Can love prove God? What's wrong with this argument?

[SaxonX]

Aww, poor little tink tink…

Nah, the only one here who is remotely worthy of sympathy for their intellectual shortcomings is you Huggy 

A self own would be attempting to argue that animals have all these human feelings, all the while kidnapping their children whom they apparently love, and selling them off or giving them away.

No actually that's in no way a self own as I never argued they had human feelings just feelings that humans happen to share (Love for example) and no separating a dog from its pups is not kidnapping as if it's done right the pups are already emotionally and mentally developed enough to leave the mother and go with a new caretaker.

If that’s what you believe, doesn’t that make anyone with pets no different than a slave trader?

Nope in no way shape or form is shifting who takes care of the animal to slavery 


This yet another vain attempt to get one over here and failing miserably 

[SYZ]

I always love it when huggy pretends he owned someone when he has in fact owned himself and lacks the awareness to see it 

Aww, poor little tink tink…

Earlier on Huggy, I posted this request of you (which you may've missed):

Earlier you said "So Love requires a ‘brain’, ‘dopamine’ and ‘neural
pathways’, all of which are present in animals, yet animals don’t
have the ability to love."

Link necessary.  Please.

I've not seen any specific evidence supporting your claim
that animals don't have the ability to love.  In fact, from
my own (admittedly unevidenced) viewpoint I've witnessed
exactly what I'd describe as love between many species of
animals, made even more convincing by animals when one
of them dies or is killed.

Scientists have identified mourning-like behaviours not just
in cetaceans, but in elephants, giraffes, chimpanzees and
other primates and, possibly, turtles, whales, bison and birds.

  —When Animals Grieve, National Wildlife Federation, 30 January 2018.

[Dānu]

[pattylt]

As someone that has had two dogs at various times, I have watched the behavior of one when the other has died. They start out confused as to where their buddy went. Then they mope around continuing to look for him. Their eating diminishes and it’s pretty obvious they miss them. The survivor needs extra attention and cuddles. If they are mourning and missing their buddy, what do you call that except a type of love. It may not be as intense as human love and they may recover more quickly than a human…but, it’s love nonetheless.

If someone wants to claim that animals have no ability to love at all, I’d really like to see how that’s shown.

[Huggy Bear]

A self own would be attempting to argue that animals have all these human feelings, all the while kidnapping their children whom they apparently love, and selling them off or giving them away.

That's just admitting that humans don't treat animals as well as we do other humans. No big shock there seeing how poorly we treat other humans with different skin colour/belief/culture/sexual orientation/etc... And they aren't human feelings, they're feelings that a lot of animals have, including humans. I'd say that I was surprised that you could be this dense, but I'm not.

Ok, so the question should be asked; do you feel that animals should have rights like the people you mentioned were granted?

[SaxonX]

Ok, so the question should be asked; do you feel that animals should have rights like the people you mentioned were granted?

No the fact animals have feelings does not automatically mean they should have the same rights as humans. This is a non sequitur.

[Huggy Bear]

Ok, so the question should be asked; do you feel that animals should have rights like the people you mentioned were granted?

No the fact animals have feelings does not automatically mean they should have the same rights as humans. This is a non sequitur.

You’re going to have to elaborate on why you believe that, because not to long ago a slave owner would have said the same about slaves.

[Cavebear]

Ok, so the question should be asked; do you feel that animals should have rights like the people you mentioned were granted?

No the fact animals have feelings does not automatically mean they should have the rights as humans. This is a non sequitur.

I tend to agree here that non-human animals have feelings and attachments to other animals and yet not human rights. But I've had enough cats to know that when one household member dies, it disturbs them. Sometimes they search for them inside and outside. They go to where the deceased one used to spend time and look/sniff around. They are expressing memory and concern. That is one reason that I lay out a deceased one for the rest to sniff. It seems important that they understand the deceased has not just "gone missing".

I don't know what my pets really understand about death. Probably that X isn't quite among them anymore but isn't "missing" either. My cats usually spend about 10-15 minutes sniffing and sitting around a deceased. Interestingly, they don't prod or push the deceased to "get it to wake up". And then they leave.

