The Couch

Of Animal Rights?

Comments on Of Animal Rights?

KinNaoko90
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Fulton County, NY

Total Topics: 36
Total Comments: 298
Posted 03/08/11 - 9:00 PM:
Subject: Of Animal Rights?
The idea for this topic stems off of "Of Murder".

A)About six months ago, I had an interesting discussion with a client of the group therapy place I go to.

We were discussing animals and the murdering of them. This man denied that the term 'murder' even applied to animals. He was highly religious and I knew he would never look it up in the dictionary and likely never had. So, I promised him I'd look it up later.

I did and was, quite frankly, disgusted. Murder - the unlawful killing of one human by another. I was not disgusted with that man for being right, nor was I disgusted with me for being wrong. No, I was disgusted with the whole of humanity and the in-humaneness of it.

I went into group therapy the next day, told this man he was right and left it at that. Further discussion with this man would go nowhere anyway. He was HIGHLY religious and didn't believe in possibility. He is quite possibly the most closed-minded person I know. Kind, gentle, and well-spoken, but nonetheless closed-minded.

B)About nine months ago, I saw what I thought to be the most disturbing case of animal cruelty/neglect animal planet had ever aired. This dog was wounded severely in several areas on the right side (the visible side) of his body. The owners, instead of tending to the wounds, or taking him to the vet, or even putting him out of his misery on their own, had let the wounds rot.

By the time the Animal Cops reached him, all you could see in his wounds were maggots. Even worse, this dog was alive. He could barely raise his head, but he did and greeted them with his tail wagging slowly and gently. I had never wanted to kill someone so badly in my life. This dog, who was suffering so badly due to human neglect, still loved even human strangers.

C)Then, reading all of your comments in "Of Murder" on the jungle and society, I couldn't help but wonder...

Question 1: Like some of you I lean more towards the theory of evolution than creationism. If we evolved, so can the rest of the animals.

If we believe that, then why do we treat animals so? They are no better or worse than us, only at a different level of evolution. If it was by mere chance that we stood up on our hind feet and evolved a 'thinking' brain, then why?

Question 2: For those of Christian and Jewish faith, correct me if I'm wrong, human beings started out at the same level as animals. It was only when they sinned and ate that apple that they gained intelligence.

Banished from Eden, wouldn't that mean we are now at a lower level than our animal cousins? If not, then why? And what makes us think we're superior to them? If so, then why do some think we have the right to end their lives.

I tend to prize the lives and well-being of animals over those of human beings. I also plan to never have children for the simple reason that if there was a fire in our home, I'd get the animals out first.

And, yes, I have my priorities straight.

But what are your opinions? Do you hold animals at a lesser, greater, or equal level to humans? And what about Questions 1 and 2? A, B, and C?

Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
Posted 03/08/11 - 9:22 PM:

In the grand scheme of things nothing is more valuable than the next thing.

To our meaningless little lives, one would logically come to the conclusion that human life is more meaningful than animal life and would be expected to act in such a way.

Personally I like some animals, dogs and cats for example, and I treat them kindly, play with them and give them all sorts of treats. But there are some animals I am not against killing. Mice and other rodents, crows, etc. Animals that can be considered pests. I usually try to use those nice little traps where you can set the mouse free later, but they often don't work so I will poison them.

But as far as my meaningless little perspective goes, I hold human life as greater than animal life. Although someone that shows no kindness to animals whatsoever most likely has some deep-seeded issues I would not want to associate myself with.

Then again, it really depends on the individual in question and the animal in question. If you told me I had a gun and either had to kill my dog or Charles Manson, I'd shoot Manson. If you told me it was my mother or my dog, sorry pup. I'd probably choose my dog over a lot of people, though. It is -my- dog.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 03/09/11 - 9:54 AM:

All I can say: I like my steak rare.

I like cheeseburgers and gutbuster pizzas and ham and bacon and meat loaf.

I eat animals and have killed animals.

I also have owned (and had great affection for) animals.

I value my needs and pleasures far more than the needs and pleasures of pig, cow, dog, cat, etc.

I'm not particularly 'cruel' to animals (no real profit in being a bastard to a pig, cow, dog, cat, etc.), but I have no problem at all killing one to feed myself.
KinNaoko90
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Fulton County, NY

Total Topics: 36
Total Comments: 298
Posted 03/09/11 - 10:23 AM:

=/ Henry I didn't post this about eating animals...

