Coming Attractions
Michael Paul Cote | February 8, 2006
No Scott, you don't necessarily have to be watching a movie about gay men to hate the Vatican. Any reason will suffice. As far as godawful children's movies, most of the crap that is being shown in trailers is just that...crap. Why should family movies be any different (although Curious George does look appealling!) And going back to a rant that I had (along with others) Why do half blown remakes of movies that should never have been made in the first place? Do we really need a remake of "When A Stranger Calls"? Puh-leese!
For a Bush parody just watch the news.
Kris Weberg | February 8, 2006
Scott, I suspect that it has less to do with the horror and Da Vinci moviemakers wanting to get the Brokeback audience -- it's not as if there's much spillover from Oscar-fodder cinema to shlock horror sequels and pop novels -- than with the likes of Disney, etc. not wanting to link themselves to a particularly (if rather inexplicably, IMHO) controversial film.
Amy Austin | February 9, 2006
Scott...
You've obviously never had a pet you were close to. "They're goddamn dogs?" Not ours, and obviously -- to the "true story" guys that I'm really glad to know went back for them -- not theirs, either.
Scott Hardie | February 9, 2006
I should say that I don't like missing TC for a few days and then showing up out of nowhere with an angry rant that is surely offensive to animal lovers; I must seem like the nicest guy. :P It's just that, in its own way, I find the trailer itself so offensive that I squirm in my seat watching it – offensive to my status as a human being, offensive to my belief that animals are just animals. I probably wouldn't be so affected if not for PETA's policy of attempting to guilt everyone into their beliefs: Whoever disagrees with them that keeping chickens in cramped quarters (boo hoo) is cruel are thus also cruel themselves. I'm not some kind of monster just because I think a dog is a dog and a person is a person and a person deserves treatment that a dog doesn't. To see a movie cheering people for that is to be demeaned myself, for us all to be demeaned. In my anger, I lashed out here.
Then again, I didn't find it nearly as offensive as Open Season was to my intelligence, so maybe I should aim my complaints at a more truly deserving target.
Erik Bates | February 9, 2006
[hidden by request]
Michael Paul Cote | February 9, 2006
Scott,
I have seen the tv trailer for the movie so I don't know if it's different from the theatrical one but in defense of the movie and of how some people treat animals, in many areas of the world, man depends upon animals as much as they do on him. Not having seen the movie, it may be that these animals were responsible for saving his life, possibly on more than one occasion. In extreme situations bonds are developed that go beyond the norm. This may be one of those cases. I don't approve of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) and their methods but just because people care about animals, especially pets or animals they work with, doesn't make them fanatics.
But please feel free to keep on ranting. I for one enjoy reading a well written rant.
Jackie Mason | February 10, 2006
[hidden by request]
Amy Austin | February 14, 2006
Well, Scott, I did understand your rant for a lack of movies to captivate... however...
I, for one, believe that pets give people unconditional love... often without getting it in return, making it a somewhat pretty thankless job to be a domesticated animal! I'm not a PETA fanatic, and I certainly don't agree with all of their tactics. However, I do agree with the ideals that they stand for, and if people didn't react so callously to their message, then perhaps they wouldn't *be* such fanatics? Point is... I get pretty tired of people only thinking about the ways in which the wild kingdom is there to serve *our* purposes and never the other way around. Treating animals badly or neglectfully (same thing, IMO) is just bad karma... especially if the animals in question have faithfully served and saved human lives.
Furthermore (as an aside), I'm actually probably *more* likely to see this movie now -- I hadn't even heard of it or seen the trailer until this discussion, and I thought it looked much better than you gave it credit for when I watched the link. I thought it rather failed to live up to the crappy expectations I had formed based on your description... even if it is a bit sentimental. (I.e., I would hardly describe it as "maudlin"...) It may well be one of the first things that E & I see when he gets back sometime later this week (yay!).
Jackie Mason | February 17, 2006
[hidden by request]
Amy Austin | February 17, 2006
Too bad we can't go as a group, Jackie... it's been so long since we had some good couples interaction -- but, of course, that's much more difficult when one of you is out of the country! ;-) I'm always a sucker for a cute dog face, too. They aren't even always canine. ;-DDD
Scott Hardie | February 17, 2006
Forgive me, please, if I'm long-winded. This is the first free time I've had all week, and I've been depressed these last few days, although for an entirely different reason than my schedule. On Monday I had a nightmare that affected me deeply, and yet the topic was about a pointless mundane subject: Survivor. In past seasons the show has dipped its toes in such grisly subjects as cannibalism and human sacrifice as inspired by the local histories, but this season they have gone full-blown into death imagery. The props look like desicated human remains. Skulls are a constant visual motif, in the logo of the show and in a giant statue erected on the island. The tribal council set has what looks like a rotting corpse hanging from a gallows. It's morbid, but because the show uses it merely as symbolism and atmospheric window-dressing, you don't consciously notice how much of it there is.
Well, my subconscious mind sure picked up on it. I dreamed I was watching the show live in front of me, not on a screen, and all around were corpses and skeleton and rotting flesh and parts removed from bodies. When a player was voted out, instead of walking off the set, she was bound and laid down on an altar and her head chopped off by an ax, all to her great distress. And what bothered me was that the other players didn't care: They just watched it happen, then went on with their lives, and this whole gruesome exercise was positioned as something that was supposed to entertain me. When I woke up I felt like vomiting.
See, on one hand, I'm not into dream symbolism. With all due respect, people come up with some pretty kooky ideas about what dreams mean; just because I eat peanut butter in a dream doesn't mean I'm gay, and just because I dream about a call from Richard Nixon doesn't mean I wish I was thin. But on the other hand, I can't pretend that this was only about Survivor. If it was, I'd be too embarrassed to admit I'm that much of a fanboy; I'd rather tell you I dreamed I was hanging out with He-Man at the mall or something.
So what brought it on? There are so many possible culprits I don't know where to start counting.
Lately I happened upon some saddening stories about deaths on live television. Studying Sarasota history, I discovered the 1974 suicide of Christine Chubbuck, a local news anchor who ended her life during a broadcast about gun violence. That led me to Budd Dwyer, a Pennsylvania politican caught up in scandal in 1987. After professing his innocence at a press conference, he pulled out a Magnum and shot himself in the head on live TV. I ignored the warnings and watched the video footage for myself, over and over again, trying to convince myself it was real because it looked so much like Hollywood fakery. (I'm not linking to these because they disturbed me, but they're easy enough to find on Wikipedia and Google.)
I enjoy reading Crime Library. I could do without their sensationalistic approach to journalism, but often, they're the only place on the web to get the facts of a famous killing that I'm researching for whatever reason, often to create a goo, and so I dig into one melancholy case on their site after another. (They were one of several sites that years ago convinced me of O.J.'s innocence, although I haven't read their article lately and have no idea if it would convince me today.) And their accounts lead me to other sites, which lead me to other sites. I have recently read everything I could find about Karla Homolka and the terrible final night of her sister; about Elizabeth Short, who looked so happy in life but whose body lies forever in two pieces in that field in the crime scene photograph; about Andrei Chikatilo, who was kept raving like a madman in a cage in the center of the courtroom trying him for murder; and most memorably, of Issei Sagawa, who was so lonely and so depraved that he killed and ate his class tutor. For some reason, I can remember only the body parts that Sagawa found revolting, not the ones that delighted him, but my idle brain keeps turning his sad case over and over as if trying to understand it. I should lay off the death stuff, but normally it doesn't have this effect on me.
Perhaps my dream was about something other than the ominous presence of death. Perhaps it was about the indifference of the other players as they watched their sacificial lamb be murdered. Last year at this time, my bank account was in constant flux, so that one week I had plenty of money and the next I had none. In December I was flush with cash and had a comfortable Christmas. In February I had enough to fly out to Fargo for Denise's wedding. But in-between in January I was flat broke, and when my grandmother died I couldn't afford the $500 overnight airfare to attend her funeral, nor could I borrow it. Faced with financial reality that I had no way to get there in time, I gave up and didn't give it another thought. A year after the fact, could my subconscious be trying to guilt me into not caring enough about her death to find a way to get there? (Readers of this site a few years ago might recall my brother's death and my established track record for missing family funerals and denying the subtle guilt I felt afterwards.)
And that brings us back to Eight Below. I shouldn't care about this stupid Disney movie. Family films these days are so uniformly atrocious that I should prefer kids pass the time by sniffing glue because it kills fewer brain cells. But I let myself get riled up by that trailer and whatever other anxieties were bubbling under the surface of my mind that night and ranted here on TC. I remember not liking myself very much in that moment: I don't like being the guy who only shows up every two weeks and rants like an ignorant asshole and insults the perfectly reasonable opinions of everyone else just because he was annoyed by something so trivial as a movie trailer. Maybe it's buried guilt over how I mistreated Steve Dunn in that dumb Netflix argument last year. (Four quick points I've been meaning to say since then: I think the world of Steve and kick myself near-daily for being such an asshole to him; Netflix has lost my devotion over their disc-hoarding strategy and since they announced the exact same business intentions as Blockbuster; I have since studied business 101 and wish I could go back in time and smack myself upside the head for the ignorant things I wrote about economics; and Amy, no love lost, but I do resent you saying that I "drove away" Steve just as much as you would resent me saying that you "drove away" Anna.) Anyway, I'm troubled by the the callousness of my remarks about Eight Below, that eight dogs are not worth any effort to save from death. I still don't think a dog is worth as much as a person, but maybe the Survivor dream is revealing my subconscious horror at my own callous disregard for life.
The thing is, I really honestly think that about animals. I do love my cat: I am fond of her presence, I am delighted to dangle toys for her to play with, I love the little kisses she gives me by licking my knuckles, my heart is warmed when she curls up on my lap and purrs herself to sleep, and I am flattered that she follows me around the apartment like a shadow. But deep down, I know it's not affection for me she feels, but devotion to the Food Giver. I know that she is kind to me because I am the one who puts moist food on the floor twice a day and cleans up her shitbox. Maybe it's because for all the affection she gives, as soon as I feed her I become invisible for the next few hours. My mother's cat is even more obvious: Most nights when I visit, she glares at me with flat-out contempt and avoids my presence like the plague, but when my mother is out of town and I'm visiting to feed her, she's all over me with affection, until I set down the food and she resumes the unbridled scorn. Hemingway wrote that cats are the most emotionally honest of creatures, and these two behave with affection only because it provides their meals. I enjoy their affection very much and treat my cat as a beloved companion, but that doesn't wipe out what I know that she, and all pets, truly are underneath.
