And animal vocalization is not language? — Caldwell

No, it's definitively not. One of the underlying problems in all of this is that it blurs the distinction between humans and animals. In fact it's highly non PC to suggest that humans and animals are different, it's fiercely contested. I think the reason for that is, 'being' is a burden to humans in a way that it cannot be for animals, because of self awareness. And also because 'nature' is idolized these days as symbolic of purity and innocence.

Some folks say plants and fungi are farming us, giving us oxygen until we eventually expire and turn into mulch which they can consume. I've also heard of some insects doing something similar to other insects. — James Riley

Except that they've been doing that before humans came into existence. Though I should have qualified my statement of will as that of animals, vertebrate, some invertebrate are also considered here. But let's stay close to vertebrate.

No, it's definitively not. — Wayfarer

But it is communication.

Except that they've been doing that before humans came into existence. — Caldwell

They've diversified their palate. Probably got bored with the same old healthy stuff.

Though I should have qualified my statement of will as that of animals, vertebrate, some invertebrate are also considered here. But let's stay close to vertebrate. — Caldwell

Well, as I intimated above, just as the tooth of the wolf chisels the leg of the deer, so too, the leg of the deer chisels the tooth of the wolf. They are farming and breeding each other into what they are. They just have better techniques, producing a better end product. Not some fat, bawling, shit-smeared, lazy piece of meat that is easy to kill and provides no incentive to work for it. (I'm talking about homo sap here. :wink: )

Sometimes I wonder if the occasional omni reads these animal rights threads and.... though s/he is perhaps not yet convinced about animal rights... realizes that everything being said on the omni side is irredeemably flawed. :chin:

But it (animal communication) is communication. — Caldwell

But not symbolic communication and it’s a difference that makes a difference.

Sometimes I wonder if the occasional omni reads these animal rights threads and.... though s/he is perhaps not yet convinced about animal rights... realizes that everything being said on the omni side is irredeemably flawed — Artemis

Probably not. People usually need someone to make intelligent arguments, from experience, pointing out flaws in order to see those flaws. When those arguments are missing, it's understandable they continue to roll omni.

Probably not. People usually need someone to make intelligent arguments from experience pointing out flaws in order to see those flaws. When those arguments are missing . . . — James Riley

I dunno... my personal experience ( :wink: ) is that people's psychologies get in the way of this debate. I mean, something they do every day, something they enjoy, something that bonds them to other people is at stake and I find that is a real obstacle to being open-minded and resolving cognitive dissonance.

Same issue that inhibits real conversation with theists.

I dunno... my personal experience ( :wink: ) is that people's psychologies get in the way of this debate. I mean, something they do every day, something they enjoy, something that bonds them to other people is at stake and I find that is a real obstacle to being open-minded and resolving cognitive dissonance.

Same issue that inhibits real conversation with theists. — Artemis

I think we are 100% in agreement on what you just said. Nevertheless, an absence of argument does a position no good. That cognitive dissonance is the blindness I referenced when I said "Another sickness brought on by our distance from who we are is the illogical conflation of disparate things, like hunting and serial killers. It's sad to watch the blind stumble around so. They actually think food comes from the grocery store."

Nevertheless, an absence of argument does a position no good. — James Riley

Maybe... but I lose interest even attempting the debate when I think my interlocutors aren't actually open to seeing the other side.

If you look through the archives here, btw, you'll see that the conversation has been had many many times and many good arguments have been made... but I lost hope when it turned out that people would rather bite the bullet every. single. time. and make claims, like... oh, they'd eat a disabled person, rather than admit they're making mistakes somehow somewhere in their thinking.

Maybe... but I lose interest even attempting the debate when I think my interlocutors aren't actually open to seeing the other side. — Artemis

If you could maintain interest and look a little deeper, you might find your interlocutors have been on the other side, yet progressed with experience.

