Home PEx Family and Society Realm of Thought

Animal Empathy

124»

Comments

  • ElCidElCid PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    ElCid said:
    logitext said:
    ^ You are must misinterpreting the article. Look at it this way, why would governments and institutions be spending all that money in research about animal empathy if theres no empathy to research?
    Why would you look for something that is already there? :lol:  
    They werent. They were trying to understand HOW it works. Because you cant do these kinds of studies on a living human being.


    That is why:
    ElCid said:

    Your reference already said that they have not yet completed performing KEY EXPERIMENTS to have a TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANISMS OF EMPATHY so this is a work in progress and you cannot YET DERIVE ANY CONCLUSIVE PROOF FROM IT.  At this point in time they only suspect and have an impression without CERTAIN PROOF simply because they have not yet performed KEY experiments which would unlock the door that would lead to understanding how empathy works.


    Understand?


    The thread is already dead since your reference already said that they have not yet completed performing KEY EXPERIMENTS to have a TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANISMS OF EMPATHY so this is a work in progress and you cannot YET DERIVE ANY CONCLUSIVE PROOF FROM IT.  At this point in time they only suspect and have an impression without CERTAIN PROOF simply because they have not yet performed KEY experiments which would unlock the door that would lead to understanding how empathy works.
  • logitextlogitext PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    ElCid said:

    The thread is already dead since your reference already said that they have not yet completed performing KEY EXPERIMENTS to have a TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANISMS OF EMPATHY so this is a work in progress and you cannot YET DERIVE ANY CONCLUSIVE PROOF FROM IT.  At this point in time they only suspect and have an impression without CERTAIN PROOF simply because they have not yet performed KEY experiments which would unlock the door that would lead to understanding how empathy works.

    FYI, The thread isnt about the true understanding of the mechanisms of empathy. Its only about whether or not animals have it. They do. Which is why research institutes spends a fortune trying to understand how it works on animals.
  • ElCidElCid PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    ElCid said:

    The thread is already dead since your reference already said that they have not yet completed performing KEY EXPERIMENTS to have a TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANISMS OF EMPATHY so this is a work in progress and you cannot YET DERIVE ANY CONCLUSIVE PROOF FROM IT.  At this point in time they only suspect and have an impression without CERTAIN PROOF simply because they have not yet performed KEY experiments which would unlock the door that would lead to understanding how empathy works.

    FYI, The thread isnt about the true understanding of the mechanisms of empathy. Its only about whether or not animals have it. They do. Which is why research institutes spends a fortune trying to understand how it works on animals.
    Well that is not yet a well established fact based on your own reference since they have not yet completed performing KEY EXPERIMENTS to have a TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANISMS OF EMPATHY so this is a work in progress and you cannot YET DERIVE ANY CONCLUSIVE PROOF FROM IT.  
  • logitextlogitext PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited July 2 #65
    ElCid said:
    logitext said:
    ElCid said:

    The thread is already dead since your reference already said that they have not yet completed performing KEY EXPERIMENTS to have a TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANISMS OF EMPATHY so this is a work in progress and you cannot YET DERIVE ANY CONCLUSIVE PROOF FROM IT.  At this point in time they only suspect and have an impression without CERTAIN PROOF simply because they have not yet performed KEY experiments which would unlock the door that would lead to understanding how empathy works.

    FYI, The thread isnt about the true understanding of the mechanisms of empathy. Its only about whether or not animals have it. They do. Which is why research institutes spends a fortune trying to understand how it works on animals.
    Well that is not yet a well established fact based on your own reference since they have not yet completed performing KEY EXPERIMENTS to have a TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANISMS OF EMPATHY so this is a work in progress and you cannot YET DERIVE ANY CONCLUSIVE PROOF FROM IT.  

    Excuse me if I'd rather believe actual research:


    Scientific research backs the idea of emotions in animals. In fact, researchers have observed empathy in them, as well as grief, fear and other complex emotions often associated primarily with humans.
    https://online.uwa.edu/news/empathy-in-animals/




    In recent years, the scientific community has become increasingly supportive of the idea of emotions in animals. Scientific research has provided insight into similarities of physiological changes between humans and animals when experiencing emotion
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals#Scientific_approach
  • ElCidElCid PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited July 3 #66
    logitext said:

    Excuse me if I'd rather believe actual research:


    Scientific research backs the idea of emotions in animals. In fact, researchers have observed empathy in them, as well as grief, fear and other complex emotions often associated primarily with humans.
    https://online.uwa.edu/news/empathy-in-animals/




