that puts me at odds with the right wing--including my father, if I allowed it to. I have a mental disorder, I have this, I have that, I am this, I am that--put it all together and, wow, gee, I feel really small. Really easy to crush and knock aside without even being so much as noticed by the vast machine of society.

The vast, faceless machine, that is so easy to loathe because it isn't a conscious entity, and doesn't notice nor care about how I feel. That society, so full of people who despise me because I'm white, or because I'm male, or because I'm an atheist, or because I have a mental disorder, or because I'm poor, or because I'm Canadian, or because I'm left wing, or because of--you get the point, I'm sure.

I'm tired of fighting. It's so pointless and yet enticing. It goes on forever. If I ran out of feminazis to fight, I'd have SJW's. If I ran out of SJW's, I'd have the religious right. If I, somehow, ran out of the religious right to fight, there's always racists, and sexists, and other forms of discrimination I can pull up the banner for. It just goes on, and on, and on, the fighting never ends. There's always a new target to destroy, always a new way for me to wind myself up into yet another self-righteous spiel... There's always someone impure for me to purge in order to strive for my vision of purity.

If you've actually read this far, and gained anything out of this babbling, I applaud you. If you ever thought I was absolutely certain of any position I've held, shock twist: I'm a man of near infinite doubts. I felt like writing this to get it out of my system.

Heh. Felt.

This is not a measure by which to run a society or create political change. Feelings can so easily betray you. Adulthood is marked by self-control over your emotions... This is why. Our emotions are bestial, not magical. They come from a series of chemicals, not inexplicable phenomena like a spirit. If we wish to behave as people, we should wield all the logic and reason we have to try and cut through our own biases and aim for coexistence.

Because if we want to behave like children or animals, then all we have to do is indulge that inner animal of emotion.

PS: No, emotions are not evil--emotions simply are. They exist for one purpose or another: Fear for the purposes of survival, hate for the purposes of motivation, anger for the purposes of expressing personal discomfort, et cetera. Ergo, they are part of our evolutionary survival--our "bestial" nature, which is neither marked holy or unholy: It merely is. We exist, therefore we feel. So emotions like love and happiness are not good, or evil, they simply are pleasant states to be in... Ones you should always feel in control of, lest you revert to the bestial impulses of your ancestors. After all, in the four billion years of evolution it took to get us to this point, we've only really been self-aware of our own existence for... Maybe... Ten thousand years, or so. We're really not so far above the imbecilic, animal points from whence we came... Mainly, because we are still animals.

 

[Shadon Xarian]

Interesting how we both give our thoughts on that at the same time XP

I know exactly what you mean (Mostly) I look for solutions, I get excuses because solutions and fixes are too hard and its so much more easier just to complain about it. I've tried helping the "enemy", they don't want help. They want the drama. When they win something, they turn on each other because peace isn't apart of them (Well more specifically they want everyone just like them and if you disagree just slightly, then you're the new target. SJW's/feminist are starting to turn on eachother interestingly enough, and higher ranked ones are starting to grow up and leave the whole thing behind. They apologize for the damage they've done, though know that an apology isn't nearly enough after the damaged they caused. Kinda sad, but it's how it is.


Though not entirely sure why you got into the whole "Self aware" thing XP Animals clearly know full well they exist, they know full well that others exist, and what other things are, and what they do (As long as there's exposure. My cat knew how the door worked, though it we made things more out of reach so he couldn't use it) It's why squirrels/birds run from humans, yet not eachother. We have a history of trying to kill them so they're like "Okay, whenever we try to co-exist with these monsters, they try to attack us. So it's best we stay away... Except that guy who gives us food, he's cool."
If you don't feel that's the case, then you're your own problem in your entire rant XD


I also always found different opinions and what nots interesting. Between me and most my friends, our opinions differ greatly. You kinda remind me of one of my besties. We all differ on many situations. So why is there peace despite that? I can't speak for them, but for me is because it doesn't matter who's opinion is better, I think they all lead to fairness/peace regardless (Granted I think that opinions lead to better peace/fairness, although that's a given no matter who you are XP) The only time that I have a problem is when someones opinion gets to the point of greatly hurting things. Allot of opinions these days are a good idea, however in practice, many MANY people will suffer. That's because their opinion doesn't cover the people they don't really care about/don't think should exist in the first place. I think that my opinions on things as a whole will help a great many people... If I get the power to bring those opinions into reality XP


@Brovo
You seem to do allot of history, do you think that there is a trial and error throughout history? Or do you think it's just what people in power think is right and/or do what will benefit them and hopefully there's a domino effect? Granted I think there has been both, but I think that the domino effect one is the most common one.

I think it's a fun question for my Ferret Sensei as even a Pharaoh from a different land can learn ^^

 

[Kestrel]

Emotions are a way for people to connect with each other in spite of not (always or entirely) understanding one another on a rational level. For a lot of people, their earliest friendships are based on extended proximity. How we feel is often to bridge or substitute for what we don't think about hard enough. People form connections over similarities as well. Just like you and me became friends over roleplaying (or rather discussing roleplaying because goddammit) others see each other having feelings for another interest and bond and eventually come to form groups over that. When others feel you attack their ideas, they feel you attack bonds and self-image as well.

Emotion ultimately is also the strongest deciding organ we have. Marketing is an obvious example, but I always think back to this Friends episode where (I think) Ross makes a pro's and con's list about his relationship to decide on where to go with it. That doesn't work out really well, because those relationships are rooted in emotion rather than ratio. This goes for relationships with both people and ideas. I hope you can appreciate the irony that you attribute greater emotional value to seeking truth than comfort, which is why you feel the way you do. Intuition is, despite how easily manipulated it is, deep down still the number one reason we as a people do things.

Frustrating, this skin of ours, isn't it?

 

[Brovo]

They want the drama

What a sad and pitiable life. Don't follow them into it: Let them burn the bridges to you and anyone else they dislike. Either they'll move on or they'll destroy themselves--either way is really a win for you anyway.

SJW's/feminist are starting to turn on eachother interestingly enough

There's always a new target to destroy, always a new way for me to wind myself up into yet another self-righteous spiel... There's always someone impure for me to purge in order to strive for my vision of purity.

Though not entirely sure why you got into the whole "Self aware" thing

Animals aren't on the same level as humans in terms of rationality and the ability to innovate. The closest there is are species of apes/monkeys/orangutans who can make very simple tools to accomplish very simple, immediate tasks. Compare to humans, who have not only gone far beyond creating tools, but have created new materials that do not naturally exist in nature to make tools with--like plastics. Animals are ruled by emotion, first and foremost, and there's little else they can do beyond it. Humans, however, are the only species on Earth so far who have evolved the capacity to go beyond base emotion.

It's, really, what makes us human. Is the fact that we can feel a powerful emotion, and not act on it. Not only not act on it, but understand why we're not acting on it. We can control ourselves to maintain a social paradigm, or for ethical reasons. Other animals, simply, can't. At least, nowhere near to our capacity.

We have a history of trying to kill them

To be honest, they run away from anything they don't understand which looks bigger than they are. There's no history going on there, they don't have a culture, or a society. It's a basic fight-or-flight response that has existed in nature for hundreds of millions of years--to the point that other animals evolved ways to use that fight or flight response in others. Such as in dogs and wolves, their hair stands on end when they become aggressive--this makes them look bigger, and thus more intimidating, which triggers the fight-or-flight response. Squirrels and birds are not smart enough to pass abstract information from one generation to the next.

In essence: Squirrels don't form massively complex social structures like humans do. They aren't smart enough to even know how. Though, we share a very similar fight-or-flight response that squirrels and other mammals do. If you hear a noise come from a dark room, your immediate, instinctive response, is fear--that's the fight or flight response kicking in. The difference is though, a squirrel will run from that every single time unless they've been conditioned not to run. Humans are intelligent enough to be able to overpower that fight or flight response and attempt to investigate the source of the noise, or use abstract thinking to grab a flashlight or other tool to help them clarify what the noise is.

I'm not saying that animals aren't capable of reason--we are animals, after all. What I'm saying is that emotions are the bestial nature within us and other animals, but what makes us separate and distinct from other animals, is the sheer level of logic and reason we have managed to achieve through evolution. We're the only animals capable of not only feeling emotions, but understanding why, and controlling them. We do it every day.

Also, you'd be surprised about the self-awareness thing. A lot of animals are straight up too stupid to comprehend "I think, therefore I am", they're little more than organic machines. Like ants, for instance. Only a few animals even seem to recognize their own reflection--which is critical to self-awareness. (Albeit, the MSR test is not perfect and is controversial.)

If you don't feel that's the case, then you're your own problem in your entire rant XD

I don't really feel it. I understand it. There is a difference, young padawan.

I also always found different opinions and what nots interesting. Between me and most my friends, our opinions differ greatly. You kinda remind me of one of my besties. We all differ on many situations. So why is there peace despite that?

Your rational capacity to understand that a difference of thought is not necessarily superior or inferior, but simply different. Combined with a healthy sense of empathy, this goes a long way to coexistence.

The only time that I have a problem is when someones opinion gets to the point of greatly hurting things.

