Facebook guy kills dogs for barking - ARGUMENTS

[Blockzillahead]

These 27 pages of discussion did not go on inside this guys head when he did it.

He's just a violent moron who is too weak to tolerate small dogs barking.

I'm pretty sure his brain is dead. Otherwise it needs to be chopped off before it lays it's eggs.

[Ad Bot]

[Electrk]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_dogs_recognize_themselves_in_mirrors
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061023193854AAawxw3
http://community.dog.com/forums/p/88709/701479.aspx
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/407/are-dogs-unable-to-see-2-d-images-mirrors-photos-tv
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/03/03/134167145/i-sniff-therefore-i-am-are-dogs-self-conscious
http://phys.org/news205000474.html

I think that's enough. Now go actually read through all of them. Some of them make very interesting points like the last one.

First three are not reliable at all

[SeventhSandwich]

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/407/are-dogs-unable-to-see-2-d-images-mirrors-photos-tv

Has nothing to do with what you wrote

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_dogs_recognize_themselves_in_mirrors

Unreliable source/contradicts your entire argument

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061023193854AAawxw3

Has nothing to do with what you wrote.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/03/03/134167145/i-sniff-therefore-i-am-are-dogs-self-conscious

"The experimental test for that quality of self-awareness in dogs does not yet seem to have been worked out," he says."

http://community.dog.com/forums/p/88709/701479.aspx

Unreliable source/contradicts your argument (at least the majority of posts do)

http://phys.org/news205000474.html

This article is about monkeys and does not mention the word 'dog' a single time. Are you loving kidding me?

[Blockzillahead]

First three are not reliable at all

Well the rest are good enough. In fact I think the last 2 links were the only ones I was supposed to post. Now do your own research.

[Electrk]

Well the rest are good enough. In fact I think the last 2 links were the only ones I was supposed to post. Now do your own research.

Read above

[Jairo]

Well the rest are good enough. In fact I think the last 2 links were the only ones I was supposed to post. Now do your own research.

worst reply ever

[Blockzillahead]

Has nothing to do with what you wroteUnreliable source/contradicts your entire argumentHas nothing to do with what you wrote."The experimental test for that quality of self-awareness in dogs does not yet seem to have been worked out," he says."Unreliable source/contradicts your argument (at least the majority of posts do)This article is about monkeys and does not mention the word 'dog' a single time. Are you loving kidding me?

I wrote that dogs can't see themselves in the mirror. That was my original point. But I found out I was wrong.

Edit: Well they don't see themselves. They see another dog.

[SeventhSandwich]

Self awareness isn't sentience.  

Here's a great article explaining why they are sentient beings:
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2009/b/boyle_2009_neuroscience_and_animal_sentience.pdf

I was using sentience as a synonym for self-awareness.

If you wish to argue that dogs are sentient but not self-aware, go ahead. But the whole reason I'm saying you guys shouldn't be saying this guy should be executed is because dogs are not self-aware.

While I understand the perspective, I disagree due to relativity.  Contributions made by several species differ and therefore produce different forms of "value."  Intellect relating to the knowledge of our existence, though an incredible evolutionary achievement, is not an immediate strength showing superiority.  In order for us to be superior, we must outweigh their strengths entirely.

This is the first logical argument you've made.

Unfortunately, it isn't appropriate for this specific situation (where a guy kills two dogs and posts pictures on facebook):

There are already laws that protect animals from being killed that rely on other forms of "value". Endangered animals are protected because without them, vital parts of the food chain would be missing, or we would be without a beautiful species to put in our zoos forever. I fully support severe prosecution for poachers who kill endangered species.

The intellect of humans is directly related to how we live our lives. If you get killed at age 15, you are going to miss out on a lot in life. The reason every single legal system in the world frowns upon murder is because humans choose to mutually agree on not killing eachother so that everyone is relatively safe from being murdered. Dogs do not share these same kinds of experiences.

Edit: Well they don't see themselves. They see another dog.

which is the whole point of the mirror test...

[Blockzillahead]

http://www.peterrussell.com/SCG/EoC.php

[Electrk]

http://www.peterrussell.com/SCG/EoC.php

"Dogs may not be aware of many of the things we are aware of. They are not conscious of much beyond their immediate world, the world defined by the span of their senses. They know nothing of lands beyond the oceans, or the space beyond the earth. Nor can dogs be aware of much beyond the present time. They know nothing of the course of history, or where it might be headed. They are not aware of their inevitable death in the same way that we are. They do not think to themselves in words, and they probably do not reason as we do. And they do not seem to have the self-awareness that we do; they certainly do not get caught up in concern for their own self-image, with all the strange behaviors that engenders."

[Blockzillahead]

"Dogs may not be aware of many of the things we are aware of. They are not conscious of much beyond their immediate world, the world defined by the span of their senses. They know nothing of lands beyond the oceans, or the space beyond the earth. Nor can dogs be aware of much beyond the present time. They know nothing of the course of history, or where it might be headed. They are not aware of their inevitable death in the same way that we are. They do not think to themselves in words, and they probably do not reason as we do. And they do not seem to have the self-awareness that we do; they certainly do not get caught up in concern for their own self-image, with all the strange behaviors that engenders."

Nice try. Read the whole thing now.

I also like how you left out the last sentence that says dogs are aware to some extenct.

[SeventhSandwich]

http://www.peterrussell.com/SCG/EoC.php

This person is arguing that consciousness is anything that, "appears to show fear".

A criteria that general can literally mean that if I program my computer to print an image of a frightened face every time I click fast enough, it is conscious.

He also argues that consciousness is some intrinsic property of every living thing, and then he goes on to relate it to crystals and viruses which are both not living. Also he makes a bunch of really abstract brown townogies that make absolutely no sense

A useful brown townogy for understanding the nature of consciousness is that of a painting. The picture itself corresponds to the contents of consciousness; the canvas on which it is painted corresponds to the faculty of consciousness. An infinite variety of pictures can be painted on the canvas; but whatever the pictures, they all share the fact that they are painted on a canvas. Without the canvas there would be no painting.

[Blockzillahead]

This person is arguing that consciousness is anything that, "appears to show fear".

A criteria that general can literally mean that if I program my computer to print an image of a frightened face every time I click fast enough, it is conscious.

He also argues that consciousness is some intrinsic property of every living thing, and then he goes on to relate it to crystals and viruses which are both not living. Also he makes a bunch of really abstract brown townogies that make absolutely no sense

Im talking about the paragraph that talks about dogs :s

[Electrk]

Im talking about the paragraph that talks about dogs :s

you...

no

This person is arguing that consciousness is anything that, "appears to show fear".

WHICH APPLIES TO DOGS

[Cybertails1998]

Can I change the topic title to "30-page-long argument about whenether dog life is valuable" because that's seemingly what the thread is for?