I'm going to cancel my WSPA subscription if you can't convince me that animals feel pain.
Go find a small dog and kick it really hard. Observe its reaction. There you go, OP. Unless you are a sociopath (in which case it is impossible to help you), you will see that you caused pain to that dog.
I hope that the owner of that dog then shoots you in the face. Good day.
that's what the Chinese would make you believe, while we all ignore shoddy Chinese concrete works, with all their structures and bridges collapsing. All that concrete.. suffering.. dying..
Look who it is again, ID Heaven. I'm fed up with your shit faggot. The other day when you called me a newfag, yeah, haven't forgotten about that yet. Fuck you I've been on here for months and probably get on here more than you anyways. Don't you know that you make yourself look like a newfag when you call others newfag? Just because you learned how to hack your name and change it to "Heaven" does not give you the right to disrespect anyone at any time.
all that time I tough you were argumenting with people for real, that you were trying to prove a point and stuff. But know I got it. you are just laughin at everyone taking you seriously and giving you a reputation. youre pretty good.
I'm just sick an tired of reading the same bullshit every day. You're literally the only fucking person I have ever heard say this. No one fucking agrees with you, no one.
I don't even care if you're right or wrong, stop being an egotistical ass and have a normal conversation you autistic faggot.
> that disagrees with him
in order to find something unpleasant you need to judge it, that requires subjectivity and subjectivity requires consciousness.
because you don't know anyone that knows anything.
the only people you'll find agreeing with your standpoint are people that don't understand or are into science, house wifes and hipsters for the most part that follow some scientific news blog and pretend they're into it.
>I knew you were stupid but damn...
the process of sensing injury in the nerves isn't pain.
neither is the reaction in the brain to that sensation.
not by itself anyways.
Pain is the sensation, the reaction, and the conscious awareness of both.
But the fact that dogs can react to that stimuli/sensation is enough proof in itself, if i kicked you so hard your bones broke would you wince in pain? Do dogs cry out when hit? Would a CAT scan of a dogs brain whilst in pain show the same as a humans? Do dogs require oxygen, food and water? Do dogs react to other external stimuli? There's a list going on forever
i know it's hard to believe when you've been told misinformation all your life.
>Dogs have personalities don't they?
no, dogs have temperaments.
>Pain is the sensation, the reaction, and the conscious awareness of both.
you need all of them combined for pain.
lack one of them and it's not pain.
it's called PERSONality for a reason.
So what's it called then. If they can't experience "PAIN" what is the word for what they can experience. If you burn a dog it will have a negative reaction to it, most normal people would call that pain, why do you call it?
ausfag, if you're honestly interested I can provide a few links.
Most of them can be found in the Wikipedia article, "Pain in Fishes."
Ethologists in general agree an animal must be self-aware to experience pain. Where they disagree is on which animals are self-aware and how to test for that.
Yeah no one is talking about fish or insects. Post me a link showing
1. Dog's aren't concious.
2. Dogs can't feel pain.
3. That the vast scientific community believes this.
i don't need to spoonfeed you.
and it's not like you'll understand any of it, hence why after arguing with you multiple times your point of view still hasn't changed.
>But the fact that dogs can react to that stimuli/sensation is enough proof in itself
>if i kicked you so hard your bones broke would you wince in pain?
humans are demonstrated to be conscious after the mirror stage.
>Would a CAT scan of a dogs brain whilst in pain show the same as a humans?
a CAT scan wouldn't demonstrate pain.
pain isn't hormones
it's not the sensation.
it's not the reaction.
it is the SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE of it.
no they don't, we just put animals under anesthesia for surgery and give them pain mess after because it's fun and the possible complications keep us from getting bored, obviously
you're an idiot
"Specialized peripheral sensory neurons known as nociceptors alert us to potentially damaging stimuli at the skin by detecting extremes in temperature and pressure and injury-related chemicals, and transducing these stimuli into long-ranging electrical signals that are relayed to higher brain centers."
Sooooo pain. Semantics much?
That's because you don't post anything to support your claims, you just pretend like you're the world fucking expert on everything.
God I'm so fucking sick of your shit. How the fuck has your own family not murdered you. Do you live alone?
i don't want to change your mind because i find it hilarious to watch you struggle in arguments.
all i'll tell you is that you can easily google these things, but you're too incompetent to even do that so the hilarity ensues.
>Unlike behavioral analyses, Burns’s work is providing actual neurological evidence that dogs, like so many other animals, experience consciousness and emotions at a level comparable to humans
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
"In June, during a series of lectures I presented in Germany, a number of people asked questions of the sort, "Isn't it about time we accept that animals are sentient and that we know what they want and need? Shouldn't we stop bickering about whether they are conscious, feel pain and experience emotions?"
Oh wow this sounds familiar.
""Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."
>1. Dog's aren't concious
bugguy is correct that dogs haven't passed the mirror test.
2. bugguy is also correct that animals that aren't conscious don't feel pain.
3. the community consists of about 23 people, and I doubt more than 2 of them agree with bugguy.
you're not telling me things I didn't know.
there's one bird and the only mammals are our relatives, dolphins and one species of elephant.
it's outdated though, because it doesn't include ants.
>neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness.
yet they fail every tests for it's components, right.
most of them agree with me to some degree.
most of the ones that have trouble with it studied under the same autistic professors.
"Enter, howling, professor emeritus Marc Bekoff of the University of Colorado. Bekoff thinks a test that uses sight to determine self-recognition is unfair to animals that depend on their noses. Dog brains are much better at smelling than ape brains, so Bekoff decided to design a self-recognition test that would make sense to a dog."
no it's a sign of bad teaching.
