Three years of autism/schizophrenia research destroyed by

[Pogo]

This is pretty lucid. I might break down a point or two individually:

There are two ways I can take your question, I'll try to answer both.

I conclude that most people place human life above animal life based on personal experience. I've rarely met anyone who was as upset about animal death as human death; I don't know that I've ever met someone who claimed to put the life of an animal on the same level as a human child; you see people willing to do extraordinary things to save other people far, far more often than animals. So that's where I get the conclusion that most people value humans over animals.

As to where I personally get that value from, it's mostly an issue of intelligence. That's a very general explanation, but the ability to communicate is a big factor, perhaps because we are such social creatures. There's also the ability to understand concepts like death, the ability to feel and express pain, etc. There's even the whole idea of 'sticking with your own kind' to some extent.

Now, there may be individual cases where my values differ. I may care about a pet more than a person I hate. But in general, I consider humans worth more than other life. It is my belief that everyone makes their own judgements about the values of various types of life, and no one truly considers all life of equal value (unless, perhaps, that value is zero).

Thanks, that's much more along the lines of what I was looking for. I have to say though, there's not much logical basis in "most people I know feel this way"-- that's basically an "everybody knows" fallacy.

Lots of animals are social creatures too, many more than we are, and as for ability to understand concepts like death and pain, well how do we know what a rabbit experiences unless we've been a rabbit?

Then it occurs to me there were recent stories of horsemeat being found in European beef, and some were horrified by that (cow OK, horse not OK) on the basis that horses are employed more as pets. Presumably this means their lives are worth more (?)

This is what I'm looking for: a real, logical explanation of why we should deem our lives higher than those of other species. If one of us gets hit by a car, we'll have traffic stopped, ambulances and EMTs on the scene, jaws of life and CPR right on the road. If a dog gets hit by a car, we all just run over it. Some of us will even go out of our way to run over, say, a turtle crossing the road.

That's quite the contrast. How did we get to such a place?

That is IF Kiestergirl doesn't have another fucking meltdown over a simple philosophical query...)

Oh, there's a ton of hypocrisy about what animals are good to use as food and what animals are not. I found the horse meat issue way overblown; unless you are allergic, at worst it might be that you end up with bad tasting meat.

It's similar to the way we are ok using pigs as meat animals, but I've often heard they are as smart as dogs. Why are dogs taboo as food but not pigs?

I'm with you on that query. It's not directly our question but a related one. Having eaten horsemeat (and in Europe no less) I thought the whole thing was overhyped. Big deal folks-- you're already eating cow.

I wasn't attempting to use my belief that most people value humans more than animals as a way to justify that belief, merely as a informational statement. It is relevant to this discussion. And based on the way humanity has bred animals for food, slaughtered animals when they are inconvenient, run tests on animals, etc.....I'd say there's pretty strong evidence I'm correct. So the idea that humans are more valuable than animals is not some strange opinion.

No, it's certainly not new or strange. What I'm really asking is how we got to that conclusion. Is there any logical argument at all that can be made to support it, or is it just "this is the way we've always thought of it"? Why are we superior? Because we say so? What does the bear say? Looks like a draw to me.

Whether other animals are social or not isn't entirely relevant. It's there ability to be social and communicate with us that's important. The day cows start speaking to humans, I'll swear off of beef. It's simply easier to by sympathetic and empathetic to a creature you can communicate with directly, that is more the point I was making with being social.

Fair enough, I get your meaning now, but there are many levels of communication. Certainly we communicate with our pet dogs (and they with us) on a rudimentary level. The rufous towhees in my yard communicate with me when they see me coming (and I with them, via a whistle). So do the hummingbirds in their way. So might this not be a simple matter of different languages?

As to how we got to a place of valuing animals so much less....I think you have it backwards. I think animals are probably valued more now than at any other time in human history, generally speaking. Animals rights are a fairly recent concept; laws protecting animals are not some kind of universal human trait; humanity has never valued animals as much as it's own kind.

No, I don't think I have it backwards. Our pre-industrial revolution forebears, maybe not universally but a large portion of them, had close relationships with the Life Force, which they considered to be interconnected in everything -- animals, plants, trees, the earth itself. And when they used game as a food source they would thank the spirit of the animal for the food it provided with its life. There was a certain respect there that seems missing as we run over a dog carcasss on the interstate highway. This is getting into the spiritual, but that's the kind of question it is.

And as I have said, I believe that everyone who places any value on life makes judgements as to the different values those forms of life have. A person may value animal life as much as human, but feel differently about insects. That person may feel differently about plants. That person may feel differently about bacteria, or viruses. Life comes in so many different forms, and comes and goes on such a constant basis, giving all life value and making it of equal value would almost require a person to stop living.