On this subject and others, lately I seem to find myself at a moral crossroads.
Down one road is acceptance of what I truly believe: That life isn't worth much, that we're all merely flesh that hasn't started rotting yet. Deep down, I honestly believe that emotion is the cause of much suffering in the world and what prevents humans from reaching their true potential. I despair at crap movies like Eight Below and Dreamer teaching children that animals are morally equal to humans so that we wind up with insane people like River Phoenix arguing that it is a human's "duty" to protect animals, a conclusion I have searched my mind in vain for any logical evidence whatsoever to support. And yet, I'm scared to walk this path and be true to myself. I don't want to be one of those angry crackpots who writes bitter letters to the editor over the state of his community. I don't want to be Theodore Kaczynski (another goo I went too far in researching). As much as I want to agree with the man, I don't want to be Dave Sim, who destroyed his career by letting loose the asshole within and telling women what he really thought of their emotions governing his land and his life. I don't want to be single for the rest of my life just because every time a woman shows interest in me, I'm scared that I'm going to tell her I think Valentines Day is a crock of shit (fellas, how many gifts did you get compared to your lovers?) and she's going to decide that my logic is lunacy; I may not live up to my impossibly high standards of logic, but at least I believe the standards are a good thing, unlike most of the women I seem to meet.
What I want is to go down the other road, back towards the teddy bear I tried to be in college. I was a friend to everyone, so upbeat about the world, so accepting of people who disagreed with me, because hey, what they feel in their heart is as perfectly valid as what I think in my brain, right? Anna trained me to be comfortable telling my friends that I love them, something that seemed to inspire nothing but uneasy squirms whenever I tried saying it – Denise and Lori reacted so badly that I never got around to saying it to Jackie and I couldn't fathom saying it to the guys I game with on Saturdays, even if it's true. I can disapprove of my emotions and distrust their influence on my opinions, but why deny that I have them? I want to be a nice guy. I want to have goodness in my heart. I want to be comfortable telling people that I love them. I want to have faith in people. I want to be happy. And to a certain extent, I can will those things to happen; it's a mantra of my career training that "perception is reality." It's just... It's not true.
Maybe this is all just an aging thing. Spring becomes fall, optimism turns to bitterness, I consider voting Republican for a change. Do I surrender and write off the human race and compose cranky comments on my web site about childrens films, or do I put on a happy mask and try to get back some semblance of a healthy emotional state? I want to decide and move on with my life and stop getting depressed because TV shows are making me see dead people in my sleep. I need help.
Non sequitur alert: There's a great trailer out there for, of all things, She's the Man. (link)
Michael Paul Cote | February 17, 2006
Scott,
Sorry to hear about your dream, it obviously got to you (can I use this in Ravenloft?) ;-) Not having studied dreams that much I can't give you insight as to what it meant, but my wife has some books about such things and she might be able to shed light on it as she has researched the aspect much more than I.
I know in my own experience, when my mother passed away, I had wanted not to visit her in the hospital as I would have had to drive 1&1/2 hours (after already driving a total of 10 hours that day for work) and only the insistance of my brother got me there only to find out that she had died earlier that day. Fortunately I had seen her that morning, before knowing how precarious her condition was. I had guilt feelings about that for a while. The same thing occurred when my dad passed. We had to place him in a nursing home due to Alzhymer's disease. The last time I visited him (a 90 minute trip one way) he didn't know who I was. It was literally harder on me to see him than it was for him not to see me. I would write and the nurses would read him my letters, but even that made no sense to him. However, to this day, I feel guilty about not doing more, even though I know that there really was no more that I could do.
As far as telling people how you feel, I think that maybe society has instilled a right and wrong viewpoint of what is ok to voice and what isn't. I know that a while ago, Tara and I were considering moving back up north. And through the whole discussion process, I realized that what I would miss the most about leaving Florida would be the people that I game with. All of you have become very important to me in a very short period of time and I am grateful to have you all as friends.
I kind of disagree with your pet theory. Cats are much more independant than dogs, so I can understand why you might feel like nothing more than a feeding machine, but the fact that your cat can show affection at times other than dinner time should boost your spirit. I know my little dachshund loves each and every member of our family and I feel that she would put her own little life on the line if she thought we were threatened. I watch her play with the boys and cuddle with Tara and I know that she feels we are more than just a source of food.
Like it or not, I agree with River Phoenix. It is man's responsibility to protect animals...from man. If you removed humans from the mix, nature would balance itself out. It has been documented in the wild. Man is the only one that can throw off the balance. Buffalo...nearly hunted to extinction not for food, but for sport. How many species of birds are no longer with us because their feathers made ladies hats look nice? Many species have been brought to extincition or near extinction by the actions or lack thereof of man. So yes, being at the top of the food chain brings certain responsibilities.
Lastly, yes voting Republican could make you see dead people in your sleep.
Michael Paul Cote | February 17, 2006
Hope that She's the man is as good as 10 things I hate about you(teen version of taming of the shrew)
Amy Austin | February 17, 2006
Heheh, good one on voting R, Mike... I guess that explains a lot for me, as well!
I am kind of glad that my inability to access the CGG server for so long kept me from being the first to post. Mostly, because my first response was kind of an awkward silence -- I guess I was a bit overwhelmed by it, too. My next thought was that it sounds to me like you are overworking yourself and need a vacation. Not a GOO vacation (though that may, of course, be necessitated), but a *real* vacation... from work. When is the last time that you had one, Scott? Do you take them? I mean... I know that you have gone to a couple of weddings and such, but that is not a vacation. I'm talking about refilling yourself -- replenishing your spirit, which sounds to me like it is clearly in need of. I also happen to know of a life coach (by way of a friend who is also training to become one) offering a free 50-minute session by phone (she will call you, in order to avoid any expense on your end) to 100 people, if you think this might be useful to you. If you don't know anything about life coaching, it is kind of a cross between career counselor and psychotherapist... it is someone with a fresh outsider's perspective who can help you to examine your short/long-term career and life goals and ways of getting there and/or making it easier for you. She may suggest modifications anywhere from diet/exercise to just plain thought exercises... it's really just a self-examination thing, which it kind of sounds like you are already in the midst of and could maybe use some help with.
That said... I can now share my more egocentric reactions without feeling (as) badly. By "sacrificial lamb", Scott, I can only assume you mean Anna's departure. I am sorry that this appears to still be troubling you, and I know that what you desire for the quality of conversation on TC has suffered for it, too -- I think we all knew that it would. But I don't think that was a fair comment to *any* of us here... she made the decision to leave -- instead of changing tactics -- on her own, and I think if you will recall, there were many kind parting words from other players/authors here (myself included)... as well as plenty of comments that it didn't need to be that way, that it didn't have to come down to a permanent departure. Even I, who had so much trouble coming to a mutual understanding with her, was rather sorry to see her go. But that was HER CHOICE... not "murder" -- and it seems clear to me that you *do* still hold me largely responsible for that, or you wouldn't have brought it up and then mentioned me, by name, only seconds later!
Which brings me to the "Steve" comment... When I first read that, I was like "WhatwhatWHAT?!?!" Then I began using my (formidable) goo skills to figure out what the HELL you were talking about. I can only assume that you are talking about (link) in which I made the comment, Yeah, I miss the Steves, too. I know why Steve Dunn isn't commenting, but what about Steve West? Did something/someone run him off, too??? :-\\
Pardon me, Scott, but I think that you have quietly taken umbrage to something you *thought* I said... because I don't think it meant what you seem to have inferred/interpreted. I can't say for sure what all was going on at that exact time, because hunting that down was enough work to keep me from being full-out detective and piecing together a timeline to help figure it all out... but knowing MYSELF and my intentions when I post, I can assure you that it was not directed at you in the way that you seem to think that it was...
If I am not mistaken, I believe that Steve Dunn was out of the country at that time... or else had announced a longer-than-short-term departure from the GOO game for whatever reason. I am feeling certain that it was one of his out-of-the-country jaunts, but it could also have been a response to something someone said -- whatever the case, I am almost certain that it was announced, because I know that he isn't the type to slink off and quietly lick wounds over something someone said... he would *say* that he had a reason for being gone and what the reason was, whether it was work-related or just taking a breather from something/someone here -- he's a straightforward guy like that, one of the things I like about him. Anyhow, I am 99.9% sure that this accounts for the first half of my comment about "knowing why he's gone".
I guess I should ask, before I go any further, which Steve you thought I was accusing you of "driving away"... because it sure seems to me like you have dwelled a lot more on that whole Netflix/Blockbuster discussion than anyone else here, including Steve Dunn! I did *not* get the impression that he was bent out of any shape over it whatsoever, or love/respect lost for you because of the disagreement... again, if I am remembering correctly, he posted some really good "no hard feelings" comments after it was over -- and I doubt that it's lingered with him beyond that! Of course, I'm talking out of my ass a little bit here, because I am pretty sure that I don't know Steve Dunn as well as you do, and it may very well be that there is/was plenty that I am/was not picking up on because you two are gentlemen enough to keep it from showing... but I am basing my comments on my own interpretations/observations, as we can only all do.
So this brings me to the second half of my comment. Did you think that by extension of the first half (driving Steve off with the Netflix discussion) that I meant that you must have said something to piss Steve West off, too??? Because I know me, and I am sure that that is *not* what I meant! If anything, it was probably a subtle reference to Anna's departure (which was right after my *husband's* posts with her, btw -- not mine!) and people leaving due to sensitivities over comments... as well as a little bit of self-effacement for Ed and myself having been two who may have said things to cause such departures!!! I Certainly wasn't implying that *you* drove off either of the Steves, Scott -- and I am really sorry (and angry!) if that is the impression you've been having about it for all this time -- and I never would have thought that you felt that way about Anna & myself... until now.