I have a hard time believing that an opinion--an incorporeal concept--can hurt a person. It's what a person does in the name of their beliefs, not what they believe, that ultimately matters in deciding what to do. A Christian who works in a soup kitchen to feed the poor is very different from the Christian who runs around beating gay people to death--they both have the same opinion, the same belief, but they express it very differently. It's why my racist uncle is not my enemy--I disagree vehemently with his views, but he leaves well enough alone and doesn't try to hurt other people. He lives his own life, pays his taxes, and goes home.

Same reason why I made the mention of feminists being capable of being good people. "The feminist" is not my enemy: My enemy is a person who feels the need to censor and destroy anything which is impure to them. That, granted, can be a feminist--but it can also be a Christian, or an atheist, or a socialist, or a capitalist, or an optimist, or a pessimist, or so on and so forth.

Essentially: Judge by actions. It doesn't matter at all what a person believes, it matters entirely what they do in the name of that belief.

@Brovo
You seem to do allot of history, do you think that there is a trial and error throughout history? Or do you think it's just what people in power think is right and/or do what will benefit them and hopefully there's a domino effect? Granted I think there has been both, but I think that the domino effect one is the most common one.

I think it's a fun question for my Ferret Sensei as even a Pharaoh from a different land can learn ^^

It's what people in power think is right, generally. If they learn from history at all, it's only to try and avoid the pratfalls of their predecessors in executing their vision of what they believe is right. We've had a great many wars--no number of past atrocities has ever caused a nation determined to war, to end up pausing instead.

It is an irony of our species. We're capable of understanding how our emotions work and controlling them, we're capable of coexistence, of sharing resources, of cultural exchanges, of divorcing ourselves from biases... Yet, we often simply choose not to, because we feel right about whatever it is we're doing and don't question it. The emotions we should control, often control us into thinking we're in control. Pleasure, happiness, and satisfaction make for a powerful cocktail.

I hope you can appreciate the irony that you attribute greater emotional value to seeking truth than comfort

Oh, I do. I fully understand that being human means emotions are an unavoidable part of my experience as a living thing. I make mention that I understand the evolutionary need for them--even fear, hate, anger, sorrow. They are absolutely unavoidable and they do make life worth living. The pursuit of happiness and all that jazz. I even make mention that emotional manipulation is often innocuous--harmless, really. It is, however, very common. It's easy to manipulate emotions, they're just chemical responses in the brain. So it makes sense to put value to something that gives you power through control. Logic, and reason, give you power. You already know this, though, so I'm really just shootin' the shit wit'cha.

 

[Shadon Xarian]

@Brovo

That's a fun handful ^^


"What a sad and pitiable life. Don't follow them into it: Let them burn the bridges to you and anyone else they dislike. Either they'll move on or they'll destroy themselves--either way is really a win for you anyway."

Oh I know XD I'm REALLY tired of it. I don't want to do it anymore DX (And I don't) I was just gonna quit online all together, then my friend told me that this place is amazing so I decided to give forums and stuff one more chance. Don't regret that decision at all :D

Your rational capacity to understand that a difference of thought is not necessarily superior or inferior, but simply different. Combined with a healthy sense of empathy, this goes a long way to coexistence.
I'm wayyyy too empathetic -.- with my massive imagination I can put myself in others shoes. It's a dark place sometimes o.o A few situations I've had to quit thinking about it was so terrible DX
Annnddddd I'll beg to differ XD Mine is superior ^^ But theirs will work fine too so yeah XP

-an incorporeal concept--can hurt a person.
If that opinion gets a backing and becomes reality, then it can do allot of damage. Lets take donald trump for example. His opinion seems to be that immigrants are the problem. And he is awfully close to a position to make that opinion a reality. If his opinion is wrong however, then many many people will be severely harmed. It's true that an opinion its self can't hurt a person, however an opinion is simply the starting point for a reality in some cases. That's more what I'm talking about.

they both have the same opinion, the same belief, but they express it very differently.
Then clearly they don't have the same believe or opinion now do they? XD This one is still up to debate even by myself, but I think that if you are going to be a Christian, then you are going to BE a christian. that means not cheery picking the bible. If you ignore passages that don't suit you, then you are simply taking things from the bible because you like that particular rule for yourself. That doesn't make you a christian, it just means you took an opinion from the bible and aplied it to your life.


Essentially: Judge by actions. It doesn't matter at all what a person believes, it matters entirely what they do in the name of that belief.
Ehhhh... Ish. If they believe that gays should be stoned for being gays, then they are a bad person regardless if they fulfill that command or not.




On to the animal thing... Well it's difficult to quite things, because you're wrong XD Let me quote a few things that will show you over all
(And check out my rant, that explains quite a bit too)

birds are not smart enough to pass abstract information from one generation to the next.
That's already been proven false by a lab who tested that exact thing. Birds pass on information not only to their young, but also their neighbors. Other than humans, birds are the only known creature to CREATE, and use the hook design. The hook design started a bit wonky at first, but generation after generation further perfected the hook design.

And to go even further, I've learned ALLOT from my cat growing up. He taught me how to climb on top of things to get to out of reach toys my parents hide, he taught me better balance, and we even worked together to troll my parents.

There's no history going on there, they don't have a culture
You can't possibly know that. So why do you pretend like you do? (You're wrong anyway because of the above reason, but still)

or a society.

What do you consider a society? If birds don't have enough for a society, then insects do. I don't know where the idea of hive mind comes from, but insects who have a queen, the queen gives off scents, and the workers/whoever smells those scents, identify what they mean, and then do the task that the scent tells them too. (So in human terms, imagine if you had a boss and a command for you to clean a wall is filling the room with the smell of pizza, or if he wanted you to leave early, it'll be the smell of steak)

But here's a fun story about the beginning of dogs. Fun fact, us humans is what technically created dogs. Back during our hunter gathering days we had to compete with wolves. Well we tried something, MAYBE wolves can think, and if we give them food, then they will work together with us.

So we gave them food and in turn, they helped protect the village from rivaling wolves, and allowed us to dictate their breeding. As time went on, we started seeing different variations. Some wolves were kept as pets, so they didn't need to be tough, so they started getting smaller. People liked cute, and cute was breeded with cute, so that's basically how chewawa's and smaller dogs were made. But we still needed guard wolves, those eventually turned into bigger dogs.

But my point is this, if animals are truly stupid/mindless, then why would they have made that deal with us humans? If they were truly mindless, they would have just attacked the humans regardless of the "gift" But they didn't, they did the SMART thing. Us humans took a gamble and thought "Maybe animals aren't dumb, I dunno, lets see if we can create a partnership" and then it was like "Well what do ya know, they're more equal than we expected. Now we can sleep and be awoken only if there's danger ^^"

What I want to know is HOW IN THE WORLD DID THEY GO BACK TO BEING SEEN AS NOTHING AND HOW WE FORGOTTEN HOW DOGS WERE CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE FOR MANY YEARS!!!! SUCH ARROGANCE OF US, And so much forced ignorance DX

Squirrels don't form massively complex social structures like humans do. They aren't smart enough to even know how
You don't know if they know how to or not, but even if they didn't, the fact remains they don't have to. you can't hold something against a species for not doing something they don't have to do.

Humans are intelligent enough to be able to overpower that fight or flight response and attempt to investigate the source of the noise
I see you've never met a cat. You know the phrase "Curiosity killed the cat"? It's because cats investigate. (And so do many other animals too so not exactly sure where you're getting that from)
And not all humans investigate either, they run at the very sign of a mysterious noise. Is it because they're not intellectual enough to investigate? Because by your logic, it does.
If an example doesn't work when applied to humans, then it can't work when applied to animals.

We're the only animals capable of not only feeling emotions, but understandingwhy, and controlling them. We do it every day.
Again, you can't possibly know that. And even so, you're wrong XD Let's take my cat for example. His eyes were VERY clear in which emotion he was giving. I annoyed him by tapping his foot when he tried to sleep? I get the most annoyed face I've ever seen (Like god damn my cat can be grumpy XD) He's in a loving mood? He gives a look that I've only seen a crush give me. He's in a playful mood? His entire body changes to do so. He's gonna prank me? His eyes get into that "Nothing to see here *Snicker* look.

And also, if animals don't feel emotion, then why do they cry in pain? Why do they growl in anger? Why do they protect others that aren't even their species even if they could end up dying? For loving Ferrets so much, your personal experience with animals are clearly lacking >.<


A lot of animals are straight up too stupid to comprehend "I think, therefore I am",
You can't possibly know that, and as I've said, they know full well that they exist, they know full well others exist, they DO pass down information generation to generation.

And speaking of which, there was this bird who could solve complex locking mechanisms that even humans can't solve by simply looking at it. In the experiment, they put the bird away, changed the lock to see if it just knows a pattern, brought it back, and the bird completely ignored the parts of the lock that was turned off and was not necessary to open it. Meanwhile, most humans would still do the unnecessary things because patterns, yet birds are above that ^^


they're little more than organic machines.
Proven false ^^

Like ants, for instance. Only a few animals even seem to recognize their own reflection--which is critical to self-awareness. (Albeit, the MSR test is not perfect and is controversial.)
If it's so controversial, then maybe it's because it's flawed? First they gotta know what it is, and animals have no exposure to mirrors.
And if them not knowing what it is proves they're not intelligent, then you not knowing what a Tricoder is proves your stupid (In comparison) It's not that you're stupid, it's that you probably lack the experience and exposure to that item. Same with animals. They don't give a fuck about most our items. They have no use for a mirror, they have no use for a can opener, they have no use for a stove.

