Anthropomorphisation couldn't be more wrong!

[AllWalker]

Based on a drunken epiphany I had while reading webcomics and chateing alone - you know, a typical Thursday.

Webcomic in question:


Which inspired me to make this comment:

similar story with dolphins, really - i want to be able to rape, murder, attack, possess a full range of sexual deviancies, beat children to death just for fun, yet still fool people into thinking I am peaceful, holy and pure

First of all, fuck the puritan opinion that says monogamy in the animal kingdom is even possible:

Swans form monogamous pair bonds that last for many years. In many cases these pair bonds can last for life, but 'divorces' between pairs do occur.[4] Modern genetic techniques are starting to reveal that these divorces are more common than previously thought.

Bolding mine, funny how often I hear this.

Plus, if your puritanism has an intolerant flavour to it,

Mute swans have been observed to display homosexual or transgender behavior.

As for dolphins, wiki proves their awesomeness,

Dolphins will stay with injured or ill individuals, even helping them to breathe by bringing them to the surface if needed.[16] This altruism does not appear to be limited to their own species however. The dolphin Moko in New Zealand has been observed guiding a female Pygmy Sperm Whale together with her calf out of shallow water where they had stranded several times.[17] They have also been seen protecting swimmers from sharks by swimming circles around the swimmers[18][19] or charging the sharks to make them go away.

until,

Dolphins are known to have sex for reasons other than reproduction, sometimes also engaging in homosexual behavior.[24] Various species sometimes engage in sexual behavior including copulation with other dolphin species.[24] Sexual encounters may be violent, with male dolphins sometimes showing aggressive behavior towards both females and other males.[24][25] Occasionally, dolphins behave sexually towards other animals, including humans

But ignore that shit, ignore the constant raping, their faces kind of coincidentally look like grins! And, their high pitched communication sounds a little like other high pitched noises, like giggling! Plus, they jump in the water! Playful!

They are even magical, medical geniuses or something!

Please. The best thing I can say about dolphins, apart from them being kind of cool, is that they are smart enough to be nearly as fucked up as we are. When I see a goth dolphin try to slit its fin I will revise that to be equally as fucked up. And as for swans, I have never seen them not attack other creatures. Humans included.

Also, doves probably commit genocide or something. Well, not far off. Another point - people love swans but hate pigeons. After all, they are diseased, flying, urban rats.

But check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dove

Dove" and "Doves" redirect here. For other uses, see Dove (disambiguation). "Pigeon" redirects here. For other uses, see Pigeon (disambiguation).

They're pretty much the same thing. Admit that pigeons are a symbl of peace too, otherwise the deal is off. Until I can prove doves rape each other, too. And if ducks can engage in homosexual necrophilia and the delightfully charming rape flights, well, what animal is safe from nonChristian influences?

As a final piece of evidence to the "humans suck when attributing behaviour and value to species, because we are incredibly superficial" theory, just Google "Survival of the Cutest" and see what pops up. Foremost is http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/end..._species.shtml,

Conservation biologists currently researching this and related questions put it down to a human proclivity to aesthetic values associated with certain animals - a "cuteness" factor, in other words. David Stokes, a conservation biologist at the University of Washington, focused on penguins in his study, finding that the penguins most popular with the public are those displaying warm colors such as red, orange or intense yellow on the upper body, head and neck. But Stokes says that penguins have it relatively easy compared with other species, whose looks don't seem to resonate as widely with the public. "Penguins are lucky because they are popular with people, especially right now. But that's not true of 99.9 percent of the species out there," says Stokes. "Even the penguin species I found to be among the least appealing to people are tourist attractions."

In conclusion, animals are animals and people are people. We are motivated by different intelligences, behaviours and instincts. We suck, but they suck more.

[ivan astikov]

I disagree. Animals are animals, and people are animals too.

The only difference being, people-animals are far better at trying to explain their behaviour.

[AllWalker]

I disagree. Animals are animals, and people are animals too.

The only difference being, people-animals are far better at trying to explain their behaviour.

I'm not saying people aren't motivated by animalistic desires - my point is about taking animal behaviour and attributing it to human analogues. Sometimes there is an overlap, but dolphins just look like they are smiling 24/7. They are not, though. Or if they are, they are all psychopaths of the highest order.

That's the sort of mass opinion I am ranting against.

[ivan astikov]

If dolphins frowned all the time, even their own mothers wouldn't put up with their constant leaping up and down.

[The Original An Gadaí]

Yeah but you have to admit dogs are sounder than people for the most part.

[Sarahfeena]

Well, animals don't have reason. I would say the vast majority of them act purely on instinct, so we can ascribe any motivations we want to...we can make them all good or all evil, none of that applies, anyway.

