User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 92

  1. #51
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post

    but this has gone quite substantially off the subject - which was do animals have emos...
    It's not off-topic, as this was my initial intent, and hinted so in the first few posts of mine. It's not really whether 'animals' have emotions. As our answers have revealed, it is hard to objectively quantify, thus, this question really is:

    Do you think/feel animals feel emotions?

    Given that:

    Yes I think they do - experienced independant of humans (although they can respond to those) - does that stop me eating them - no.
    Why doesn't it stop you? Is it because:
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    but I also beleive all living this have emotions but we as humans don't nessesarily identify or hear them.
    So, is it a question of the limitations of our own empathy and/or understanding, of being unable to go beyond our own ego?

    Then, wouldn't the first step in overcoming this, be acknowledging one's own limitations and progressing beyond it? That is........if one even wants to.

    Which raises the question [full circle]: why would you NOT want to get to this understanding or work towards it?

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post

    I'm pretty carniverous, don't have any issues eating meat or vegitables either. It's natrual and I'd say pretty nessesary for people eat meat. As I said previously I also think vegitables have an emotional plaine too.
    At this stage in the 'natural' game, it becomes kinda moot for us as a human species. Humans are also not made to naturally fly, but we've figured out a way to circumvent it.

    Is it merely a question of conscious selfishness on the part of us humans?

  2. #52
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    So, is it a question of the limitations of our own empathy, of being unable to go beyond our own ego?

    Then, wouldn't the first step in overcoming this, be acknowledging one's own limitations and progressing beyond it? That is........if one even wants to.

    Which raises the question [full circle]: why would you NOT want to?
    At rick of being a little bit grim, I beleive most humans would be canibals in certain circumstances.... but they would need to be very extreme.

    I eat veggies and animals and I bleive both have emotions.

    I dont' have a clue what you mean by the bold.

    I beleive as I've state previously that emotions live in the etherial around a person, the science (which INTJ posted asa video link) seems to have been supressed in this area.... whichs is a shame because the applications are midn exploding.

    I work with markeres who try and influence people on mass the science would have application there...

  3. #53
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post

    So, is it a question of the limitations of our own empathy and/or understanding, of being unable to go beyond our own ego?

    Then, wouldn't the first step in overcoming this, be acknowledging one's own limitations and progressing beyond it? That is........if one even wants to.

    Which raises the question [full circle]: why would you NOT want to get to this understanding or work towards it?

    At this stage in the 'natural' game, it becomes kinda moot for us as a human species. Humans are also not made to naturally fly, but we've figured out a way to circumvent it.
    These questions assume that having emotions equates to giving an animal special value in that it becomes wrong for it to die by our hands. I don't see how that is the case. And to be honest, I don't really see what you're trying to do here. Yes, you've gotten us to admit that animals probably have emotions, and that they are not unique to humanity. How does that make it necessary to reexamine how we use them?



  4. #54
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    These questions assume that having emotions equates to giving an animal special value in that it becomes wrong for it to die by our hands. I don't see how that is the case. And to be honest, I don't really see what you're trying to do here. Yes, you've gotten us to admit that animals probably have emotions, and that they are not unique to humanity. How does that make it necessary to reexamine how we use them?
    The philosophy of ethics. (there's a reason I posted it here versus the Science area)

    E.g., in scientific research, it is mandatory to get ethics approval when dealing with human or animals in research. Interesting why they assumed a 'special value' to these animals versus, say, plants or inanimate objects. Why do you think they did, and why do you think this is the case?

    Understanding without understanding of application is laziness in thought to me.

    Edit: all the questions I asked about the treatment (direct or indirect) of animals is applicable to me as well, not just you guys who 'answered'. Hence, me looking for other's reasoning/understanding/justification, if any.

    Also, to reiterate, I asked:
    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Which raises the question [full circle]: why would you NOT want to get to this understanding or work towards it?
    You can answer for why NOT if you see that I'm assuming WHY SO.