    In recent years, the scientific community has become increasingly supportive of the idea of emotions in animals. Scientific research has provided insight into similarities of physiological changes between humans and animals when experiencing emotion
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals#Scientific_approach
    Again this can be culled from your own references:

    The argument that animals experience emotions is sometimes rejected due to a lack of higher quality evidence, and those who do not believe in the idea of animal intelligence often argue that anthropomorphism plays a role in individuals' perspectives. Those who reject that animals have the capacity to experience emotion do so mainly by referring to inconsistencies in studies that have endorsed the belief emotions exist. Having no linguistic means to communicate emotion beyond behavioral response interpretation, the difficulty of providing an account of emotion in animals relies heavily on interpretive experimentation, that relies on results from human subjects.[25]

    There is obviously a lack of higher quality evidence and anthropomorphism plays a role in the researchers perspective.  There are also inconsistencies in the studies and there is no linguistic means to communicate emotion beyond behavioral response interpretation which would rely on the interpretive experimentation dependent on the subjective views of the researchers.  And I challenge you that if you believe that animals live the same moral lives that we do why don't you put your head in between the jaws of an alligator or a shark to find out?

    “Nonhuman animals are amazing beings. Daily we’re learning more and more about their fascinating cognitive abilities, emotional capacities and moral lives.” – Dr. Mark Bekoff

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  Why not put your money where your mouth is? :lol:
  • logitextlogitext PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited July 5 #67
    ElCid said:

    The argument that animals experience emotions is sometimes rejected due to a lack of higher quality evidence, and those who do not believe in the idea of animal intelligence often argue that anthropomorphism plays a role in individuals' perspectives. Those who reject that animals have the capacity to experience emotion do so mainly by referring to inconsistencies in studies that have endorsed the belief emotions exist. Having no linguistic means to communicate emotion beyond behavioral response interpretation, the difficulty of providing an account of emotion in animals relies heavily on interpretive experimentation, that relies on results from human subjects.[25]
    You should know that your source is just an opinion in wikipedia. Not an actual quote from leading scientists or scientific institutions.
  • ElCidElCid PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited July 6 #68
    logitext said:
    ElCid said:

    The argument that animals experience emotions is sometimes rejected due to a lack of higher quality evidence, and those who do not believe in the idea of animal intelligence often argue that anthropomorphism plays a role in individuals' perspectives. Those who reject that animals have the capacity to experience emotion do so mainly by referring to inconsistencies in studies that have endorsed the belief emotions exist. Having no linguistic means to communicate emotion beyond behavioral response interpretation, the difficulty of providing an account of emotion in animals relies heavily on interpretive experimentation, that relies on results from human subjects.[25]
    You should know that your source is just an opinion in wikipedia. Not an actual quote from leading scientists or scientific institutions.
    Who is the id!ot who produced the wikipedia as reference and now tells us that its just opinion? You right?  However, I have already produced evidence that scientists call what you consider as empathy as anthropomorphism.  This thread is dead - you just keep on recycling the same old reference.  Pathetic.  There is only one way to prove the stup!d claim that animals have emotional capacities and live moral lives based on your reference - I challenge you to put your head in between the jaws of an alligator or a shark to find out? 

    “Nonhuman animals are amazing beings. Daily we’re learning more and more about their fascinating cognitive abilities, emotional capacities and moral lives.” – Dr. Mark Bekoff

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  Why not put your money where your mouth is? lol
  • logitextlogitext PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited July 6 #69
    ElCid said:
    logitext said:
    ElCid said:

    The argument that animals experience emotions is sometimes rejected due to a lack of higher quality evidence, and those who do not believe in the idea of animal intelligence often argue that anthropomorphism plays a role in individuals' perspectives. Those who reject that animals have the capacity to experience emotion do so mainly by referring to inconsistencies in studies that have endorsed the belief emotions exist. Having no linguistic means to communicate emotion beyond behavioral response interpretation, the difficulty of providing an account of emotion in animals relies heavily on interpretive experimentation, that relies on results from human subjects.[25]
    You should know that your source is just an opinion in wikipedia. Not an actual quote from leading scientists or scientific institutions.
    Who is the id!ot who produced the wikipedia as reference and now tells us that its just opinion? You right?  However, I have already produced evidence that scientists call what you consider as empathy as anthropomorphism.  This thread is dead - you just keep on recycling the same old reference.  Pathetic.  There is only one way to prove the stup!d claim that animals have emotional capacities and live moral lives based on your reference - I challenge you to put your head in between the jaws of an alligator or a shark to find out? 