There is also a difference between how they treat dead prey and dead housemates. The cats don't seem to care or even notice if a mouse is dead, they just keep tossing it around. They don't treat a deceased housemate that way. That suggests to me that they understand some degree of lost social and personal connections.

And it isn't always species-specific. Some of my pet-blogger friends have both dogs and cats (and sometimes other largish pets) and they each react to those deceased ones as much as to their own kind.

I think it is part of memory-capacity. While some pets have shown long-term memory about other household pets or humans, it seems unusual for that to last more than a few months. There is a degree of "the longer the companionship, the longer it takes to let it go". Humans are not unlike that. We just have longer memories than most pets have lives...

[SaxonX]

You’re going to have to elaborate on why you believe that, because not to long ago a slave owner would have said the same about slaves.

No I really don't  have to having emotions and being capable of expressing love in no way means one needs to hold the position they should have the same rights a former human slaves. This is a non sequitur. as the logic does follow.

[Huggy Bear]

You’re going to have to elaborate on why you believe that, because not to long ago a slave owner would have said the same about slaves.

No I really don't  have to having emotions and being capable of expressing love in no way means one needs to hold the position they should have the same rights a former human slaves. This is a  non sequitur. as the logic does follow.

Yes you do, if you believe that animals have the same emotions as humans, then explain your reasoning why they shouldn’t have the same protections. Or do you suddenly realize you’re making a dumbass argument and are deciding to tap out?

If you tap out without answering, you’re going on ignore, not wasting my time with people that make bad faith arguments.

[SaxonX]

Yes you do, if you believe that animals have the same emotions as humans, then explain your reasoning why they shouldn’t have the same protections. Or do you suddenly realize you’re making a dumbass argument and are deciding to tap out?

 
Nope once again it doesn't follow that because it's a fact animals have emotions like us means they should have the same rights as us, I don't know how many times I need to repeat this fact and so far the only one acting like a dumbass  is the guy who can't that through his head and thinks this terrible line of attack  is some kind of win when it's not. I have not "tapped out" in any way, I have stated why your complaint is illogical and either you're too dense to understand that or are just being obtuse because the flaw in your logic has been exposed. Either way, it doesn't matter you lose either way. 

If you tap out without answering, you’re going on ignore, not wasting my time with people that make bad faith arguments.

Once again no tapping out has been done here I have shown that your argument is fallacious you can accept that fact or not I don't care either way really and your free to cower behind the ignore button if you like. 


Anyway you lose. I win... Eodem solito

[Huggy Bear]

Yes you do, if you believe that animals have the same emotions as humans, then explain your reasoning why they shouldn’t have the same protections. Or do you suddenly realize you’re making a dumbass argument and are deciding to tap out?

 
Nope once again it doesn't follow that because it's a fact animals have emotions like us means they should have the same rights as us, I don't know how many times I need to repeat this fact and so far the only one acting like a dumbass  is the guy who can't that through his head and thinks this terrible line of attack  is some kind of win when it's not. I have not "tapped out" in any way, I have stated why your complaint is illogical and either you're too dense to understand that or are just being obtuse because the flaw in your logic has been exposed. Either way, it doesn't matter you lose either way. 

If you tap out without answering, you’re going on ignore, not wasting my time with people that make bad faith arguments.

Once again no tapping out has been done here I have shown that your argument is fallacious you can accept that fact or not I don't care either way really and your free to cower behind the ignore button if you like. 


Anyway you lose. I win... Eodem solito

First of all, my question was to Paleophyte, because he made the comparison between how animals and humans are treated.

[quote="Paleophyte" pid='441292' dateline='1728751876']
That's just admitting that humans don't treat animals as well as we do other humans. No big shock there seeing how poorly we treat other humans with different skin colour/belief/culture/sexual orientation/etc...

But you had to jump your ass into the mix. 

Btw stop repeating yourself, I know you don’t believe animals should have the same rights as humans, the question is WHY DO YOU BELIEVE ANIMALS SHOULDN’T HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS.

Last chance.

[SaxonX]

First of all, my question was to Paleophyte, because he made the comparison between how animals and humans are treated.

Yup and that is totally irrelevant to anything and changes nothing about my statement. 

But you had to jump your ass into the mix. 