  5. #55
    Senior Member Kyrielle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    So, to those who agree that it is an obvious and trite question to ask, whether animals feel emotions...........how do you support this view in your everyday approach to life, given our one-up of metacognition?
    If an animal is in obvious pain or trouble, I try to do something about it. If small, slow animals are in the road, I move them out of the road if possible. A few animals that people are afraid of are animals I will happily allow to live in proximity of my home because I know we will both benefit from doing so. (For example, if a rat snake decided to live under the deck, I would not hurt it or chase it out. The rat snake cuts down on any rodents that might cause problems for me and keeps the snake fed and sheltered. I've been known to let spiders live in the house because they will eat earwigs and roaches.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Are you all vegans?
    I'm not. I have no qualms about eating meat. Though I feel awful for the autrocities that many of our food animals go through.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Do you wear leather?
    Generally, no. Not because of a principle, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Have you ever killed a bug cuz it was just lounging in your home?
    Have I? Yes. Do I do so usually? No. Whether or not I kill it depends on the species of bug.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Do you ostracize or even think of the animals on the other side of the 'looking glass' and their experiences - in pet stores, circuses, zoos, man-made animal safaris, 'sea world'/aquariums, animal farms, fur farms, tv/movies with use of animals, look for make-ups not tested on animals, hunting, fishing, etc, etc.?
    Do I think of them? Yes. I feel badly for wild animals kept in captivity, though I understand some of them cannot be released because of their strong imprint on human beings (because they were orphaned and raised by people, for instance). Zoos and aquariums tug at my heartstrings. At the same time, I understand how important it is to teach people about these animals so they are respectful for their brethren in the wild.

    I don't condone hunting for sport and fish that are not intended to be eaten should be released. However, I fully condone hunting and fishing as a means of providing food for yourself and your family.

    As for animals in pet stores that are not taken care of properly, puppy/kitten mills, while I want to "rescue" them, I know that that is not the way to get this behavior and business to stop. In order to stop this sort of thing, there needs to be boycott so these people cannot continue their business and reporting to the appropriate authorities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Do you own exotic pets?
    I keep fish. Never more than should properly fit in the tank.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Have you ever looked into an animal's eyes, and understood to the core, the same way you did when you looked into the eyes of a human in pain?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    And, the blurry side of the line, animal research for medical/science purposes?
    I don't know what to say for these animals. On the one hand, we use these animals to help save other human beings or gain a greater understanding of ourselves and other animals. On the other hand, I feel bad that these test animals are likely subjected to experiments that cause them considerable stress and sometimes pain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    What is your justification for actively and/or passively affecting the emotional life of these beings if they are not a direct threat to you?

    If we did it to another human being, causing emotional and/or physical harm with an intent to benefit ourselves at the cost of another.....it's a

    And, if we can recognize emotion in these beings, what allows us (you) to still cause them intentional harm?
    I don't have any justification other than: my species > any other species.
    "I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference."

    Robert Frost

  6. #56
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Qre

    I think you may be assuming if animals feel emotions then we are moraly obliged to not want to cause harm (such an F type value )) . Give me a steak. In my head I'm not a bit clappy about animals, so I'm possibly A typical. I'd like animals to be reared properly not in battery farms etc... but I do eat meat that isn't ethically reared.

    I think science places human and animals above plants because they feel their are emotions invovled - or at least enough human emotions to say that they need to be more responcible. Science usually doesn't test things on plants ebcause the biology and cellualar construction is SO different from animals - at a guess (although we can catch bugs from plants)... science will catch up.

    Given I think there may be issue around Ethrial, I'd be much more into science exploring that area more... light therapy, water therapies, magentic therapies in terms of promoting well being.

    EDIT PS I wouldn't try to hurt animals, and if they are not scary I would try to help, but I'm not really an animally person. and yes I wear leather & don't keep pets

  7. #57
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    I think science places human and animals above plants because they feel their are emotions invovled - or at least enough human emotions to say that they need to be more responcible.
    Why do they need to be responsible? What is the assumption for them?

