Prune said:
Back when i was in univrsity i had a cat named Kilgore Trout. Getting in the car one day i saw that cat jump straight up 7 or 8 ft and pull a bird out of the sky. One of the most amazing things i've ever seen.
dave
Domestic cats often sleep together and have no choice but to interact as territorial behavior is impossible in a small environment; in a natural environment they still socialize, but they spend almost all their active time alone (with the notable exception of lions). In any case, brain size limits social interactions. Again, cats have no morals. How many cats you have is irrelevant, unless it helps you publish a peer reviewed paper demonstrating they have morals 😛
Another neat trick that is best revealed using slow motion is how during a fall they use the tail as a counterbalance to upright themselves, and then they relax their body, increasing the surface area and lowering terminal velocity (this is why if height is insufficient they can actually suffer more damage).
Cats heal extemely well, even with broken bones, compared to other mammals; this has given rise to the nine lives thing. This is surprising, as well as how they can maintain tone of their muscles, given that they are inactive two thirds of their lives. When they are active, however, their strength exceeds that of dogs per pound. A cat can reach 50 in a couple of seconds, but it will overheat within a minute or so -- lacking a dog's tongue/radiator. This shapes the nature of their hunt -- stalking and saving extreme speed for the last few moments. Another thing is that they purr not just when socializing, but also when they are ill, or even for no reason at all. Fairly recently, some people noticed that the purrs of cats (and not just domestic ones) tends to fall in the range of frequencies shown effective in some vibration physiotherapy. So there's a hypothesis that purring is essentially a mechanism for healing and maintaining muscle tone with minimum effort.
My landlady's cat is 20 and in better health than many younger cats I've seen. A great advantage of non-purebreds is increased longevity due to lack of inbreeding. Actually some of the breeding people do is quite sick in my opinion. Just look at the deformed flat faces of Persians, with tearducts that necessitate constant cleaning, not to mention a fur that makes the cat dependable on daily human attention. It's just another form of animal cruelty.
Cats heal extemely well, even with broken bones, compared to other mammals; this has given rise to the nine lives thing. This is surprising, as well as how they can maintain tone of their muscles, given that they are inactive two thirds of their lives. When they are active, however, their strength exceeds that of dogs per pound. A cat can reach 50 in a couple of seconds, but it will overheat within a minute or so -- lacking a dog's tongue/radiator. This shapes the nature of their hunt -- stalking and saving extreme speed for the last few moments. Another thing is that they purr not just when socializing, but also when they are ill, or even for no reason at all. Fairly recently, some people noticed that the purrs of cats (and not just domestic ones) tends to fall in the range of frequencies shown effective in some vibration physiotherapy. So there's a hypothesis that purring is essentially a mechanism for healing and maintaining muscle tone with minimum effort.
My landlady's cat is 20 and in better health than many younger cats I've seen. A great advantage of non-purebreds is increased longevity due to lack of inbreeding. Actually some of the breeding people do is quite sick in my opinion. Just look at the deformed flat faces of Persians, with tearducts that necessitate constant cleaning, not to mention a fur that makes the cat dependable on daily human attention. It's just another form of animal cruelty.
Prune said:
I was actually commenting in the "not social animals" bit... not the morals. I see you here saying "they still socialize"....
dave
Sometimes I draw stuff. That does not make me an artist.
Just because cats do some socializig doesn't make them social animals. Dogs are real social animals, as are schooling fish, and most primates. The cat's main socializing is with humans, and that is not natural as the human is a sort of pseudoparent from the point of view of the cat. Cats in the wild do not meow when they grow up and mommy quits responding to it. Well, probably with the exception of Siamese...they never shut the hell up 😀
Just because cats do some socializig doesn't make them social animals. Dogs are real social animals, as are schooling fish, and most primates. The cat's main socializing is with humans, and that is not natural as the human is a sort of pseudoparent from the point of view of the cat. Cats in the wild do not meow when they grow up and mommy quits responding to it. Well, probably with the exception of Siamese...they never shut the hell up 😀
Just thought this was interesting.