This is an open forum were anyone can comment on anything if you don't like that tough . No one made you read or respond to my comments that's on you buddy. 

Btw stop repeating yourself, I know you don’t believe animals should have the same rights as humans, the question is WHY DO YOU BELIEVE ANIMALS SHOULDN’T HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS.

Once again  it doesn't follow that because it's a fact animals have emotions like us means they should have the same rights as us. This is simply a fact thus  your objection is illogical and fallacious. You can accept this or not I don't care.  

Last chance.

You don't make ultimatums here buddy. Your not giving me chances the fact I'm  even addressing you is purely because I feel like it and only to state that facts I already have previously stated if you don't like that again I don't care. 


Again I win you lose Nihil sub sole novum

[Cavebear]

 
Nope once again it doesn't follow that because it's a fact animals have emotions like us means they should have the same rights as us, I don't know how many times I need to repeat this fact and so far the only one acting like a dumbass  is the guy who can't that through his head and thinks this terrible line of attack  is some kind of win when it's not. I have not "tapped out" in any way, I have stated why your complaint is illogical and either you're too dense to understand that or are just being obtuse because the flaw in your logic has been exposed. Either way, it doesn't matter you lose either way. 



Once again no tapping out has been done here I have shown that your argument is fallacious you can accept that fact or not I don't care either way really and your free to cower behind the ignore button if you like. 


Anyway you lose. I win... Eodem solito

First of all, my question was to Paleophyte, because he made the comparison between how animals and humans are treated.

[quote="Paleophyte" pid='441292' dateline='1728751876']
That's just admitting that humans don't treat animals as well as we do other humans. No big shock there seeing how poorly we treat other humans with different skin colour/belief/culture/sexual orientation/etc...

But you had to jump your ass into the mix. 

Btw stop repeating yourself, I know you don’t believe animals should have the same rights as humans, the question is WHY DO YOU BELIEVE ANIMALS SHOULDN’T HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS.

Last chance.

Well, while I think that humans are certainly animals (physically), I think there is a degree of difference. And I think that "degree" matters here. Some other animals show some degree of self-awareness, but not like humans do. I don't want to say "exponentially" but certainly linearly and resembling a "hockey stick" but more in-between that. I don't have a good analogy to use. Maybe the success curve in a game like Civ2. All civ sadvance, but advances accumulate and one civ is clearly ahead of the others rather suddenly and definitely. OK. maybe a good example...

image hosting site

We humans are the yellow line. All the lucky mutations and adaptations. The next down are the chimps and dolphins, cats and dogs, and maybe pigs. Below there are the food ones (cows, chickens, etc.

I know this seems like an odd post. But it seems like an analogy is the best way to explain human apex existence.

[Huggy Bear]

First of all, my question was to Paleophyte, because he made the comparison between how animals and humans are treated.


But you had to jump your ass into the mix. 

Btw stop repeating yourself, I know you don’t believe animals should have the same rights as humans, the question is WHY DO YOU BELIEVE ANIMALS SHOULDN’T HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS.

Last chance.

Well, while I think that humans are certainly animals (physically), I think there is a degree of difference.  And I think that "degree" matters here.  Some other animals show some degree of self-awareness, but not like humans do.  I don't want to say "exponentially" but certainly linearly and resembling a "hockey stick" but more in-between that.  I don't have a good analogy to use.  Maybe the success curve in a game like Civ2.  All civ sadvance, but advances accumulate and one civ is clearly ahead of the others rather suddenly and definitely.  OK. maybe a good example...

image hosting site

We humans are the yellow line.  All the lucky mutations and adaptations.  The next down are the chimps and dolphins, cats and dogs, and maybe pigs.   Below there are the food ones (cows, chickens, etc.

I know this seems like an odd post.  But it seems like an analogy is the best way to explain human apex existence.  

Even then, humans that are born with certain disabilities, whose cognition might not be at the level of some animals, yet it’s understood that treating them differently is wrong.

If one’s argument that animals share the same emotions as humans, then it should logically follow that animals should fall under the same protections, because there isn’t anything separating the animals from humanity.

To think otherwise would be immoral.