So the judgements we each make about the value of various forms of life differs from other people basically in degree.

Sure they do. I'm reminded by the season of a few years ago, another spring, when I noticed a wasp building a nest, right above the side door-- the door I use all the time to go to the garden and the driveway. I planned out my attack; I'd stand over there and have the water cannon ready, then I'd run over here... then I stopped to think -- this wasp is just making her household, just like I am. What right have I to wipe that out? So I dropped the nefarious plan, she and her waspettes lived out the season in her chosen spot and went about their business, and I went about mine, and all was well. I won't kill spiders, or ants, or anything that's not a direct threat.

Of course ahimsa can be taken too literallly-- I'll kill mosquitoes and ticks without reservation; those are life forms I feel at least threatened by, if not superior to.

I just feel we may have lost something deep by placing ourselves on this pedestal. Something deep and spiritual. We take this attitude that the answer to every situation is to overpower it, control it, and rule it. As a species, we have a certain hubris. So the question is, is there any basis for this pedestal, or is it just a matter of "might makes right"?

 

[newpolitics]

Dogs aren't taboo, if you're starving.

Pig is a go-to meat because they are cheap to feed and they produce a lot of meat for relatively little cost, and they are hardy. They can be raised in a small space, or they can run. They're a great meat animal.

Horses are expensive...it takes them a long time to make weight, it costs a lot to feed them, specialized pens are needed, a certain amount of space, and they are subject to injury and illness that don't haunt other meat animals. And they have a lot of bone mass compared to meat mass, which makes their value as meat go down.

I agree that animals have more value. We value animals more now...and subsequently, we value human life less. It's insane.

You talk of other living, sentient animals only with reference to their utility to you as a human. This is called pathological narcissism.

 

[emilynghiem]

Whoa, don't misunderstand. This doesn't "hurt my feelings"; it pegs my irony meter.

KG and I have a history-- not a long one but a history where, if I say something philosophical (never to her because she can't handle it, but to somebody else), she'll come barging in with negs and insults. I don't really care what she thinks of me, I consider the source, but it tends to quash the philosophical discussion I was looking for.

And yes I recognize "meditate" as bait bullshit, and again I consider the source and ignore it. That's just noise.

Thanks for trying but I don't care to have any kind of exchange with KG whatsoever. She's obviously not capable of it. If she'd just butt the fuck out when I'm talking to somebody else about matters she has no intention of comprehending we'd be better off. As far as I'm concerned she's consumed with hate. I don't pursue that. She pursues me. Why she does that, I don't know and I don't care. I'm not a psychiatrist and it's not my problem.

I'm glad you do see the irony in the pot and the kettle both calling each other black.
And even if it doesn't hurt your feelings personally,
it must hurt your sensibilities your sense of justice whenever you see
anyone speaking as a hypocrite.

From what I understand of karma, it is mutual.
Whatever karma is between you and KG will take both of you letting go,
instead of remaining in this paradigm like a Chinese woven finger trap.
the more you pull away and reject each other, you stay stuck with this thinking
of each other. Only by pushing forward to embrace each other, then you
release the tension and can rise above whatever is causing this mutual block.

Sorry for your troubles.
I have people who think the worst of me even though I have strong advantages
that make up for my weaknesses and annoyances I cause people with my holistic thinking!

So I'm sure the same is so with you and KG
and there are some ppl who will just not see the good side of us or each other.
We are just not going to connect with all people and some we just can't stand.

OK I will still try to address the better sides and points
of either of you that you have to share with me and others.
thank you for this and sorry that you just insult and rub each
other the wrong way. there are people I have that with also,
we just are allergic or clash spiritually for whatever reason
and other people don't get it either because they don't see us that way!

people are funny creatures

no wonder people give up on people
and go save puppies or redwood trees
or something that doesn't complain when you try to help them!!!! ppbbffttt!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dogs aren't taboo, if you're starving.

Pig is a go-to meat because they are cheap to feed and they produce a lot of meat for relatively little cost, and they are hardy. They can be raised in a small space, or they can run. They're a great meat animal.

Horses are expensive...it takes them a long time to make weight, it costs a lot to feed them, specialized pens are needed, a certain amount of space, and they are subject to injury and illness that don't haunt other meat animals. And they have a lot of bone mass compared to meat mass, which makes their value as meat go down.

I agree that animals have more value. We value animals more now...and subsequently, we value human life less. It's insane.

You talk of other living, sentient animals only with reference to their utility to you as a human. This is called pathological narcissism.

Dear KG and NP: looking at the whole paradigm and spectrum of beliefs,
I find there is mutual karma going on:

for every person who rejects the material world and puts human spiritual position first
to an extreme or imbalanced degree, there is someone who does the opposite of that.

same with science and religion.

same with liberal Democrat and conservative Republican.

