Ask armati a question

[Metsfanmax]

Why do you not consume chocolate?

The process of creating dairy products is inherently violent and cruel. The life of a dairy cow is a misery and does not justify having a tasty treat.

There's non-dairy dark chocolate, but honestly I don't like it much.

If the chocolate milk came from cows which derive pleasure from "awful" living conditions, then would you consume the chocolate milk?

Probably, yes.

[hotfire]

you do realize that dairy cows get to go out to pasture to get pregnant and give birth? how can this be considered awful?

[Metsfanmax]

you do realize that dairy cows get to go out to pasture to get pregnant and give birth? how can this be considered awful?

Well, yes, keeping the cows pregnant is the whole point. So they keep on producing milk. However, while them "getting to go out to pasture" might happen on your great uncle's one acre farm, it doesn't happen in large-scale commercial operations. There, cows are forcibly impregnated by humans while still in captivity. It wouldn't be wrong to call it rape or sexual assault.

Then, after they give birth, their newborn calf is immediately taken away from them -- after all, if they gave milk to the newborn like the cow's milk was designed for, what would we feed to humans? So the mother and child are separated from each other as earlier as the same day the calf is born, which often produces intense sadness in the mother cow, who looks for her child long after the child is gone.

Then humans drink the cow's milk, which was designed by nature to feed baby cows, not adult humans. Why?

[nietzsche]

while that is indeed sad, animals dont have the mental tools to feel paychological pain like we do.

i can imagine some hormonal change might make cows feel "sadness" to some degree, but animals live more in the moment. We humans have the capacity of living in the past or the future, recreating in our heads traumatic past events or worrying about possible future scenarios.

this is yet another example of you being dishonest, because I bet you know this, yet you leave it out of the picture in order to win an argument.

[Dukasaur]

while that is indeed sad, animals dont have the mental tools to feel paychological pain like we do.

i can imagine some hormonal change might make cows feel "sadness" to some degree, but animals live more in the moment. We humans have the capacity of living in the past or the future, recreating in our heads traumatic past events or worrying about possible future scenarios.

this is yet another example of you being dishonest, because I bet you know this, yet you leave it out of the picture in order to win an argument.

This just isn't true. Animals feel the full range of emotions that humans do.

Animal lovers have always known this, but it's been difficult to prove. Over time, however, more and more experiments have lent scientific weight to this idea.

http://people.uncw.edu/bruce/hon%20110/emotions.htm
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201208/scientists-conclude-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious-beings
http://www.livescience.com/49093-animals-have-feelings.html
http://scienceline.org/2015/03/do-animals-have-consciousness/

[mrswdk]

It is literally impossible to give a single f*ck about whether or not mommy cow cried the night she gave up the milk that made the milkshake I drank at lunch. I'm pretty sure that 80-90% of the people who say they care are only doing so to flap around their big conscience and look kind, not because they genuinely care.

[mrswdk]

Mets, would you buy laughing cow soft cheese?



Their cows are not just happy, they're mirthful. They're loving it.

[khazalid]

i believe it was god himself once aid (i paraphrase) 'the heart of the fool buys the bovine of mirth'.

the 'good news' translation is somewhat ore succinct: 'dairylea is the lord's cheese'.

[Metsfanmax]

while that is indeed sad, animals dont have the mental tools to feel paychological pain like we do.

i can imagine some hormonal change might make cows feel "sadness" to some degree, but animals live more in the moment. We humans have the capacity of living in the past or the future, recreating in our heads traumatic past events or worrying about possible future scenarios.

this is yet another example of you being dishonest, because I bet you know this, yet you leave it out of the picture in order to win an argument.

I don't agree with this one bit. Contemporary science indicates that there are a number of animals other than humans who feel psychological pain.

In evolutionary terms, this is not unreasonable. The difference between humans and other animals is one of degree, not kind. Really the burden of proof is on those who insist that humans have some unique capability not shared by any other species, especially because most of the time when people say that, it ends up being roundly disproved by later science.