I don't really feel it. I understand it. There is a difference, young padawan.
Do you understand it though? Everything you said about animals were wrong XP
For being all about logic, reason, and proof, you sure did allot of assuming without proof, and had flawed logic to determine what you said about animals. I Can't say anything with your reasoning because I think reasoning is based more on experience, and a lack of experience isn't a bad thing (Or shouldn't be held against someone)

And for more insight on my personal thoughts on both animals/humans, here's this ^^
https://www.iwakuroleplay.com/threads/rant-your-brains-out-98274.45145/page-90#post-2516773
(fourth one down)


I find it funny how we more or less agree 100% with human things, but apparently are on the complete opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to animals XD (Or at least I agree with you on human things XP, not sure what you think about what I think)



And a fun part for spirits and stuff. Scientist tested people who did astral projection, and everything added up. They can't say for certain there is a spirit world as there wasn't any solid proof in the experiment, but I think that was because they were lacking the correct gear (If gear for that can exist in the first place)

My point is there may be things that sheer logic cannot understand, so some things you

 

[Brovo]

If that opinion gets a backing and becomes reality, then it can do allot of damage. Lets take donald trump for example. His opinion seems to be that immigrants are the problem. And he is awfully close to a position to make that opinion a reality. If his opinion is wrong however, then many many people will be severely harmed. It's true that an opinion its self can't hurt a person, however an opinion is simply the starting point for a reality in some cases. That's more what I'm talking about.

Free marketplace of ideas--good ideas go to the top, bad ones to the bottom. If you create reason for people to want to wield violent ideas, then those violent ideas will become more popular, not less popular. So, for example, if you take rights and freedoms away from people, you start validating the paranoia of people with terrible ideas.

Hitler wouldn't have gotten in power if there wasn't a crippled, ashamed Germany for him to emotionally manipulate.

Plus, censor shit ideas all you want. People will keep believing them and sharing them anyway. It's better to let them be free because others can challenge them and soundly defeat them time and time again on the public debate stage.

Then clearly they don't have the same believe or opinion now do they? XD This one is still up to debate even by myself, but I think that if you are going to be a Christian, then you are going to BE a christian. that means not cheery picking the bible. If you ignore passages that don't suit you, then you are simply taking things from the bible because you like that particular rule for yourself. That doesn't make you a christian, it just means you took an opinion from the bible and aplied it to your life.

Then nobody is a Christian because you're supposed to murder people for working on Sundays, or for wearing clothes made of mixed linens.

Plus, it really ain't right to tell someone what it is they can and cannot believe, or who it is they are or aren't, by a set of qualifications you've personally adopted based on your feelings. A person can believe in X but not follow all of its tenets.

Ehhhh... Ish. If they believe that gays should be stoned for being gays, then they are a bad person regardless if they fulfill that command or not.

Certainly they hold foul beliefs, but if they don't act upon them, then I have no reason to act against them. Persecuting thought crime will get us nowhere fast.

That's already been proven false by a lab who tested that exact thing. Birds pass on information not only to their young, but also their neighbors. Other than humans, birds are the only known creature to CREATE, and use the hook design. The hook design started a bit wonky at first, but generation after generation further perfected the hook design.

Source? Just because individuals can create tools doesn't mean they're teaching and perfecting tool design to following generations. If they could do that, they'd socially advance as a species with each generation--we know that's not happening. Also, a hooking tool is still nowhere near the creation of plastics... Or the Internet.

You can't possibly know that. So why do you pretend like you do? (You're wrong anyway because of the above reason, but still)

I'm wrong anyway because an animal figured out how to immediately manipulate the environment for immediate gain in a very basic manner that a five year old could replicate with ease, as I've already stated they can do? Also, yes I can determine that squirrels do not form societies, and do not have cultures. By basic observation and realization that squirrels... Do not form societies.

What do you consider a society?

The sociological definition. Animals don't form societies: They form packs, or pods, or in the case of ferrets, businesses. They form small groups, nowhere near as complex as outright human societies.

Insects also have very simple organizational structures. They operate the same way everywhere, but not nearly to the same complexity of human societies. A worker bee is nowhere near as complex as an individual human, and beehives are nowhere near as filled with specialists as human societies are. Heck, just the sheer number of specialists required to set up the power lines, internet lines, and so on, so we could have this conversation, required more specialization and more social roles than a bee hive would ever need. Animals don't form civilizations. The closest to us is the chimpanzee, again unsurprising--they share 98% of our DNA. They border on society, and do have cultural practices that vary between various groups. However, they're still not intellectually complex enough to form a civilization, or to pass knowledge from one generation to the next in such a manner as to create and update technology, or sociological concepts.

We're unique in this regard.

(So in human terms,

Be careful about anthropomorphism with animals. A bee is a bee, a dog is a dog, a ferret is a ferret, but a human is a lot more than the sum of their parts. To assume any greater nature of an animal other than what we can observe and factually verify through repeated experimentation is to make a faith-based argument, an argument based on feelings, rather than logic and reason.

But here's a fun story about the beginning of dogs. Fun fact, us humans is what technically created dogs. Back during our hunter gathering days we had to compete with wolves. Well we tried something, MAYBE wolves can think, and if we give them food, then they will work together with us.

Actually, the relationship was likely symbiotic. In that hungry wolves ate our scraps--we didn't give them food specifically--and thus had incentive to follow nomadic humans and protect them from other animals. Once domesticated into dogs, we bred them for ideal characteristics. Another example is the Auroch, which we bred into the modern day cow via selective breeding for slaughter purposes. Our ancient ancestors didn't think "wow, smart animal, equal to a human!" They thought "wow, I can use that for food!" Or "I can use that to get me some food!" Or "I can use that to protect myself from things that want to make me into food!"... Our ancestors were not very complex in comparison to us. Watch "NOVA: Decoding Neanderthals" on Netflix or somewhere else if you really wanna get the basics down about how our ancestors did things. Basically we didn't understand how selective breeding worked: We just knew that it did if you tried hard enough.

You're superimposing your modern view and how you feel onto our ancestors, who in all likelihood, were too dimwitted to understand cause-effect relationships.

Seriously though, our ancestors were pretty dumb. They were pretty much guided on instinct alone--feelings, emotions--damn the consequences.

But my point is this, if animals are truly stupid/mindless, then why would they have made that deal with us humans? If they were truly mindless, they would have just attacked the humans regardless of the "gift" But they didn't, they did the SMART thing.

They... Didn't make a deal. There were no contracts. It's not like a dog signs into a contract with you, they run on instinct. Again, you're humanizing something that is distinctly non-human. The wolves of ancient times saw a method of acquiring easy food and took it, and we conditioned them to service our needs. We used them and their nature, we didn't enter into a contract with them. We still do it now, just for different reasons.

Us humans took a gamble and thought "Maybe animals aren't dumb, I dunno, lets see if we can create a partnership"

Actually, it was more "cows are tasty" and "dogs help us eat more cows." Fun story: The ferret was bred into existence by the Roman Empire for use by the Roman Legions. They would use ferrets to root out rabbits from their homes to supplement their combat rations. White ferrets were preferred because they were easier to recover. It wasn't uncommon for soldiers to lose one or two ferrets every time they went on hunting trips--even if they gave a fuck about losing ferrets (which I guarantee most didn't by sheer nature of life), they didn't consider them equal to humans. They wouldn't go on search parties for ferrets, they just left them out to rot and die alone--they were tools of the Empire, not equal members of the Empire.

And I love ferrets. I just don't pretend that they're smart enough to understand social hierarchy like humans do.

What I want to know is HOW IN THE WORLD DID THEY GO BACK TO BEING SEEN AS NOTHING AND HOW WE FORGOTTEN HOW DOGS WERE CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE FOR MANY YEARS!!!! SUCH ARROGANCE OF US, And so much forced ignorance DX

They're not nothing, they're great. I love dogs, but here's the bluntest way of putting it.

Assuming no other factors, if there is a burning building, and you only have time to save a dog or a human being, which do you save? The ethical choice is the human being. A dog is a dog. A human being is so much more than that. No matter how valuable or wonderful a dog is, it's not worth more than a human life.

You don't know if they know how to or not, but even if they didn't, the fact remains they don't have to. you can't hold something against a species for not doing something they don't have to do.

They don't, or they would have. Civilization is a massive survival advantage--it allows you to have tons of specialists who can fine tune every overall need of the collective. Not to mention, a species capable of doing it, would simply do it. We formed civilizations initially not because we understood how useful they were, but out of instinct. We're animals too.

You know the phrase "Curiosity killed the cat"?