    “Nonhuman animals are amazing beings. Daily we’re learning more and more about their fascinating cognitive abilities, emotional capacities and moral lives.” – Dr. Mark Bekoff

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  Why not put your money where your mouth is? lol

    Wikipedia is a good source but it has its flaws. Unfortunately your quote was one of those flaws. It did not match the cited source. So it was just an opinion.

    Your argument is dead. Better luck next time. ;)


  • ElCidElCid PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited July 7 #70
    logitext said:

    Wikipedia is a good source but it has its flaws. Unfortunately your quote was one of those flaws. It did not match the cited source. So it was just an opinion.

    Your argument is dead. Better luck next time. ;)
    So who is again the id!ot who cited a flawed reference?  It wasn't me right?  So now you discredit your own source :lol: and doesn't that make you an id!ot by shooting your own foot? :lol:  So you decide which entry is correct and which one is flawed?  So that which agrees with your opinion is correct and the criticism is flawed because you SAID SO?  This is kind of ironic since you are the same person who considers a blog from a highschool student as scientific evidence :lol:

    And again you keep on citing your stup!d reference that animals live moral lives.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating so why can't you even reply to the challenge? Put your head in between the jaws of an alligator or a shark to find out if they do indeed live moral lives and have emotional capacities?? 

    “Nonhuman animals are amazing beings. Daily we’re learning more and more about their fascinating cognitive abilities, emotional capacities and moral lives.” – Dr. Mark Bekoff

    So is your reference again flawed?  So who again is the id!ot who keeps on using flawed references to prove his stup!d argument? YOU lol
  • logitextlogitext PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    ElCid said:

    So who is again the id!ot who cited a flawed reference?  It wasn't me right?  

    Youre the one who quoted an unsubstantiated claim on wikipedia. 
  • ElCidElCid PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    ElCid said:

    So who is again the id!ot who cited a flawed reference?  It wasn't me right?  

    Youre the one who quoted an unsubstantiated claim on wikipedia. 
    You're the sick [email protected] who quoted from it.  Now you blame me for using your own reference? :lol:

    Why do you keep avoiding this?

    And again you keep on citing your stup!d reference that animals live moral lives.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating so why can't you even reply to the challenge? Put your head in between the jaws of an alligator or a shark to find out if they do indeed live moral lives and have emotional capacities?? 

    “Nonhuman animals are amazing beings. Daily we’re learning more and more about their fascinating cognitive abilities, emotional capacities and moral lives.” – Dr. Mark Bekoff

    So is your reference again flawed?  So who again is the id!ot who keeps on using flawed references to prove his stup!d argument? YOU lol
  • logitextlogitext PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    ElCid said:

    “Nonhuman animals are amazing beings. Daily we’re learning more and more about their fascinating cognitive abilities, emotional capacities and moral lives.” – Dr. Mark Bekoff
    lol
    When I quote from Wikipedia I make sure the quote matches the cited references. You should too.

    Much of my references are from universities, scientists, professors, and science websites. You think theyre stupid, sad.


    ElCid said:

    “Nonhuman animals are amazing beings. Daily we’re learning more and more about their fascinating cognitive abilities, emotional capacities and moral lives.” – Dr. Mark Bekoff


    https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/bekoff-marc-1945


    CAREER:

    Educator, writer, and editor. University of Missouri, St. Louis, assistant professor of biology, 1973-74; University of Colorado-Boulder, professor of organismic biology. Coordinator of Jane Goodall's Roots and Shoots program; co-founder of Ethologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; affiliated with Science and the Spiritual Quest program and American Association for the Advancement of Science program on science, ethics, and religion. Member, board of directors, of Cougar Fund; member of advisory board, SINAPU.

    MEMBER:

    Animal Behavior Society, American Society of Zoologists, American Society of Mammalogists.

    AWARDS, HONORS:

    Guggenheim Memorial Foundation fellow, 1981; Exemplar Award, Animal Behavior Society, 2000, for major long-term contributions to the field of animal behavior.

    WRITINGS:

    (With Jim Carrier) Nature's Life Lessons: Everyday Truths from Nature, illustrated by Marjorie C. Leggitt, Fulcrum (Golden, CO), 1996.

    (With Colin Allen) Species of Mind: The Philosophy and Biology of Cognitive Ethology, MIT Press (Cambridge, MA), 1997.

    Strolling with Our Kin: Speaking for and Respecting Voiceless Animals (children's book), foreword by Jane Goodall, American Anti-Vivisection Society (Jenkintown, PA), 2000.