[Cavebear]

Well, while I think that humans are certainly animals (physically), I think there is a degree of difference.  And I think that "degree" matters here.  Some other animals show some degree of self-awareness, but not like humans do.  I don't want to say "exponentially" but certainly linearly and resembling a "hockey stick" but more in-between that.  I don't have a good analogy to use.  Maybe the success curve in a game like Civ2.  All civ sadvance, but advances accumulate and one civ is clearly ahead of the others rather suddenly and definitely.  OK. maybe a good example...

image hosting site

We humans are the yellow line.  All the lucky mutations and adaptations.  The next down are the chimps and dolphins, cats and dogs, and maybe pigs.   Below there are the food ones (cows, chickens, etc.

I know this seems like an odd post.  But it seems like an analogy is the best way to explain human apex existence.  

Even then, humans that are born with certain disabilities, whose cognition might not be at the level of some animals, yet it’s understood that treating them differently is wrong.

If one’s argument that animals share the same emotions as humans, then it should logically follow that animals should fall under the same protections, because there isn’t anything separating the animals from humanity.

To think otherwise would be immoral.

You are going a bit far about the Immorilty of eating meat for my tastes (pun intended). We humans are healthier with some meat, but not too much. I eat about 3-4 oz per day with lots of veggies on the sides. Usually a salad, a green veggie, and a reddish one. All things in moderation.

Degree of self-awareness matters. I don't have chimps or dolphins on my menu. We are evolved to be omnivores, not herbivores or carnivores. But we can choose among them. With some apology to the pigs, Ie normally eat meat of the rather stupid mammals or birds.

[SaxonX]

Even then, humans that are born with certain disabilities, whose cognition might not be at the level of some animals, yet it’s understood that treating them differently is wrong.

If one’s argument that animals share the same emotions as humans, then it should logically follow that animals should fall under the same protections, because there isn’t anything separating the animals from humanity.

To think otherwise would be immoral.

Again doesn't follow that having emotions like humans should entitle them to the same rights . This in no way shape or form logically follows no matter how much you insist it does and not agreeing with this illogical leap is not in anyway immoral

[Huggy Bear]

Even then, humans that are born with certain disabilities, whose cognition might not be at the level of some animals, yet it’s understood that treating them differently is wrong.

If one’s argument that animals share the same emotions as humans, then it should logically follow that animals should fall under the same protections, because there isn’t anything separating the animals from humanity.

To think otherwise would be immoral.

You are going a bit far about the Immorilty of eating meat for my tastes (pun intended).  We humans are healthier with some meat, but not too much.  I eat about 3-4 oz per day with lots of veggies on the sides.  Usually a salad, a green veggie, and a reddish one.  All things in moderation.    

Degree of self-awareness matters. I don't have chimps or dolphins on my menu.  We are evolved to be omnivores, not herbivores or carnivores.  But we can choose among them.  With some apology to the pigs, Ie normally eat meat of the rather stupid mammals or birds.

I believe my point is arguing that animals share the same emotions as humans is going too far, no one making that argument really believes that or they'd act accordingly.

[SaxonX]

I believe my point is arguing that animals share the same emotions as humans is going too far, no one making that argument really believes that or they'd act accordingly.

So far you don't have a point there is zero contradiction between accepting animals have the same emotions as humans and not believe they should same rights as humans. No one id thus contrary to that belief. Another ridiculous logical leap from you.

[SaxonX]

Even then, humans that are born with certain disabilities, whose cognition might not be at the level of some animals, yet it’s understood that treating them differently is wrong.

If one’s argument that animals share the same emotions as humans, then it should logically follow that animals should fall under the same protections, because there isn’t anything separating the animals from humanity.

To think otherwise would be immoral.

You are going a bit far about the Immorilty of eating meat for my tastes (pun intended).  We humans are healthier with some meat, but not too much.  I eat about 3-4 oz per day with lots of veggies on the sides.  Usually a salad, a green veggie, and a reddish one.  All things in moderation.    

Degree of self-awareness matters. I don't have chimps or dolphins on my menu.  We are evolved to be omnivores, not herbivores or carnivores.  But we can choose among them.  With some apology to the pigs, Ie normally eat meat of the rather stupid mammals or birds.

He can't get his fat head through the idea there is no logical contradiction or inconsistency to be found here.