A lower animal's attention is fixed on the world. Its perceptions are its beliefs and its desires are its will. It is engaged in conscious activities, but it is not conscious of them. That is, they are not the objects of its attention. But we human animals turn our attention on to our perceptions and desires themselves, on to our own mental activities, and we are conscious ofthem. That is why we can think about them…
And this sets us a problem that no other animal has. It is the problem of the normative.... The reflective mind cannot settle for perception and desire, not just as such. It needs a reason. (Korsgaard, 1996, 93)
A lower animal's attention is fixed on the world. Its perceptions are its beliefs and its desires are its will. It is engaged in conscious activities, but it is not conscious of them. That is, they are not the objects of its attention. But we human animals turn our attention on to our perceptions and desires themselves, on to our own mental activities, and we are conscious ofthem. That is why we can think about them…
And this sets us a problem that no other animal has. It is the problem of the normative.... The reflective mind cannot settle for perception and desire, not just as such. It needs a reason. (Korsgaard, 1996, 93)
Translation: lower animals are not capable of introspection.kingdaddy said:
My reply: big deal. Also, most human introspection is symbolic (that is, language based) and not a true higher order pattern. Nonverbal introspection is limited and probably shared by at least the other great apes.
1. Define religion.
2. Religion and power usually go hand in hand - best example today - gwb and the fundamentalist connection. The rise of the church through its connection with the konstantinian roman empire, the continuation of power by either throwing their lot in with the holy roman empire of german nations or the opponents the "kurfuersten" relying on the protestant clerics.
Other examples that come easily to mind is the connection/foundation of the anglican church, the role of the church in russia, the role of the church/temple or whatever you want to call it in the jewish tradition and the power of the priests in judaea, the role/power of the church in the life of either jehovas witnesses, mormons.
The mass murders in south america had their basis in the religious foundations of the spanish crown - same is true for the persecution of the jews in spain, the atrocities of the inquisition, which are only based in religion, the same goes for the mass murders of the so called witches...and the ustasha in kroatia was amply blessed by their priests..and ever heard the call for jihad - sofar nothing major but a few bombs has happened, but there is room to grow, as christianity has shown..
Maybe you better study up on european history before you start spouting nonsense betraying only the typical north americans lack of historical knowledge, in tune most often with a lack of knowledge of the natural sciences as amply demonstrated in this forum.
Nothing you've written contradicts what I wrote. I am happy to see that we are in agreement.
John
Where do we agree here? Is "root in religion" different from "supported by religion" or "based on religious teachings?"
You still did nor define treligion. Just because a religion does not adhere to the principles of christianity, judaism or islam does not mean it does not qualifies as such. Your implied definition seems to be rather narrow.
BTW, somebody mentioned monks being scientists, and good ones. Only as long as their findings did not contradict the teachings of the church. One should ask giardono bruno for expert advise.
Oh man...the word anthropozentrism springs readily to mind. With the same argument for ever man also dominated man, you just have to define a "race" as being subhuman, the examples abound.. With the same argument it was easy to kill negros, native northamericans, east indians, chinese..the list can be expanded. You can even stretch the argument to those being economical losers and so: lets build concentration camps for the unemployed, the physically or mentally handicapped....and for sure the unbeliever, so your mental peace will not be disturbed any further by doubters.
BTW - whose god are you speaking of? The choice are rather vast, but assuming from your postings you are - in the true tradition of the all encompassing catholic church which a lot of american believers seem to have adopted despite their despising rome - strictly speaking of the god created by someone namend jesus christ a couple of thousand years earlier, who differs vastly from its jewish precursor after his reinterpretation.
Actually I have read quite a bit of European history, recently a lot of 20th century history. The actions of the leaders of Europe in the first half the last century make GWB look positively like Mother Teresa.
Maybe you should brush up on your English a little. If you remove the "t" from treligion, you'll find it in a dictionary.
John
rather a cheap shot, isn't it? But i guess you needed some revenge for "spouting nonsense? OK, nop roblem.
Which dictionary would you recommend?