So either extreme that gets unhealthy indirectly co-influences the opposite extreme
that is equally unhealthy and out of balance. Two wrongs don't make a right,
but that is why they both exist. Until more people agree to move toward the middle
and see where there are good points and weakpoints on both sides. and quit
polarizing it for the sake of judging "the other group" as the problem.
tht mutual judgment and rejection causes both extremes to cling even more defensively.

that is why Buddha taught to look for the middle way to understand
the balance in the process, and take a centered or moderate approach,
enither going to one extreme or the other but staying in harmony with the whole.

 

[Montrovant]

Actually folks,
can we agree that if we live as naturally as possible in harmony with nature, each other
in society and the world,
that we will reduce any harm or risk to health of ALL beings,
ALL people, plants or animals together?
Why not focus on that as the common goal
and not argue if one person says that the value of saving the such and such species
is more important than giving to the Red Cross to save human lives in Somalia?

Let all people work on their OWN priorities of addressing all issues
that affect all life.
Together, we CAN cover all the bases!
let environmentalists do the part they are most sensitive and interested in.
let other people handle diseases and other social ills affecting people directly, etc.

why this fuss?
c'mon
why the scarcity mentality that you have to sacrifice one for the other?
why can't we live in ways that are healthy for the whole planet
and not cause extreme or undue harm or threat to ANY life form? OK?

I don't think we CAN agree to that. I think that living 'as naturally as possible' would mean we wouldn't have the medicines we do, the knowledge of health that we do, there would be no surgeries, no one would have corrective lenses for their vision, wheelchairs wouldn't exist, etc. etc.

Living as naturally as possible would mean running naked and tool-less through the woods, basically.

I'll agree there's not a lot of point to arguing what is better to try and save, other than the pleasure of the argument.

 

[emilynghiem]

animal rights activists.

And no news about it. Amazing. The true anti-science bloc: progressive nutbags:

"
Activists occupied an animal facility at the University of Milan, Italy, at the weekend, releasing mice and rabbits and mixing up cage labels to confuse experimental protocols. Researchers at the university say that it will take years to recover their work.
Many of the animals at the facility are genetic models for psychiatric disorders such as autism and schizophrenia."

"
Michela Matteoli, a neurobiologist who works on autism and other disorders and lost most of her own research in the attack, says that she found some research students crying in the disrupted facility on Monday morning.
“It will take three people at least a year to build up the colonies we had of mouse models of different psychiatric diseases,” she says."

"...animal-rights and environmental extremists have proven to be be capable of lots of damage and widespread, documented criminal activity. Yet they rarely get the press, say, a picture of a rude sign at a Tea Party rally might get. Maybe our more mainstream animal-rights friends could muster some loud denunciations of such tactics to prevent further losses of valuable research. "

Animal-rights activists wreak havoc in Milan laboratory : Nature News & Comment
Animal-rights activists trash years of autism research in Milan lab raid « Hot Air

As someone who has a schizophrenic mom, this saddens me.

I can't wait for a cure for her.

Dear Nitroz: Some cases of schizophrenia can be treated naturally and cured and/or controlled over time. It depends on what is causing the symptoms. Here are some resources that may help in your mom's case, or at least make it more manageable where you are not so afraid of unpredictable issues.

* Glimpses of the Devil by Scott M. Peck where he observed the curing and healing effects of spiritual deliverance on two severely schizophrenic patients who suffered from demonic voices and could not comply with medical treatment until after the deliverance worked

* HEALING by Francis MacNutt edition 1999 or later. this book mentions a schizophrenic patient completely cured and returned to normal,
and a medical study on rheumatoid arthritis that demonstrated how the same healing process worked to cure patients of other diseases deemed incureable.
Christian Healing Ministries

* Dr. Phillip Goldfedder, neurosurgeon who now does his healing and therapy work by spiritual counseling to overcome the negative influences hijacking people's mind and will
Healing Is Yours since he is a neurosurgeon, he may be able to advise you how much of the
sickness can be treated and managed medically and how much could be improved on the spiritual level. He is more focused on wanting to help patients to be healed totally independent of medicine or surgery. if your mom needs counseling over a longer period of time in stages, my friend Olivia may be better:

* my friend Olivia Reiner has helped to cure a patient with multiple personalities caused by demonic obsessions and does deliverance and healing prayer to help the families also, so whatever degree of healing is possible for your family, then this can help you too 713 829 0899

we are trying to put together teams for medical research in Houston and other schools or programs to document cases and coordinate rsources to help and train more people. we need to study how to diagnose and heal schizophrenia and other mental and criminal illnesses instead of treating people like lepers and thinking they just need to be killed off as nonhuman. in most cases some degree of healing if not full cure can be accomplished, and some cases take more time to go through the steps of healing all the stages and layers of spiritual emotional and mental issues that people may have.