Yet another mistaken case of humanizing a non-human, plus it's an evolved phrase. Plus, that's still fight-or-flight. The cat is just instinctively going with the "fight" option, and we bred them selectively to be that way because we wanted them to more effective mice killers. The same applies to ferrets: They're really fucking stupid at survival without humans to watch over them, but we wanted them that way so they wouldn't back down against rabbits. That made them more effective tools, even if it reduced their overall survivability.

The point of the example is what one does in the immediate situation. A squirrel will always follow fight-or-flight and act on that. So will a cat. A human, meanwhile, has the capacity to understand that their senses could be deceiving them, or that their fight-or-flight reflex could be misfiring. A human has the capacity to resolve the situation through abstract thinking, like getting a source of light (flashlight, candle) for the area. A cat, meanwhile, succumbs to the "fight" option and goes off into the darkness in a dimwitted fashion without thinking things through. Because they can't think things through. Because we bred them not to think things through, we bred them to hunt and kill mice.

See?

And also, if animals don't feel emotion, then why do they cry in pain? Why do they growl in anger? Why do they protect others that aren't even their species even if they could end up dying? For loving Ferrets so much, your personal experience with animals are clearly lacking >.<

Because if we want to behave like children or animals, then all we have to do is indulge that inner animal of emotion.

My ending point is that animals do feel emotions. That animals are outright ruled over by emotions, and that any rationality an animal possesses can and is regularly overruled by instinct. In fact...

Animals are ruled by emotion, first and foremost, and there's little else they can do beyond it.

And speaking of which, there was this bird who could solve complex locking mechanisms that even humans can't solve by simply looking at it. In the experiment, they put the bird away, changed the lock to see if it just knows a pattern, brought it back, and the bird completely ignored the parts of the lock that was turned off and was not necessary to open it. Meanwhile, most humans would still do the unnecessary things because patterns, yet birds are above that ^^

"We cannot prove that the birds understand the physical structure of the problem as an adult human would, but we can infer from their behaviour that they are sensitive to how objects act on each other. We are not saying one way or another whether this species is particularly smart. That is not our message. It would be too easy to say that the cockatoos understand the problem, but this claim will be justified when we can reproduce the details of the animals' response to a large [range] of novel problems." Citation. In short: Animal can understand environment, but not why it is like that, or how to create it. They're still operating on instinct.

Proven false ^^

I'm glad you quoted me out of context so that you could prove false a statement I never made. :p I was saying that ants or bees are little more than organic machines. They aren't particularly complex creatures. If you go up the ladder, you will find animals that vary in levels of intelligence. Again...

Animals aren't on the same level as humans in terms of rationality and the ability to innovate.

I'm not saying that animals are incapable of thinking, I'm saying that humans are unique in how intelligent we are. We're the apex predator for this reason: We can overpower our instinct, think rationally into the future, create a plan, alter that plan as necessary, and keep moving forward. This is why humans are progressively inventing better and better technology while every other animal on Earth does not... We're the only ones capable of civilization. If we weren't, then our ancient ancestors would have had to compete to be the apex.

And, in fact, we did. With the Neanderthal, for example. We eliminated our competitors and became the only civilization-starting species remaining on Earth. I'm not saying this because I "feel" it, I'm saying this because this is what the data is saying. Plainly. Even a casual observation should be enough to understand this. However, you're going with your own feelings on the subject matter, such as in saying that squirrels might have a culture. Which, by all observations, is... Patently absurd. No matter how you feel about it.

If it's so controversial, then maybe it's because it's flawed? First they gotta know what it is, and animals have no exposure to mirrors.

Oh really?

And if them not knowing what it is proves they're not intelligent, then you not knowing what a Tricoder is proves your stupid (In comparison) It's not that you're stupid, it's that you probably lack the experience and exposure to that item. Same with animals. They don't give a fuck about most our items. They have no use for a mirror, they have no use for a can opener, they have no use for a stove.

It's not that they don't have a use for these things, it's that they're not intelligent enough to know how they function. If they were, they would have made their own tools and became competitor species with their own, intricate, civilization-level sociological trees and specialists. Again, the closest to that comes from chimpanzees, but, again, they're still not quite intelligent enough to successfully advance to the next level of intelligence. They're still overwhelmingly controlled by instinct, and feelings.

We could say that they're intelligent enough and simply don't learn for whatever reason, but there's no evidence to suggest that and plentiful evidence to the contrary. This is a faith-based argument, based on "I feel", not "I understand." There's no, possible way, I can ever argue you out of this position, because it's not founded on any observable reality. This is what I was lamenting in my rant. "I feel" is being used as an equitable argument to actual logic and reason, and this drives me nuts. Especially since I catch myself doing it from time to time too. It's a fundamental part of being human, it's frustrating, or as Kestrel put it...

Intuition is, despite how easily manipulated it is, deep down still the number one reason we as a people do things.

Frustrating, this skin of ours, isn't it?

Do you understand it though? Everything you said about animals were wrong XP

Except it wasn't. You used no citations. Because your position is not built on reason, it's built on feelings. It's an impossible position to disprove not because you have a mountain of evidence, but because you're taking the argument of "you can't read the mind of an animal." Well, no, I can't, and asking for that level of evidence is absurd. What I can do is test the animal's capacities and observe its behaviours. There is not a single animal other than homo sapiens capable of producing new materials that don't exist in nature, or debating purely ideological concepts that have no basis in reality, or telling stories from one generation to another, or advancing technologically and mutating the environment to suit its purposes as a result, or learning how to read and write, or record information. We are more than the sum of our parts--we are more than our instincts. Most other animals are purely instinct-driven. They perform pattern recognition, but don't understand the basis for that pattern. We're a lonely species, because we killed our ancient competitors.

For being all about logic, reason, and proof, you sure did allot of assuming without proof, and had flawed logic to determine what you said about animals. I Can't say anything with your reasoning because I think reasoning is based more on experience, and a lack of experience isn't a bad thing (Or shouldn't be held against someone)

Okay. No. You obviously didn't read my rant, or you patently lacked any comprehension of it. I'm not sure if you're just trolling now. I bluntly spent an entire paragraph ripping into the idea that "lived experiences" are somehow equitable to hard facts, to data, to logic and reason. You, as an individual, have personal biases. You have feelings, emotions, they get in the way of making factual, objective statements. You constantly have to fight that instinct to say "look, listen, and believe". Most of what I've stated above is common knowledge, you can look it up for yourself on Google anytime you want to, or in a public library. We're a unique species in the level of intelligence we have achieved. We're the only species capable of not only problem solving, but contextually and abstractly understanding what the problem is and why it exists and how to manipulate the environment to prevent it in the future. We don't just live in the environment, we ultimately create it. We don't just feel emotions, we're capable of understanding what the cause of them is, and how to control them. We're more, than the sum, of our parts. We're not just instinct-driven animals. We can be a lot more than that, through logic, and reason.

Not through "lived experiences", not through "I feel it to be true", not through "you can't possibly absolutely know so my argument from ignorance is equitable"... But from hard fact, and reason, and logic, and critical thinking, and skepticism, and information gathering. You don't "reason" based on what you think you know. You reason based on understanding how to think critically. The scientific method embodies this. If you "feel" something to be true, then go out and try to prove it. Try to better understand it. Don't just assume you know it because it can't be disproven--that position is absurd.

Now, you can feel free to reply again if you want. If you do, all I ask is that you at least read the fucking thing. Like making claims that I thought animals didn't have emotions, when the crux of my argument is that's the one thing we share with most other animals. Or claiming that I think animals are incapable of intelligence, when I pointed out in my own argument that humans have achieved a level above that of animals--not that they're entirely incapable, but that they aren't at our level. Or that animals are only organic machines, when I pointed that out only for specific kinds of animals that are very simplistic in how they function--such as bees and ants, who willfully commit mass suicide on command without a shred of self-care based on instinctive, emotional responses.

Seriously. If it seems like I'm ripping into your argument harshly, it's because I am. This entire rant is about how I loathe "I feel" arguments, and yet here it is. An "I feel" argument. Great. What did you expect me to react with, joy?

And a fun part for spirits and stuff. Scientist tested people who did astral projection, and everything added up. They can't say for certain there is a spirit world as there wasn't any solid proof in the experiment, but I think that was because they were lacking the correct gear (If gear for that can exist in the first place)

There has never been any scientific evidence whatsoever to prove that astral projection or other forms of spirituality have ever been even remotely, slightly feasible. The individual words of individual scientists is not enough to even begin to form a remotely acceptable or credible theory. If anyone could ever prove that such an absurd concept is possible, they could win a million fucking dollars right now. This is what I mean: Critical thinking and rationality are always better than "I feel." Always. Always. Because millions of people every year are conned into thinking that they can talk to their dead family members, or that vaccines cause autism, or that homeopathy will somehow cure their cancer, or that ancient Chinese medicine is better for childbirth than a fully equipped and sterilized hospital room. These conmen anger me greatly and there's nothing I can do about it because people subscribe to "look, listen, and believe", and consider emotional appeals as somehow equitable to logic and reason.

 

[Izurich]

@_@ Guys, guys! I understand each have their own opinions, but chill... Brovo clearly tagged the thread as a "Rant", not "Debate", there's a big difference there.

Here, have a high sloth to chill.

