From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Animal have no rights
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 03:58:25 GMT

>`Scott Wood writes:
>`>I am a reasoning being.  I can honor rights as well as understand them.
>`>Thus I have rights.  Without such a reasoning being walking the face of
>`>the earth, this discussion would not even exist.  Thus the concept of
>`>rights would not even exist.  I say it again, animals have no rights.

>unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks) writes:
>`Could your dog be looking at you now and be thinking,"Too bad that human
>`can't reason....I have him trained pretty well...."?

Scott Wood writes:
>If you have spent all this time
>doing all these things in this world and still have not discovered that
>there is a difference between you and a dog.  That you are more advanced,
>more intellegent, and just plain better than any animal out there, you have
>to have been walking around with your head in a cloud.

Do I KNOW that the dog is more intelligent?  Because man has the ability to
destroy the planet in microseconds does that make it superior?  Are you
superior to an Masai warrior because of your skills with a computer?  By
what criteria do you make comparisons?  Comparing a dog to a human by human
measures, the dog would fail.  But if I tried to compare you using criteria
that a dog might, you would fail.  Is the dog superior?  I say no.  I say
it is probably equal and the dog shoould be treated as such.

>There is more than just ability however that seperates man from animal.
>There is feeling.  I don't care what you can show me, I will not believe
>that an animal shows love.  
> And how could you prove it even if they did?  Well
>I suppose they could tell you if they are so damned smart.  

Or maybe they are and we are just too dumb to understand.  
"may it not be on our part as well as theirs?"  I would be hardpressed to 
converse with a vietnamese.  Do I assume it is incapable of feelings?

>If they are so
>much equivalent to us, or so much like us, why haven't they fought back?
>They don't understand THAT'S WHY!

Why do dogs attack people?

>I have never ever ever seen an animal kill and another animal and feel
>sorry for it afterwards.  Watch film of a fox on the hunt some time.
>Watch how after he wounds his prey, he plays with it while it is still
>alive.  Watch how he looks like he is having fun doing so.  Watch me kill
>and animal and hit my knees and thank god and mother earth for the chance
>to take a life to feed my family.  Tell me who is better!

I have heard of humans that play with their intended victims.  Are they any
different than the fox?  About who is better, you or the fox?  Well, I might
say the fox.  You didn't need to kill the animal.  Did the fox?  I don't know,
I'm not a fox.  Many predators will vocalize after a kill.  Could this be
their prayer and we're too dumb to realize it as such?

>I don't blame the fox, he acts on instinct.  Don't blame me either - for
>though I don't kill by instinct (at least not when hunting ;-) I do so
>out of need and desire for food.  Every animal I kill in the feild is one
>less I buy at the store - and anyway, its healthier.

Don't you eat meat because of instinct?  Or is it learned behavior?  Meat
eating isn't healthier if you get it from the store or field.

>'Several times I have been mystified while
>`teaching a trick to one, that another will try to do it too.  It doesn't
>`have to, it wants to.  I do not use food rewards......
>
>You have just proved my point.  Observing behavior and conditioning is the
>only form of learning that can be sought from an animal (or in your words,
>"stimulation")

Do you know that the animal didn't think it looked pretty neat and it should
try it because it wanted to?  How did the horse figure that the behavior of
the dog was something it was expected to do?

>`As part of the Gardners research with chimps, Boyce Rensberger, a reporter
>`remarked after meeting with the chimps:
>`  
>`    Suddenly I realized I was conversing with a member of another
>`    species in my native tongue.
>
>I would question whether it was something she observed or just wanted to
>believe.  I am sure that I could even train a parakeet to seem like it was
>conversing if I worked at "conditioning" it long enough.  These animals
>do not _strive_ to learn.  They are forced by conditioning.  Though not
>physically, it is definately not voluntary.

I would expect a reporter to be objective.  Boyce had the opportunity to
attempt to "prove" that Washoe wasn't really conversing.  Instead, he has
drawn the conclusion that Washoe is able to converse.  A human made that 
judgement.

>`>And usually they are not willing to learn what
>`>they are taught, however, they are more interested in getting a treat.
>`>swood
>
>`One chimp in particular, thought it her duty to teach a cat sign language.
>`She reasoned that the cat was stupid.
>
>I suppose that it told you that?

She signed it.  And not to me......... :-)

>`There was no motivation for Washoe
>`to speak to the cat, except to converse with another animal.  And, what
>`motivation does a chimp have to say "Cry me.  Me cry." when its foster mother
>`is removed?
>
>Well enroll the sucker in Community College!  Sure shows signs of definite
>higher thinking to me.  Hell, last time I was down at the Community College,
>some of those students kinda reminded me of simeans (sp?).  Wouldn't doubt
>that old Washoe could probably even score higher than most of them on
>tests.
>swood

So, do you agree that it is unethical to continue to destroy these beautiful
creatures, or will you just turn away from it?

Rob U, and what of the Yerkish speaking chimps?
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals