5 ms·

I cordially disagree. I counter argue that anthropomorphizing of animals is fundamentally flawed. What understanding are you talking about? That with understand

I cordially disagree. I counter argue that anthropomorphizing of animals is fundamentally flawed. What understanding are you talking about? That with understanding the wild animal will not kill and maim randomly? As per other comments it seems evidence is against this reasoning. Highly experienced trainers who understand very well their animals end up dead. I think it is quite a high grounded statement to call professional zoo-keepers and related professionals lazy. The only understanding i can see is that having wild animals as pets should be banned as they normally are in most jurisdictions.

naringas 6y ago
> I counter argue that anthropomorphizing of animals is fundamentally flawed. and I further retort that humans are animals, and that classifying humans into "something other than animals" is fundamentally flawed. Why are so many humans wont on forgetting that we're an animals too? > The only understanding i can see is that having wild animals as pets should be banned as they normally are in most jurisdictions. I suppose owning humans as pets is already banned in all jurisdictions, so I think we agree on this.
- alexvoda 6y ago
  I wonder how much religion factors into the belief that humans are a fundamentally different category. Abrahamic religions certanly rely on this idea. No idea about others.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    I think it is more fundamental to human nature than can be explained by religion. Just hang around in tech circles and listen to them talk about other people and you'll see they consider themselves to be in some fundamentally different category from the rest of humanity.
- drdeca 6y ago
  Why are humans unlike (other) animals? Because only humans debate whether they are.
chmod775 6y ago
>Highly experienced trainers who understand very well their animals end up dead. Humans who understand other humans also get killed by humans - at rates other animals will never match. In the ballpark of ~20,000 murders are committed every year in the US, yet even though there are 90 million dogs in that same country, only about 30 to 50 people are killed by dogs. It would be pointless comparing the number of fatal bear attacks, because the numbers per year are usually 0-2, and usually by wild animals, not ones in captivity. At the end of the day the most dangerous thing to a human is another human. No other animal comes remotely close.
- ivanbakel 6y ago
  What is the point being made here? Humans are liable for themselves and their actions - animals are not. It ultimately doesn't matter if an animal has a justification for its actions; being unable to take responsibility for them, from a human perspective, is the biggest separator between human and animal behaviour.
  - chmod775 6y ago
    > being unable to take responsibility for them, from a human perspective, is the biggest separator between human and animal behaviour. That is true, but also not related to what your GP was talking about IMHO. I understood their comment as coming from a perspective of either "you should fear what you can't understand/explain - and you can't really understand animals" or "it's their nature to be violent, it doesn't matter whether you understand them", either of which I think is flawed. You made a much better point. I just have a habit of picking at reasoning even if I agree with the conclusion. Sometimes you end up with a more concise and to the point argument at the end of that, and in this case it came from you!
  - mLuby 6y ago
    Animals are liable for their actions. The punishment is usually death by lethal injection or firing squad. The stronger argument is that animals aren't as aware as humans which actions will have consequences. Animals do have customs about what's okay and what's not, but they often don't align with human society's laws. It's "ignorance of the law is no excuse" taken to an extreme.

naringas 6y ago

> I counter argue that anthropomorphizing of animals is fundamentally flawed. and I further retort that humans are animals, and that classifying humans into "something other than animals" is fundamentally flawed. Why are so many humans wont on forgetting that we're an animals too? > The only understanding i can see is that having wild animals as pets should be banned as they normally are in most jurisdictions. I suppose owning humans as pets is already banned in all jurisdictions, so I think we agree on this.

alexvoda 6y ago
I wonder how much religion factors into the belief that humans are a fundamentally different category. Abrahamic religions certanly rely on this idea. No idea about others.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  I think it is more fundamental to human nature than can be explained by religion. Just hang around in tech circles and listen to them talk about other people and you'll see they consider themselves to be in some fundamentally different category from the rest of humanity.
drdeca 6y ago
Why are humans unlike (other) animals? Because only humans debate whether they are.

chmod775 6y ago

>Highly experienced trainers who understand very well their animals end up dead. Humans who understand other humans also get killed by humans - at rates other animals will never match. In the ballpark of ~20,000 murders are committed every year in the US, yet even though there are 90 million dogs in that same country, only about 30 to 50 people are killed by dogs. It would be pointless comparing the number of fatal bear attacks, because the numbers per year are usually 0-2, and usually by wild animals, not ones in captivity. At the end of the day the most dangerous thing to a human is another human. No other animal comes remotely close.

ivanbakel 6y ago
What is the point being made here? Humans are liable for themselves and their actions - animals are not. It ultimately doesn't matter if an animal has a justification for its actions; being unable to take responsibility for them, from a human perspective, is the biggest separator between human and animal behaviour.
- chmod775 6y ago
  > being unable to take responsibility for them, from a human perspective, is the biggest separator between human and animal behaviour. That is true, but also not related to what your GP was talking about IMHO. I understood their comment as coming from a perspective of either "you should fear what you can't understand/explain - and you can't really understand animals" or "it's their nature to be violent, it doesn't matter whether you understand them", either of which I think is flawed. You made a much better point. I just have a habit of picking at reasoning even if I agree with the conclusion. Sometimes you end up with a more concise and to the point argument at the end of that, and in this case it came from you!
- mLuby 6y ago
  Animals are liable for their actions. The punishment is usually death by lethal injection or firing squad. The stronger argument is that animals aren't as aware as humans which actions will have consequences. Animals do have customs about what's okay and what's not, but they often don't align with human society's laws. It's "ignorance of the law is no excuse" taken to an extreme.