 

[Brovo]

@_@ Guys, guys! I understand each have their own opinions, but chill... Brovo clearly tagged the thread as a "Rant", not "Debate", there's a big difference there.

Here, have a high sloth to chill.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Out of curiosity, I do completely agree with the OP.

However this one part specifically:

Explain to me using logic and reason what we should do about them. I don't give a fuck about how you feel about mental disorders: Explain to me using logic and reason what we should do about them.

Had me wondering.
How would one have humanity make the switch from emotional to logical?
Which one might imagine would be quite a challenge with humans being emotional creatures by nature.

To the point where the very post appealing to Logic > Emotion also comes with some emotional motivations, and where my own agreement with is also somewhat backed by emotional motivation.

 

[Shadon Xarian]

@_@ Guys, guys! I understand each have their own opinions, but chill... Brovo clearly tagged the thread as a "Rant", not "Debate", there's a big difference there.

I'm not debating XP I'm discussing. There's a difference XD Even so, "Rant" doesn't make you immune to questions and fun facts ^^

@Brovo
So, for example, if you take rights and freedoms away from people, you start validating the paranoia of people with terrible ideas.
Okay? My point still stands? The fact still remains the terrible opinion started something terrible, regardless of how it happened. I'm not trying to censor things (Not entirely sure what I said to make you think that o.o) But if it's a terrible opinion, then I want them to realize why. If they don't agree, then so be it. The only time I'll "Sensor" something is when It needs to be outright abolished, and at that point, it's not censoring, it's preventing it from becoming a reality. And something like that will generally have a massive backing against it. (Though that doesn't mean anyone will fight against it >.<)

And your hitler example just proves my point even more does it not? Someones very dangerous opinion became a reality and did terrible things. So I'm not entirely sure what you're disagreeing with DX

Then nobody is a Christian because you're supposed to murder people for working on Sundays, or for wearing clothes made of mixed linens.
Exactly XD You understand it, so I don't understand what you're trying to say. You give a bunch of rules to a computer, it's not going to pick and choose based on what it feels, it's going to follow all those rules (Unless you programmed it to make it proficient, then it'll delete things that are terrible and just keep things that are good/tolerable/necessary evil) doing other wise however, is emotion. So if you disagree, then it it seems you disagree for emotional reasons. (A fun example I thought of is taking a handful of Japanese laws, applying it to yourself and being like "Yup, I'm Japanese" Nooo, you're not Japanese, you just took a bunch of Japan's laws DX" Same with Christians, you're not christian, you just took a bunch of Christian laws. At that point, you're just making up your own thing and calling it the same name as another religion.

Plus, it really ain't right to tell someone what it is they can and cannot believe, or who it is they are or aren't, by a set of qualifications you've personally adopted based on your feelings. A person can believe in X but not follow all of its tenets.
I'm not telling them what they can and can't believe, I'm telling them that if they are going to believe in a book that is quite clear that you MUST follow everything or else you go to hell, then have to believe and follow everything in that book. If you don't follow everything in a religion, then you are simply taking ideas from the book and applying to your own morals. (They all say "The bible is literal truth, I follow EVERYTHING" So if you say you're going to follow everything, then you best be following everything XD (Granted I'm glad that they don't o.o But that still doesn't change the fact they're supposed to)
So in other words, what I expect them to do is for them to back up what they say, and actually follow every rule as they claim they want to do.

So yes, you can believe in X and not follow all its trends, but if the trend dictates you must follow everything within it, then you can't logically truly be apart of that now can you?

Just because individuals can create tools doesn't mean they're teaching and perfecting tool design to following generations.
Except that's exactly what they DID. The first generation to make the hook had a kinda flawed design for their purpose (It worked, but it didn't work as well as it could) So the bird CIVILIZATION came together every so often, shared their knowledge, and perfected their designs. (Or if you are REALLY gonna be strict about the definition of society saying "A bunch of PEOPLE" then fine, I'll call it an animal civilization, hardly makes a difference to me either way.

Source?
And why should I bother looking for the source right now? The next quote I cover is you basically saying "Even if they do have hooks, it doesn't matter because they don't have internet" You can't really ask for something and then immediately say it doesn't matter DX There's no point.


Also, a hooking tool is still nowhere near the creation of plastics... Or the Internet.
Is that it? They have to do what we've JUST STARTED to understand to do in the past what? 50 years inorder for you to see them as more? They have to be doing things that a university graduated genius can do? If each bird isn't a stephen hawking, then they're just a thing that can't think? I seriously don't understand how you can't see how the logic you're applying here doesn't work. Apply your own logic to babies/toddlers/villages in Africa or something, by your logic, they will fail to be human level, even know they ARE human.

I hope aliens don't share that mindset XP They'll look at us and be like "What's this? They don't have teleporters and light speed? Only basic things like internet? Clearly they don't have societies and clearly they don't understand much of anything. May as well make them a food source... But lets not actually make anything moral, make it painful and uncomfortable, I mean they don't understand their situation anyway so it's fine ^^" (That last one may not be your specific mindset, but it's the mindset of many, many people)

And sure, 5 year olds can make hooks if they are taught how to. From what I can tell, typical animals seem to be about toddler level (In terms of human societal knowledge, DON'T confuse that for survival intelligence which far exceeds typical humans who don't know a thing about surviving in the wild)

But should we not value babies? Should we not value children? By using your logic you use for animals against humans, human children shouldn't be seen as equal to us adults. Don't think so? then the logic you're using doesn't work logically, only for what you feel is right/moral/ethical.

But since you're so smart and stuff, go make mah a jet ^^ wait, you can't? I thought us humans were suppose to be so special??? I thought we were all super smart??? D: Could it be that you're taking credit for what other people are doing and applying it to yourself???? Sure, there are humans that can make jets and stuff, but fact of the matter is that majority of humans cannot create that. So by your logic, most humans are equivalent to how you see animals using that scale. No? Then you can't apply that same scale to animals since it falls flat on its face when applied to humans.


Thankfully though, animal study has boomed lately, we FINALLY started to actually understand them a bit, and we are now finding out how to study them appropriately. We are finding things that we didn't even think animals were even slightly capable of doing. I may suggest laying off history for a moment and go a bit into animal study, because most/everything you said about animals have been proven wrong, and seems VERY emotion filled with how you want to treat humans as a superior species. And as such, I'm not going to continue the animal topic because it doesn't matter what an animal can do, you're just going to deny it or say it doesn't matter. Your scale falls flat when you apply it to human babies/toddlers, yet human babies/toddlers are an exception. You seem to want animals that are smarter than both of us combined (Building jets/internet, something I doubt either of us can do) inorder for them to be more, and that flawed.


Sorry for pushing that on you so much XD You seem so obsessed with using logic and being machine like, yet the logic you're using for animals are flawed.

A fun example is computers are seen as racist by a certain group of people. There's a program designed to pick the best candidate for jobs, but it always seems to not choose black people very often. People called the maker of it racist so the guy looked into the programming and results to see if maybe he messed up. Turns out the computer does that because typically, black people don't qualify as much as white people. That's not their fault by any means, their situation is the reason (Which SUCKS) But regardless, people felt the computer was racist, when it was just reading data. Similar will be said if you apply animals. A computer will place animals to certain jobs in todays society. Take dogs that look for drugs for example, the computer will choose a dog for that job over a human with a good nose because the dogs nose far superior (Fun fact, dogs can smell despises in people, and identify it. So dogs are being trained to look for specific desieses like cancer, while another dog is being trained to look for aids.)

My point? For you wanting to be 100% Logical like a machine, you sure let allot of emotion get in the way of that logic, to the point where it becomes hypocritical.
(For what it's worth though, I WISH I could agree with you, the things animals are put through by humans, I REALLY wish that animals didn't understand as much as they do, but they do weather I like it or not (And in turn, they do weather you like it or not XD)


So i'm not going to be continuing the animal part. But we can do the human part if you so please :D That one is fun to me.

 

[Hatsune Candy]

The thing is, Brovo, as you may have realized, humans are inherently very emotional creatures, and that is just something that is never gonna change whether you like it or not. To put it quite simply, emotions are what make humans, human. For you to suggest that we should set that aside in favor of logic and reasoning, well, I just find it rather ridiculous to be honest.

From what I can tell, a lot of your rant addresses the hatred that has been expressed by humanity throughout the ages, and the problem I see with that is that hatred is not directly related to emotion. It may seem silly, but it's true; hate stems from a lack of empathy. I mean, think about it, use your precious logic and reasoning, and just think about it for a minute. When a person hates another person it is almost always because they are incapable of empathizing with that particular person, which is usually due to the many differences that exist between the two and the failure to recognize or come to terms with them. In that sense, hatred is actually anti-emotional, rather than emotional.

At least, that's what I believe. It may not be an entirely logical conclusion, but that's on purpose. I'm trying to make the point here that being emotional is just as important as using logic and reasoning, without it, we would lose a fundamental part of what makes us who we are. We should be thankful for the existence of emotions, it's impossible to imagine a world without them.

That being said, I am all for using logic and reasoning, but there needs to be a balance; this isn't a black and white situation here, we can't just focus on one or the other. What we really need to do in order to move forward as a species, is find the right mixture of logic and emotion so they balance each other out and we don't get any of the nasty side effects from either one.