If you look through the archives here — Artemis

No thanks. I want my interlocutors to argue on their own two feet, thus maintaining their status as interlocutor.

but I lost hope when it turned out that people would rather bite the bullet every. single. time. and make claims, like... oh, they'd eat a disabled person, rather than admit they're making mistakes somehow somewhere in their thinking. — Artemis

Hmmm. I don't think I've ever made that claim. But I confess I don't know what you are talking about, so there's that.

If you could maintain interest and look a little deeper, you might find your interlocutors have been on the other side, yet progressed with experience. — James Riley

So could you.

So could you. — Artemis

Ah, but I am. Let me repeat:

"People usually need someone to make intelligent arguments, from experience, pointing out flaws in order to see those flaws. When those arguments are missing, it's understandable they continue to roll omni."

and

"Nevertheless, an absence of argument does a position no good."

So far, crickets.

They are farming and breeding each other into what they are. They just have better techniques, producing a better end product. Not some fat, bawling, shit-smeared, lazy piece of meat that is easy to kill and provides no incentive to work for it. — James Riley

It's a nice metaphor. Sorry but not I would call serious talk here.

But not symbolic communication and it’s a difference that makes a difference. — Wayfarer

No, not symbolic as humans have. But communication nonetheless, like wolves have. C'mon Wayfarer.

It's a nice metaphor. Sorry but not I would call serious talk here. — Caldwell

That's because you completely ignored me when I said:

But I'm just funnin' you. I know what you mean, and the answer is emphatically no. Animals don't treat other animals with so much disrespect, lack of consideration, lack of mindfulness, lack of conscious deliberation. Rather, they live in the now, and hunt with conscious deliberate mindfulness. — James Riley

and then continued to pursue the funnin' with:

Except that they've been doing that before humans came into existence. Though I should have qualified my statement of will as that of animals, vertebrate, some invertebrate are also considered here. But let's stay close to vertebrate. — Caldwell

You could have kept it on my serious response to your serious post.

So far, crickets. — James Riley

Nah, I already explained why I'm not interested.

But I do cordially invite you to read this thread and previous threads not through your own eyes, but through the eyes of a non-omni.... hey, kinda like you told me to inhabit a deer or cougar or something by hunting! Go ahead! It'll be fun! :snicker:

Nah, I already explained why I'm not interested. — Artemis

Because you are not an interlocutor? Someone in the past failed to agree with you?

But I do cordially invite you to read this thread and previous threads not through your own eyes, but through the eyes of a non-omni.... hey, kinda like you told me to inhabit a deer or cougar or something by hunting! Go ahead! It'll be fun! :snicker: — Artemis

BTDT. :smile:

No, not symbolic as humans have. But communication nonetheless, like wolves have. C'mon Wayfarer. — Caldwell

What do you mean, c'mon? I'm saying that humans are in a different category to animals - they have symbolic communication, and also rights, responsibilities, and duties. They are responsible agents. (I don't accept the scientistic crap about determinism.) Unlike animals, who do not have any of the above. Animal behaviours can be complex and sophisticated but they're not conscious agents in the sense that humans are, and that also is a difference that makes a difference.

Because you are not an interlocutor? Someone in the past failed to agree with you? — James Riley

Someone in the past, as I've mentioned and just for example, told me they'd eat disabled people. So yeah, it's tedious.

BTDT. :smile: — James Riley

Didn't you JUST say you don't want to look at the archives and don't know anything about what was said there? So much for BTDT....

That said, there's a story breaking in Australia about shocking treatment of livestock in the live animal trade, by abbatoirs in Indonesia. I'm standing with the animal rights acitivists in calling for that abhorrent trade to be closed down, it is absolutely heart-wrenching to see animals treated that way, and completely inhumane. But it's not a matter of violation of the animal's rights, it's cruelty on the part of humans.

Someone in the past, as I've mentioned and just for example, told me they'd eat disabled people. So yeah, it's tedious. — Artemis

Yeah, I don't know where that came from.

Didn't you JUST say you don't want to look at the archives and don't know anything about what was said there? So much for BTDT.... — Artemis

You said "But I do cordially invite you to read this thread . . . "

BTDT.

I also told you that " If you could maintain interest and look a little deeper, you might find your interlocutors have been on the other side, yet progressed with experience."

i.e. BTDT

And, since I JUST told you I'm not going search through years of the forum to find whatever unknown thread it might be that you are thinking of (the one where someone would eat the disabled? or disagreed with you in argument?) then I figured you'd be smart enough to know that I was not referring that when I said BTDT. After all, it was only a few minutes ago that you were told.

That said, there's a story breaking in Australia about shocking treatment of livestock in the live animal trade, by abbatoirs in Indonesia. I'm standing with the animal rights acitivists in calling for that abhorrent trade to be closed down, it is absolutely heart-wrenching to see animals treated that way, and completely inhumane. But it's not a matter of violation of the animal's rights, it's cruelty on the part of humans. — Wayfarer

:100:

I said this thread and others through the eyes of the other side, actually.

But, hey, your whole "you need arguments" spiel is coming on the heels of your whole "I can't give you arguments, you just need to hunt and see it for yourself" yadda yadda yadda.

So excuse me, but I think my asking you to just read some past conversations, which are literally just a few clicks away is a lot less out there and "inconvenient" than some suggestion that I should --quite literally-- get blood on my hands.

And I'll add, yes, I'm being lazy and don't really WANT to rehash what has been hashed out ad nauseam on this forum already...

BUT at least I'm not clouding my stance in some pseudo-mystical fiddlydud about becoming one with the deer, but no actually with the hunter of the deer, which is the same as the deer but somehow like... not the same? And if you don't understand, then you're just blind! blind I say!

I said this thread and others through the eyes of the other side, actually. — Artemis

Yes, and I addressed all that. I'd restate what I JUST said, but the record can speak for itself.

But, hey, your whole "you need arguments" spiel is coming on the heels of your whole "I can't give you arguments, you just need to hunt and see it for yourself" yadda yadda yadda. — Artemis

You were the one alleging flaws in arguments made without showing any flaw. That's on you.

So excuse me, but I think my asking you to just read some past conversations, which are literally just a few clicks away is a lot less out there and "inconvenient" than some suggestion that I should --quite literally-- get blood on my hands. — Artemis

So you didn't read a word I JUST said? I read this thread. I have not seen the flaws you alleged to exist but refuse to point out.

That was distressing to watch. :grimace:

And I'll add, yes, I'm being lazy and don't really WANT to rehash what has been hashed out ad nauseam on this forum already... — Artemis

Then let it go.

BUT at least I'm not clouding my stance in some pseudo-mystical fiddlydud about becoming one with the deer, but no actually with the hunter of the deer, which is the same as the deer but somehow like... not the same? And if you don't understand, then you're just blind! blind I say! — Artemis

Even worse, you are not offering any evidence of a flaw, much less any support for your side. In fact, I don't even know what your side is. Would you have the lions lay down with the lamb?

Even worse, you are not offering any evidence a flaw, much less any support for your side. — James Riley

But neither did you. That's the hilarious part of this. You started this whole thing telling me I can't possibly understand or know until I go and hunt and until then I'd be irredeemably blind.

I'm not even pretending to give evidence or arguments. So why you're griping about it ... I really cannot fathom.

But, I will extend this olive branch:

I know my tone here isn't going to be appreciated by anyone who doesn't agree with me and share my experiences in this conversation. That's fine. It was a little insider humor for myself. So, I apologize for ruffling feathers, if I have.

I've seen your posts on other subjects here, and while I think you ARE too inclined toward semi-grandiose statements, I think you have interesting thoughts underneath all the rhetoric and I appreciate your contributions to those conversations.

So yeah, that's my olive branch for today and my exeunt from this thread.