    Since, as you said:

    I think you may be assuming if animals feel emotions then we are moraly obliged to not want to cause harm (such an F type value )) .
    What is a moral then? Relative? Is moral then not relevant?

    Why do we care? Cuz of morals, ethics, as I responded to Jock and you.

    Now, answer me this:

    Why do we NOT [need to] care?

    F is morality and ethics...so yup, F response.

  8. #58
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Why do they need to be responsible? What is the assumption for them?

    Since, as you said:



    What is a moral then? Relative? Is moral then not relevant?

    Why do we care? Cuz of morals, ethics, as I responded to Jock and you.

    Now, answer me this:

    Why do we NOT [need to] care?

    F is morality and ethics...so yup, F response.

    Scientists feel that they get shit from other humans if they test on animals... why do they get shit from humans is probably because humans empathise with animals. Humans rarely empathis with plants... unless it's a 100 year old oak treat or a forest etc...

    Social pressure = the morals... too many people dont' condone testing on animals, therefore they are responding to negative PR I'd guess... It's quite clear when animals are in pain.

    I'd say S is morality and F is empathy...

    I don't feel morally obliged about animals, I'm not a pet owner, I wouldn't go out my way to harm animals though.

  9. #59
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    I'd say S is morality and F is empathy...
    Great so I'm immoral and I don't care.

    Sounds good to me.

    *Stabs people* >.>

    I think most animals can be considered empathic... to those that they agree with. They don't seem all that much so otherwise though. IE a wolf would understand the pain of another wolf, but has no issues with playing with a rabbit rather than just killing it outright, if it's in the mood for amusement.

    Think that may be the biggest issue concerning emotional responses; the capacity to see beyond a certain barrier of understanding or not.

    Or maybe it's more than that, who knows. Some humans may just not be capable of the same empathic barrier, and just can't relate to things outside their own species. Some can't even relate within their own species... so who are we to judge if we can't even understand our own feelings or those of others of our own kind?

    Or at least I can't XD

  10. #60
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    Scientists feel that they get shit from other humans if they test on animals...
    Huh? Sorry, I couldn't understand what you meant by that. Can you expand?

    Social pressure = the morals... too many people dont' condone testing on animals, therefore they are responding to negative PR I'd guess... It's quite clear when animals are in pain.
    So is it social pressure that's the trigger, or animals in pain that drives social pressure? What's the cause?

    I'd say S is morality and F is empathy...
    No [I dunno if you're being tongue-in-cheek, though, cuz of that wink :confused:]. S is not about morality. F deals with morality AND it can produce, as a by-product, empathy.

    There's a lot of misconception about what the Feeling function is on this forum, I've seen, like above.

    Jung was quite clear on his interpretation of the feeling function. It is not about emotions. An F person can be unemotional and still be F. Just like a T person can be emotional and still be T.

    As a writer interprets Jung, to Jung, Feeling is "the consideration of the value of something or having a viewpoint or perspective on something"....the consideration of the value of something drives to the philosophy of ethics and morals. Hence, F deals with morals and ethics.

    While T deals with "knowing what a thing is, naming it and linking it to other things."

    Sensation is a representation of "all facts available to the senses, telling us that something is, but not what it is."

    Intuition is a "sense of where something is going, of what the possibilities are, without conscious proof or knowledge."

    Jung and the Post-Jungians - Google Books

    In the book, Jung and the Post-Jungians by Andrew Samuels, google books preview
    (go to page 62...where I quoted the above from)


    I don't feel morally obliged about animals, I'm not a pet owner, I wouldn't go out my way to harm animals though.
    Why do you not feel morally obligated about animals? Simply because you aren't a pet owner?

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] How do you feel about emotional appeal as a persuasive method?
    By Babybop in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 09-19-2016, 06:11 PM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-28-2008, 05:10 PM
  3. Do you feel embarrassed by your friends house
    By Sona in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 09-13-2007, 10:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO