'Yeah, I shot the dog. What the f--- you gonna do about it?'

[Dr.3D]

CORRECTION. YOU can't. However, a lot of us can.

That's a fact.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that a beloved pet animal is more important to the owner than some low life who would try to harm that beloved animal? It's really just common sense.

No, it's not. That's the problem. I am setting a moral standard here. Human life and animal life cannot be compared. A dog is neither good nor evil, but that doesn't change the fact that "some low life" doesn't deserve to die unless human justice dictates it. Human justice can only be applied to humans. We have a justice system specifically arranged around this idea, and the moment that any animal starts competing with humans for justice is the moment we devolve into barbarity.

If I don't know a person, I give them the benefit of the doubt. In 100% of cases, I choose the human over the dog because I know the human is at least capable of redemption. The dog was never good nor evil and its death doesn't mean a thing except a loss of property.

 

[tod evans]

CORRECTION. YOU can't. However, a lot of us can.

Good luck LE....

 

[chudrockz]

 

[PaulConventionWV]

CORRECTION. YOU can't. However, a lot of us can.

Um, no. You can't.

 

[Dr.3D]

Yeah, I'm done here.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Um, no. You can't.

Um, yes, I can and have.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Um, yes, I can and have.

No.

See, we can communicate with dogs to the extent that it concerns our survival. We can never understand how a dog thinks, however. Even if you thought you knew, how would you verify that? The only true way of knowing is if the dog could explain it to you in human terms.

Granted, some people are very good at communicating with dogs in order to manipulate their survival needs to benefit themselves. However, what I am saying that neither you nor anyone else can explain human things to dogs in dog terms, and dogs can't explain dog things to humans in human terms. A dog will never be capable of considering abstract concepts such as the value of life at all, so communicating with them is solely limited to utility purposes.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No.

See, we can communicate with dogs to the extent that it concerns our survival. We can never understand how a dog thinks, however. Even if you thought you knew, how would you verify that? The only true way of knowing is if the dog could explain it to you in human terms.

Granted, some people are very good at communicating with dogs in order to manipulate their survival needs to benefit themselves. However, what I am saying that neither you nor anyone else can explain human things to dogs in dog terms, and dogs can't explain dog things to humans in human terms. A dog will never be capable of considering abstract concepts such as the value of life at all, so communicating with them is solely limited to utility purposes.

Not to jump into this debate, but linguistic science has confirmed what you've said here^^ /end jump-in

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Not to jump into this debate, but linguistic science has confirmed what you've said here^^ /end jump-in

Thanks, HB!

 

[Dr.3D]

 

[chudrockz]

So to recap, Paul seems to think that because a person places real (non utilitarian) value in the life of a dog, that person somehow degrades or places less value in the life of a person or people.

And again, for me personally, my dog has literally taught me to place MORE value in the lives of both people AND animals.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No.

See, we can communicate with dogs to the extent that it concerns our survival. We can never understand how a dog thinks, however. Even if you thought you knew, how would you verify that? The only true way of knowing is if the dog could explain it to you in human terms.

Granted, some people are very good at communicating with dogs in order to manipulate their survival needs to benefit themselves. However, what I am saying that neither you nor anyone else can explain human things to dogs in dog terms, and dogs can't explain dog things to humans in human terms.

I suggest you keep your opinions limited to your own lack of capability and do not extend it out to others. Thank you very much.

A dog will never be capable of considering abstract concepts such as the value of life at all, so communicating with them is solely limited to utility purposes.

You don't appear to understand abstract concepts. Does that mean you are a dog?

 

[JK/SEA]

Some of the best people I know are dogs.

yep.

 

[JK/SEA]

Not to jump into this debate, but linguistic science has confirmed what you've said here^^ /end jump-in

so, are we deciding that there will NEVER EVER be a discovery that can produce a computer app that allows true communication between dogs, dolphins, gorillas, whales, etc?...

 

[JK/SEA]

Good for you. I applaud you for becoming a better person. The dog is valuable because it helped you look in on yourself. The dog, however, is not a human being and is not capable of becoming a "better" or "worse" person because it is not a person. It is a thing, just like a plant. If a plant helps you think better and makes you a better person, it is still just a plant. Just like a dog is still just a dog and nothing more.

You may be better than people who torture dogs, but the dog itself will never be better or worse than the human who does that to them because they are not capable of morality, philosophy, or even abstract thought. They simply aren't on the same scale.

lol....really?....how do you know this?.....

callous attitude towards one of Gods creations. The jury is still out on who or what is the superior life form on this rock.

 

[Ender]

Like I said, dogs are no more "innocent" than they are evil. They are about as innocent as a cactus in that they don't have the capability to be either good or evil. Innocence means they haven't yet been corrupted. Only humans can truly be innocent because only they can be corrupted. Dogs are simply reacting to stimuli in their environment are capable of neither good nor evil. Therefore, there is no "innocence" for them.

In my best Will Smith voice:

"That is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard anyone say- uh- EVER."

According to many ancient manuscripts, animals were in the Garden of Eden and they spoke. The Fall of Adam made them "dumb"- meaning that they no longer could speak. Also, the saying is that when the Lord returns, the lion will lay down with the lamb, as virtue will be restored upon the earth.

I am not saying this to preach religion but to show that animals have long been held in esteem and are noble creatures. You can absolutely tell the worth of a human being by the way they treat an animal.

As for feelings, my dog absolutely has feelings. I know exactly what she is going through or feeling at almost any given moment. She is also protective of our cats and will run off any dog or cat that tries to harm them.

Because you see animals as having no more value than a carrot, says more about YOU than it does any dog.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'll just leave this right here...

Epitaph to a Dog

Near this Spot
are deposited the Remains of one
who possessed Beauty without Vanity,
Strength without Insolence,
Courage without Ferosity,
and all the virtues of Man without his Vices.

This praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery
if inscribed over human Ashes,
is but a just tribute to the Memory of
BOATSWAIN, a DOG,
who was born in Newfoundland May 1803
and died at Newstead Nov. 18, 1808.

When some proud Son of Man returns to Earth,
Unknown to Glory, but upheld by Birth,
The sculptor’s art exhausts the pomp of woe,
And storied urns record who rests below.
When all is done, upon the Tomb is seen,
Not what he was, but what he should have been.
But the poor Dog, in life the firmest friend,
The first to welcome, foremost to defend,
Whose honest heart is still his Master’s own,
Who labours, fights, lives, breathes for him alone,
Unhonoured falls, unnoticed all his worth,
Denied in heaven the Soul he held on earth –
While man, vain insect! hopes to be forgiven,
And claims himself a sole exclusive heaven.

Oh man! thou feeble tenant of an hour,
Debased by slavery, or corrupt by power –
Who knows thee well must quit thee with disgust,
Degraded mass of animated dust!
Thy love is lust, thy friendship all a cheat,
Thy tongue hypocrisy, thy heart deceit!
By nature vile, ennobled but by name,
Each kindred brute might bid thee blush for shame.
Ye, who behold perchance this simple urn,
Pass on – it honours none you wish to mourn.
To mark a friend’s remains these stones arise;
I never knew but one -- and here he lies.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks, HB!

n/p There's a lot of literature on the subject by linguists, but I first learned about it from John Mcwhorter's linguistics lectures. Probably a good place to start if you're interested in further study. ~hugs~

 

[heavenlyboy34]

so, are we deciding that there will NEVER EVER be a discovery that can produce a computer app that allows true communication between dogs, dolphins, gorillas, whales, etc?...

Obviously we can't be sure of that. Highly unlikely, though. (nigh impossible) There have been linguists who have spent decades trying to find a way to teach the more "intelligent" animals (like parrots) to speak. It has never been done. You can teach parrots to mimic human speech and gorillas to use a bit of sign language, but they do not have the brain mechanics required for what we know as verbal communication.

With an app, you may be able to convey very general sensations like "hot" and "pain", but animals simply lack the brain anatomy required to measure higher thought process like emotions-we couldn't measure it scientifically if we wanted to and had the means.