>give your source saying dogs don't feel pain
these aren't the christian dark ages, you need to provide evidence that proves they do, it's your claim not mine.
>a test that uses sight to determine self-recognition is unfair to animals that depend on their noses.
the primare sense of dogs is sight.
they do not depend on their noses, a blind dog has a low survival rate and a dog that can't smell will lead a fairly normal life.
conscious animals pass the mirror test even if sight isn't their primare sense, unconscious animals don't pass it no matter how much you cherrypick tests to fit their every need.
I just love that you're entire argument rests on the mirror test. One flawed test is you're entire definition of conciousness?
>it's funny because it's true.
>the scientific community agrees with me
>ants are concious and dogs aren't
I just can't...
the mirror test only demonstrates an important aspect of consciousness.
there aren't tests for consciousness itself, only it's components.
most of your argument is ad hominem, if you want me to reply to you atleast make it worth the hassle.
>But they have poor vision
dogs have excellent vision.
sighthounds still don't pass the mirror test.
your argument is based on ignorance, you don't know what I'm talking about and you don't know anything about dogs.
go and break a dog's leg, and as they're screeching and whimpering with some sensation that is apparently a mystery to you, tell the people who are wondering what the fuck is wrong with you it's okay because a troll on 4chan told you they can't feel pain!
>they rely on scent cues for a lot of stuff.
sure, but to say they can't pass a visual test because their nose works really well seems a bit dishonest. They respond to visual cues constantly.
>He's still yet to post a source
there is no study out there that says dogs aren't conscious.
it's just one of those things you either believe (parsimony) or reject (anthropomorphization).
/an/thropomorphization is a cardinal sin in zoology, but luckily nobody here studied zoology.
>For dogs, their color vision is most similar to a human with red-green color blindness, although there are other differences. Dogs are less sensitive to variations in gray shades than humans are, as well as only about half as sensitive to changes in brightness.
>Dogs also tend to be nearsighted to varying degrees. A poodle, for example, is estimated to have what we would call 20/75 vision in the US (about 6/24 elsewhere in the world).
Dogs have good motion vision, but they are not good at details.
>but they are not good at details
luckily the mirror test is done at distances a near-sighted animal would have no trouble with.
several of the animals that pass the mirror test have terrible vision.
The issue with dogs might be similar to that of rats. Rat doesn't know an other rat by it's visage. It knows him by smell. He only sees the visual information and he doesn't act like knowing the other rat.
Vet's aren't retarded, they won't tell you if they think fido can't consciously feel pain.
and from a physiological standpoint it doesn't matter. Nociception produces exactly the same stresses and symptoms as pain does.
allright everyone bugguy wins okay?? talk about something else
gg bugguy!! gg!! : D
I always wonder how many people have argued this subject on /an/ only to take a college level animal behavior class and hear their professor saying the same things bugguy does.
it's kindof a funny thought.
>looks at what bugguy posted
>mfw the only link bugguy has ever posted and it's that
I'm the one that pointed out his "journal" is a fake.
I don't think any more of you for not checking it than I do of him for posting it. How pathetic are you? You claim to have a zoology degree and didn't spot that fake?
i don't think ants are conscious, there's just more evidence suggesting they do.
that's not needless, I also don't mind hunting.
we've had this argument atleast 5 times before and that link was posted in 3 of them.
even if it were true, you wouldn't accept it.
you're not a scientist, you're a equal to a biased housewife.
>then our tests are faulty
you're biased towards ants.
>That's absolutely ridiculous.
ants are some of the most complex organisms on earth, it isn't ridiculous.
without ants, we die, without us, ants thrive.
I think you mean biased against.
>ants are some of the most complex organisms on earth, it isn't ridiculous
Not from an intelligence standpoint, which is completely necessary for conciousness.
>Dogs demonstrate a theory of mind by engaging in deception, including one example where a dog hid a stolen treat by sitting on it until the rightful owner of the treat left the room. Although this could have been accidental, it suggests that the thief understood that the treat's owner would be unable to find the treat if it were out of view.
>implying brain size correlates with intelligence
>implying the fact that ants are smart for an insect means they are "smart"
>Bugguy logic, ants are concious and super intelligent
Holy fucking shit balls.
>most of the ones that have trouble with it studied under the same autistic professors.
you learned of the concept from me, and I studied under the Queen of Autism, Dr. Grandin.
notice also that the two people promoting the concept are one likely autist and another diagnosed one.
I think autistic people find the concept easier to grasp because we're incapable of anthropomorphizing, we don't read emotions in faces. We don't assume just because something has a face it thinks like us. Something that's clearly demonstrated itt, since presumably most of the anons you're arguing with have faces and not one of them thinks like you.
you keep pretending that but you know it's not true.
I got most of it from tarantula forums a long time ago.
it works both ways, the only people delusional enough to keep promoting an idea that has zero evidence supporting it in 2k15 are also autists, they're just lower on the spectrum.
I have no issues with any of that.
i've also met a couple people like it over the years.
they're die-hard religious with PDD-NOS, religious arguments function the same way as pro-pain arguments.
they rely on trying to push the burden of proof on the other party and try to appeal to emotions or popularity as much as they can, then when more dumb people show up because they're always loud and annoying they pretend they've won even though they're just standing there yelling nonsensical shit like a bunch of angry chickens.
it's what's happening here, as you can see most of the people arguing against this concept don't actually post any arguments for it they just assume and shitpost like