Animal Intelligence, revisited.

[Deacarsia]

And those that do, just parrot humans.

Including the actual parrot.

[South Odreria 2]

They probably have more opinions than we recognize, but they don't communicate in our languages.

And those that do, just parrot humans.

How do you know we don’t human parrots.

[The Blaatschapen]

And those that do, just parrot humans.

How do you know we don’t human parrots.

I've never seen a human pining for the fjords.

[Cekoviu]

They probably have more opinions than we recognize, but they don't communicate in our languages.

Alternatively, maybe they just are so incredibly intellectually inferior to humans that it is difficult for us even to grasp their limited cognitive abilities.

Imagine what kind of mindset somebody must have to exhibit this degree of arrogance.

Not really, no.

We all eat, sleep, and shit, same as every other animal on the planet.

Wait, all animals sleep?

Are you sure?

Sheep, yes, after we've counted ourselves. Lions sleep, but only in the jungle.

But insects? Sea anemones?

Insects enter a resting phase of sorts which can be likened to sleep, although it's a bit different from the traditional sense of the word.

[King of the Incels]

Try explaining that to all the other species.

It's easy to assert your own superiority, but that doesn't make it true. If other species don't agree, then it really isn't clear. It's just an unsubstantiated assertion.

Its easy to prove your superiority when doing so from a pile of their corpses you have factory farmed and consumed.

[Deacarsia]

Imagine what kind of mindset somebody must have to exhibit this degree of arrogance.

Imagine what kind of mindset somebody must have to believe that a human being is not clearly superior to an animal, and to call someone else arrogant for pointing out this obvious fact.

There is plenty of scientific evidence against advanced animal cognition, such as the studies of Jean-Henri Fabre and Conwy Lloyd Morgan, among many others.

Some people try to exalt animals instead of studying them objectively.

[Cekoviu]

Imagine what kind of mindset somebody must have to exhibit this degree of arrogance.

Imagine what kind of mindset somebody must have to believe that a human being is not clearly superior to an animal, and to call someone else arrogant for pointing out this obvious fact.

There is plenty of scientific evidence against advanced animal cognition, such as the studies of Jean-Henri Fabre and Conwy Lloyd Morgan, among many others.

Some people try to exalt animals instead of studying them objectively.

I literally addressed this garbage argument on the first page. Maybe my mistake was in writing too long of a rebuttal; is two paragraphs too much for you?

[Deacarsia]

Try explaining that to all the other species.

It's easy to assert your own superiority, but that doesn't make it true. If other species don't agree, then it really isn't clear. It's just an unsubstantiated assertion.

Its easy to prove your superiority when doing so from a pile of their corpses you have factory farmed and consumed.

I see no moral issue with raising and eating animals, nor does doing so bother me in the slightest.

Additionally, I do not care if other creatures agree if humans are superior or not, since they clearly do not even have the capacity to understand the question, and truth does not rely on consensus. It is objectively true that humans are superior to other creatures, and it is absurd to think otherwise.

[The New California Republic]

Additionally, animals have no rights. While being kind to animals is good and a healthy habit, which should be encourage in order to help people become kinder people overall, the animals themselves have no inherent rights.

You are actually wrong in that regard. There are laws regarding pets in various places regarding cruelty, as well as limits placed on the kinds of animal experimentation that can take place.

[Deacarsia]

I literally addressed this garbage argument on the first page. Maybe my mistake was in writing too long of a rebuttal; is two paragraphs too much for you?

I do not understand the reason for your unprovoked vitriol, and I do not care for the insults. Perhaps you lack the mental capacity to hold a reasonable discussion without devolving into personal attacks.

Having read your original argument, which I simply happened to have missed in good faith, I do agree that there obviously are different degrees and forms of animal intelligence, but it simply is undeniable that human beings are superior overall compared to all other creatures.

Animal behavior indeed can be very complex, but most if not all of it primarily is the result of instinct as opposed to intentional, conscious decision-making, which was the point of Morgan’s argument.

I hope that three paragraphs was short enough for you, O high and mighty one.