I think now may be the time & place to say it, because I've kept it quite to myself... but the "Let's Start Over, Amy" banner was rather deeply affecting to me when I started seeing it at the beginning of the year. Not only did it touch on one of *my* most sensitive moments here on TC and with Anna, but the little girl on the left looks SCARILY like myself at that age... and I can very much see Anna in the other one. The appropriateness of the photo was enough to nearly choke me up, and I was really divided over whether to comment on this, because it was also a little bit, well... disturbing, for lack of a better word. So I've kept quiet about it ever since, and the impact of it has softened quite a bit -- but it still catches my notice (and breath) every time it appears. I share this now because perhaps these insights will help you, Scott, to make sense of at least one thing you mentioned in your hard-hitting post.
I haven't even touched on the original subject of animals yet, and I don't know if I have the energy right now to put those thoughts forth, too. But carrying on the note of egocentrism I mentioned above... I couldn't help but take it as yet another subtle dig my way when you called River Phoenix "insane" -- I am feeling a very passive-aggressive tone from you, Scott... and I'm not sure if you notice or intend it (or if I am being overly sensitive here), but I can't help but feel that I must be some small part of what is eating at you right now. Perhaps that is only in my head, but these are the things that I picked up on when I read what you wrote, and I felt that I should share it now, rather than later, lest I have some unchecked hidden resentment, a la "driving away the Steves"!
I will save the rest of my animal comments for later, since they are "underneath"... and in a case like this -- as I am choosing to address the human emotion concerns (mine & Scott's) over the rest -- I will tentatively agree... and pick up where I left off later, when I've regained my emotional strength.
Steve Dunn | February 18, 2006
Whoa, whoa, whoooooooaaaaaa Nellie.
Scott, bro, YOU MUST CHILL.
Several notes:
1) That Netflix debate had absolutely nothing with my being gone for a while. I was gone for a while because I went out of the country for two weeks, then was insanely busy at work for MONTHS (penance for going on vacation for two weeks). Then I was just out of the habit. Then the GOO game wasn't running for a while. There's not a whole lot of traffic on this board. Lots of things. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Netflix debate.
2) I never thought you were a jerk about the Netflix thing, or if you were (don't really remember), it was only for a short time and all was good thereafter.
3) Even if I was pissed about the Netflix thing, which I wasn't, at all, you'd have completely made up for it by adding me to your Netflix Friends group! You are my only Netflix friend.
4) I still love Netflix, though I sent them a nasty email about the "heavy user" policy, which somewhat pisses me off.
5) Scott, I think you're an amazingly brilliant and fair-minded guy, and so are your friends. I don't even remember how I stumbled on this site, but I participate in exactly two online message boards. This one, and the one on my own site. I wish I had more time to devote to this place - for example to research goos and finally win the damn game (which WILL happen some day, though perhaps not under the current rules).
6) It's been years since anything anyone wrote on the internet offended me for longer than a few hours.
7) I must have missed it when Anna left. I'm sure that was... dramatic.
8) I wouldn't worry too much about the dream. If it prompts you to make positive changes in your life, great. If not, put it out of your mind. If it's a symbolic hook upon which you can torture yourself for your perceived shortcomings, jettison it immediately.
9) I think you judge yourself much more harshly than others (not just me) judge you.
Yo dude - you MUST let go of the Netflix thing. I am chuckling about it over here - I swear. I was not offended. I am not offended. You didn't say or do anything wrong, and if you did, I don't remember.
I hereby release you from ALL lingering guilt about The Great Netflix Debate!!!
Scott Hardie | February 18, 2006
Thanks for writing back to me, including the folks who emailed. I'm glad I have such a support circle.
I guess I should mention that in general, I'm pretty happy these days. I have three great things going on in my life right now that I won't write about here for various reasons. Apparently that means you all get stuck reading about my nightmares, social guilt, and moral crises. Sorry. I needed a place to let loose and say what had been on my mind all week.
Since I wrote that two nights ago, I've been thinking that the way to avoid the darker road I mentioned is simply to stay social. Human interaction keeps me happy, informed, and nice. I'm going to stay on that road for as long as I can.
Scott Hardie | February 18, 2006
Mike:
First, thank you for a big laugh. :-)
You're right about the inevitability of guilt after a loved one dies. I don't know if mine was related to my grandmother's death or not – it happened over a year ago, but then I'm about to see my aunt and uncle for the first time since missing the funeral so I know it's about to come up. Who knows. I paid, socially and emotionally, for missing my brother's funeral, and I'm prepared to pay again for this one. Obviously I beat myself up for a lot of things, but a few of them I think are worthy, and failing my family is one of them.
Oh well, there I go again.
Your case for animal protection is the best I've heard yet (not that Pamela Anderson is giving you much of a run for your money), but I still don't agree. You're presuming to begin with that nature has a right to exist unaffected by man, from which you draw your conclusion. What I'm missing is the justification for your presumption in the first place. Like that asshole Dave Sim, I believe the term "animal rights" is an oxymoron. Nature is a vacuum of morality; when we claim that animals have a right not to be harmed, we're imposing a human ethic on something that exists free of ethics whatsoever. I just don't see a connection. But I'm willing to see one if a convincing case is made. :-|
Scott Hardie | February 18, 2006
Amy:
Yes, I could definitely use a vacation away from a lot of things. Excellent suggestion. I only have a little bit of time left for now and I'm keeping it for Jackie's wedding in June, but a real trip is due soon.
You're also right that I need to fix things in my life, with or without a coach. My schedule is getting the way it is because I don't have anything to resist it, but I'm making progress on that, which I might discuss here when the time is right (unless Lori leaks it first, which I hope she doesn't :-P ). I also badly need to do something about my weight problem, which is beyond ridiculous and continuing to get worse. I eat out for six lunches a week and about that many dinners, and I'm beginning to make the Michelin Man look like a model of slender fitness. I'm determined to stop, but that apparently doesn't mean much; by all evidence, I can't stop myself no matter how much I make up my mind. It's like there's another Scott, and he's eating me into the grave. (Again with the death imagery...)
Anyway, let's talk about TC. There's obviously a lot unsaid in our little community.
Anna's departure hasn't been on my mind since it happened, honest. By "sacrificial lamb" I was merely talking about Survivor. I don't think anyone sacrificed Anna for the relative peace that we now enjoy. Anna's decision to leave was one she made by herself. I do blame you and Ed for making her want to leave, just as I blamed myself for making Steve Dunn want to leave (until yesterday anyway), but we didn't do anything wrong, you or Ed or I. Anna left entirely on her own. She has since reopened her account to play in the Oscars contest, but she's done with TC.
You'd think I would have learned to be more specific after that time I called Ed "rude" and got him all worked up over something he shouldn't have been (which is yet another thing I now kick myself for; sorry about that, Ed). You said on September 2nd (link) that someone had "run off" Steve Dunn. We knew Steve had gone off for a vacation in early July, but by early September it had been two months and he hadn't come back, and it seemed like he was choosing to stay away (since he was still active on his own site), so I read your comment the way I did. Apparently I was just compounding it with my own guilt, but at the time your words seemed like a slap in the face and I didn't know how to react to it, so I didn't say anything at first and eventually it became too late. This is exactly why I don't like leaving things unsaid, because they get unearthed in later arguments and used as weapons. All I ever want is just to get along, you know me.
(On not leaving things unsaid: I too was placated by Steve's "no hard feelings" comments after the Netflix thing, and I too thought it was behind us. But shortly afterwards, he went on vacation and didn't come back for months, finally showing up around Thansgiving. He didn't say he was taking a break or anything like you argued he would have; he simply disappeared, so I drew what turned out to be incorrect conclusions. My bad.)
About the "Amy, let's start over" image: No harm intended, please believe me. Like several of 2005's biggest discussions (especially "Ein kind der kunst"), I had a damn hard time finding an image that suited it, short of splicing together photos of you and Anna. When I went searching for a pic of two girls getting along, that was the best one I could come up with. I don't want to hurt you. I'll replace it.
About River Phoenix: No dig there, either. It occurred to me as I wrote it that you're a fan of his and maybe I should write some kind of disclaimer that it's strictly about his words and not about you, but I opted not to. I really do disagree with his comment without that reflecting on you in any way. ;-)
I have been called passive-aggressive before, and once even started a discussion on TC to ask other people if they thought it was true about me. (link) I don't think I am, but being passive-aggressive is one of those things that nobody who is thinks they are. There are times I don't like you at all, Amy, and wish that you and Ed had never come along, but then there are other times that I admire your abundance of cheerfulness and think you're one of this site's most valuable contributors. Whenever we butt heads like this, in the end I always conclude that you and I are just very different people, neither one of us right or wrong but simply being ourselves, and the only reason we don't descend into real hostility is that I'm not as emotional as Anna is, since you have treated both her and I fairly. In the interest of shaking this reputation for passive-aggression, I'm willing to list what things I don't like about you, but I don't think it's a good idea; there's not a user in this forum who doesn't bug me in some small way, and I'm sure you all have little grievances against me as well (such as letting this comment go on for 18 damn pages), but that's no reason to air every last gripe.
Scott Hardie | February 18, 2006
Steve:
Thank you for saying so, on all points. :-)
The Netflix thing seemed to be another incident in a series in my life. In the interest of being honest and stating all relevant information, I criticize someone, and it winds up seeming like that's my total or dominant opinion of them. It's why I bent over backwards after the fact to say nice things about you in an attempt to correct that perception. (It's also why I'm hesitant to nitpick Amy now in the interest of speaking my mind.) The effort to make up for my criticism, which apparently is still going on in this discussion, is magnified by this being the gajillionth time in my life I've done such a thing. And that pattern probably contributes to my getting called passive-aggressive from time to time.
You're not even Netflix Friends with Greg? I thought he said he used the service. Oh well. Maybe you should provide a spammable email address here on this forum and other authors should invite you to be Netflix friends with them, hint hint.
Netflix's heavy-user policy is a wrongheaded mistake, the first major one I think they've made. Their business has thrived on the evangelism of their biggest customers. The same day I first learned of the heavy-user policy on one of the Netflix blogs, I was at a bar downtown and heard a woman a few seats over telling her two friends what a great service Netflix was and how both should sign up, and they said they'd give it a try. I probably only think this way because I am a heavy user, but their policy seems like a jab in the eye. Anyway, I don't want as much as I used to, so it doesn't bother me as much as it could.