@_@ Guys, guys! I understand each have their own opinions, but chill... Brovo clearly tagged the thread as a "Rant", not "Debate", there's a big difference there.

Here, have a high sloth to chill.

There's no harm in a simple debate, it allows for the spread of ideas and gives people the opportunity and means to open their mind to brand new possibilities. As long as no one is being overly aggressive or throwing around insults at each other—at which point it just becomes a petty argument—then it's perfectly fine, and I don't see any of that going on around here.

 

[Shadon Xarian]

the problem I see with that is that hatred is not directly related to emotion. It may seem silly, but it's true; hate stems from a lack of empathy.

Huh... There's something to think about for the rest of my eternity :D

I think you're half right half wrong. I do think that hatred is an emotion so it's related as much as it possibly can. BUT when I use mah imagination/empathy to try and see the mind of say hitler, I don't exactly feel anger despite what he did. (Guess that's where the saying "Hate the sin, not the sinner" comes from)

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

hatred is not directly related to emotion. It may seem silly, but it's true; hate stems from a lack of empathy.

A lack of empathy simply means not being able to relate to another person.
In other words your view and opinion of them is very neutral or alien, but not hateful.
One's reaction is far more likely to be "... I don't understand" than be "OMG! I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU THEREFORE DIE!!!".

Hate on the other hand isn't neutrality, but a negative emotion thrown at a person.
Now I will grant hatred is often accompanied by lacking empathy, because one allows the hatred to blind them to that point.
But someone who simply lacks empathy isn't going to become hateful.

 

[Hatsune Candy]

A lack of empathy simply means not being able to relate to another person.
In other words your view and opinion of them is very neutral or alien, but not hateful.
One's reaction is far more likely to be "... I don't understand" than be "OMG! I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU THEREFORE DIE!!!".

Hate on the other hand isn't neutrality, but a negative emotion thrown at a person.
Now I will granted hatred is often accompanied by lacking empathy, because one allows the hatred to blind them to that point.
But someone who simply lacks empathy isn't going to become hateful.

And that's why it's an opinion, and not fact. You do raise a good point though, and I realized what I said doesn't quite get my point across. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, the keys words being understand and share. Without that, a simple disagreement can quickly escalated to expressions of hatred that can stick with a person for years and years to come. That is what I mean when I say that hatred is not directly related to emotion, and it's a big reason why hating someone and not liking someone are two completely different things. Not liking someone has both emotional and logical reasoning to it, but hating someone is both irrational and unempathetic.

 

[Brovo]

Okay? My point still stands?

No. Taking away rights and freedoms is a physical action. Trying to censor someone's opinions no matter how shitty is thought crime. There's a difference.

And your hitler example just proves my point even more does it not? Someones very dangerous opinion became a reality and did terrible things.

Someone's shitty opinions who would have had no power had it not been for a disenfranchised society.

I'm not telling them what they can and can't believe, I'm telling them that if they are going to believe in a book that is quite clear that you MUST follow everything or else you go to hell, then have to believe and follow everything in that book.

And I'm telling you that there are people out there who believe the Bible was written by human hands and thus, for one reason or another, not all the tenets within the book need to be followed in order to maintain a belief and worship in a deity.

Either way, it's entirely a faith-based argument. It's an argument based on emotion. You can't fight it with reason, because it's an unreasonable position, that makes a massive assumption about the universe and our place within it. So, it's kind of irrelevant...

Also, yes, you're telling people what they can and can't believe. You can put it in nicer words, but telling someone they can't be "true Christians" because they don't follow every tenet in the Bible, in spite of worshiping and believing in the same God, is to use a no true scotsman fallacy. The question then becomes "which version of Christianity is the true one then?" If you answer "none" or answer with any particular version (Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodox, et cetera) you're telling people what it is they can or can't believe. If you choose to say that any of them could be true, then you're defeating your own argument.

Except that's exactly what they DID. The first generation to make the hook had a kinda flawed design for their purpose (It worked, but it didn't work as well as it could) So the bird CIVILIZATION came together every so often, shared their knowledge, and perfected their designs. (Or if you are REALLY gonna be strict about the definition of society saying "A bunch of PEOPLE" then fine, I'll call it an animal civilization, hardly makes a difference to me either way.

Except that's still nowhere near a civilization. Birds don't have hyper-specialization, they don't advance into newer technological levels, they don't make even simple villages, leave alone complex, thriving metropolises filled with specialists of all kinds. The mountain of evidence against bird civilization is so humongous that I'd find it difficult to fit into a single document in my lifetime.

Civilization is a uniquely human aspect. I'm sorry, no matter how much you feel otherwise, it simply is.

Source?
And why should I bother looking for the source right now? The next quote I cover is you basically saying "Even if they do have hooks, it doesn't matter because they don't have internet" You can't really ask for something and then immediately say it doesn't matter DX There's no point.

Because I'd like to know more? It sounds interesting, even if it's not civilization-level stuff, it's indicative of a great level of intelligence out of birds. Which by animal standards, can help us to better understand ourselves.

Is that it? They have to do what we've JUST STARTED to understand to do in the past what? 50 years inorder for you to see them as more?

They need to show some level of consistent advancement. They aren't doing that. When birds manage to do it in a way that can be discerned, then I'll budge my opinion and be amused that evolution is repeating itself. The fact that they can make and use a single tool is not the basis of a civilization. It informs us that they can manage to do problem solving, but so can ferrets, and cats, and dogs. There's no ferret, cat, or dog civilization.

I hope aliens don't share that mindset XP They'll look at us and be like "What's this? They don't have teleporters and light speed? Only basic things like internet? Clearly they don't have societies and clearly they don't understand much of anything. May as well make them a food source... But lets not actually make anything moral, make it painful and uncomfortable, I mean they don't understand their situation anyway so it's fine ^^" (That last one may not be your specific mindset, but it's the mindset of many, many people)

#1: Maybe that's why aliens don't make contact with us. Because we aren't advanced enough to really comprehend or properly handle discourse with them.
#2: Last I checked, a lot of people are disturbed by the slaughter of animals traditionally considered pets. South Korea boils dogs and that profoundly disturbs a lot of people. We have different values for different animals based on their uses and perceived intelligence. It's also very possible that outside of this little Earth of ours, there are aliens so absurdly higher on the scale of intellectual capacity that we're simply ants to them. This is honestly a possibility.

But since you're so smart and stuff, go make mah a jet ^^ wait, you can't? I thought us humans were suppose to be so special??? I thought we were all super smart??? D: Could it be that you're taking credit for what other people are doing and applying it to yourself???? Sure, there are humans that can make jets and stuff, but fact of the matter is that majority of humans cannot create that. So by your logic, most humans are equivalent to how you see animals using that scale. No? Then you can't apply that same scale to animals since it falls flat on its face when applied to humans.

... What? You realize that, aside from personal financial cost and time, I could actually go and learn how to make you a jet, right? I could Google how jets work, learn it, and then teach it to you. Assuming I had the parts, time, and education, I could make myself a jet. Ferrets can't do that. Dogs can't do that. Cats can't do that. Most birds can't do that. Crows and Chimpanzees show some rudimentary ability to do it, but not to the level of jets and the Internet--more to the level of basic tools and certain, simple social practices. Which is impressive, but not to the level of a human.

Our level of intelligence is wholly unique. It's self-evidenced. Go outside and see it for yourself.

I may suggest laying off history for a moment

No. Because I'm focused specifically on people. Animals were an example. :|

because most/everything you said about animals have been proven wrong,

I've yet to see a dog build a house. Or a cat create irrigation. Or an elephant invent the alphabet. Also, [citation needed].

But should we not value babies? Should we not value children? By using your logic you use for animals against humans, human children shouldn't be seen as equal to us adults. Don't think so? then the logic you're using doesn't work logically, only for what you feel is right/moral/ethical.

Children shouldn't be seen as equal to adults. We don't treat them as equal to adults. They're mentally underdeveloped humans. Would you want them voting, or thrown into work before they learn how spell or talk? We've specifically designed laws around the fact that children are not equal to adults... Why in the world would we even begin to think that way? Unless you're talking about the value of their life, in which case... We... Do, put some level of value on the lives of animals. Based on our interpretation of their intelligence and their uses for us, and our superior intelligence, among other factors. We do it all the time, constantly. I don't think we treat animals properly, personally. I think we could treat animals much better, as we could treat the planet a lot better, but that's not what this topic is about.

Because for some reason, you have misconstrued logic for being an unrepentantly cold and merciless person. Based on logic I can figure out that animals attempt to preserve their own lives and express pain at being injured. Therefore, ethically, there's something troubling about the idea of raising animals for the sole purpose of slaughter, especially when you make their lives nothing but misery in the process. Or, hunting animals for sport, and wasting the carcass, thus giving their death no meaning in the circle of life. This, however, is an entirely different topic from "I'm tired of emotional arguments being considered equitable to logical ones."

Your scale falls flat when you apply it to human babies/toddlers, yet human babies/toddlers are an exception.