If you're going to call me dishonest, it may help to at least provide some evidence for your view rather than saying "Descartes. Checkmate."

[mrswdk]

Really the burden of proof is on those who insist that humans have some unique capability not shared by any other species

Why shouldn't the burden be on those who claim animals share the same capabilities as humans?

I choose to put the burden on those people. 1-1.

[Metsfanmax]

Really the burden of proof is on those who insist that humans have some unique capability not shared by any other species

Why shouldn't the burden be on those who claim animals share the same capabilities as humans?

I choose to put the burden on those people. 1-1.

You've made a strawman argument though. The argument isn't that non-human animals share the same capabilities as human animals. As for why I believe what I do, there is a bit of evidence that makes my side more plausible.

[mrswdk]

The argument isn't that non-human animals share the same capabilities as human animals.

Let's not be a smart ass. You said that the burden of proof is on those who believe humans possess some unique capability that other animals don't (i.e. that only humans are capable of feeling psychological pain). I am saying that I choose to put the burden of proof on the people who say that humans are not the only things which have that capability. If you can't prove that cows feel psychological pain, I see no reason for me to believe that they do.

Although if I'm honest, even if you can prove it I still won't care.

[Metsfanmax]

The argument isn't that non-human animals share the same capabilities as human animals.

Let's not be a smart ass. You said that the burden of proof is on those who believe humans possess some unique capability that other animals don't (i.e. that only humans are capable of feeling psychological pain). I am saying that I choose to put the burden of proof on the people who say that humans are not the only things which have that capability. If you can't prove that cows feel psychological pain, I see no reason for me to believe that they do.

Although if I'm honest, even if you can prove it I still won't care.

I phrased it that way intentionally because I was making the point that biologically speaking, there's no reason expect there to be simple on/off distinctions. I don't have to defend the point that humans and cows feel psychological pain in the same way or to the same extent (whatever that means) in order for us to care about the welfare of cows. I only have to defend the point that the psychological pain a cow feels is at least somewhere between zero and human intensity (if not more intense). So if we think of it as a spectrum (which we should, as individuals educated in evolutionary theory), the burden of proof really is on those who think that mammals like cows and pigs are literally all the way at the zero end of the spectrum, despite the fact that these mammals and humans evolved from the same common ancestor.

Surely you don't believe that all humans feel psychological pain in the same way and to the same extent?

[mrswdk]

Given that the only time I have studied the theory of evolution was in a few high school classes about how natural selection works, I have seen pretty much zero evidence either way regarding a cow's capacity to feel psychological pain. Telling me that 'the burden of proof is on the other guys' is not going to make me think that you're right.

[Metsfanmax]

I have seen pretty much zero evidence supporting either point of view.

It is not my fault you've never read a biology textbook. If you are uneducated in evolutionary theory, then you need a lot more help than I can give you.

Anyway, Dukasaur provided four links above on the subject. Did you look at them?

[mrswdk]

I have seen pretty much zero evidence supporting either point of view.

It is not my fault you've never read a biology textbook. If you are uneducated in evolutionary theory, then you need a lot more help than I can give you.

Anyway, Dukasaur provided four links above on the subject. Did you look at them?

Hurr durr, mrswdk doesn't know about every subject in the world, what a heathen.

Attitude like that is why I gave so few fucks about eating bacon and eggs for breakfast this morning.

[nietzsche]

while that is indeed sad, animals dont have the mental tools to feel paychological pain like we do.

i can imagine some hormonal change might make cows feel "sadness" to some degree, but animals live more in the moment. We humans have the capacity of living in the past or the future, recreating in our heads traumatic past events or worrying about possible future scenarios.

this is yet another example of you being dishonest, because I bet you know this, yet you leave it out of the picture in order to win an argument.

This just isn't true. Animals feel the full range of emotions that humans do.