And then, a few weeks ago, they settled the matter for good when they announced that their new business plan is to bankrupt all brick-and-mortal rental stores. Like with "animal rights," I was foolish to apply human ethics to an environment that is devoid of ethics, which is business. When a lion kills an antelope, it's just being a lion. When a business bankrupts a competitor, it's just being a business. Why did I argue otherwise? Partly because I loved Netflix so much, partly because I'm ignorant, partly other reasons. (It took further research on my part to understand why I was wrong about the slump, too. It was a slump, and it did matter. Kris was right.) Anyway, these two incidents have quelled my love affair with Netflix. I still enjoy their service, and I suppose I'll still evangelize for them (just tried it last night), but I see no more reason to worship at their altar. The process of removing my head from my ass is now well underway.
Me? Too hard on myself? Where do you get that impression?
Actually, one of the biggest reasons I so often criticize myself is penance for one summer in my teen years. As Lori might or might not recall, I was a raging egomaniac that year, fueled by several successful endeavors and having learned I had a very high IQ, and I acted like the king of town because obviously I was The Shit. When I parted ways with my best friend that summer for unrelated reasons, we never spoke again, and since then I figure he must still see me as the little egomaniac. So, out of guilt for being such an insufferable asshole that summer and as a means of preventing myself from every becoming that particular kind of insufferable asshole again, I freely self-criticize for every little mistake I make. Honestly? I think some of the people who are hardest on themselves are secretly some of the most arrogant, because they would only treat a larger-than-life person to such larger-than-life criticism. But maybe I'm the only one.
Anna's departure (in the "Deadbeat Dad" discussion) was dramatic I suppose, but no more so than any of the other flare-ups of conflict over the months prior. She finally had one argument too many with Amy & Ed, and gave up trying to get along. Anna suffered from a delusion that Amy bore her malice no matter how many times Amy and I assured her otherwise, which I suppose is fair; it's poetic justice that Anna should fall victim to such a delusion, since other authors such as Lori insisted that Anna hated them and was insulting them no matter how many times Anna or I claimed otherwise. (No disrespect, Lori. You have helped me see the real basis of your gripes in email, and they make sense. I'm simplifying here.) Anyway, even though Anna did quit on her own, Amy & Ed weren't innocent of egging her on from time to time; the final straw before her departure was a personal insult from Ed that I vaguely condemned as him "being rude," leading to even more confusion and conflict. Everybody knows that the only thing I ever wanted around here was for people to get along and have real discussions about worthy topics. When a discussion about something as interesting as the philosophical merit of "animal rights" devolves into a group therapy session like this, it's not nearly as interesting, but at least it doesn't turn hostile, which is where the line is clearly drawn. If we have to stop to clear the air now and then, and authors suffering too many hurt feelings have to leave the forum now and then, I suppose it's worth it to keep up the good discussions when they happen. I think we have lots more ahead of us.
Anna Gregoline | February 20, 2006
I'd like to post to say that I still read this forum from time to time (not often mostly because there aren't a lot of topics up these days) and was surprised to see so much discussion about myself. But all I really want to do is respond to Scott.
Scott, I'm so sorry to hear you are depressed. I hope things look brighter for you soon.
Your dream is interesting - you are disturbed by the other "Survivor" players not caring when one of their teammates dies - I think that might indeed be your dispassion towards death and guilt about your grandmother (which I'm not sure I heard about - if I missed that, I'm sorry for that and for your loss). I can relate - when my mother's mother died, I was a freshman in college and I could have entirely gone to the funeral. But the overwhelming distaste for wakes and funerals and the emotional pressure of having to comfort my mom, who of course was beside herself with grief prevented me from going. I regret that deeply, but I think I was simply too immature at the time to make myself go (not saying you are immature - money troubles are something else entirely). But I wouldn't be surprised if this guilt was weighing over you in some way.
With regards to Eight Below - while your commentary was a bit harsh, I had to say that reading it, I found myself nodding in agreement. Anyone who knows me knows that I am a psycho for animals (well, for pets, anyway - I do eat meat and I don't associate with PETA or anything), and that my kitties (we recently got another cat, named Lulu!) are so important to me. Yet, I, too, don't see the sense in mounting an expedition to get dogs back - an expedition that could easily kill humans in the process. Of course, that would be the people's involved choice...but I found the movie preview pretty sacchrin (not that I'm a Disney kind of person anyway). "I'm not some kind of monster just because I think a dog is a dog and a person is a person and a person deserves treatment that a dog doesn't. To see a movie cheering people for that is to be demeaned myself, for us all to be demeaned." I kind of agree with that - dogs can do some amazing things and they are amazing creatures - but I do put a higher value on a human life than a dogs. I'm sure many would, and that does not make you a monster.
I do disagree that cats only view us as food providers and litter-box cleaners. I really feel that they do search for pure affection as well. Reducing their motives to such base instincts isn't fair to me - only because we have no idea what it is like to be a cat. We cannot possibly understand their consciousness, how they view the world, how they think - to say they only like us because we give them food places a human perspective on it - painting them as ingrates. I'm not sure that a cat's experience really reflects that. I wish I could know how they experience the world, but we won't ever...
"Down one road is acceptance of what I truly believe: That life isn't worth much, that we're all merely flesh that hasn't started rotting yet. Deep down, I honestly believe that emotion is the cause of much suffering in the world and what prevents humans from reaching their true potential."
I share only part of that belief - I do believe we are merely flesh and that when we die, that's it - but I think that life is an unrecordable prescence - the light goes out - where does that life go? To me it goes back into the cycle of the world - into the general energy out there. But this means to me that life is worth a lot, that we should live as happy and as well as we can - to give back good energy and to simply enjoy ourselves - because we're all going to die. Might as well have fun, eh? But, I'm getting awfully woo-woo for a post to a website I don't post on anymore.
"And yet, I'm scared to walk this path and be true to myself. I don't want to be one of those angry crackpots who writes bitter letters to the editor over the state of his community."
I don't think you could, Scott. You are one of the most thoughtful people I know - you really consider ALL the angles of something, and for the simple reason you've recanted on here, you wouldn't ever end up an "angry crackpot." You are too self-analyzing and open to be that, and that's one of the things I love most about you.
"I don't want to be single for the rest of my life just because every time a woman shows interest in me, I'm scared that I'm going to tell her I think Valentines Day is a crock of shit (fellas, how many gifts did you get compared to your lovers?) and she's going to decide that my logic is lunacy; I may not live up to my impossibly high standards of logic, but at least I believe the standards are a good thing, unlike most of the women I seem to meet."
Hey, Jesse and I both think that Valentine's Day is a crock of shit! I mean, honestly. Don't be afraid of that one - many people think it's stupid. I don't need a designated commercial holiday to do something special for my sweetie - we consider every day a chance to show our love for each other.
W"hat I want is to go down the other road, back towards the teddy bear I tried to be in college. I was a friend to everyone, so upbeat about the world, so accepting of people who disagreed with me, because hey, what they feel in their heart is as perfectly valid as what I think in my brain, right? Anna trained me to be comfortable telling my friends that I love them, something that seemed to inspire nothing but uneasy squirms whenever I tried saying it – Denise and Lori reacted so badly that I never got around to saying it to Jackie and I couldn't fathom saying it to the guys I game with on Saturdays, even if it's true."
I'm glad to hear that I gave you some encouragement in the "I love you" arena. I really think it's important. I'm equally sad to hear that people have received your "I love yous" with squirms. I wish that wasn't so and that we ALL would say "I love you" more often - because life is fleeting and you might not get that chance. Some will call me morbid for thinking that way, but I can't help it. Almost every time I leave my husband I have a tiny part of me that hopes it isn't for the last time. I'm not in a panic over death, nor do I think about it constantly, but since it is ever-present, I find it gives me a push to appreciate all I've got right now.
TC actually gave me some insight into other people - and there are many times I feel that opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and I'm not more right than anyone else is right. For that, I am grateful. I can't always see things that way - there are some opinions, for example, that I think are morally wrong and inconsistant - but I try.
"I want to be a nice guy. I want to have goodness in my heart. I want to be comfortable telling people that I love them. I want to have faith in people. I want to be happy. And to a certain extent, I can will those things to happen; it's a mantra of my career training that "perception is reality." It's just... It's not true. "
I can relate as well - I think we all go through periods of dissatisfaction with ourselves. That doesn't mean you're on the fast track to being a bitter person - it just means you have a down side right now and are seeing thing negatively. I don't have much advice - except to try and do as much as you can to connect with others - because it is important and sometimes friends will keep you in check, so to speak, by keeping you laughing.
"Do I surrender and write off the human race and compose cranky comments on my web site about childrens films, or do I put on a happy mask and try to get back some semblance of a healthy emotional state?"
Never put on a mask - if you are feeling cranky, you could do worse than to vent on your own private web site. Healthy emotional states aren't created by hiding your emotions - but they are created by releasing and sharing your emotions in a positive way. Which I think you are doing. So...kudos. =)
Anyway, I love you, I'm sorry you are down, and I'm going to send you some snail mail.
And I'm sorry to post on TC - probably going to be a surprise to see me on here and I probably should have simply emailed you instead but I started typing and so here I am. I apologize if it makes waves at all - not my intention.
Lori Lancaster | February 20, 2006
[hidden by request]
Denise Sawicki | February 20, 2006
I wouldn't say I squirmed either. I have e-mailed Scott a response to this post.
Scott Hardie | February 23, 2006
Too busy to write it all... I appreciate your comments and will reply to every message this weekend.
Denise Sawicki | February 23, 2006
That wasn't me being impatient, just, trying to state to the other people reading that I do care about you even though they don't see a huge reply from me on this discussion :)
John E Gunter | February 23, 2006
Wow, this is going to take me a while to read through also, but I wanted to give my spin on this.
First off, I read a book a number of years ago about cats and I know their conclusions might not be right, but some of what was said makes sense to me. They said that cats view their companions/owners as litter mates, in other words siblings.
Watching the way the many cats I've had over my years, I can see quite a bit of sense in that statement. Most of the cats seemed to view me as a big brother, they were affectionate to me, showing family love, but also when I had to scold them about something, they were angry with me the same way I was angry with my older brother.
Maybe the book was right, maybe it was wrong, but it's put the best spin on cat psychology that I've ever seen. As far as animals being less than people, I don't quite believe that. The only thing we have over them that I can see is intelligence.