Actually, humorously, no. It's you that is patently wrong. Again, go outside. We don't let children drive cars. If you're confused about why we value their lives a lot, it's because without them, the human race goes extinct... We kind of can't let that happen.

You seem so obsessed with using logic and being machine like,

For the last time, I'm not against emotions. I just don't think they're on par or equitable to logic and reason. One of these times I say it, maybe you'll hear it. Probably not, though, because you're probably too busy thinking of how to tell me why squirrels have a culture.

A fun example is computers are seen as racist by a certain group of people. There's a program designed to pick the best candidate for jobs, but it always seems to not choose black people very often. People called the maker of it racist so the guy looked into the programming and results to see if maybe he messed up. Turns out the computer does that because typically, black people don't qualify as much as white people. That's not their fault by any means, their situation is the reason (Which SUCKS) But regardless, people felt the computer was racist, when it was just reading data. Similar will be said if you apply animals. A computer will place animals to certain jobs in todays society. Take dogs that look for drugs for example, the computer will choose a dog for that job over a human with a good nose because the dogs nose far superior (Fun fact, dogs can smell despises in people, and identify it. So dogs are being trained to look for specific desieses like cancer, while another dog is being trained to look for aids.)

Yes. And this is logical. I have nothing against this, really. The issue isn't the computer program, it's the fact that blacks are not receiving equal education opportunities when compared to whites when they should be. That, again, however, is an entirely different topic. Also, yes, it is logical that dogs should sniff out drugs. We've bred species of dogs to sniff things out. They're doing exactly what we made them to do.

My point? For you wanting to be 100% Logical like a machine, you sure let allot of emotion get in the way of that logic, to the point where it becomes hypocritical.

PS: No, emotions are not evil--emotions simply are. They exist for one purpose or another: Fear for the purposes of survival, hate for the purposes of motivation, anger for the purposes of expressing personal discomfort, et cetera. Ergo, they are part of our evolutionary survival

I fully understand that being human means emotions are an unavoidable part of my experience as a living thing. I make mention that I understand the evolutionary need for them--even fear, hate, anger, sorrow. They are absolutely unavoidable and they do make life worth living.

I'm still not saying that emotions have no point. They do have a point. I've said this over and over again: I am a human being, emotions are unavoidable, therefore I will feel emotions whether I like it or not. I've also said that emotions make life worth living. For god's sake, it's not black and white. Logic and reason are superior to emotions, that doesn't mean emotions have no point. Humans are intellectually superior to animals, that doesn't mean that animals have no value and should be treated like garbage.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but for the last time: Just because I put logic and reason above emotions in terms of how to get shit done and how not to be a fucking idiot that will murder people because they don't believe what I believe, doesn't mean that I think emotions have no point. Love is the spice of life, curiosity is what compels people to try and understand the universe in the first place.

I'm just saying that I don't think emotional appeals should be considered equal to hard facts, evidence, reason, fucking logic, that thing that put our species at the top of the food chain. I don't know how this equates to me suddenly thinking that babies have no value. What the fuck is wrong with you? This is a rant about my agitations with emotional appeals being considered equal to logical deduction and here you are, making the emotional appeal of accusing logical viewpoints of devaluing human and animal life. To the point that babies have no value.

Seriously, what the fuck? Why are you bothering to post here if you're just going to constantly ignore everything I say to imply that I hold positions that are extreme and untenable?

The thing is, Brovo, as you may have realized, humans are inherently very emotional creatures, and that is just something that is never gonna change whether you like it or not.

Yes, we are, and I still haven't been denying that, at any point, anywhere. Not that it'll stop people from thinking otherwise, I guess. Which is why I started this rant in the first place.

To put it quite simply, emotions are what make humans, human. For you to suggest that we should set that aside in favor of logic and reasoning, well, I just find it rather ridiculous to be honest.

#1: We share emotions with many creatures, however our level of intelligence surpasses that of every other creature on Earth that we're aware of. Ergo, what makes us human is actually our intelligence. Fact. Unless dogs and cats are now humans, too, at which point the term has lost all meaning, and we'll need to find something else to call ourselves.
#2: We should absolutely set aside our emotions if they would compel us to do violent or stupid things. We should absolutely prioritize self-control and composure. That way, no matter how emotional we get, we won't resort to something completely insane. Like someone getting fucking killed because of revenge. They lost all sense of humanity and went bestial.

From what I can tell, a lot of your rant addresses the hatred that has been expressed by humanity throughout the ages, and the problem I see with that is that hatred is not directly related to emotion.

Hatred is an emotion, so yes it is related to emotion. Because it is one. Regardless of how you see it.

It may seem silly, but it's true; hate stems from a lack of empathy.

Uh... No? I have a lack of empathy, that doesn't make me hateful. It makes me insensitive, but not hateful. In fact, the more you care about something, the more it hurts to lose that thing. The more pain you feel, the less rational you become if you lack the measure of self-control necessary to keep yourself stable. No one particular emotion should be overindulged in. Again, I'm not saying to become an emotionless automaton, because that's impossible and would remove any reason to bother living. I'm saying to control them and not consider outbursts of emotion equitable to actual forethought and logic. Because emotions are reactions to situations, they aren't always the appropriate response to a situation.

If a murderer stopped to think about the consequence of his or her action, they would generally always cease and desist. The vast majority of murders are committed because one person became unable to tolerate another person. They became unable to tolerate them because of hatred. Hatred is an emotion.

Jesus Christ I'm not asking for robots, I'm asking for adulthood. For self-control. For composure. For not behaving like a child who didn't get his cookies so he punches his mother because he's fucking five.

I mean, think about it, use your precious logic and reasoning, and just think about it for a minute.

Yup. Thought about it. All done, thanks. If you can ever point out a war to me that was done without any hint of one side hating the other side, I'll grant your lack of empathy. Because I'm pretty sure a lot of soldiers don't want to commit murder, but have to. That's why PTSD exists. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of examples, that live day to day lives, that spit in the face of your idea that a lack of empathy is why people commit murder. Hatred is the basis for most senseless murder. It always has to come from somewhere. If it doesn't come from the soldiers, it comes from their leaders. If it doesn't come from the murderer themselves, it comes from what they believe their ideology pushes them to do.

Now, all that being said? Empathy is absolutely crucial to not being driven to murder people. If you think logically and reasonably, then maybe you will pursue empathy or practice ethics so as to avoid murder.

and the failure to recognize or come to terms with them.

Almost as though... If they just... Ignored their frustration, and sat down and had a conversation, learned more about each other, and negotiated ways to coexist, they would have been able to come to terms with it. Instead of being ruled by emotion and doing something incredibly fucking crazy, like shooting your ex-coworkers because you were fired.

In that sense, hatred is actually anti-emotional, rather than emotional.

Hatred is when your emotions are ruling over you rather than you over your emotions. Granted, to get to the point of murder, you're numbed to the consequences of your actions, but that's a result of disconnecting from reality. That's why a lot of people suffer trauma after something terrible has occurred, regardless of whether they succumbed to shock in the midst of the situation. When you've disconnected from reality, you no longer care about the logical or rational consequences of your actions: Only doing whatever feels right at the time. Whether that's overdosing on something, putting a bullet in your brain, or putting a bullet in someone else's brain, this is indicative that you have stopped functioning as a human, and have reverted to bestial impulses.

Again, because I think I'm going to have to repeat this about a hundred times: Emotions are not your enemy. A lack of self-control is your enemy. It's why I can be aggravated in responding to this, but not consider you a bad person, or desire that you get hurt, or anything else like that. If I listened to my emotions, however, and considered them to be equitable to my rational thinking, I would be lashing out viciously and attacking you and anyone else I felt threatened me in some way, or questioned me, or did other things I didn't agree with or didn't like. Instead, I have control over them, so I can realize that you're just making a counter-argument. We can come to terms, we can discuss, and failing all of that, we can agree to disagree, no matter how I feel about the topic. Because my "lived experiences" or whatever fucking nonsense have you, is not equitable to a more rational, cool-headed observation of the situation: And that is, that you're trying to explain why you don't think I'm right. By being rational before being emotional, I'm capable of having a conversation with you even though I'm aggravated at this point.

At least, that's what I believe. It may not be an entirely logical conclusion, but that's on purpose. I'm trying to make the point here that being emotional is just as important as using logic and reasoning, without it, we would lose a fundamental part of what makes us who we are. We should be thankful for the existence of emotions, it's impossible to imagine a world without them.

Well, actually, it is possible to imagine a life without them. Dull, boring, pointless. A computer is only impressive when there is someone to use it, no matter how powerful it is. In the same way that a gun can be used to get food for your family, or shoot your family. Your emotions are not the enemy, they are part of you, because as I've said a hundred times before: We are animals too. We have emotions. They're part of us. I just don't think it's a wise decision to take what is inherently bestial and consider it comparable to our logic and reason, which we've used to construct our magnificent innovations over the years.

Try having this conversation with whatever pet you own, or whatever animal is in the wild. They don't have the capacity to understand or care. All they care about is more basic emotional concepts, which, depending on the animal, can vary from what is essentially an automated process, to rudimentary intelligence, companionship, and problem solving skills.