Animal lovers have always known this, but it's been difficult to prove. Over time, however, more and more experiments have lent scientific weight to this idea.

http://people.uncw.edu/bruce/hon%20110/emotions.htm
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201208/scientists-conclude-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious-beings
http://www.livescience.com/49093-animals-have-feelings.html
http://scienceline.org/2015/03/do-animals-have-consciousness/

Perhaps the emphasis was not correctly expressed in my post.

In fact, I see all this differentiations as a kind of blurry borders, and I'm not denying cows would feel some sort of pain, but what I'm going after with my post is the idea Mets' post directly or indirectly conveys, the transference of our type of suffering to the cow.

More than an evolutionary issue, we're talking about a cultural issue. If you guys love your evolution theory so much, you should know the key here are the mental tools and not the available neurons or whatever. ANd I say "you" meaning both of you because I've now included you with MEts here, and you're going down.

Go check your links and stuff, I don't need any, I know it all already.


Example: Mets mom loses Mets just after birth, it was taken away by the men in black. Mets mom is happy, she had never seen such an horrible baby in her life. She's sad, her whole hormonal system is waiting for Mets to suck on her tits for her to feel good and reinforce the love towards Mets, evolution is so good at this. But she's sad, and she's had this software in her head that she has to be sad also, the whole software in her head is just to big to simply say, hey, whatever man, I'll go have a milkshake now. Nope, she has to feel sad, because there's an image of her in her head, and it's consistent with she being a good person, because daddy once showed her when she was 4 years old, that she admired being a good person and she didn't have then mental tools to think, maybe I'll be a bad person, bad persons seem to have more fun. Nope, in the emotional stage of learning, she just took that sort of energy, that emotional state, and sort of decided she was going to be a good person. Anyway, Mets mom also watched many movies, in which she reinforced the idea that she's now to feel bad. Also, the conspiracy theories, oh noes the government!! the government did this to her, and we're now with the idea, already in her whole software, that the world is unfair, that we're here to suffer (worse if she's catholic) and that our only choice is just simply try to enjoy little things and endure the sufferings.

So you tell me cows have all this in her heads too? Bullshit.

We cannot transfer our human judgements to other animals. We can't even transfer our judgements to people from another culture. We can normally transfer our judgements to someone in our same city, but even in the same city, you will find people that thinks differently.

I'm not denying their suffering, and I'm not sure as to how much it last or how much it affects them. What I'm sure it's that it's not even close to the amount of psychological pain we put ourselves through. But, with the same mechanism we're able to enjoy books and movies and other shit, so I guess we call it even.

It's neccesary to learn the distiction between being in our heads 24/7, with our little worlds and interpretations, that to being in here right now. That's where animals live, in here and now.

Even now and then we see our pets (especially dogs, cats don't give a shit) mimicking certain behaviours, and we quickly assume their mental content is like ours, they must be thinking like us now! Probably they just want a treat, and have learned that certain behaviours will get them one. Or maybe not a treat, but to avoid the kick. Or simply our attention.

[mrswdk]

Is Mets's mom hot?

[nietzsche]

while that is indeed sad, animals dont have the mental tools to feel paychological pain like we do.

i can imagine some hormonal change might make cows feel "sadness" to some degree, but animals live more in the moment. We humans have the capacity of living in the past or the future, recreating in our heads traumatic past events or worrying about possible future scenarios.

this is yet another example of you being dishonest, because I bet you know this, yet you leave it out of the picture in order to win an argument.

I don't agree with this one bit. Contemporary science indicates that there are a number of animals other than humans who feel psychological pain.

In evolutionary terms, this is not unreasonable. The difference between humans and other animals is one of degree, not kind. Really the burden of proof is on those who insist that humans have some unique capability not shared by any other species, especially because most of the time when people say that, it ends up being roundly disproved by later science.

If you're going to call me dishonest, it may help to at least provide some evidence for your view rather than saying "Descartes. Checkmate."