Now, I'm not knocking anyone's opinion here, but the intelligence I see man using, especially where it concerns their fellow man doesn't seem to make us as smart as animals. I mean come on, we kill each other because we don't happen to like the other guys skin color, or religion or sexual preference?
Another interesting point that I see that intelligent man does is not allow survival of the fittest to happen. Granted, we've had some very smart people who would have died if not for science helping them survive, but have you ever witnessed what happens in the wild when a crazy animal is introduced into the system? The other animals kill it!
What does man do? We stick them in a hospital till they're cured and then set them loose on society?
Yes, I'm an emotional person, but I also value logic, so I try to temper my decisions by looking at both sides of that coin. Life is too valuable to waste, so I'll do what I can to save an animal, but I'm not going to go all nuts to save one. Their life is important to me, but when they're threatening someone/something I love, I'm going to work to protect that someone/something.
I'm very oriented to family & friends, cherishing the relationships that I have with them. So it's important to me how my family & friends feel. My pets aren't pets, they're part of the family and as the Saturday night guys can attest, my pets are well treated.
I'm sorry that you're feeling depressed Scott, and as far as dream interpretation is concerned, I don't buy a general interpretation of a dream either. Yes I believe there can be symbolism in what you dream, but sometimes I think we just dream to dream. If there is symbolism in a particular dream, each individual must interpret it on their own.
Why do I say that, because you're experiences are different from mine, so how can someone other than me understand what I've seen. It's the same for medication, my body will react differently to medicine than anyone else's. Sure, we might have similar reactions, but they're just similar, not the same.
Even twins will react differently, both physically & mentally. Although we haven't been able to see it, I'd bet clones would also react differently due to the fact that they aren't really the exact same person. Can't be because they are two individuals. So while you can look at someone else's experiences, and using them to help you figure out what's going on, in the final result, the final interpretation needs to be done by you.
When I get a little more time, I'll read some more of the discussion.
John
Jackie Mason | February 25, 2006
[hidden by request]
Jackie Mason | February 25, 2006
[hidden by request]
Scott Hardie | March 8, 2006
No, I haven't been locked in an institution for the last two weeks; I've just been taking care of my life for a change. These last two weeks I've been very busy with two things I'm not prepared to discuss on here, but the main thing is that I'm in a much, much better place now that I was in February. I have you to thank for that. The people who replied here and those who wrote emails to me helped me along with kindness and encouragement, and it meant a great deal to me. Even though it sometimes seems like the amount of my social life that is carried out online is proportionate to the volume of an iceberg that is submerged underwater, I'm grateful to have so many good people in my life, virtually and otherwise. Thanks for being there.
Scott Hardie | March 8, 2006
Anna:
You're surprised we still talk about you? :-) You had vast influence around here.
You might be right about "funeral absentee guilt" for lack of a better term. The only reason I have to doubt it in my case is how long it has been since the funeral. My subconscious should still be kicking me for it over a year later? I dunno.
About cats: I agree with your premises, but they lead me to an opposite conclusion. I don't know how a cat thinks or feels, so I'm inclined not to project human emotions onto it. When I said that I observed the two cats in my life only being affectionate when they wanted something from me, I underemphasized how much appreciate that affection. My cat is my friend and constant companion. I'm sure my behavior is just as suspicious to her: I push her away when I'm busy and only pay attention to her when I want to, which means I'm as guilty of a general coldheartedness as she is. Perhaps I should just enjoy her companionship and stop analyzing it already.
Valentines Day this year was a confusing one for me. By (apparently) mutual understanding, a budding relationship had just ended, with a woman whose emotional nature clashed badly with my logical nature. And the day before, I had read an interview with an advice columnist who was asked what his readers seemed to think of Valentines Day. He said men universally scorned it as an artificial, contrived holiday that compelled them to buy gifts for their lovers. But more interestingly, while most women also scorned it as an artificial, contrived holiday – they found themselves inexplicably upset if they didn't get any gifts. These thoughts, and others, conspired to make me resent emotion in general on a day reserved for sentimentality. I suppose it's like resenting family in general over the holidays, something that's completely normal that still feels distinctly unhealthy.
Well, about saying "I love you" to friends, I shouldn't have used the word "squirm" since it was apparently unpopular. :-P I merely meant it as metaphor. And the original sentiment hasn't changed in any case since I said it.
I appreciate you replying, Anna. You have often been better aware of my emotional needs than I have. I still miss you around here. :-)
Kris Weberg | March 8, 2006
Can we go back to the part where Scott said "Kris was right"?
Hey, I got my priorities.
Scott Hardie | March 8, 2006
Lori:
I think you're right about the dream that started all this psychoanalysis: It got to me only because I had death on my mind. The dream hasn't come back since – although I am increasingly consciously appalled at the amount of death imagery on the show this season. (link) (link) (link)
I said "I love you" the day after Ev was born, when Kelly and I called to congratulate you and Ray. I thought it was a moment for sentimentality, but I didn't take into account that you had about a billion other things on your mind. :-) You did seem too confused to know what to say.
I don't talk about the other subject because I made a promise that I wouldn't, and I've made, like, seven promises ever, so I'm determined to keep my word even if it's childish. :-P But I make allusions to it every once in a while I suppose, so whatever.
Scott Hardie | March 8, 2006
John:
Weirdly, I think we're in agreement on some bigger issues even as we quibble about the small points. You seem to see humanity's sentimentality as a weakness compared to animals. What happens when animals have a dying member among them? They stop nourishing it, because food is a resource. Instead, we lavish comfort and support upon the dying, because we feel bad for them. Maybe that's a poor analogy because we have such an abundance of food in our country that it's no longer a resource for us, but all I'm trying to say is: For all of our supposed intelligence as a species, there's reason to the way that animals treat their dying, and no reason to the way we treat ours.
And here I am again, full circle. In my dream, I was appalled at the lack of remorse among the human survivors when one of their own was killed at their whim, almost to the point that I became ill. My subconscious apparently differs very strongly with my thoughts on the subject of death. What does it know that I don't? Am I so clever that I've fooled myself into believing something that my mind is trying to tell me is utterly wrong?
(For the record: I'm being unfairly incompassionate about the subject. We've all lost loved ones and it's profoundly difficult when it happens, and I don't want to devalue what the people or their loss means to us.)
Using your reasoning about cats: Maybe my thoughts about feline affection are so screwed up because I was raised as an only child? I don't know what it's like to have a brother or sister, so I fail when I try to apply your model to my relationship with my cat. :-\
Scott Hardie | March 8, 2006
Jackie:
I said this in email already, but I guess my issues are with the trailer and not with the film. Not only does the trailer make a base, inappropriate emotional ploy, but it's deceptive about the film it advertises. But hey, that's 90% of advertising, so I should let it go. :-)
Scott Hardie | March 8, 2006
Kris:
You're right. I should say that more often.
Lori Lancaster | March 8, 2006
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | March 8, 2006
"You're surprised we still talk about you? :-) You had vast influence around here. "
Yeah, I am. I feel like I left ages ago, and I figured that the prevailing attitude would be "Out of sight out of mind" or "Good riddance to bad rubish" from the amount of hostility around that time. I know not everyone held that opinion, but I certainly didn't expect to see my name months and months after I left.
" When I said that I observed the two cats in my life only being affectionate when they wanted something from me, I underemphasized how much appreciate that affection."
They really do. Since we've gotten a new cat, Lulu, Mona has been behaving in all sorts of unpredictable ways. Yesterday, Jesse stressed to me that I need to heap extra affection on Mona, and not yell at her when she acts out towards Lulu, because she IS the queen, after all, and probably feels rejection because I'm paying attention to the new cat. Duh. I lavished affection on her last night, and she was back to a bunch of old behaviors, including jumping up and snuggling with me in bed this morning. I felt bad that I had damaged our relationship by paying too much attention to Lulu. The extra good part? Lulu is too stupid to even need much affection - for real. That might sound disrespectful, but you haven't met this cat. She's really dumb. And she doesn't mind if you give her a pat and then leave...she's off to the next nap right away. Mona, however, takes it personally. Live and learn.
"I appreciate you replying, Anna. You have often been better aware of my emotional needs than I have. I still miss you around here. :-)"
Well, I deal in emotion first, so perhaps I'm simply a bit better tuned - thanks for the vote of missing me. I miss talking to you on here, for sure, which is probably why I replied, instead of doing email. And I wanted people to know I still read.
Steve Dunn | March 8, 2006
Kris: you are totally right.
Scott: welcome back and glad to hear you're feeling well. You only need to handle right now, man. The past and the future take care of themselves.
Jackie Mason | March 9, 2006
[hidden by request]
Amy Austin | March 9, 2006
Hmm.
Well, first of all, I guess I should offer my apology to Scott for mistaking the "sacrificial lamb" allusion to be a reference to Anna's departure. Since the word "players" was used and not "contestants" or "Survivors" -- a word I associate with the playership here in the GOO game -- I did not immediately see that connection and, in fact, had to re-read the paragraph in order to come to the conclusion that I did. It was the following sentences about "driving people away" that helped me arrive at that meaning on second reading. Sorry for that. Still not happy about the words that followed, but at least we're clear now.
Second, glad to hear you're in better spirits. I hope that my concern wasn't too apparently diminished by the aforementioned misunderstanding... I did try to prioritize my post and not come across coldly on that point, and I'm sorry there, too, if I did. And for Anna: I, for one, was not bothered by your post/s... no waves made, no apology necessary (on my behalf, anyway). I think you should keep on posting, if you like... it's so quiet here nowadays that I find it really hard to believe that anyone cares/would object. Not I, if that's what you think. Edit: Oh yeah, and I didn't mean to sound so emotionally distraught about that banner, either. I said at the time that "disturbed" wasn't the best word choice, and what I was really trying to convey was more of a sense of disembodiment... oh, I still feel like I'm describing this inadequately. I only meant to convey that a) I wasn't totally gleeful when Anna left, and b) it was a little disarming to see such a close likeness of myself in that picture. I think it was a good picture, and for all the searching you did for it, I certainly don't mind you using it. Please don't feel compelled to remove it on my account (although you probably have already).
Now... about dying and the animal kingdom... John's comment -- unless I am mistaken again -- was specifically about the "crazy", not just the physically weak/infirm. There are many instances in the wild of a herd/pack taking care of the broken/sick -- sheer insanity (due to disease or genetics, whatever) does not rightfully fall into that category, and yes, those are most certainly driven away. But not all who need care are abandoned or destroyed by their brethren... and I'm sure that the availability of natural resources does play a role.