[Huggy Bear]

Even then, humans that are born with certain disabilities, whose cognition might not be at the level of some animals, yet it’s understood that treating them differently is wrong.

If one’s argument that animals share the same emotions as humans, then it should logically follow that animals should fall under the same protections, because there isn’t anything separating the animals from humanity.

To think otherwise would be immoral.

Again doesn't follow that having emotions like humans should entitle them to the same rights . This in no way shape or form logically follows no matter how much you insist it does and not agreeing with this illogical leap is not in anyway immoral

What did you say earlier?

I always love it when huggy pretends he owned someone when he has in fact owned himself and lacks the awareness to see it  

You claim that animals have the same emotions as humans, but shouldn't have the same rights as humans for no reason other than they are classified differently, which by definition kinda makes you a bigot.

May be a little harsh, but YOU made the argument.

Talk about owning oneself...

[SaxonX]

You claim that animals have the same emotions as humans, but shouldn't have the same rights as humans for no reason other than they are classified differently, which by definition kinda makes you a bigot.

May be a little harsh, but YOU made the argument.

Talk about owning oneself...

This again doesn't follow. Acknowledging that non human animals have emotions like humans but can't be granted the same rights as humans  is in no way shape or form bigotry. So another attempt at "owning me " that falls flat on it's face and it actually reinforces my first point honestly that you think argument works in anyway shape or form so i'll state it again because it rings as true now as when i first said it. 

 always love it when huggy pretends he owned someone when he has in fact owned himself and lacks the awareness to see it  undefined

So I suggest you apply that clown gif to the person who has actually made themselves look like a clown here (You)


So again I win you lose Scurra semper agit ut scurra 

[Inkubus]

...You claim that animals have the same emotions as humans, but shouldn't have the same rights as humans...

[Cavebear]

Well, while I think that humans are certainly animals (physically), I think there is a degree of difference.  And I think that "degree" matters here.  Some other animals show some degree of self-awareness, but not like humans do.  I don't want to say "exponentially" but certainly linearly and resembling a "hockey stick" but more in-between that.  I don't have a good analogy to use.  Maybe the success curve in a game like Civ2.  All civ sadvance, but advances accumulate and one civ is clearly ahead of the others rather suddenly and definitely.  OK. maybe a good example...

image hosting site

We humans are the yellow line.  All the lucky mutations and adaptations.  The next down are the chimps and dolphins, cats and dogs, and maybe pigs.   Below there are the food ones (cows, chickens, etc.

I know this seems like an odd post.  But it seems like an analogy is the best way to explain human apex existence.  

Even then, humans that are born with certain disabilities, whose cognition might not be at the level of some animals, yet it’s understood that treating them differently is wrong.

If one’s argument that animals share the same emotions as humans, then it should logically follow that animals should fall under the same protections, because there isn’t anything separating the animals from humanity.

To think otherwise would be immoral.

First, just in passing, "immoral" is a religious concept, and I will have little to do with that. If you mean "unethical", say so. There is a difference.

Second, all animals of a same species are not quite the same in abilities. That is what evolution is all about. I have had a couple of relatives who, well, "weren't quite all there". We take care of them because it isn't their fault and we can afford to assist them through a difficult lifetime. That is part of the advantage of being an apex being.

In most of the rest of the animal world, it doesn't go quite so well for individuals lacking some abilities. Failures mean death. The slowest or dumbest deer gets eaten. The last fawn to be able to run fast from birth gets eaten.

Among humans, the disabled (in any way) have the advantage of a society that generally tries to take care of them (and sometimes at considerable cost. But even we can't save everyone.

Pets fall in between. I had a cat once who was so inept that I had to stand over it so the other cats wouldn't just steal his food. And I had to scoop up a lot of his poops right next to the litter box. He understood the general location but not quite the box itself. And some pets are even less able. They don't understand about oncoming cars. Those that do go on to have offspring that also do. Well OK, my cats are spayed/neutered, but you get my point.

Lack of full abilities is usually fatal for any animal. Humans are a bit different. We help others much more than most other animals to a considerable degree. So we have some differences from the rest of the animal kingdom and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[Cavebear]

Um, I think that some recent posters got Huggy-Bear's intent reversed... Or did I?