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=211565&p=4721333#p4721333

[Metsfanmax]

I have seen pretty much zero evidence supporting either point of view.

It is not my fault you've never read a biology textbook. If you are uneducated in evolutionary theory, then you need a lot more help than I can give you.

Anyway, Dukasaur provided four links above on the subject. Did you look at them?

Hurr durr, mrswdk doesn't know about every subject in the world, what a heathen.

Dukasaur provided several links discussing the current state of knowledge on animal consciousness and animal psychology. If you read them, then you'll have more than zero evidence on the subject. If you don't, that's fine, but as this is the "ask Metsfanmax a question" thread and not the "mrswdk proudly states his obstinate views on various subjects" thread, I'll ask you to take it elsewhere.

[Metsfanmax]

Perhaps the emphasis was not correctly expressed in my post.

In fact, I see all this differentiations as a kind of blurry borders, and I'm not denying cows would feel some sort of pain, but what I'm going after with my post is the idea Mets' post directly or indirectly conveys, the transference of our type of suffering to the cow.

I don't transfer "our type of suffering" to cows. In fact I think cows suffer much worse than we do in many respects, and less worse than we do in others. Instead of just assuming what I think on the subject, you might ask me instead. I mean it would certainly be appropriate in this thread.

But if you want to go that route then you'd better be prepared to argue why you believe that any other human feels pain like you do, given that you've never been inside their heads.

It's neccesary to learn the distiction between being in our heads 24/7, with our little worlds and interpretations, that to being in here right now. That's where animals live, in here and now.

This is not even close to agreeing with expert opinion on the issue of animal awareness. There's a whole wide range of evidence suggesting that many types of animals can plan for the future, and don't simply live in the "here and now." Evidently you haven't read everything and don't know it all on this subject, so maybe put your arrogance away for a moment and actually look at what the people who study animals are saying instead of just assuming you can figure it out from your armchair. Anyway, think of the evolutionary perspective. Humans are animals too, and have had just as much time to evolve as any other species. On what basis should we expect that every aspect of self-consciousness is only native to humans? You may have constructed a nice little cultural sadness theory for yourself but it smacks of confirmation bias: you've already decided that non-human animals can't feel sad the same way human animals feel sad, so then you found a way to justify what it is about humans that makes them fundamentally different. And it's not even true to suggest that only humans have culture or rich social environments. That's seen in plenty of non-human animal environments.

Even now and then we see our pets (especially dogs, cats don't give a shit) mimicking certain behaviours, and we quickly assume their mental content is like ours, they must be thinking like us now! Probably they just want a treat, and have learned that certain behaviours will get them one. Or maybe not a treat, but to avoid the kick. Or simply our attention.

Why? Because it's more convenient for you to think this way, or because you've actually taken the time to really study these animals?

This is just one of those subjects where everyone thinks they're an expert despite basically spending zero time actually studying the evidence. Humans are strange sometimes.

[mrswdk]

I have seen pretty much zero evidence supporting either point of view.

It is not my fault you've never read a biology textbook. If you are uneducated in evolutionary theory, then you need a lot more help than I can give you.

Anyway, Dukasaur provided four links above on the subject. Did you look at them?

Hurr durr, mrswdk doesn't know about every subject in the world, what a heathen.

Dukasaur provided several links discussing the current state of knowledge on animal consciousness and animal psychology. If you read them, then you'll have more than zero evidence on the subject. If you don't, that's fine, but as this is the "ask Metsfanmax a question" thread and not the "mrswdk proudly states her obstinate views on various subjects" thread, I'll ask you to take it elsewhere.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I care about cows. I came into this thread to challenge your assertion that the burden of proof is entirely on the other side of the argument you're trying to have. It's not - the burden of proof is on whichever person is trying to prove that they are correct. In your case that's you, so the burden of proof is on you. You can't just go 'the other guys can't prove that they're correct, so I win'.

Whether or not you're correct, I couldn't care less.