After all, what is man, but a highly evolved animal... take away all modern conveniences, and I wonder how much differently we might behave from the rest of the wild. One has only to look to Maslow's hierarchy of needs to see the similarities -- I've been a fan of this man since high school psychology: (link) One could think of animals as being stuck in the bottom layers of the pyramid, and from this perspective, it is easy to see that it's only natural for animals to show affection to their caregivers. Would humans behave any differently under similar circumstances? Think about the psychology of the human captor/captive relationship... ranging all the way up to Stockholm Syndrome. And since domesticated animals (i.e., household pets) aren't really capable of meeting these basic needs for themselves, either, then it's also easy to see why the conditioned food-affection relationship. Does this mean that pets are incapable of "true" affection/emotion? Of course not. And there is most certainly a difference in the way that cats and dogs demonstrate this, too. I have had and felt loved by both, and I also know very well that the emotional capacity of my current three pups goes beyond simple "projection".
John E Gunter | March 9, 2006
Yes, Amy, mostly I'm talking crazy animals, but on occasion, I've seen animals which are sick/dying animals get either killed or just left to die by their fellows. Of course alot of the last behavior depends on the type of animal also.
Rodents will kill very sick/dying members of the pack rather than allow them to continue to live or even attempt to help them, even when there is plenty of food available for them. I've witnessed it first hand with some gerbals that my wife and I had a while ago. It really disturbed me when I realized what they were doing!
John
Amy Austin | March 9, 2006
And wonder why in the world of name-calling, "rat", "rodent", & "vermin" are considered unflattering and insulting... ;-)
Kris Weberg | March 9, 2006
On the other hand, bonobos, a primate species close to our own, use sexual intercourse as currency in everything from territorial disputes to food exchange. They're capable of altruism and waht appears to be empathy. They don't kill off their sick and weak, for one thing.
The other side of it is the Common Chimpanzee, an aggressive bastard species that organizes around murderous aggression between small groups of males who use muscle power and hurled feces to solve social problems -- problems like, "hey, I don't know that guy, let's kill him and defecate on his corpse." There are isolated cases of cannibalism reported within the specie and they occasionally attack and eat human infants.
They're our two closest living relatives among the other species of this planet, sharing between 95% and 97% of our DNA, unless you believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design, in which case it's all just a trick perpetrated by the Prince of the Air.
Humans kill and eat bonobos in Africa, and the species is rapidly becoming extinct.
Amy Austin | March 9, 2006
Naturally, humans kill and eat bonobos in Africa... Once again, begging the question: "How are humans any better/more deserving than the rest of the animal kingdom?"
heheheh... nice edit, Kris... ("hey, I don't know that guy, let's kill him and defecate on his corpse.")
Anna Gregoline | March 9, 2006
How many people would give their life for a dog? A rat? A snake?
Do I think that a human life is more important than a snake's? Yeah, I do.
That doesn't mean we should slaughter them all, however. Just that given the choice, I do find inherently more value in a human life than a snake's life. Most people would - that's probably part preservation of our own species talking, self-preservation, and something else - we recognize that we are higher beings than a snake in the sense that we have an entire emotional and mental world that the snake does not possess - the fact that we can even talk about this situation proves that.
I love animals, and I love MY animals, but if I had to decide out of our family who deserved to live more, ourselves or the cats....well, sorry kitties.
Kris, that's really interesting. I had heard of those behaviors from both of those species before, but I never really thought about how the two divergent sets of behavior are both reflected in us, relatives of apes.
Amy Austin | March 9, 2006
I don't recall one single mention of snakes in this discussion, and I think I'm done here.
Michael Paul Cote | March 9, 2006
Hey, maybe those people that are attacking the homeless are mimicking actions they saw at a zoo in the monkey cages!
Anna Gregoline | March 9, 2006
"I don't recall one single mention of snakes in this discussion, and I think I'm done here."
And with this statement I'm reconsidering my decision to post on this board, if when I try to engage in a discussion this is the kind of reaction I get.
Scott Horowitz | March 9, 2006
Speaking of snakes..
(link)
Anna Gregoline | March 9, 2006
I. cannot. WAIT. for
SNAKES ON A PLANE!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Scott Horowitz | March 9, 2006
Holy crap, Anna, you've been back a day and you've made more posts than anyone has in a month.... Missed it, huh?
Anna Gregoline | March 9, 2006
I have?
Geez. This place IS dead. And it seems my attempt to enter a serious discussion gets me the cold shoulder, so all I've got is fluff. I miss the REAL TC, back in the very olden days, back when it began. Oh well.
I think it's just the Sopranos - I'm rabid to talk about it! Only three more days to get through and then we can watch....
Scott Horowitz | March 10, 2006
We still have good discussions on here. It's just missing a psycho who updates it every 10 minutes (just kidding).
Jackie Mason | March 10, 2006
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | March 10, 2006
All I'm saying is that while our behavior towards each other is certainly not always superior (I think we show both sides of the examples of apes pretty easily), our knowledge, compassion, depth of emotion, ability for logic and so on is more valuable than a kitty thinking, "Hmmm...maybe I'm hungry....I think I'll nap first."
Not that I don't think they have depths of emotion - they do. But I think the sum total of a human is indeed more worthy of saving than a cat, for example.
That said, the human race is a scourge upon our planet, which would be far better off without us. And it will deal with us in due time. In due time, my loves.
Kris Weberg | March 10, 2006
I think of human beings as an example of nature overcoming itself, as nature produced us and we're now destroying it.
But then, as a Marxist, I think of capitalism the same way.
Lori Lancaster | March 10, 2006
[hidden by request]
Amy Austin | March 10, 2006
Anna, that wasn't a "cold shoulder" reply... it was all I could muster instead of saying, "Well, of COURSE I'd save a human over a snake any day -- that's absurd!" And carrying on with statements that are likely to be far more disturbing to those here who don't agree with me (such as I'd likely save my dogs' lives before that of a complete stranger), which is apparently everyone but Jackie (and thanks, Jackie -- I did also catch the irony of that other discussion, too)... although Mike & John & Kris do appear rather neutral on it -- and that may just put me totally on my own now.
(POSSIBLE SPOILERS) The conversation was orginally about the merit of returning for the dogs in Eight Below... dogs that were abandoned due to weight constraints in conjunction with sudden weather evacuation. Obviously, this fact alone says that those involved valued human life first. Their handler -- the only one impassioned enough to make the return 6 MONTHS LATER -- originally wanted to stay with them to ensure a return pick-up for them, but he had frostbite in need of immediate medical attention. He was powerless to see to it that a second trip was made for the dogs, and this bothered him a great deal (as it would me, if I were in his position) -- after a lot of begging people who could make it happen but wouldn't, he was very unhappily resigned for a while. What I can't believe is that the scientist, whose life was also twice saved by these dogs after he fell through ice, was not equally impassioned to bring them home... and he had considerable power to do so (which he did ultimately use when his conscience -- or pride as his son's hero -- finally caught up with him).
In this situation, I don't see how people can NOT do anything to save the lives of animals. Every situation is different, of course, and I would fully expect each to be evaluated by the individual participants... I'm only saying that for MY part, I would make EVERY EFFORT to rescue animals, most especially my own. If I had to choose, well... that is something that I cannot foresee ever happening -- but then, neither did any of these folks that we speak of, I'm sure -- but I think it would also depend on who the people were and how much of a struggle was involved for them (vs. the animals). In other words, I would probably choose to help the weakest first, human *or* animal... but I don't think I would sacrifice my beloved dogs for just anybody -- sorry if that offends you. Here are some links about animals on the Titanic, and an excerpt that I think would have been my fate if I were that woman: (link) (link)
A survivor informs me that there was on the ship a lady who was taking out a huge great Dane dog. When the boats were rapidly filling she appeared on deck with her canine companion and sadly entreated that he should be taken off with her. It was impossible. Human lives, those of women and children, were the first consideration. She was urged to seize the opportunity to save her own life and leave the dog. She refused to desert him and, I understand, sacrificed her life with him.
And yet, many lifeboats were not even half full.
Anna Gregoline | March 10, 2006
What you said, was this: Once again, begging the question: "How are humans any better/more deserving than the rest of the animal kingdom?"
Which is why I replied what I did.
"but I don't think I would sacrifice my beloved dogs for just anybody -- sorry if that offends you."
It doesn't "offend" me. I can't imagine why it would. That's your own personal conviction and it doesn't affect me one way or the other.
I'm sorry for feeling this way, but you're coming off defensive for a post from me that wasn't criticizing you or trying to belittle your posts or anything. Relax, I'm not going for blood here. Simply entering the discussion.
"A survivor informs me that there was on the ship a lady who was taking out a huge great Dane dog. When the boats were rapidly filling she appeared on deck with her canine companion and sadly entreated that he should be taken off with her. It was impossible. Human lives, those of women and children, were the first consideration. She was urged to seize the opportunity to save her own life and leave the dog. She refused to desert him and, I understand, sacrificed her life with him."
And I would be heartbroken in the same situation, if I had to leave my cats. But no way would I go down with the ship if I had a chance to save my own life. There are people who would miss me far more than they would miss my animals. And I have quite a few more years I'd like to live - my cats won't even live another 10, most likely. I guess I'm looking at the situation in a more practical way, even though the memory of leaving my animals would indeed haunt me forever.
Just a difference of opinion, that's all.
Lori Lancaster | March 10, 2006
[hidden by request]
Lori Lancaster | March 10, 2006
[hidden by request]
Kris Weberg | March 10, 2006
Hey, I've been trying to convince people to settle disputes with casual sex for years. *rimshot*
As to "unorthodox pagans" --
Basically, an unorthodox pagan is one who does not subscribe to the specific tenets of any organized pagan religion. For example, Asatru, the revived worship of the Norse gods, has rituals and a clerisy and so on. Likewise, certain self-proclaimed practitioners of "magick" have elaborate rules and hierarchies, as did the early 20th century Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. If you aren't part of these orthodoxies, I suppose you'd be an unorthodox pagan.
Another way to think of it, perhaps:
Woe to him inside a nonconformist clique who does not conform with nonconformity
- Eric Hoffer
Lori Lancaster | March 10, 2006
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | March 10, 2006
Huh. I am an Unorthodox Pagan.
No, really.
Kris Weberg | March 14, 2006
Hey, Scott, about your eerie Survivor-related dream -- it's not just you:
(link)
"Mr. Gordon agreed with the suggestion that reality television might have influenced the ever-shortening lives of characters on scripted television. 'There is absolutely a 'Survivor'-fication of television at some level,' he said. 'All these shows, whether it's 'Survivor' or 'American Idol,' are always about somebody leaving the show. It's always about a symbolic death.'"
Scott Hardie | March 27, 2006
While conveniently ignoring the large discussion that flared up while I was recently preoccupied, I would like to mention that Eight Below has given me new appreciation for the backlash against gay movies, gay TV shows, etc that dot our media today. I'd be pretty damn sick of it too if I was routinely faced with entertainment options that flaunted values I strongly disagree with. I suppose the really great films can transcend our values, but for most of them, it's not about whether they're "good anyway," it's just about not wanting to see something that I believe is wrong.
Steve Dunn | March 27, 2006
Kris, in regard to bonobos you said, "They're capable of altruism and waht appears to be empathy."
Is that really true? I'm asking, not arguing. I don't claim to know the answer.
I just remember taking a sociobiology class in college (a rare but mandatory foray into the natural sciences that satisfied my degree requirements without having to take math) and learning basically that there was no such thing as altruism among animals. There is a lot of altruistic-seeming behavior, but ultimately all of it can be explained as a function of genetics (sometimes there is tit for tat favor-doing, but usually "altruistic" exchanges occurred most prevalently among related individuals, and could thus be explained as maximizing the perpetuation of the altrustic animal's DNA).
But I'm not really up to speed on bonobos. All I really know about them is that they have a lot of sex, including, I believe, homosexual sex.
I suppose if altruism existed anywhere, it would probably be in a primate species, so I'm open-minded to the idea that there is real altruism among the bonobos. Assuming, of course, that there is real altruism among humans. I don't remember what I ended up deciding about that, but thinking about it now, I think there probably is.
Anna Gregoline | March 27, 2006
Can you give an example of what you think is true altruistic behavior in humans? Because I'm having a tough time, myself. I've been pondering your post but I just don't know.
For example, a mother risking her life to save a child...well, that's selfless, but could also be attributed to instinct...
Lori Lancaster | March 27, 2006
[hidden by request]
Scott Hardie | March 27, 2006
Heh. Look up "altruism" on dictionary.com. (link) It offers two definitions: One for humans, then one for animals.
Jackie Mason | March 28, 2006
[hidden by request]
Kris Weberg | March 28, 2006
The funny thing about the "animals/instinct/reproductive" version of altruism is that it derives largely from ethology, and most ethologists would argue that human beings are animals. Conversely, there are scientists who have argued that bonobos and chimpanzees deserve more rights than other animals precisely because they display near-human cognitive capacity and affective range.
Steve Dunn | March 28, 2006
Can you give an example of what you think is true altruistic behavior in humans? Because I'm having a tough time, myself. I've been pondering your post but I just don't know.
How about a soldier who throws himself on top of a grenade to save his buddies? That's the sort of thing I had in mind. Kamikaze pilots or suicide bombers may fall into the same category. Being voluntarily celibate for religious reasons (such as a priest, monk, or nun) might be another example. Maybe police and firefighters who risk their lives to save others.
Whether you're sacrificing your life or refraining from procreation, you forego the opportunity to pass along your genes in favor of a greater good.
I understand that humans are animals, but humans are apparently unique in having culture that is passed down through generations. This includes conceptions of right and wrong, and greater good, that seem to permit genuine altruism in the human population.
It might be explained as a response to a human desire to pass along some "cultural DNA," for example to be remembered as a hero or a persion of special virtue. Reagrdless, this sort of thing does not seem to exist in the non-human animal population, where apparently altruistic behaviors can be explained almost mathematically as a function of genetics (ie, a turkey will behave altruistically 50% to a full sibling, 25% of the time to a half sibling, etc) or as a favor done with an expectation it will be returned.
In Googling around a bit, it is immediately apparent that people use different definitions of altruism in different contexts. This page (link) suggests that bonobos do not exhibit kin altruism (help your relatives) or reciprocal altruism (tit for tat). But this blog (link) cites studies that refer to "helpfulness" as altruism. This article (link) touches on the same issues and briefly discusses bonobos.
Aaron Shurtleff | March 28, 2006
Not to muddy the issue any, but if someone, to use the example, threw himself on a grenade to save his buddies, and he was thinking that he would be remembered as a hero, how can that be selfless? That's the type of argument I have heard most often as to why altruism doesn't exist in humans: no one is entirely selfless. I don't have the speed of mind that some do, so I'm really just looking for the quicker of mind to show me a good response to this. :)
I think I agree with the idea that there are no truly 100% selfless acts...or at least I can't come up with any. But I don't think you should have to be held to such a rigid standard to prove altruism.
Steve Dunn | March 28, 2006
Not to muddy the issue any, but if someone, to use the example, threw himself on a grenade to save his buddies, and he was thinking that he would be remembered as a hero, how can that be selfless?
Good question. It would be altrusitic in the sense that the guy could not reproduce, or, pass along his DNA to another generation. Reproduction is supposedly the #1 goal of non-human animals, and the existence of human altruism (defined this way) is one of the best arguments that there is something unique about humans. Be it our brains or something else, humans are apparently able to separate ourselves from (or if you prefer, transcend) the fundamental pressures that drive all other biological interactions (including plants), the pressure to survive and reproduce, the law of the jungle.
Humans are able to conceive abstractions, or, ideas that are absent from or contradictory to what we observe in the physical world. This allows us to greatly expand our understanding of the universe (essentially the power of imagination, the ability to conceive beyond the inputs of the five senses) and it also expands our capacity for self delusion (we can imagine falsehoods about the universe as well as truths).
Assuming that animals do not share this ability (which I think is true, but I am not 100% sure), an animal would not be able to conceive of grenade jumping as a selfish act. You don't see animals "taking one for the team." There are behaviors that look like it, but as I understand it, they have all been explained as reciprocal or kin-based altruism, both of which serve the interest of passing along the "altruistic" individual's DNA.
Anna Gregoline | March 28, 2006
I don't think that animals can have truly altruistic behavior, after thinking about it, and I think humans who display truly altruistic behavior are probably very, very rare.
Kris Weberg | March 28, 2006
Of course, the counter-argument about the soldier throwing himself on the grenade is that the soldier has simply transferred his instincts to preserve his genes by saving his offspring to the abstraction of his unit or his nation, both of which are often discussed in the metaphors of the biological family toward which the loyalty and sacrifices of animal "altriusm" are generally directed.
How is that different than a dog more loyal to members of another species -- humans -- than to other dogs; or, conversely, from a dolphin that, as has been recorded, helps a human swim to shore or a bonobo that feeds a stranger bonobo not related to itself?
Anna Gregoline | March 28, 2006
A dolphin helping a drowning human - that one seems like a natural behavior to me in some aspects - because after giving birth, dolphins help the baby to the surface to breathe for the first time. So I feel like they understand the "Can't breathe, struggling in the water" thing that humans would be doing and they offer assistance.
Obviously, most animals would not even recognize the danger to another creature, so there is a certain amount of intelligence there - a "something's going on" sense. But I think it's more related to a mothering kind of genetics than to truly altruistic behavior.
Steve Dunn | March 29, 2006
Kris, I don't consider that a counter-argument. I consider it confirmation of the difference between humans and animals. Humans deal in abstractions. Animals don't. If animals did deal in abstractions, we might expect to see lots of genuinely altruistic behaviors. It follows that culture permits altruism, and culture is uniquely human.
None of the other examples you listed (dog, dolphin, bonobo) involves sacrificing the opportunity to pass on DNA, thus is not altruism in the narrow sense I'm discussing it.
Anna Gregoline | March 29, 2006
I guess I'm not following the exact argument, Steve (I'm not trying to be dense, I'm honestly not!). I, for example, have chosen to live my life without ever reproducing - would it follow that I would be incapable of your definition of altruistic behavior because I would never be able to "sacrifice my genes" so to speak? I'm not trying to make it personal or weird here or anything, I'm just trying to understand the argument here (It's been a while for intellectual pursuits for me, this is a welcome change, believe me!)
Kris Weberg | March 29, 2006
Steve -- Except that bonobos and chimps have demonstrated other skills coeval with abstract reasoning, including the ability to learn new skills, use simple tools, and even the employment of sign language. Bonobos have even learned to use a keyboard to communicate with one another via "lexigrams" and to respond to spoken English at comparatively sophisticated levels.
Other ape species do similar things -- a gorilla called Michael actually managed to take on a pet dog, and eventually was able to paina crude picture of one. I'd say the capacity to understand and produce representations of real things would require what we commonly call abstract reasoning.
At what point is there clear proof that a species can deal in abstractions?
More to the point, what qualifies the human example of the grenade as an actual abstraction rather than a simple transferrence of non-abstract instinctual activity caused by a general environmental/social pressure?
Cognitive neuroscience seems to indicate that the human mind is material, and thus reliant entirely on empirical -- that is to say, physical -- information in the form of bodily senses and sensations. Guys like linguist George Lakoff, using philological analysis and neural networks, believe they can demonstrate that humans don't abstract in a special sense, but are simply more sophisticated at deploying what are essentially physicalist meanings to achieve more complex -- but not irreducibly complex and abstract -- ends.
That said, there are certainly innumerable cases of dogs dying to protect their owners, and I found the famous case of Jambo, a gorilla at the Jersey Zoo, who, in 1986, stood guard over an unconscious human child that had fallen into his enclosure even as the other gorillas in the pen reacted aggressively; Jambo actually put himself between the apes and the child. Another gorilla, Binti Jua, presents a more ambiguous case, as there was apparently some training prior to a very similar incident.
And dolphins have been observed to learn techniques that do not appear genetic, but solely learned by a process not far from very simple cultural transmission -- one of the more notable examples being the members of Australian dolphin pod that learned from one of the females to carry a bit of sea sponge in the mouth as a protective bit of padding when hunting on the seabed.
The question, to my mind, is one about what the line between abstraction and non-abstraction is, and how one can draw the line without direct access to the mind of the creature being analyzed.