[Hatshepsut]

I think I see your point, and probably largely agree with it, but don't you think that in the way you choose to make it you are in danger of falling into your own trap? You don't want to attribute animal behavior to human analogs, but then you say that among other traits they "rape," are "aggressive," and are "homosexual." Hmm. Sounds just like people to me.

Also, did you really mean to imply that having sex for reasons other than reproduction or being homosexual proves that dolphins are "bad," in the way that their violent behavior is bad from a human perspective? I doubt it, but it could be taken that way. If you really meant it, I strenuously disagree. I am strongly in favor of sex for reasons other than reproduction, and see no reason to put homosexuality into a class with negative behavior like rape and violence. (On the cross-species sex thing, I'm not even going to go there.)

But although I accept the proposition that a lot of anthropomorphizing is just wishful thinking, it seems clear that companion animals that have co-evolved with humans do indeed share some of our emotional traits/behaviors. My dogs and cats are quite capable of demonstrating affection, jealousy, and loneliness, and to deny that explanation seems like a dismissal of Occam's Razor.

[AllWalker]

People attribute weird things to animals. Christians talk about monogamous species, but some of these are not only secretly polygamous but unChristian in so many other ways. Other people say that dolphins are more intelligent, peaceful, enlightened, wise, magestic, angelic and awesome than people, yet dolphins exhibit traits which are truly barbaric and evil, by our standards.

Judging animals by our standards is never a good idea, but with these examples people do it and they do it wrongly. I've got no problems with homosexual, rapist, child murdering birds - just don't tell me they make good examples for good, God-fearing puritans to live by. Even accepting the homosexual tendencies, the rest of the behaviours are not how people should live.

Some species need rape. For some species the female will deliberately flee and struggle to ensure that only a powerful male can mate with her. Cannibalism and child murdering has its uses in the animal kingdom. As such, it is important to realise that every species, just like every culture, has its own set of standard behaviours. Projecting human values and motivations gets you nowhere.

As for pets, they probably experience a similar range of emotions to humans. They were bred that way, often from social animals which have some form of socially necessary emotions (jealousy, anger, playfulness, etc). Where the anthropomorphisation goes wrong with pets is often overestimation of intelligence. Too often, someone is describing how much of a genius their pet goldfish is and I am seriously underwhelmed, finding plenty of other possible explanations.

By way of example, consider this scenario. A dog has a favourite chair, but a human is sitting in it. So the dog scratches at the back door, signalling it wants to go outside. As soon as the human gets up to open the door, the dog runs back and hops in the chair. Through rose-tinted glasses this dog was a cunning manipulator, tricking the human into vacating its seat. But not much intelligence is required to produce the same outcome:

Dog: aw the human is in my chair, hey what's that smell? i wonder what that smell is. i want to go outside. *cue learned behaviour* scratch, scratch, scratch at the door. oh look the chair is available, I'll go grab it.

Maybe that becomes a new learned behaviour. But it wasn't cleverness that got the dog the chair, it was essentially a coincidence. But it looks the same as intelligence, and humans love to spot intelligence, and patterns, where none exist.

[Hatshepsut]

Okay, I think we pretty much agree. I see where the "homosexuality = bad" part comes in; you are exasperated with some anti-gay Christians who hold up certain animal species as models for humans to follow, while ignoring the fact that such animals engage in a lot of behavior that these Christians would find reprehensible.

Have you been forced to endure some sanctimonious Christians lately, by any chance?

[AllWalker]

Have you been forced to endure some sanctimonious Christians lately, by any chance?

I just have to know they are out there for them to get under my skin. But this discussion about bird monogamy reminded me of that "March of the Penguins" thing - Christian allegory, I think not.

[OtakuLoki]

The problem is not so much when people choose to find allegories within nature for behaviors they wish to emulate. In that case what I see happening is simply a human virtue, or vice, is being linked with the image of an animal or one subset of its common behaviors. Expecting literal accuracy from an allegory is myopic.

It's when people forget that allegory, and to a lesser extent parable, are both simply metaphors to make a point that I get annoyed. No metaphor is going to be a perfect, nor even necessarily an approximate, reflection of reality. Instead it's something artificial, made up for the purposes of illustration.

Healthy as a horse; stolid as a cow; noble as an eagle; fierce as a lion. All of these common phrases can be easily falsified when the real behavior of the animal in question is actually examined. That doesn't mean that the allegory or metaphor is valueless, simply that it is limited by what an allegory is. Which I believe far too many people forget.

[Clothahump]

Conservation biologists currently researching this and related questions put it down to a human proclivity to aesthetic values associated with certain animals - a "cuteness" factor, in other words. David Stokes, a conservation biologist at the University of Washington, focused on penguins in his study, finding that the penguins most popular with the public are those displaying warm colors such as red, orange or intense yellow on the upper body, head and neck.

The penguins are psychotic, Marty.