I happen to support hunting and am not a vegetarian. I also happen to enjoy my steak as rare as possible. I do not support the slaughter houses where they get the majority of our meat from, but I am sure I have eaten meat from them. I do understand the need to feed oneself.

Still, I don't see what your post has to do with this topic. If you could explain it further?
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 03/09/11 - 10:50 AM:

Kin, in your opener, this stood out from all the rest, "why do we treat animals so?"

In my way: I was answering your question.

That is: I hold animals as having lesser value than 'me' and -- because I value 'me' over 'animal' -- I have no problem using 'animal' as I like.

There is no moral or ethical foundation for my position: that is, I do what I do because I can, because I want to, because I choose to...not because what I 'do' is ‘right’ (or ‘wrong').
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 03/10/11 - 7:00 PM:

i like eating meat as well.

the question of whether animals can be "murdered" is an interesting one. it relates to a discussion we had some years back about whether animals could be considered "people".

if they are to be considered people, and if it were to be decided that killing them is indeed "murder", or at the very least, morally wrong, what about the problem of animals killing other animals? or torturing them, as i have seen cats do with their prey?

i like animals - i think they should be treated as humanely as possible, meaning i don't think they should be forced to suffer, but i agree with henry in that i don't find anything wrong with killing them for food. and there are animals that wouldn't mind killing me for food either, and i don't really judge them for that.

KN, i'm curious, when you say you support hunting, do you mean for food? or for sport?

KinNaoko90
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Fulton County, NY

Total Topics: 36
Total Comments: 298
Posted 03/11/11 - 6:49 AM:

"KN, i'm curious, when you say you support hunting, do you mean for food? or for sport?"

Ah I should have been more specific. Yes I support hunting, but only for food. I see hunting for food as more humane than the slaughterhouses. Also, with hunting, at least the animal has a slim chance to get away.

" what about the problem of animals killing other animals? or torturing them, as i have seen cats do with their prey?"

When animals kill other animals it is usually because they are hungry, they feel threatened, or they are ill.

When it comes to torture, I tend to compare animals to small children. Like human children, they haven't learned that torture is not acceptable. Unlike human children, animals are not at the same stage of evolution. Their brains haven't developed that far.

The way I see it, it's only a matter of time before the rest of the animals become intelligent beings. If we look at it that way, it should be as immoral to kill them as many believe abortion to be. The only reason I am not contradicting myself here is because I value animal lives over humans.

Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 03/11/11 - 2:35 PM:

There is no murder of animals. Animals are not participants in human society. They are, at best, dependents, or rather, we are stewards of the animal kingdom, like we might steward the soil and trees.



KinNaoko90 wrote:

Murder - the unlawful killing of one human by another.


'Murder' is just a term. It's meant to describe a certain class of killing. It's right that it should be so rigidly defined and applicable only to human beings. That's its purpose as a term.

But in reality the term is largely emotive, designed to elicit a sense of fear and anger in hearers. 'Murder! Murder you say??!!'



KinNaoko90 wrote:

Question 1: Like some of you I lean more towards the theory of evolution than creationism. If we evolved, so can the rest of the animals.

If we believe that, then why do we treat animals so? They are no better or worse than us, only at a different level of evolution. If it was by mere chance that we stood up on our hind feet and evolved a 'thinking' brain, then why?


There is no ladder of evolution that is relevant for moral discussion. Today's brutes will never ever and cannot possibly 'evolve' so the point it entirely moot.

Besides we all know it wasn't random chance that made homo sapiens but genetic engineering by the gods.


KinNaoko90 wrote:

Question 2: For those of Christian and Jewish faith, correct me if I'm wrong, human beings started out at the same level as animals. It was only when they sinned and ate that apple that they gained intelligence.


Nope.

Depending on which version of the creation story you read in Genesis, humans were either the last and best thing created or the first and model thing created. In the latter case humans actually named all the animals. Humans were just as they are now and as intelligent as you might expect. What they lacked was self-awareness and the ability to determine values. The difference was not in the quality of their intellect, but in the quality of their consciousness. In that sense they were on par with other beasts--having the same root consciousness that is immediate and non-projective, immersed in the flow of being and not able to hold itself at a distance and perceive abstract relations.

Even still humans were God's own buddies at the time, prized even above angels. So no, no equality to other beasts.


KinNaoko90 wrote:

Banished from Eden, wouldn't that mean we are now at a lower level than our animal cousins? If not, then why? And what makes us think we're superior to them? If so, then why do some think we have the right to end their lives.