Or would you rather recommend a philosophical treatise on the subject, as usually dictionaries are rather narrow in their definition too.
Although I do not agree with gwb, i really see no reason to line him up with the "great killers" or the "really great killers". He is just a minor player.
Just - for fun - reading the oxford reference encyclopedia. Because it is handy.
A lot can fit into their definition of religion, and definetely national socialism. Some difficulties exist with communism ala russia/china etc, but the "great leader" makes a fine substitute for a supernatural power. The nazis had both.
The last sentence is rather enlightening: Moreover, it is evident that the more strongly adherents of a particular religion believe in its precepts, the more fiercely do they react to those with different believes. This has made the interplay of world religions one of the most bloody aspects of human history.
This is from the 1998 edition.
O.K., I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. This thread, if I recall, began as a conversation about man and God and law. Sure, you can expand the definition of religion to include every instance where a group of people get together and support a single idea or cause, or for that matter, it only takes a single person to cause a religious event to happen (a personal conviction to having a healthy b.m. every morning, e.g.).
Let's take it one step further and just say everything that has ever taken place whether good, evil or otherwise involving one or more persons is due to religious beliefs.
John
Not bad, but that was over when atheists and agnostics came along. They helped for different reasons.
BTW - my feelings are not hurt, cheap shots reflect more on the author than it's subject . English is after all my sl - am only too aware of it.
Well, I suppose whenever two or more atheists get together and wonder at how much better the world would be if everyone were an atheist, we have a religion, no?
John
Nope, no supernatural being, not even the hint of a great leader who could assume that role. No priests either - atheists are like mennonites - 2 together and three opinions.
Since there is no supernatural being to defend and no priest class to rile up the believers - wars for reasons of believe are unlikely - though not for economic reasons.
Only similarity - creation of institutions like hospitals, schools and other suchlike foolish enterprises.
BTW - has anybody ever really contemplated eternal life and its not so pleasant consequences? I.e. - can there be the time in eternity/infinity?
Talk about boredom doing the same thing over and over - but: no time, no movement, no boredom, just stasis. Frightening. Rather have my agnostic nothingness. RIP and leave me alone.😉
How come the idea of not being is so frightening for so many?
Since there is no supernatural being to defend and no priest class to rile up the believers - wars for reasons of believe are unlikely - though not for economic reasons.
Only similarity - creation of institutions like hospitals, schools and other suchlike foolish enterprises.
BTW - has anybody ever really contemplated eternal life and its not so pleasant consequences? I.e. - can there be the time in eternity/infinity?
Talk about boredom doing the same thing over and over - but: no time, no movement, no boredom, just stasis. Frightening. Rather have my agnostic nothingness. RIP and leave me alone.😉
How come the idea of not being is so frightening for so many?
audio-kraut said:
Are you insane?
Are you trying to say the statement about animals being in a different class is somehow racist?
What is wrong with your brain, do you twist everything into some kind of hate? If a animal is not sub human then nothing is, and we may as well remove the word "sub-human" from all language.
That is without a doubt the longest stretch and perversion of a statement I have ever heard, are you just running out of things to contradict?
I think your elevator has stopped between floors.
Listening to the arguments of you and your religious ilk, one over the long term might go insane.
Do you not even realize that your argument of domination can be turned, and has been turned by your ilk to ecxactly the purposes i have mentioned? That it is by no means a stretch to include into the dominatet animals those of the human races that one deems inferior. Or have you by chance forgotten your own slave owning american history - but your religion was very keen on justifying that as it served economic purposes.
If it is about religion, i have to say that my tolerance towards it has run its course. I scorn all religion and all those connected with it - this is my experience after having had the "privilege" to live on this earth with close contact of enough of them.
No good for my sake can come out to discuss things with you any further, as it would lead only to insults from both sides - as your "christianity" has so amply demonstrated.
If your religous believe clutters your brain that neither human history nor natural history can penetrate the fog and your selfrighteousness cannot even conceive of problems with statements you post here - that is your problem, but any further discussion will lead nowhere.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.