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.
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.`
I said the statement concerning unconditional love was in error.
Yes, i agree it was in error .... since we don't even know about unconditional love in humans.
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.
No, I refuted a false statement about animals, which is far more encompassing than only rats or any other species.
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".
Biting is a sign of unconditional love? It would seem to indicate a more conditional love if it indicated love at all.
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.
That would make any statements about unconditional love in humans being just as flawed, woould it not?
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 ....
Correct, and not all human love unconditionally so the assumption of the trait being transferable to other animals is flawed from the beginning.
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.
Thus, my point.
Most of us have very deep and very personal relationships with dogs.
I do not think you could support the "most" statement, but "many" should be doable.
I'll go with "many".
And you assume that must go both ways so it must be true even with the large numbers of injuries which belie that assumption.
Yes, I do assume it goes both ways,
Which would compound the fallacy in your logic.
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
That is not "unconditional love", however.
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.
If it cannot go one way, it still can go the other because anything is possible, but fewer things are probable.
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 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.
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
True, anything is possible, but evidence of the probability is still lacking.
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.
I really do not think that every natural born American citizen has the ability to become president
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
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.
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?
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.
How would human atrocities have anything to do with animals supposedly having unconditional love?
If humans can commit atrocities but also be able to experience UL,
If humans commit atocities they are not giving or experiening unconditional love as a species or even a significnat portion of the species.
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?
Because your logic is flawed in the belief humans exhibit uncondtional love and thus the extension that dogs or rats do as well.
???? 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.
Yes, WE are.
I am simply saying that we do not know if dogs, or humans for that matter, can experience UL.
Correct, and thus any statement extolling the existence of unconditional love in animals is unsupported unless evidence to the contrary is available.
Knight certainly generalized when he made that statement.
As was ny point.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 am unpredictable in my predictablity perhaps.
I know that humans experience empathy.
Most do, but not all.
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.
Good, you have some support for your belief of empathy in other mammals.
Yeah. I like that.