God tells man to have dominion over the world, including beasts. So there's no respite for animal cruelty in religion. Although there are rules for killing beasts, the kosher rules, which are in effect more 'humane' than what they would receive in the jungle at the teeth of predators.



KinNaoko90 wrote:

I tend to prize the lives and well-being of animals over those of human beings.


That's you perrogative as a moral agent. Doesn't make much sense, but there you go.



KinNaoko90 wrote:

But what are your opinions? Do you hold animals at a lesser, greater, or equal level to humans?


In terms of nature all life is life equally.

In terms of human society animals are subject to human will.

In terms of ecosystems, humans need to live in harmony with other animals--use the ones they can, avoid the one's that will harm them, and support the ones that support some aspect of the food chain essential to human life. IOW, abusing animals is not smart for human health for a number of reasons. Battery chickens are not as good to eat as free range chickens, even if they are more convenient for people to manage. In effect, we are only causing ourselves to loose in the long run by abusing animals and not trying to live in harmony with them.

But living in harmony with animals does not mean we don't use them to our benefit, kill them, or eat them.

As far as rights go, non-humans can't have rights in society; in fact, non-rational, non-axiological agents can't have rights in society, because they can't participate in the decision process. Anything we give to them is a grant, a protection, but not a right. Rights involve responsibilities. Non-human animals cannot be responsible to human law, hence they cannot be bearers of rights.

8)

KinNaoko90
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Fulton County, NY

Total Topics: 36
Total Comments: 298
Posted 03/11/11 - 4:56 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:

There is no ladder of evolution that is relevant for moral discussion. Today's brutes will never ever and cannot possibly 'evolve' so the point it entirely moot.

Besides we all know it wasn't random chance that made homo sapiens but genetic engineering by the gods.


I used to really respect you... but this statement brought my respect level down quite a bit. I really hope this was a bad attempt at a joke...

That is not something we 'all know' which is exactly why I posted this topic. Your belief is not the same as everyone else's. Neither is mine. I for one lean more towards evolution... I lean the least towards christian/jewish faiths.

And if we did evolve from 'brutes' then obviously our moral standards have evolved. Therefore, it is completely relevant to this discussion.

Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/11/11 - 5:56 PM:

KinNaoko90 wrote:

I used to really respect you... but this statement brought my respect level down quite a bit. I really hope this was a bad attempt at a joke...


lmfao


KinNaoko90 wrote:

And if we did evolve from 'brutes' then obviously our moral standards have evolved. Therefore, it is completely relevant to this discussion.


Sigh. Evolution is not relevant at all to a discussion on human moral values. Evolution is amoral for starters. The only value it embodies is fitness, and then only loosely. And there is no such thing as an animal evolving into another state. There is no 'upward mobility'. There is no 'higher or lower'. Today's ape is NOT tomorrow's Cornelius.

There are only animals existing here and now and their offspring. Or better yet, there are only genes in one configuration here and now and their subsequent deviations through replication errors.

Talking about some kind of morality relative to the question of diversification of species--consider lib's superhero thread or the concept of Marvel's 'mutants'. A mutant is not just an exceptional human. It is a new species. A new species is a whole new strand of lifeform, and is in no way beholden to any previous parent generations. Add millions of years of localized diversification and today's mutant is completely unrecognizable from tomorrow's descendents, and totally different from the descendents of normal humans. The humans of then would be to the mutants like pigs are to us--chattle and cattle.

Animals are perfect just as the are. And they exist JUST AS THEY ARE. They are what they are. They are not 'at a different level of evolution' because THERE ARE NO SUCH LEVELS. That type of talk is nonsense. It reflects the imposition of a very human value on a non-human and non-axiological process. Pigs, for instance, are not 'heading' towards a future where they will drive cars and smoke cigars a la Animal Farm. An animal will stay just as it is forever and ever unless chance forces its genetic structure to change.

---

I think that the common nature of humans and animals is a good place to ground a strong moral practice that protects non-humans. Recognizing our similarities is a good way to know ourselves and place our value within the greater whole of the ecosystem.

But using evolution to try to bolster that practice is foolish and self-defeating, immho. Its entirely nonsensical to base your moral prescription on the idea that 'one day non-human animals will be like us, highly evolved, so let's treat 'em with respect we give ourselves'. For the various reasons outlined above.