[Cekoviu]

By the way, the fact that no animals seem to be capable of agreeing or disagreeing with human opinions is due not to every animal being vastly cognitively inferior (I can't believe this is the actual argument being made; it doesn't have to be strawmanned because it's already doing the legwork itself!), but rather because we cannot adequately communicate the complexities of political theory when other creatures lack the ability to interpret language to its fullest extent. Many, many animals are able to form "opinions" -- even cockroaches can agree or disagree with each other on where to shelter based on their personality traits and arrive at a group consensus. So if that's your basis for claiming humans are better than every other animal, find another basis.

[Deacarsia]

You are actually wrong in that regard. There are laws regarding pets in various places regarding cruelty, as well as limits placed on the kinds of animal experimentation that can take place.

I am not arguing against laws against cruelty, or necessarily against restriction on animal experimentation. I also am not arguing that such laws do not exist.

What I am stating is that animals per se do not have any inherent rights, and that any laws protecting them mainly exist out of our own benevolence, not because the animals themselves have any rights.

[The New California Republic]

You are actually wrong in that regard. There are laws regarding pets in various places regarding cruelty, as well as limits placed on the kinds of animal experimentation that can take place.

I am not arguing against laws against cruelty, or necessarily against restriction on animal experimentation. I also am not arguing that such laws do not exist.

What I am stating is that animals per se do not have any inherent rights, and that any laws protecting them mainly exist out of our own benevolence, not because the animals themselves have any rights.

...rights given to humans too are legal ones that come from our own "benevolence", so I don't see what you think this "point" is achieving.

[Cekoviu]

I literally addressed this garbage argument on the first page. Maybe my mistake was in writing too long of a rebuttal; is two paragraphs too much for you?

I do not understand the reason for your unprovoked vitriol, and I do not care for the insults. Perhaps you lack the mental capacity to hold a reasonable discussion without devolving into personal attacks.

:thinking:

Having read your original argument, which I simply happened to have missed in good faith, I do agree that there obviously are different degrees and forms of animal intelligence, but it simply is undeniable that human beings are superior overall compared to all other creatures.

Why are you the one who gets to decide what makes certain animals "superior" to one another? This is an idea that has been debunked by mainstream biology for literal centuries. You're transparently reinventing the Aristotelian biological hierarchy with a thin veneer of psychological reasoning applied.

Animal behavior indeed can be very complex, but most if not all of it primarily is the result of instinct as opposed to intentional, conscious decision-making, which was the point of Morgan’s argument.

Literally everything is instinctual on a fundamental level. Humans are no different in this regard; linguistic structures are neurologically built in, political views are determined largely by neurology and personality, etc. Reason itself is based on logical structures which we unconsciously apply, not any kind of higher thought process.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Yeah we are smarter than other animals, but I think a) the difference is overstated, and b) it is difficult to compare different intelligences.

[Thepeopl]

Its easy to prove your superiority when doing so from a pile of their corpses you have factory farmed and consumed.

I see no moral issue with raising and eating animals, nor does doing so bother me in the slightest.

Additionally, I do not care if other creatures agree if humans are superior or not, since they clearly do not even have the capacity to understand the question, and truth does not rely on consensus. It is objectively true that humans are superior to other creatures, and it is absurd to think otherwise.

Obviously animals do not regard humans as superior. Or they wouldn't attack us. They don't think they are superior either.
I see no moral issue in raising or not raising humans or killing them, I really don't know why my pet can have euthanasia when suffering but my nana can't.

I see no difference in eating eggs/killing chicks or in abortion. Why would there be?

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Literally everything is instinctual on a fundamental level. Humans are no different in this regard; linguistic structures are neurologically built in, political views are determined largely by neurology and personality, etc. Reason itself is based on logical structures which we unconsciously apply, not any kind of higher thought process.

Get your biological determinism outta here!

[Deacarsia]

By the way, the fact that no animals seem to be capable of agreeing or disagreeing with human opinions is due not to every animal being vastly cognitively inferior (I can't believe this is the actual argument being made; it doesn't have to be strawmanned because it's already doing the legwork itself!), but rather because we cannot adequately communicate the complexities of political theory when other creatures lack the ability to interpret language to its fullest extent. Many, many animals are able to form "opinions" -- even cockroaches can agree or disagree with each other on where to shelter based on their personality traits and arrive at a group consensus. So if that's your basis for claiming humans are better than every other animal, find another basis.

Humans are superior to other animals, because we have vastly larger cognitive capabilities in nearly every conceivable field. As you yourself argued, different animals do vary in intelligence between and within different species, and humans tower above all other creatures in this regard.

There is no argument that at least some animals to varying degrees exhibit what may loosely be termed as distinctive “personalities” in terms of consistent patterns of behavior, and that animals as such even may be social and form complex behavioral networks based on instinct, but this itself is not evidence of higher faculties. Moreover, the lack of interpretation of language is itself evidence against the existence of such higher faculties. Methinks you are reading far too much into the cited studies that simply is not there.

Furthermore, the vast diversity and richness of human achievements, cultures, and biological success is itself testimony of the superiority of humans to the lower creatures, apart from and in addition to their total inability to communicate more than the simplest of information, which likely they themselves even do not understand beyond a primitive and instinctual level, given their evident limited cognitive capabilities.

[Deacarsia]

...rights given to humans too are legal ones that come from our own "benevolence", so I don't see what you think this "point" is achieving.

Humans inherently have rights by our own nature, which laws must morally respect. They pre-exist human institutions. Animals have no such inherent rights, but only such legal protections as we see fit to provide them out of our own benevolents.

For example, it is immoral to murder a human being, and ought to be illegal as well; it is neither moral nor immoral to kill an animal, though laws may exist against doing so.

[Deacarsia]

Literally everything is instinctual on a fundamental level. Humans are no different in this regard; linguistic structures are neurologically built in, political views are determined largely by neurology and personality, etc. Reason itself is based on logical structures which we unconsciously apply, not any kind of higher thought process.

Get your biological determinism outta here!

This.

[Deacarsia]

Obviously animals do not regard humans as superior. Or they wouldn't attack us. They don't think they are superior either.
I see no moral issue in raising or not raising humans or killing them, I really don't know why my pet can have euthanasia when suffering but my nana can't.

I see no difference in eating eggs/killing chicks or in abortion. Why would there be?

Animals do not regard either humans or themselves as superior, because animals lack the cognitive capability for such philosophical thoughts, acting mainly on mindless instinct. Human beings morally cannot be murdered, because human beings have inherent rights than animals simply lack. Your pet can have euthanasia, because it simply has no inherent rights, whereas your grandmother as a human being has an inherent right to life.

Eating eggs and killing chicks are amoral actions, as neither eggs nor chickens have any inherent rights, while an unborn child has an inherent right to life from the moment of conception by his nature as a human being. If you see no difference between the two, then I simply do not and cannot understand your thinking on the most fundamental level; indeed, if anything I find it absolutely repugnant.

[The New California Republic]

...rights given to humans too are legal ones that come from our own "benevolence", so I don't see what you think this "point" is achieving.

Humans inherently have rights by our own nature, which laws must morally respect. They pre-exist human institutions. Animals have no such inherent rights, but only such legal protections as we see fit to provide them out of our own benevolents.

You have absolutely no basis for making that assertion, as our nature says nothing about rights.

[Cekoviu]

Literally everything is instinctual on a fundamental level. Humans are no different in this regard; linguistic structures are neurologically built in, political views are determined largely by neurology and personality, etc. Reason itself is based on logical structures which we unconsciously apply, not any kind of higher thought process.

Get your biological determinism outta here!

No. Biological determinism is great.

[The New California Republic]

This.

This.

All of this.

This.

Please stop doing that. It's just getting fucking irritating at this point.

[Deacarsia]

You have absolutely no basis for making that assertion, as our nature says nothing about rights.

It is self-evident.

As I said to Thepeopl, if you see no difference between a human and an animal, or do not see that humans have natural rights, then I simply do not and cannot understand your thinking on the most fundamental level; indeed, if anything I find it totally repellant.

No. Biological determinism is great.

You are going down I dark road there, and I am not sure that you will like where such conclusions might lead you.