so keep calling around and asking different people unti lyou find one that you or your mom rsponds to. my friend olivia was able to use prayer to heal and help one of my friends to get rid of demon voices when his own uncle could not get rid of the affliction, so it depends on which peopel connect to which person sometimes. you will know who is really gifted in spiritual healing because they will not charge money but will help for the sake of healing and helping. teh real healers work with science and medicine and do not reject one for the other, but use all available resources together. so that is why
i list the above sources that work with science and medicine so it is safe and effectivel.

the key point is forgiveness to get rid of fear and any conflicts and negative energy or thoughts blocking the mind from healing itself. so the demons are attracted to old wounds passed down and infected spiritually with negative rage or energies that make you sick. my friend olivia can help for free and these other resources I listed also help people freely to any extent they can help. those are real, and can prove these methods work scientifically.

Take care please let me know how you are doing and which things help you.
The schizophrenic patients in Peck's book not only required the spiritual deliverance but also the therapy and medicine afterwards to work out their conditions over time. One recovered fully, the other died later of unreleated diseased conditions because she rejected medical treatment for too long.

some people are healed faster, others may take more work for all the steps. each one is idfferent so be careful not to judge. just keep aksing for help, keep buidling a positive healing circule around you and your mom and the healing energy will be stronger and the negative emotions and energy will not be able to affect you so much. you will build up immunity like a spiritual defense system, the more you forgive and let positive healing energy flow, which is completely natural. also if there is any use of witchcraft, sorcery, occult, spiritism, etc. anwhere in your family history, *please* call and tell my friend olivia when you call so she can pray to remove that from the equation. that negative energy will mess you up an dbackfire and cause disruptions.

my brothers have variations of this problem, and the cure is forgiveness and breaking the spiritual bonds ofthe negative energy that these demonic forces depend on. so that is where Christian healing prayer is able to break through in ways that science and medcine are getting closer to measuring documenting and proving. it will happen, the process will be perfected and applied to help more people in more cases. take care and keep asking until
you and your mom find the right spiritual support to get stronger and manage this better. if she can be cured it will come from reaching out this way.

 

[nitroz]

As someone who has a schizophrenic mom, this saddens me.

I can't wait for a cure for her.

Has she tried abilify? I have been on a low dose for five years and it works for me.

i'm not sure.

She's on some medication right now but it wears off and sometimes she will intentionally avoid taking it/will throw it away because she claims that it's because we are trying to control her and that the FBI is after her. Any new medication won't go well.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't think we CAN agree to that. I think that living 'as naturally as possible' would mean we wouldn't have the medicines we do, the knowledge of health that we do, there would be no surgeries, no one would have corrective lenses for their vision, wheelchairs wouldn't exist, etc. etc.

Living as naturally as possible would mean running naked and tool-less through the woods, basically.

I'll agree there's not a lot of point to arguing what is better to try and save, other than the pleasure of the argument.

Sorry That is not what I meant. If you are so attached to living naturally as in rejecting technology and medicine, that gets out of balance and is not what I mean by natural.

What I mean is to be in harmony and balance.
So this includes medical advances and technology for convenience to maximize
use of rsources to help the maximum good possible.

I believe as we are more in natural harmony
we won't NEED To have extremes like testing on animals.

Spiritual healing to restore and maintain natural health
will reduce the dependence on medications that require so much testing.

so these extremes already show we are out of balance somewhere.
if we nip that track in the bud, then we won't cause more symptoms of imbalance.

As taught in Buddhism, the ideal is to have the right profession,
and to refrain from words thoughts or actions that cause undue suffering
where this can be avoided.

So we can find better ways to study and develop cures where we won't
need to compromise animals to save human lives.

To get to this ideal, we'd get there faster by workign together to find solutions
instead of wasting our mental energy and resources fighting over the problems.

we will still use technology and medical advancements
but not to the point we don't ever solve the root problems and just
keep placating the symptoms with more drugs that don't cure the root cause.

THAT is what I mean by being out of balance and unnatural.
not the fact that these advances exist and we use them,
but if we become dependent on them to manipulate unnatural symptoms
instead of focusing on the cure so we no longer need all those manipulations.

Thanks M!

 

[emilynghiem]

As someone who has a schizophrenic mom, this saddens me.

I can't wait for a cure for her.

Has she tried abilify? I have been on a low dose for five years and it works for me.

i'm not sure.

She's on some medication right now but it wears off and sometimes she will intentionally avoid taking it/will throw it away because she claims that it's because we are trying to control her and that the FBI is after her. Any new medication won't go well.

Call Dr. Goldfedder or my friend Olivia.
if she's rejecting the treatment, the first step is to work on that part.
it is on a spiritual level, and needs to be addressed spiritually.

after that, she might be better able to focus her mind and follow
the other steps and instructions to get help and stick to a plan.

the spiritual rejection and rebellion needs to be resolved first.
this is what Dr. Peck observed and documented in his book,
how the spiritual deliverance helped the patients' get back their
mind and control of their will and reason. And after
that, they could follow the rest of the treatment, which they rejected before.

if you want me to send you these books, please email me a mailing address
emilynghiem at hotmail I give them out for free to help more medical
professionals to understand that these methods are compatible with science and medicine.

 

[Pogo]

Actually folks,
can we agree that if we live as naturally as possible in harmony with nature, each other
in society and the world,
that we will reduce any harm or risk to health of ALL beings,
ALL people, plants or animals together?
Why not focus on that as the common goal
and not argue if one person says that the value of saving the such and such species
is more important than giving to the Red Cross to save human lives in Somalia?

Let all people work on their OWN priorities of addressing all issues
that affect all life.
Together, we CAN cover all the bases!
let environmentalists do the part they are most sensitive and interested in.
let other people handle diseases and other social ills affecting people directly, etc.

why this fuss?
c'mon
why the scarcity mentality that you have to sacrifice one for the other?
why can't we live in ways that are healthy for the whole planet
and not cause extreme or undue harm or threat to ANY life form? OK?

I don't think we CAN agree to that. I think that living 'as naturally as possible' would mean we wouldn't have the medicines we do, the knowledge of health that we do, there would be no surgeries, no one would have corrective lenses for their vision, wheelchairs wouldn't exist, etc. etc.

Living as naturally as possible would mean running naked and tool-less through the woods, basically.

I'll agree there's not a lot of point to arguing what is better to try and save, other than the pleasure of the argument.

No it wouldn't, because there would be no need to run There would be no such thing as a "hurry".

It sounds like a trivial riff on your literal meaning, but seriously, civilizations who live as in this description (what we call "primitives" in our collectively narcissistic way) actually tend to have far more leisure time than we do. Their needs are simple. They don't need to expend X amount of blood, toil, tears and sweat in pursuit of the newest iPad, the house payment and all that other stuff. They end up with a lot more time for recreation, contemplation and artistic endeavour. (<< which would then beget tool making)

Just sayin'...

 

[Montrovant]

Actually folks,
can we agree that if we live as naturally as possible in harmony with nature, each other
in society and the world,
that we will reduce any harm or risk to health of ALL beings,
ALL people, plants or animals together?
Why not focus on that as the common goal
and not argue if one person says that the value of saving the such and such species
is more important than giving to the Red Cross to save human lives in Somalia?

Let all people work on their OWN priorities of addressing all issues
that affect all life.
Together, we CAN cover all the bases!
let environmentalists do the part they are most sensitive and interested in.
let other people handle diseases and other social ills affecting people directly, etc.

why this fuss?
c'mon
why the scarcity mentality that you have to sacrifice one for the other?
why can't we live in ways that are healthy for the whole planet
and not cause extreme or undue harm or threat to ANY life form? OK?

I don't think we CAN agree to that. I think that living 'as naturally as possible' would mean we wouldn't have the medicines we do, the knowledge of health that we do, there would be no surgeries, no one would have corrective lenses for their vision, wheelchairs wouldn't exist, etc. etc.

Living as naturally as possible would mean running naked and tool-less through the woods, basically.

I'll agree there's not a lot of point to arguing what is better to try and save, other than the pleasure of the argument.

No it wouldn't, because there would be no need to run There would be no such thing as a "hurry".

It sounds like a trivial riff on your literal meaning, but seriously, civilizations who live as in this description (what we call "primitives" in our collectively narcissistic way) actually tend to have far more leisure time than we do. Their needs are simple. They don't need to expend X amount of blood, toil, tears and sweat in pursuit of the newest iPad, the house payment and all that other stuff. They end up with a lot more time for recreation, contemplation and artistic endeavour. (<< which would then beget tool making)

Just sayin'...

Yeah, but do they have more leisure time at the expense of shorter lifespans?

Besides, I don't want leisure time without my video games or my kindle!

 

[Pogo]

I don't think we CAN agree to that. I think that living 'as naturally as possible' would mean we wouldn't have the medicines we do, the knowledge of health that we do, there would be no surgeries, no one would have corrective lenses for their vision, wheelchairs wouldn't exist, etc. etc.

Living as naturally as possible would mean running naked and tool-less through the woods, basically.

I'll agree there's not a lot of point to arguing what is better to try and save, other than the pleasure of the argument.