8)
KinNaoko90
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Fulton County, NY

Total Topics: 36
Total Comments: 298
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/11/11 - 7:47 PM:

I still don't quite understand, but I appreciate you trying to explain it to me. smiling face

The way I see it, humankind likely evolved from primates over many times many years. So, no today's ape wouldn't be tomorrow's Cornelius... but today's ape's descendants could very well be using our descendants as food, pets, and/or slaves in the next million years.

Also, I've been called nonsensical before. It's not that I'm offended. It's just I was surprised to hear it on this forum. My response has always been thought not said, but I'll share it with you guys anyway considering you actually seem to somewhat accept me as a aspiring philosopher. (yes quirk, I still see myself as such)

Socrates was thought to be nonsensical... as was Columbus, Jesus, and a whole load of others. Now they are respected and in Jesus' case worshipped. We have not yet discovered all there is to know about the universe. We have only uncovered more questions. No answers have been found. Only possible answers. I highly doubt we'll ever find the answers. A philosopher's job, in my opinion, is to question the way things appear. To question and not discover... that's our lot in life. Or at the very least, it's mine.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/11/11 - 8:13 PM:

KN wrote:
Also, I've been called nonsensical before.

keep in mind, saying that something doesn't make sense is not the same as calling you nonsensical. one is about a specific matter, the other is about you as a person. i think nonsensical things aren't meant to make sense. but there can be other reasons something doesn't make sense, usually just has to do with getting a better understanding of what a person means & filling in some perhaps missing pieces. normally sensible people are quite capable of saying things that don't make sense to others.

on the other hand, thinking of things in unusual ways often paves the way to new understanding. it's a good ability to have, as long as you have the means to communicate the ideas in a way that's accessible. i guess all i'm saying is, keep on keeping on. thumb up

KN wrote:
but today's ape's descendants could very well be using our descendants as food, pets, and/or slaves in the next million years.

it's interesting that you see it this way. i don't think you're wrong, i could very easily imagine something like this happening. but do you feel that by treating animals kindly now, it would go better for humans if/when the roles were reversed? i'm just wondering if your perspective on this has to do with karma.
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/11/11 - 10:02 PM:

Monk, you trollin' this thread homie?

Kin, Monk is right as far as there being no levels of evolution. It's largely a fault of teacher for teaching students that there is some sort of progression to evolution. It's as random as the mutations themselves. Animals will not necessarily become intelligent, and intelligence does not necessarily represent any sort of evolutionary superiority.

As far as evolution having no implications in morality, I'm not sure if this is the case. It seems to me that ethics require a sort of conscious decision. Since this type of consciousness can only be the product of evolution, I would say that evolution dictates which agents are going to participate in the game or not.

Do we value other lifeforms for their potential to evolve, for their own intelligence, or just for the sake of being lifeforms? Personally, I'd choose to save the life of a dolphin over a rat.

Kin, my advice to you is to take things said on this board as impersonally as possible. Intelligent people (which heavily populate this board) have a way of disassociating themselves from the normal empathy of society and viciously attacking each others arguments like biologists dissecting a frog.

Your arguments are coherent and follow an obvious logical flow, this particular one just so happened to be based on false premise which, again, I attribute to teachers that barely understand evolution themselves explaining it poorly.


Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/12/11 - 8:53 PM:

I said "Its entirely nonsensical to base your moral prescription on the idea that 'one day non-human animals will be like us, highly evolved, so let's treat 'em with respect we give ourselves'" because it is a faulty premise for moral reasoning.

It is a willful neglect of the immediate reality of human and non-human existence. And it is this context and ONLY this context that defines moral action and judgment.

Thus, basing a moral decision on an idea of "something" that might "someday" be "possibly true" is no way to live or make moral choices.

Consider a person who does this with all their moral choices. Really think about it. Imagine a person going through their day making choices based only on ideas of what might one day happen in the far-flung future.

As far as moral choices go, what happened in the distant past and what may be in the distant future is irrelevant to the NOW, which is the only place moral action takes place. So that, really, is my point here.

Plus I was always vehemently against evolutionary ethics and similar ilk, so there you go.

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/12/11 - 9:03 PM:

Zenoplata wrote:

Monk, you trollin' this thread homie?


Yes...trolling for incoherence..! laughing


Zenoplata wrote:

Animals will not necessarily become intelligent, and intelligence does not necessarily represent any sort of evolutionary superiority.