    Minding Animals: Awareness, Emotions, and Heart, Oxford University Press (New York, NY), 2002.

    (With Jane Goodall) The Ten Trusts: What We Must Do to Care for the Animals, HarperSanFrancisco (San Francisco, CA), 2002.

    EDITOR

    Coyotes: Biology, Behavior, and Management, Academic Press (New York, NY), 1978.





    This Dr Marc Bekoff guy is a titan, Amigo.


    Whats your credential? Oh thats right, you are just some random loser who cant accept facts and professional opinion. :lol:


  • ElCidElCid PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    When I quote from Wikipedia I make sure the quote matches the cited references. You should too.
    Much of my references are from universities, scientists, professors, and science websites. You think theyre stupid, sad.
    Ahhh of course.  This is coming from you - the same guy who passed the blog of a highschool student as SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Bwahahahahaha.  Yeah right logitext :lol:  Peer reviewed of course by the high school cafeteria crew :lol:

    And these are the people from your reference who disagree with what you are trying to prove whom you dismiss as "opinion" :lol:

    Paul, E; Harding, E; Mendl, M (2005). "Measuring emotional processes in animals: the utility of a cognitive approach". Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews29 (3): 469–491.

    Elfenbein, H.A.; Ambady, N. (2002). "On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: A meta-analysis". Psychological Bulletin.
    logitext said:
    This Dr Marc Bekoff guy is a titan, Amigo.
    Whats your credential? Oh thats right, you are just some random loser who cant accept facts and professional opinion. :lol:

    Ahhh.  A Titan! Wow.  So now you wouldn't have a problem putting your head in between the jaws of a shark or a crocodile right to prove THE WORDS OF A TITAN that animals do indeed live moral lives and have emotions?  :lol:

    And of course, this is the same way you lionized your reference as an EXPERT ON THE SUBJECT and then later on shot him as an unreliable CREATIONIST almost akin to a lunatic :lol:

    You don't have credibility logitext seriously.  A banana has more credibility logitext than you :lol: 

    And of course the loser here is you.  How many threads have you left with your tail between your legs?  :lol:  Now you're left with 3 and this one is like beating a dead horse :lol:

    You can always come back for more punishment logitext :lol:


    And the banana by the way has some form of nutrition - you on the other hand is just bullsh!t with no salvage value whatsoever :lol:

  • logitextlogitext PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    ElCid said:
    logitext said:
    When I quote from Wikipedia I make sure the quote matches the cited references. You should too.
    Much of my references are from universities, scientists, professors, and science websites. You think theyre stupid, sad.
    Ahhh of course.  This is coming from you - the same guy who passed the blog of a highschool student as SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Bwahahahahaha.  

    Nobody's perfect. But unlike you I have the courage to admit my mistakes. ;)





  • ElCidElCid PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    Nobody's perfect. But unlike you I have the courage to admit my mistakes. ;)
    You only ADMIT after you are CAUGHT.  You are proven to be dishonest in debate and you just make sh!t up and often contradict yourself.  You don't have the courage to admit mistakes since you're a liar and a cheat.  There is a big difference between admitting mistakes and being caught lying :lol:.  Not to mention that you are a proven PSYCHOPATH.
  • logitextlogitext PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    ElCid said:
    logitext said:
    Nobody's perfect. But unlike you I have the courage to admit my mistakes. ;)
    You only ADMIT after you are CAUGHT.  
    Thats what mistakes are -things that get through until its caught. And the biggest test of courage is apologizing after getting caught. Its much easier to correct oneself before others see the mistake. Sometimes you see me say "correction".




  • ElCidElCid PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited July 10 #78
    logitext said:
    ElCid said:
    logitext said:
    Nobody's perfect. But unlike you I have the courage to admit my mistakes. ;)
    You only ADMIT after you are CAUGHT.  
    Thats what mistakes are -things that get through until its caught. And the biggest test of courage is apologizing after getting caught. Its much easier to correct oneself before others see the mistake. Sometimes you see me say "correction".
    You can't spin this around logitext, that wasn't a mistake, that was deliberate on your part - You are proven to be a cheat and a liar and dishonest in debate.  You have already used all and every dirty tactic in the book.  And worst of all - you attack the person and not the argument.  You even attack your own references :lol:  Lame tactics logitext.  And you dare consider yourself comparable to a Christian Saint? :lol:  A proven HYPOCRITE AS WELL.  You really take the cake logitext - all of it :lol:


    You're the best logitext - the best comedian in this forum :lol:
Sign In or Register to comment.