EnviroLink Forum

animals.

C`mon Wayne ... get off it! You are so very rational and after awhile, it gets boring! What does your wife think of this. You offer statistics in light of what ...

Most of us have very deep and very personal relationships with dogs. And all you can give us is how often they bite us statistically ....
For most of us, this is not our experience.
You are so academic, ..... and after awhile.... snoringly boring. Plus you have not mentioned the atrocites humans have commited ..... hmf, lke genocide for instance.

animals.

C`mon Wayne ... get off it! You are so very rational and after awhile, it gets boring! What does your wife think of this. You offer statistics in light of what ...

Most of us have very deep and very personal relationships with dogs. And all you can give us is how often they bite us statistically ....
For most of us, this is not our experience.
You are so academic, ..... and after awhile.... snoringly boring. Plus you have not mentioned the atrocites humans have commited ..... hmf, lke genocide for instance.

Sorry, but making generalized statements which are solely based on anecdotal information and personal beliefs gets old too. The fact is that some animals will be very loyal in the right circumstances, but others will not. Animals do not give unconditional love or we would not hear of animals attacking their owners or eating their dead bodies.



Unsupported opinion ....




And you assume that must go both ways so it must be true even with the large numbers of injuries which belie that assumption.



No, for your anecdotal position that is the experience, but for it to be most of us there would not be so many reported bites. There are ususally many more such injuries which are not reported because they are not serious and would cause an official investigation.



How would human atrocities have anything to do with animals supposedly having unconditional love?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I don't have an argument with that fact. It's just that humans have also practised not only cannibalism but a very long list of other not-so-nice practices. Yet, a human is also capable of unconditional love. Knight posted a link to a recent study of empathy as is seen in rats and you have responded with statistics about dog bites.

[/quote]

C`mon Wayne ... get off it! You are so very rational and after awhile, it gets boring! [/quote]



Both 'attitudes', and their extremes, can be seen in mammals.

You offer statistics in light of what ...[/quote]



Yes, the "unconditional love" position is unsupported and 'only' anecdotal but it is unsupported across the board of species. Has anyone ever proven that humans can love unconditioally. It is also anecdotal.






The fact that humans abuse dogs and other animals doesn't mean that humans cannot also love unconditionally. That animal shelters are, in many cases, overflowing does not evidence much love on the part of humans for their dog companions but this doesn't belie the ability on the part of teh human.



How would human atrocities have anything to do with animals supposedly having unconditional love?[/quote]

See above.

Instead of a discussion re: the article about rats, we are taliking about dog bites.

The link does not say anything at all about "unconditional love", which when added to the discussion makes it something other than a discussion of the study.




But not in all mammals nor at all times even if one allows much lattitude in suppositon, which makes the generalization just as false as I claimed.




Correct, and not all human love unconditionally so the assumption of the trait being transferable to other animals is flawed from the beginning.




True, but it belies the claim that DO love animals of any species unconditionally.



It does belie the actual existence of that unconditional love. Every natural born American citizen has the ability to become president once they are old enough, but the vast majority do not. Thus, the differences in being able to do something and actually doing it becomes very clear in the example.



It does not answer the question at all.



The link does not say anything at all about animals having "unconditional love", which when added to the discussion makes it something other than a discussion of the study.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I don't have an argument with that fact. It's just that humans have also practised not only cannibalism but a very long list of other not-so-nice practices. Yet, a human is also capable of unconditional love. Knight posted a link to a recent study of empathy as is seen in rats and you have responded with statistics about dog bites.



The fallacy of across the board unconditional love on the part of dogs does not negate the research findings that rats show empathy. You took the semantically inappropriate (generalized to all dogs) wording of "unconditional love" and ran with it, turning it into a discussion of dogs when the article is about empathy in rats.



You cannot say for sure that, because some animals, and dogs in particular, bite their owners or eat their dead bodies, they therefore "do not give unconditional love".