No it wouldn't, because there would be no need to run There would be no such thing as a "hurry".

It sounds like a trivial riff on your literal meaning, but seriously, civilizations who live as in this description (what we call "primitives" in our collectively narcissistic way) actually tend to have far more leisure time than we do. Their needs are simple. They don't need to expend X amount of blood, toil, tears and sweat in pursuit of the newest iPad, the house payment and all that other stuff. They end up with a lot more time for recreation, contemplation and artistic endeavour. (<< which would then beget tool making)

Just sayin'...

Yeah, but do they have more leisure time at the expense of shorter lifespans?

Besides, I don't want leisure time without my video games or my kindle!

Good point. That is if you have the time for your Kindle.

At the expense of a shorter lifespan? In absolute numbers, no doubt. We're so adept at getting people into sterile steel-and-glass structures where they're surrounded by unspeakably expensive machines that go :::ping::: or else getting them confined to shuffleboard prison camps where we can forget about them.

Said primitives may have fewer years, but I suspect there's a lot more life in their later ones.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dogs aren't taboo, if you're starving.

Pig is a go-to meat because they are cheap to feed and they produce a lot of meat for relatively little cost, and they are hardy. They can be raised in a small space, or they can run. They're a great meat animal.

Horses are expensive...it takes them a long time to make weight, it costs a lot to feed them, specialized pens are needed, a certain amount of space, and they are subject to injury and illness that don't haunt other meat animals. And they have a lot of bone mass compared to meat mass, which makes their value as meat go down.

I agree that animals have more value. We value animals more now...and subsequently, we value human life less. It's insane.

You talk of other living, sentient animals only with reference to their utility to you as a human. This is called pathological narcissism.

Do you know what sentient actually means? What evidence do you have that animals are sentient other than your ability to anthropomorphize inanimate objects?

 

[newpolitics]

Yes, I do. DO YOU???

Animals are sentient.

Wikipedia:

"Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity. Eighteenth century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think ("reason") from the ability to feel ("sentience"). In modern western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known by the technical term "qualia"). For Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, which is held to entail certain rights."

Oops. We're you going to start lying about what sentience means? IT IS NOT SELF-AWARENESS.

"In the philosophy of consciousness, "sentience" can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia".[1] This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts that mean something or are "about" something)"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, I do. DO YOU???

Animals are sentient.

Wikipedia:

"Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity. Eighteenth century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think ("reason") from the ability to feel ("sentience"). In modern western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known by the technical term "qualia"). For Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, which is held to entail certain rights."

Oops. We're you going to start lying about what sentience means? IT IS NOT SELF-AWARENESS.

"In the philosophy of consciousness, "sentience" can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia".[1] This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts that mean something or are "about" something)"

You can cite Wiki, I am not impressed. What impresses me is the ability to understand what you cut and paste.

What evidence do you have that animals are able to take the awareness level of consciousness that they have as a result of having sensory organs and convert that into sentience?

 

[newpolitics]

Yes, I do. DO YOU???

Animals are sentient.

Wikipedia:

"Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity. Eighteenth century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think ("reason") from the ability to feel ("sentience"). In modern western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known by the technical term "qualia"). For Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, which is held to entail certain rights."

Oops. We're you going to start lying about what sentience means? IT IS NOT SELF-AWARENESS.

"In the philosophy of consciousness, "sentience" can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia".[1] This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts that mean something or are "about" something)"

You can cite Wiki, I am not impressed. What impresses me is the ability to understand what you cut and paste.

What evidence do you have that animals are able to take the awareness level of consciousness that they have as a result of having sensory organs and convert that into sentience?

Of course you are not impressed with something that refutes your position. Your Cartesian view of animals is outdated. Catch up with the times. Animals suffer. Suffering is only possible if an entity is sentient. This is how sentience is defined. Shall I go to another source? No problem.

Lets go to the dictionary, you fucking dickhead.

"Main Entry: sen·tient
Pronunciation: \&#712;sen(t)-sh(&#275;-)&#601;nt, &#712;sen-t&#275;-&#601;nt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
Date: 1632
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions 2 : aware 3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling"

Tell me now, where in this definition does it say that sentience means self-awareness. All it describes is the ability to feel or sense your surroundings in any capacity. Animals are demonstrably capable of this. To deny this is idiocy.

 

[Pogo]

Dogs aren't taboo, if you're starving.

Pig is a go-to meat because they are cheap to feed and they produce a lot of meat for relatively little cost, and they are hardy. They can be raised in a small space, or they can run. They're a great meat animal.

Horses are expensive...it takes them a long time to make weight, it costs a lot to feed them, specialized pens are needed, a certain amount of space, and they are subject to injury and illness that don't haunt other meat animals. And they have a lot of bone mass compared to meat mass, which makes their value as meat go down.

I agree that animals have more value. We value animals more now...and subsequently, we value human life less. It's insane.

You talk of other living, sentient animals only with reference to their utility to you as a human. This is called pathological narcissism.

Do you know what sentient actually means? What evidence do you have that animals are sentient other than your ability to anthropomorphize inanimate objects?

Animals are inanimate now.

Bizarre.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, I do. DO YOU???

Animals are sentient.

Wikipedia:

"Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity. Eighteenth century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think ("reason") from the ability to feel ("sentience"). In modern western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known by the technical term "qualia"). For Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, which is held to entail certain rights."

Oops. We're you going to start lying about what sentience means? IT IS NOT SELF-AWARENESS.

"In the philosophy of consciousness, "sentience" can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia".[1] This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts that mean something or are "about" something)"

You can cite Wiki, I am not impressed. What impresses me is the ability to understand what you cut and paste.

What evidence do you have that animals are able to take the awareness level of consciousness that they have as a result of having sensory organs and convert that into sentience?

Of course you are not impressed with something that refutes your position. Your Cartesian view of animals is outdated. Catch up with the times. Animals suffer. Suffering is only possible if an entity is sentient. This is how sentience is defined. Shall I go to another source? No problem.

Lets go to the dictionary, you fucking dickhead.

"Main Entry: sen·tient
Pronunciation: \&#712;sen(t)-sh(&#275;-)&#601;nt, &#712;sen-t&#275;-&#601;nt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
Date: 1632
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions 2 : aware 3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling"

Tell me now, where in this definition does it say that sentience means self-awareness. All it describes is the ability to feel or sense your surroundings in any capacity. Animals are demonstrably capable of this. To deny this is idiocy.

Let us find out what the article you didn't read actually says about animals and sentience.

Sentience in Buddhism is the state of having senses (sat + ta in Pali, or sat + tva in Sanskrit). In Buddhism, the senses are six in number, the sixth being the subjective experience of the mind. Sentience is simply awareness prior to the arising of Skandha. Thus, an animal qualifies as a sentient being.
Animal rights and sentience

Main articles: Animal consciousness, Animal cognition, Animal rights, and Pain in animals
In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience implies the ability to experience pleasure and pain. Animal-rights advocates typically argue that any sentient being is entitled at a minimum to the right not to be subjected to unnecessary suffering, though they may differ on what other rights (e.g., the right to life) may be entailed by simple sentience. Sentiocentrism describes the theory that sentient individuals are the center of moral concern.
The 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham compiled enlightenment beliefs in Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, and he included his own reasoning in a comparison between slavery and sadism toward animals:

The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV's Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?[2]
​

In the 20th century, Princeton University professor Peter Singer argued that Bentham's conclusion is often dismissed by an appeal to a distinction that condemns human suffering but allows non-human suffering, typically "appeals" that are logical fallacies (unless the distinction is factual, in which case the appeal is just one logical fallacy, petitio principii). Because many of the suggested distinguishing features of humanity—extreme intelligence; highly complex language; etc.—are not present in marginal cases such as young or mentally disabled humans, it appears that the only distinction is a prejudice based on species alone, which animal-rights supporters call speciesism—that is, differentiating humans from other animals purely on the grounds that they are human.
Gary Francione also bases his abolitionist theory of animal rights, which differs significantly from Singer's, on sentience. He asserts that "all sentient beings, humans or nonhuman, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others."[3]
Andrew Linzey, founder of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics in England, is known as a foremost international advocate for recognizing animals as sentient beings in biblically-based faith traditions. The Interfaith Association of Animal Chaplains encourages animal ministry groups to adopt a policy of recognizing and valuing sentient beings.
In 1997 the concept of animal sentience was written into the basic law of the European Union. The legally-binding protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam recognizes that animals are "sentient beings", and requires the EU and its member states to "pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals".
The laws of several states include certain invertebrates such as cephalopods (octopuses, squids) and decapod crustaceans (lobsters, crabs) in the scope of animal protection laws, implying that these animals are also judged to be capable of experiencing pain and suffering.[4]
David Pearce is a British philosopher of the negative utilitarian school of ethics. He is most famous for his advocation of the idea that there exists a strong ethical imperative for humans to work towards the abolition of suffering in all sentient beings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

That basically translates to sentience in animals being a matter of faith.

I repeat my question, what evidence do you have that animals are sentient? Is the problem here that you don't understand the word evidence?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You talk of other living, sentient animals only with reference to their utility to you as a human. This is called pathological narcissism.

Do you know what sentient actually means? What evidence do you have that animals are sentient other than your ability to anthropomorphize inanimate objects?