Indeed. Beings are only as intelligent as they need to be. Fitness is the be-all and end-all in the scheme of natural selection.


Zenoplata wrote:

Since this type of consciousness can only be the product of evolution, I would say that evolution dictates which agents are going to participate in the game or not.


There's no evidence that consciousness "can only be" the product of evolution.


Zenoplata wrote:

Do we value other lifeforms for their potential to evolve, for their own intelligence, or just for the sake of being lifeforms?


These are all choices that moral, axiological agents can make and use for the basis of their moral judgments.

So I should correct my earlier statement. You CAN base your moral judgments on the idea that one day other animals will be like we are today, as long as this value creates a coherent and consistent system of moral judgments.

In my opinion it is a very poor basis for making moral judgments, as I tried to elucidate above.


Zenoplata wrote:

Personally, I'd choose to save the life of a dolphin over a rat.


Dolphins are more delicious than rats for sure. Save 'em for later!! grin laughing

But seriously, a dolphin would probably save a human in danger, so consider that. Unless its one of those mean adolescent male dolphins bent of taking over the world and fighting the flipperless mammals. nod
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 1:18 AM:

We have only seen consciousness develop from natural selection.

I suppose spontaneous generation of human created AI are possible or any number of possibilities, but I am not willing to put stake into anything I do not know is possible.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 3:01 AM:

Zenoplata wrote:

We have only seen consciousness develop from natural selection.


No human being has 'seen' anything of the sort.

At best we can only say it's origin, like the universe itself, is mysterious.

8)
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 8:53 AM:

No human being has seen child birth? Interesting take.

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 2:24 PM:

Zenoplata wrote:
No human being has seen child birth? Interesting take.



Is child birth 'consciousness developing from natural selection' ? Or is it conception ? Or none of these?
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 2:53 PM:

Most possess a narrow view of Evolution and confine it's meaning to biology only (Natural Selection). 'Evolution' itself simply means slow gradual change or unfolding, and can, as a theory, be applied to other aspects of life. Morality, for example, can be viewed as an adaptation, as can emotions and so on. I see consciousness or self-awareness as an adaptation as well, it benefits the species thus making it more fit. But to consciousness coming by way of Natural Selection? Since consciousness is a manifestation of the physical brain, perhaps not - directly. That however, does not negate consciousness from Evolutionary Theory in general.

As to the question in the OP; the killing of animals as it stands today, AFAIK is not considered murder, but our morality may indeed evolve to one day include other select species for legal protection. I think I recently read an article of a man being charged for decapitating a dog using a chainsaw.

I think with what is being uncovered these days it's worth considering that any one of us could have been born a dog, cat, cow, pig, mouse, rat or even a fly. That consideration may in itself be cause enough for ones morality to evolve. smiling face
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 4:36 PM:

As far as I know there are specific laws that have to deal with dogs and the way they're treated.

This may have to do with the fact that it's assumed a dog is someone's property nearly all of the time and less to do with the idea of the dog being inherently valuable.
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 6:59 PM:

Zenoplata wrote:
As far as I know there are specific laws that have to deal with dogs and the way they're treated.

This may have to do with the fact that it's assumed a dog is someone's property nearly all of the time and less to do with the idea of the dog being inherently valuable.
Have you heard of Dogs Decoded? That's a piece from Nova about the relationship between humans and dogs and the apparent evidence of how the the relationship may have evolved into what it is today.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/dogs-decoded.html
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 7:07 PM:

I've heard of dogs seemingly having an evolved tendency to listen to humans.

For instance an experiment between dogs and wolves. Where food will be hidden under one of 2 dishes. Humans would stand above both and randomly point to one or the other. Wolves were about 50/50 on which dish they chose, the actual contents and which bowl the humans were pointing to didn't seem to matter.

To dogs however, the human points was the big difference maker. They were much more likely to go first to the dish humans were pointing at.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 7:23 PM:

cripes wrote:

I think with what is being uncovered these days it's worth considering that any one of us could have been born a dog, cat, cow, pig, mouse, rat or even a fly. That consideration may in itself be cause enough for ones morality to evolve. smiling face


That's positively ludicrous.

What is 'being uncovered these days' by whom that validates such a supposition?

raised eyebrow
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#25 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 7:24 PM:

Zenoplata wrote:
I've heard of dogs seemingly having an evolved tendency to listen to humans.


Unnatural selection at work. It's called 'good breeding'.

8)
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.