Anna -- Perhaps true, but then, one has to wonder why humans have bred and overwhelmingly pet species whose facial proportions are close to those of human infants, especially when we consider that, absent the belief in an affective response from the pet, we are effectively sacrificing resources to the pet for no apparent reason.
Anna Gregoline | March 29, 2006
Kris, I don't understand the point you made to me - the last paragraph. Not sure what you're responding to. Also, humans of course get something from pets - there are plenty of apparent reasons - dogs, especially, which were all bred for different purposes.
Dogs can't count in the altruistic behavior - I really don't think so. Because I do not believe that dogs have enough reasoning skills to KNOW that they are risking their lives - they can get danger, but I don't think they get *death* or the possible consequences of defending someone. They are moving on instinct alone - protect one of the pack.
I'm not sure what dolphins being able to learn useful tasks has to do with altruistic behavior...or even with abstractions.
Aaron Shurtleff | March 29, 2006
My next question: Why are we picking on animals, altruistically speaking? For example, in ants, it's widely known that all of the individual worker ants are, in the end, increasing the likelihood of their own genes getting passed on by supporting the queen instead of reproducing themselves (I think, if I recall correctly, that a worker reproducing would have offspring with 50% of their genetic make-up similar, but the queen ant's offspring would be 75% identical). Why can't that decision be called altruistic? Ants (as far as I know) don't "know" that not reproducing is better in the long run for their genetic make-up (although what if ants are that well versed in inheritance and genetics?). The decision of your average worker ant to support the queen instead of reproducing herself, on the surface, would seem altruistic, but since the worker does get an advantage (since offspring 75% identical is better than 50%), it's to the worker ant's advantage, and thus it is not truly altruistic. The worker ant on one hand passes on a chance to personally pass on its DNA, but she gains the benefits of doing so (with interest, so to speak) by supporting the queen.
I feel like I rambled, so I hope that all makes sense.
What about boxer crabs? They are these little crabs that pick up anemones in their claws and swing them at other to defend themselves. I don't think that is a genetically based trait, so it might be similar to the dolphin example in Kris' post above (not that he needs my help to defend his position!). I don't have the whole story behind it, so I'm kind of just throwing it out there, since it's not a "higher animal" like primates or dolphins. And I don't think it's exactly the same, but it is interesting! :)
Kris Weberg | March 30, 2006
Anna, I was trying to respond to your "baby dolphin" example by pointing to the infantilization of pets via breeding as an analogous "Is it instinct, or conscious design?" with humans.
I guess the question I keep asking, in obscure ways, I guess, is just how we know what abstract reasoning looks like from the outside, or at least how we can pretend to know whether a dog understands death or a dolphin understands that the human it's helping isn't a baby dolphin.
The problem is that human beings get to set the standards, and the only kind of minds we can use for the purposes of measuring things are human minds. Likewise, we rely on language that's arguably biologically determined by our vocal apparatuses and brain structures; and we're not even consistent on that. Few would argue that a victim of Broca's and Warnicke's aphasia is not longer of human intelligence, or at least next to nobody, despite those impairments constituting a loss of language, for instance. But language seems to be one of three key tests used in arguments about animal intelligence. (Another is the mirror test of self-awareness, which both chimpanzees and dolphins have arguably passed.)
But imagine trying to prove human intelligence to an alien race with radically different communicative methods and body shapes: how much of what you do physically, vocally, even, to some extent, behaviorally, would be recognizeable to a sufficiently different intelligent species?
What's the test that actually works?
Anna Gregoline | March 30, 2006
"Anna, I was trying to respond to your "baby dolphin" example by pointing to the infantilization of pets via breeding as an analogous "Is it instinct, or conscious design?" with humans."
I'm sorry, but I still don't get your point. Dolphins helping their babies to the surface of the water after they are born, because they know they need to breathe, is a conscious decision? I imagine it is - but driven by instinct. I don't understand the connection you're trying to make to humans breeding animals. Am I the only one lost on this point?
I'm pretty sure that a dolphin can recognize others of it's species and knows that a human isn't one of them! That doesn't mean it can't recognize that someone needs help to breathe in the same way an injured or just-born dolphin would look.
"But language seems to be one of three key tests used in arguments about animal intelligence."
I want to comment on this - because it usually is a key component to language and understanding and whatnot when we talk about animal intelligence. I'm not pissed off at you, Kris, but I do feel a kind of anger when this "language" thing is brought up - because a lot of science will say that our intelligence is proven superior because of our language skills - ignoring that ALL animals have language - just because we cannot *understand* that language does not mean it isn't there, that it isn't significant, that it isn't a sign of intelligence and sometimes emotional depth.
I know there are a lot of researches for every animal out there trying to learn their communication skills and style, and even more out there probably trying to communicate with animals directly. But whenever I hear that humans are the only animals to use language (I know that's not what you said), I get a little mad.
I wish so fervently that I could be inside the mind or even just the eyes and senses of an animal - I would love to be able to understand how even the common housecat thinks, senses and feels.
Steve Dunn | March 30, 2006
Lots of good points Kris, and the things you mentioned partially explain why I don't have a hard-line position on these matters. (Those things, plus my lack of expertise). Nonetheless, I assume you would agree that the behaviors you identified as possible evidence for abstract reasoning are rare, anecdotal, and almost entirely limited to close primate relatives of humans. Thus, while I would agree that if we look really hard, we can find a few examples of behaviors that might show abstract reasoning in a few species, the general observation that "humans deal in abstractions and animals don't" is sound.
Anna, your choice not to have children is exactly the sort of choice that, if the "selfish gene" theory is true, it would never occur to an animal to make. Part of the reason we are miscommunicating is that "altruism" is used different ways in different contexts. I'm talking about "sacrificing one's abiltiy to pass on DNA" while the word is also commonly used to mean "niceness" or "generosity."
Speaking generally, altruism means voluntary sacrifice. Hence those late-night dorm debates about whether someone who volunteers at the soup kitchen is really being "selfless" or rather obtains the psychic reward that goes with conceiving of oneself as a good person. Everyone knows the person who likes to be a martyr.
As I use the term Anna, you most assuredly CAN be altruistic. My thesis (not strongly held) is that your capacity for altruism is uniquely human. Your decision to remain childless might be (but is not necessarily) proof of your altruism in the dry biological sense. If the decision is based on your desire not to overpopulate the planet, for example, you are sacrificing your own reproductive ability for the good of others. If it's just because you don't want the hassle of raising a child, that's not necessarily altruistic (because it's not benefitting anyone else) but it still demonstrates your human ability to think beyond the reproductive pressure exerted on you by your DNA. My thesis (not strongly held) is that it would never occur to any animal that reproduction is not worth the hassle.
Anna Gregoline | March 30, 2006
Thanks for clarifying, Steve, I understand what you're saying a lot better now. This is a very interesting conversation!
My main desire for not having kids is that I have too much else I want to accomplish! I feel that children would put a serious dent in these plans, and rightfully so. I also feel I do not have the emotional resources to be able to deal with the stressors of parenthood. Overpopulation is a concern, but it's not one of my main reasons (although my sister and brother-in-law adopted my niece from China, which fantastic results - she's awesome! I think if we ever went crazy and changed our minds we would adopt, as I'm not up for pregnancy either).
Kris Weberg | March 30, 2006
Yeah, i think we've hit a nice point of equilibrium in our argument -- I'm not so much a fierce advocate of the notion that primates and cetaceans are of human intelligence so much as I am, like ou, Steve, unwilling to take a hardline stance on the issues. I would argue, though, that we ought err on the side of generosity in terms of the way such animals are treated.
I don', as a practical example, t oppose vital medical testing on many animal species; yes, I oppose the testing of inessentials like the average bathroom/toilette product on animals, especially considering what forms those tests take.
Anna Gregoline | March 30, 2006
I don't know what to believe about medical tests on animals - I've read a great deal of material that suggests it's a waste of time for a lot of things, especially medications. There was one recently that they tested on animals with no problems, yet it made the human test subjects heads swell up so much some of them died? That sounds psycho, but I swear it's true.
I know there is a great deal of important research out there that needs to be tested - and animals are probably the best bet. Yet it pains me to think of so many animals enduring that for little reason or helpfulness to human study.
But frankly, I don't see it as the most pressing issue. I wish our government respected human life a great deal more than it does now, before we can start on animal life.
Amy Austin | March 31, 2006
You might find it interesting to know, Anna, that your views on child-bearing/reproducing are nearly identical to mine... and I only qualify with "nearly" because my reasons are all exactly the same, just not prioritized in any particular order -- but I am 100% in agreement with you on that topic.
Denise Sawicki | March 31, 2006
Mee to (on kids) except, I'm not sure I have so much else I want to accomplish... Staying alive seems accomplishment enough!
Jackie Mason | April 1, 2006
[hidden by request]
Amy Austin | April 1, 2006
I hear you, Jackie... right now (considering my current status in life... still unemployed and childless), it's also more about places, too -- it even looks like I may just be getting that chance after all to see Alaska very soon (link) It's too early to say this for sure, and it isn't something that I can discuss at length... but if I should drop out of sight for a while, don't be too surprised.
Scott Hardie | April 4, 2006
I love your idea for flyers, Jackie. :-)
Jackie Mason | April 18, 2006
[hidden by request]
Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.
Scott Hardie | February 8, 2006
How come is it when I saw Brokeback Mountain tonight, there were trailers for (link) and (link) ? Is that supposed to be targeted marketing, that because I'm seeing a movie about gay men I must hate the Vatican and be interested in the AntiChrist?
Then again, I also saw Good Night, and Good Luck., which inexplicably featured trailers for (link) and (link) and (link) – all godawful-looking children's movies, as though there is any other kind lately.
Sorry, animal lovers: The maudlin trailer for Eight Below makes me want to vomit. (link) A troop of "heroic" dogs is left behind during an Antarctic snowstorm, so the scientists sacrifice their mission and risk their lives to mount a rescue effort? They're goddamn dogs. Oy. I'm sure next summer there will be some movie about how the entire U.S. military presence in Iraq must set aside its mission to rescue a noble pack of camels stuck in a sandstorm.
</rant>
On the other hand, if you're not sick of Bush parodies by now, American Dreamz looks pretty damn good. (link)