Animals are inanimate now.

Bizarre.

Strange, I don't recall saying that. What I did was equate a posters claim that animals are sentient with his habit of anthropomorphizing inanimate objects. I am not surprised the subtleties of that escaped your mental capacity.

 

[newpolitics]

You can cite Wiki, I am not impressed. What impresses me is the ability to understand what you cut and paste.

What evidence do you have that animals are able to take the awareness level of consciousness that they have as a result of having sensory organs and convert that into sentience?

Of course you are not impressed with something that refutes your position. Your Cartesian view of animals is outdated. Catch up with the times. Animals suffer. Suffering is only possible if an entity is sentient. This is how sentience is defined. Shall I go to another source? No problem.

Lets go to the dictionary, you fucking dickhead.

"Main Entry: sen·tient
Pronunciation: \&#712;sen(t)-sh(&#275;-)&#601;nt, &#712;sen-t&#275;-&#601;nt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
Date: 1632
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions 2 : aware 3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling"

Tell me now, where in this definition does it say that sentience means self-awareness. All it describes is the ability to feel or sense your surroundings in any capacity. Animals are demonstrably capable of this. To deny this is idiocy.

Let us find out what the article you didn't read actually says about animals and sentience.

Sentience in Buddhism is the state of having senses (sat + ta in Pali, or sat + tva in Sanskrit). In Buddhism, the senses are six in number, the sixth being the subjective experience of the mind. Sentience is simply awareness prior to the arising of Skandha. Thus, an animal qualifies as a sentient being.
Animal rights and sentience

Main articles: Animal consciousness, Animal cognition, Animal rights, and Pain in animals
In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience implies the ability to experience pleasure and pain. Animal-rights advocates typically argue that any sentient being is entitled at a minimum to the right not to be subjected to unnecessary suffering, though they may differ on what other rights (e.g., the right to life) may be entailed by simple sentience. Sentiocentrism describes the theory that sentient individuals are the center of moral concern.
The 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham compiled enlightenment beliefs in Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, and he included his own reasoning in a comparison between slavery and sadism toward animals:

The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV's Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?[2]
​

In the 20th century, Princeton University professor Peter Singer argued that Bentham's conclusion is often dismissed by an appeal to a distinction that condemns human suffering but allows non-human suffering, typically "appeals" that are logical fallacies (unless the distinction is factual, in which case the appeal is just one logical fallacy, petitio principii). Because many of the suggested distinguishing features of humanity—extreme intelligence; highly complex language; etc.—are not present in marginal cases such as young or mentally disabled humans, it appears that the only distinction is a prejudice based on species alone, which animal-rights supporters call speciesism—that is, differentiating humans from other animals purely on the grounds that they are human.
Gary Francione also bases his abolitionist theory of animal rights, which differs significantly from Singer's, on sentience. He asserts that "all sentient beings, humans or nonhuman, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others."[3]
Andrew Linzey, founder of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics in England, is known as a foremost international advocate for recognizing animals as sentient beings in biblically-based faith traditions. The Interfaith Association of Animal Chaplains encourages animal ministry groups to adopt a policy of recognizing and valuing sentient beings.
In 1997 the concept of animal sentience was written into the basic law of the European Union. The legally-binding protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam recognizes that animals are "sentient beings", and requires the EU and its member states to "pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals".
The laws of several states include certain invertebrates such as cephalopods (octopuses, squids) and decapod crustaceans (lobsters, crabs) in the scope of animal protection laws, implying that these animals are also judged to be capable of experiencing pain and suffering.[4]
David Pearce is a British philosopher of the negative utilitarian school of ethics. He is most famous for his advocation of the idea that there exists a strong ethical imperative for humans to work towards the abolition of suffering in all sentient beings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

That basically translates to sentience in animals being a matter of faith.

I repeat my question, what evidence do you have that animals are sentient? Is the problem here that you don't understand the word evidence?

You have utterly confirmed that animals are sentient by any definition. Thank you?

What evidence do you have that other minds exist? It is the same sort of question, and yet there is no evidence. This is the problem of hard solipsism. I can no more prove conclusively that animals feel pain than you can prove that anybody else has a mind. However, it is a valid inference that animals feel pain, because they possess the exact same nerves as we do as well as a very similar central processing unit (brain) used for processing and receiving pain signals. Therefore, they have all of the required hardware to feel pain. It is necessary for any organism to sense their environment if they are to survive. and they exhibit very recognizable pain reactions, even for humans. To say humans feel pain but animals don't would require you to explain away all of these similarities. This was attempted by Descartes when he said all animals are basically automatons. Scientific progress doesn't bear this out, and neither does any level of intuition. I find your position offensive and willfully ignorant of the facts.