Yes, the "unconditional love" position is unsupported and 'only' anecdotal but it is unsupported across the board of species. Has anyone ever proven that humans can love unconditioally. It is also anecdotal.



I think we can agree that it cannot be generalized in either species.

Most of us have very deep and very personal relationships with dogs.



Yes, I do assume it goes both ways, ... that dogs have deep and personal relationships with humans and sometimes with other species. If it can go one way, ie: human to dog inspite of the fact that humans can sometimes be cruel to dogs, it can also go the other way.

The fact that humans abuse dogs and other animals doesn't mean that humans cannot also love unconditionally.



That animal shelters are, in many cases, overflowing does not evidence much love on the part of humans for their dog companions but this doesn't belie the ability on the part of the human.



I really do not think that every natural born American citizen has the ability to become president.



If humans can commit atrocities but also be able to experience UL, then why is it not possible for dogs to experience the same inspite of statistics involving the incidences of dog bites?

Instead of a discussion re: the article about rats, we are taliking about dog bites.

I am simply saying that we do not know if dogs, or humans for that matter, can experience UL. Knight certainly generalized when he made that statement. But empathy in rats is far more interesting to me than statistics about dog bites, especially when those statistics are held up as some kind of evidence that either dogs or many other species are simply incapable of such experiences. Most would probably think that humans are capable of such and yet the human animal is an example of one species who also has practiced cannibalism. We don't know if either species, dogs or humans, experience UL and so Knight's generalization was just that, ... a generalization. I think my main complaint, and excuse me for taking so damn long to get to it, is that you have over-looked the research article in favor of dog bite statistics which seems predictable on your part. The predictability part is what I find boring; I'm sure you are not!

I know that humans experience empathy. I knew and know intuitively that other mammals also experience empathy. It's nice to see some research that points to that.

Again, the link does not say anything at all about "unconditional love", which when added to the discussion makes it something other than a discussion of the study.




Nor did I say it did. I said the statement concerning unconditional love was in error.



No, I refuted a false statement about animals, which is far more encompassing than only rats or any other species. Rats are not as common as dogs as pets, but they too will bite their owners. The rat bite statistics are not as easily found, however.



Biting is a sign of unconditional love? It would seem to indicate a more conditional love if it indicated love at all.



That would make any statements about unconditional love in humans being just as flawed, woould it not?

Knight posted a link to a recent study of empathy as is seen in rats and you have responded with uncondional love being anecdotal ....



Thus, my point.



I do not think you could support the "most" statement, but "many" should be doable.



Which would compound the fallacy in your logic.



That is not "unconditional love", however.



If it cannot go one way, it still can go the other because anything is possible, but fewer things are probable.



Humans could love unconditionally, just not dogs as the fact of their abuse proves. Some people may believe they can love unconfitionally only because they have not experienced all possible conditions. The evidence for the lack of unconditional love is far greater.



True, anything is possible, but evidence of the probability is still lacking.



That is your belief, however there are no limitations on the ability posed by the facts. You are willing to believe there is unconditional love in the face of factual evidence of the contrary and just as willing to believe every natural born citizen does not have the ability to become president of the US? How can one pick and choose possibilites without evidence to support the belief?



If humans commit atocities they are not giving or experiening unconditional love as a species or even a significnat portion of the species.



Because your logic is flawed in the belief humans exhibit uncondtional love and thus the extension that dogs or rats do as well.



Yes, WE are.



Correct, and thus any statement extolling the existence of unconditional love in animals is unsupported unless evidence to the contrary is available.




As was ny point.



Then why did you even respond to the statement if it was both factual and uninteresting? In fact why carry on a discussion of why it was factual and yet in disagreement with certain beliefs?



I question whether most would say they have ever seen unconditional love in themselves or others. Belief in existence is just a belief.



And unsupported by any evidence. I can generalize that women are weak minded, vegans are weak bodied, AR supporters are criminals, environmentalists are criminals, and certain races are less qualified then others. All of these statements can be supported by anecdotal evidence and a measure of popular belief just as that generalization and all would be just as unsupported and incorrect.



No, the study does not provide evidence for unconditional love and the statistics on bites is evidence of the lack of unconditional love in many cases, which relates to the statement in question.



I am unpredictable in my predictablity perhaps.



Most do, but not all.



Good, you have some support for your belief of empathy in other mammals.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I remember Tommo, Who I had to be put to sleep 4 months ago ushered me one day as I got in from work one day to a little corner. There was a frightened sparrow unscathed but obviously brought in as a present. I let the sparrow go. There lies a conflict between unconditional love and presents.

And you responded to that part of the discussion. Yes, i know Wayne. And I responded by "flippin' you the bird" so to speak. Because it was just too darn predictable and it reminded me of chicken waffles.`



Yes, i agree it was in error .... since we don't even know about unconditional love in humans.





Very well.

You cannot say that because some animals, and dogs in particular, bite their owners or eat their dead bodies, they therefore "do not give unconditional love".



Of course biting is NOT a sign of unconditional love but one cannot say, "Some dogs bite, therefore dogs (not one amongst the entire species) do not experience unconditional love"

Yes, the "unconditional love" position is unsupported and 'only' anecdotal but it is unsupported across the board of species. Has anyone ever proven that humans can love unconditioally. It is also anecdotal.



Any statement? Well, I don't know.

Knight posted a link to a recent study of empathy as is seen in rats and you have responded with uncondional love being anecdotal ....



I have a problem with the word "transferable". If it exists in either, a transfer is not necessary.
I think we can agree that it cannot be generalized in either species.



Point taken.

Most of us have very deep and very personal relationships with dogs.



I'll go with "many".



Yes, I do assume it goes both ways,



Again, I'll go with "many". If many people have said relationships with dogs I think it reasonable to assume that many dogs have said relationships with people.

that dogs have deep and personal relationships with humans and sometimes with other species



One cannot say it is or isn't.

If it can go one way, ie: human to dog inspite of the fact that humans can sometimes be cruel to dogs, it can also go the other way.



Love can be one-sided and it can be reciprocal. Both are possible and probable and even factual although I don't know in what laboratory it would be tested. Now that brain imaging is becoming more popular ....

The fact that humans abuse dogs and other animals doesn't mean that humans cannot also love unconditionally.



Humans cannot love dogs unconditionally? But you can't know this.
That animal shelters are, in many cases, overflowing does not evidence much love on the part of humans for their dog companions but this doesn't belie the ability on the part of the human



I really do not think that every natural born American citizen has the ability to become president



What evidence? That we see people abusing dogs and the shelters are full of neglected dogs? Those are incidences where UL is not present. There are just as many dogs who are very, very tight with their people.



Some dogs might experience unconditional love vs. EVERY natural born citizen has the ABILITY to become president of the US? It's not that hard to pick and choose.



If humans can commit atrocities but also be able to experience UL,



Right, just as a dog that bites is not a sign of unconditional love ..... biting is a possibility for dogs; human atrocities are a possibility for humans. Unconditional love is a possibility for both.

then why is it not possible for dogs to experience the same inspite of statistics involving the incidences of dog bites?



???? Are you denying the possibility of unconditional love in humans? If so, then I guess you would not see the possibility in other mammals. I am saying that I think it is possible ..... but i can't know for sure.

Instead of a discussion re: the article about rats, we are taliking about dog bites.



I am simply saying that we do not know if dogs, or humans for that matter, can experience UL.



Knight certainly generalized when he made that statement.



But empathy in rats is far more interesting to me than statistics about dog bites, especially when those statistics are held up as some kind of evidence that either dogs or many other species are simply incapable of such experiences.



Huh? I think you misunderstood my statement.

I think my main complaint, and excuse me for taking so damn long to get to it, is that you have over-looked the research article in favor of dog bite statistics which seems predictable on your part.



Huh? Again, i think you misunderstood my statement. Did I say the study provided evidence for unconditional love? I did say that you overlooked the article in favor of statistics on dog bites. I know you were responding to Knight's claim which I found predictable. Chicken waffles.

The predictability part is what I find boring; I'm sure you are not!



I know that humans experience empathy.



Yes, I think I have seen some examples of that on this very board.
I knew and know intuitively that other mammals also experience empathy. It's nice to see some research that points to that.



Yeah. I like that.

I wonder if anyone even bothered to do research about empathy in other mammals before? Hmm, I'll have to look into that.

In certain situations cannabilsm does apply as does altruism in in other areas, you are homing in a to particular sphere to bring home your prejudices.

Unless you define unconditional love to include violent physical attacks, yes I can as such an attack precludes the unconditional aspect.



If some dogs COULD experience unconditional love, the evidence of the numbers which ACTUALLY do not experience it is vastly greater.



Yes, which would also tend to indicate the lack of true unconditional love even in humans.



If you do not know you cannot make a firm claim in either direction without evidence.



In the context used, transferable references anthropomorphism as opposed to gaining a trait from humans.






Thus agreement again.



Which is logically flawed because of the evidence.



I disagree with the reasonalbe nature of such an assumption.



The anthropomorphic basis for the assumption is also unsupported.



Yes one can as a "deep personal relationship" is not the same as "unconditional love".



If is only a possibility and not supported sufficiently to be anything else.

If pigs fly so can cows can be a true statement, but not without a lot of evidence to overcome the known flaws.



All love has mutated to an unconditional state now?



It shows that humans in general do not love dogs or other animals unconditionally.



No, humans do not love dogs unconditionally because there is too much documented abuse to support that claim.



They do under the Constitution. Every natural born citizen of legal age has the possibility of becoming president of the US. Very few have the probability, however. Thus, the difference in possibility and probability.



Very tight is still not unconditional love though. You have assumed numbers of possible cases of unconditional love which you claim is equal to the proven cases of no love at all. This has no factual basis to support such a claim.



Every natural born citizen of legal age, to be precise. It may not be hard to pick and choose if there is no logic or evidence applied.



Yet you do not have evidence of the experience.

You did state this concerning the lack of evidence: "Has anyone ever proven that humans can love unconditioally. It is also anecdotal."




Both species sprouting wings and learning to fly is a possibility as well, just not a probability. The evidence supports the probabilities for the first options over the latter.



Anything is possible given time, but the probability is very low given the evidence.



No, I am denying the probability of unconditional love in humans.



Anything is possible but much fewer are probable.



True, but we do know of many cases where it is evidenced to not exist in either.



Which one? They seem to conflict with each other during the post. I was speaking of the statements where you stated lack of interest in the statistics, which are factual, to refute a generalization you agreed was over stated.



I was correcting the implication that I was refuting empathy existing in animals with the statistics in this statement:

"But empathy in rats is far more interesting to me than statistics about dog bites, especially when those statistics are held up as some kind of evidence that either dogs or many other species are simply incapable of such experiences."

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Prejudices? Humans are the other white meat to some and the ultimate in recyling and population control.


(Soylent Green is people!!!)

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

long pork is no excuse for your long talk.

Every sentient on a deep level perceives this consciousness the same and you can elaborate on your intellectual thesis as much as you wish but your rantings will never dismiss this basic fact

Happy christmas and I hope you enjoy your veggie roast.

???? Are you denying the possibility of unconditional love in humans?



If so, then I guess you would not see the possibility in other mammals. I am saying that I think it is possible ..... but i can't know for sure.



I am simply saying that we do not know if dogs, or humans for that matter, can experience UL.



Unconditional love is much more difficult (maybe impossible) to measure than puncture wounds from a dog's teeth. It would largely go unnoticed. Where would we find evidence of something that is not tangible. We can find no evidence of it, but we can find evidence of it's opposite. It could only be anecdotal.

Happy longest night of the year Wayne.