Also, just to say it again: No, I don't think babies have no value. I don't think they're equitable to animals. I don't want to eat babies. Okay?

That being said, I am all for using logic and reasoning, but there needs to be a balance; this isn't a black and white situation here, we can't just focus on one or the other. What we really need to do in order to move forward as a species, is find the right mixture of logic and emotion so they balance each other out and we don't get any of the nasty side effects from either one.

Use logic and reason to figure out situations and use emotions to fulfill yourself. Logic and reason should be valued over emotions because we're going to feel emotions anyway, but it's completely possible for someone to totally disregard logic and reason and do horrible, horrible fucking things because of it. When we stop functioning with at least some level of logic, we stop being people.

Wow, that was a long post. Fuckin' journey, that. In the future I guess I'll just need to clarify myself better so people don't get strange black and white thoughts out of what I've written. Time to get some soup.

 

[Shadon Xarian]

No. Taking away rights and freedoms is a physical action. Trying to censor someone's opinions no matter how shitty is thought crime. There's a difference.
I never said I'm trying to sensor anyone DX (I'm not entirely sure how I would anyway) So we must have 2 different definitions on what censoring someone truly is. (Unless you've mis-read)

Someone's shitty opinions who would have had no power had it not been for a disenfranchised society.
Which I don't think matter XD I don't care how, my point is it happens, I don't know why you keep bringing up hows as an excuse for the end results, the how isn't my point, it's the end result.

It's not that i'm not listening to what you say, it's that I don't see how some things you say apply, so I have nothing to really say about it so I move on with it. (Or you'll say something I agree with so I don't bring it up as it would be pointless)

yes, you're telling people what they can and can't believe. You can put it in nicer words, but telling someone they can't be "true Christians" because they don't follow every tenet in the Bible, in spite of worshiping and believing in the same God, is to use a no true scotsman fallacy.
I'm not telling them what they can and can't believe. They can believe the words of the bible. That's fine. I don't recall fighting against that.
BUT when they say that "every word is truth and I will obey all of it" then I would expect them follow up on what they say, or else they're being hypocrites. If you follow a religion that says you must do all this, then you MUST do all of it as that's what it dictates. A religion with no exceptions shouldn't be given exceptions because you feel like it XD
Since you're not doing everything the rules say, then you're simply taking bits and parts and applying it to your own moral thinking.

You understand that, so I don't understand where your confusion is coming from DX Sure there's things like Lutheran which is a changed version of Christianity (Or the origin one, forgot which) but that's my point in taking from the religion and applying it to yourself. In this case, many people followed suit and made it its own religion/variation. What I'm talking about is smaller scale than that.

I guess what I'm doing in the end is setting labels clear (I'm a bit OCD when it comes to things XP) If you claim to be christian yet don't follow most the christian rules? Then you've mis-labeled yourself. You are simply your own person who found the bible to have some good ideas.

Probably not, though, because you're probably too busy thinking of how to tell me why squirrels have a culture.
I don't know why you keep bring that up. I was talking about birds. Squirrels must have gotten mixed up in that ONCE. I don't think squirrels have a society (if they do then it's an interesting one that's oddly spread out... See? I don't know, that's why I'm not claiming anything, unlike you who claims allot of things that you can't possibly know, but just assuming... For some reason)
So bring the squirrel thing up all you like, because it's more of an attack than anything else at this point, which means you've turned this into a salty debate, meaning this can't go on as I told mahself that I won't do debates here DX

 

[Brovo]

Probably not, though, because you're probably too busy thinking of how to tell me why squirrels have a culture.
I don't know why you keep bring that up. I was talking about birds. Squirrels must have gotten mixed up in that ONCE. I don't think squirrels have a society (if they do then it's an interesting one that's oddly spread out... See? I don't know, that's why I'm not claiming anything, unlike you who claims allot of things that you can't possibly know, but just assuming... For some reason)
So bring the squirrel thing up all you like, because it's more of an attack than anything else at this point, which means you've turned this into a salty debate, meaning this can't go on as I told mahself that I won't do debates here DX

Well, you're the one who said they might have a culture, and a history, and so on, so...

Ah well. 'Twas nice discussing this with you even if we hit an impasse.

G'day mate.

 

[Hatsune Candy]

*long ass post*

Ah, no, I see what you're saying and I can safely say that we are (mostly) on the same page, I just misunderstood the first time. Although, you misunderstood my point about hatred being unempathetic in origin (mostly because it was poorly explained). It'd probably be easier to understand what I was trying to get across if you read my response to Gwazi, but I won't be too fussed over it if you don't, it's mostly irrelevant to the subject matter anyways.

 

[Shadon Xarian]

Well, you're the one who said they might have a culture, and a history, and so on, so...

Ah well. 'Twas nice discussing this with you even if we hit an impasse.

G'day mate.

I suppose so XD... Just to set one thing clear >.>
you're the one who said they might have a culture, and a history, and so on, so...
Key word there is might. You're saying that animals 100% do NOT (Like birds passing info) and it was recently proven they do. So while you sit there wrong, I'm sitting here like "huh, that's amazing to know ^^ Glad I didn't underestimate them and treat them any less :D" Instead following what people of the past did with "It doesn't exist until it's proven" Get more into the "It could, it could not be. I don't know for sure, so i'm not going to hold anything against anything ^^" Such a better existence.


You tell me to go look outside, but I see outside. It's how I experiment around with the animals. (So not sure why you told me to look outside like I don't know what a jet/house is.)

I'm not claiming that cats can build houses, i'm saying that they don't HAVE to build houses to be equal, while you seem to be saying that they all have to be walking around as smart as Einstein to be equal. That's why I did the child comparison though you don't see children as equal, so there's really no hypocrity. So it's more of a matter of what we declare to be equal.

Fun Story/cat being brutally killed story

Spoiler

(Also, birds running away from us isn't universal. I was at a place recently, a huge tourist place. Birds, humans, and 2 other small creatures all got along in perfect harmony. Nobody was afraid of eachother, it was super peaceful and made me wish it could be like that everywhere. True peace and harmony, it was nice ^^
The animals never had to run from humans in their history of their ancestry, they were never targetting to be killed. Unlike the birds/other creatures around my house who I've seen first hand people try and kill. I've seen a cat in the ally who's head was burred and the rest of the body was out of the ground just still. No way a cat did that to himself, a human brutally killed it. That's why wild cats tend to keep their distance but house cats do not, house cats have good experience with humans and thus, have trust. While wild cats have to deal with... THAT.

Birds are the most fascinating to me, mainly because it's difficult to get close enough to get anything (But a Squirrel can walk on by without the bird batting an eye >.< So not fair... Also, if they truly were as brainless as people think, then shouldn't they run away from everything equally? Doing other wise clearly shows they think things through. Squirrels generally don't go after birds, so birds don't have to worry. Humans constantly shoot down birds/chase after them for fun and just make them miserable. So it's no wonder why they run from creatures like us yet not squirrels. It's the same reason why we would run from a shark but not run cat.)

While you say "Look at this simple Squirrel, it hasn't evolved to do anything special, it can't do anything even close to what we can do" I play around with them, provide food to gain a bit of trust so I can see how it replies to what. Cats, Squirrels, even ants/other insects, what they do is pretty similar to what a human would do in that situation. Why would that be? If we are sooooooooo different and superior, then why are we so similar? (Well you don't see the similarities, but I do)
You've given yourself a mental block when it comes to animals, borderline forced ignorance (Or a level I've never seen before XD) Meanwhile I'm learning quite a bit about animals, I see what they do, how they do it, and starting to understand the why's. I grew up with a cat, I've never seen my cat as less than me, I learned him things, he taught me things (Granted him to me more than me to him >.<)

But if we were truly meant to see animals as less, then why do humans need to be taught to see animals as less?
When a human grows up with an animal, there is no difference between the two until the human grows up and other people teach them "You're better than it!" It's why farmers tried their best to keep their children in the mindset to not become friends with the animals as one day, they'll have to kill it. If they were truly inferior, then it would already be set in our minds, but we are born seeing everything as not more or less. Simply things to survive off of/learn from, and then that's how the relationships grow.

It really is too bad that things we've learned aren't common knowledge yet >.< Even I have to go a bit out of my way to learn the newest of new things about animal study. I can't wait for that day it becomes common knowledge and the whole world can potentially be like how it was at that super peaceful place of 100% peace and harmony.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

And that's why it's an opinion, and not fact. You do raise a good point though, and I realized what I said doesn't quite get my point across. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, the keys words being understand and share. Without that, a simple disagreement can quickly escalated to expressions of hatred that can stick with a person for years and years to come. That is what I mean when I say that hatred is not directly related to emotion, and it's a big reason why hating someone and not liking someone are two completely different things. Not liking someone has both emotional and logical reasoning to it, but hating someone is both irrational and unempathetic.

That simple disagreement turning to hatred still requires (negative) emotion though.
If they simply didn't empathize you'd be more likely get a result of mutual confusion or a "Um... Let's agree to not understand each other, ok?" more than anything else.

That being said though, we're speaking on a topic where Brovo knows far more than me anyway's.
And most of what I can say here is stuff I only somewhat remember from a discussion I had from him several years ago on another site.