Dick Long Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 My dog is able to fetch me beer out of the fridge. My cat licks my marinating steak. My dog has never cost me money with the vet. My cat had kidney stones removed on Christmas Day. My dog goes for walks with me. My cat kills birds and hides them in the house. As much as I love the cat, the dog is the favorite child of mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaNuCkSLoUiE23 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 My cat scared a dog off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucklehead Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Just watched Hatchi: A dogs tale. Whew - haven't had that many tears since Spock died. http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Hachi_A_Dog_s_Tale/70118677?trkid=1889703 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gran Turismo Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 slippery slope? isn't that a logical fallacy? i don't remember, it's been so long since my first university class if a dog perceives you as a god, does that perception mean anything if you're not there to experience the fruits of that perception? can humans talk about how animals perceive their owners without putting themselves in the equation? if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? red pill or blue pill cat or dog idk ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted June 24, 2012 Author Share Posted June 24, 2012 Simple answer, yes. How else do you think observers or researchers are able to gather naturally ocurring data through observation? It requires them to remain outside of the equation, yet their subjects' opinions, mannerisms, and perceptions are still valuable and meaningful to the researcher/observer even if they don't experience it first hand. If they were inside the equation, they'd be interviewers or participant observers who gather generated data, which is entirely different. And yes, when a tree falls down and no one's around, it still makes a sound. The laws of physics says so. Just because an ostritch sticks its head into the ground, doesn't mean its predator is suddenly non-existent. Just because my boss is not currently in my line of sight doesn't mean he does not exist at this moment. So yes, there is meaning to facets of life (such as perceptions) even if you do not experience it first hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gran Turismo Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 the equation itself requires human perception regardless of who is studying it or observing it and lol @ "dog treats you like god!" being "naturally occurring data" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gran Turismo Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 edit: wrong post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 When was the last time a rescue cat saved a person's life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpcurtly Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 When was the last time a rescue cat saved a person's life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted June 24, 2012 Author Share Posted June 24, 2012 No, the equation you refer to requires interaction. What you refer to as human perception revolves around analysis, which is in and of itself independent and inferred from data collection. I just proved that to you the answer to the tree falling in the forest example is yes, therefore the answer to your initial question of "can humans talk about how animals perceive their owners without putting themselves in the equation?" is also yes. Meaning you do NOT have to have interaction to have perception. Look up existentialism under a philosophy textbook. Look up a research methods textbook while you're at it. Coming around full circle, just because a dog thinks something of you doesn't mean that you will think in that exact same manner. Just to clarify, I've never even owned a pet, but have had expereiences with friends' and cousins' pets. My original comment was a bit of a joke and what I thought was in good taste, but I guess a cat owner with delicate sensibilities such as yourself took that comment like a **** up the butt. No offense to cat owners in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gran Turismo Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 oh my god existentialism died out with the french beret in 1965, and saying "look it up in the textbook" is so vague and ridiculous, while also suggesting existentialism is somehow a correct or authoritative way of living or thinking, instead of just some silly pop-philosophy trend. what am i supposed to look up? what beckett thought of perception? point me in the right direction I don't even understand what you're saying anymore. yes, a person can 'witness' the equation without being in it, and analyze it, but that's not what i'm saying or arguing against. i'm saying SOMEONE (analyst or not) needs to be interacting with the animal, especially in the stupid 'equation' you provided: "A DOG THINKS A HUMAN IS GOD." That 'equation'--joke or not--requires 1) a human, projection, c) anthropomorphism. that shouldn't even be up for debate, so i'm assuming there was a miscommunication somewhere. this is not "naturally occuring data," these are human emotional projections onto a stupid animal and i didn't touch that tree/forest/sound thing at all, but just curious, how do the laws of physics prove that a tree makes sound, even without someone perceiving the sound? the "does a tree make a sound" thing isn't in line with "if i stick my head in the ground, will my enemy disappear" example at all, because it's (to speak crudely) a two way street. but from an empiricist standpoint, the ostrich in that case can't prove his enemy is near, let alone that his enemy even exists, until sensory reception plays a part, in which case it's probably too late for our poor ostrich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 You all being trolled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niloc009 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Hitler had a dog? So what. Hitler is a cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuck-Shot Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 About cats thinking their god and dogs thinking your god... Good point. Dog owners are so insecure, they need blank canvas, dumb animals to help inflate their sense of purpose and value You're trying to fault a cat for "feeling" the same way a human, apparently, feels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lillooet_Hillbilly Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 why are dogs better? aint no one made a song about a stupid cat http://youtu.be/vgsnNKQvAhw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 why are dogs better? aint no one made a song about a stupid cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 My Opinion: Dogs>Pigs>Horses>>>>>>>Cats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rampage Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 dogs>hamster>rocks>cats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conscience Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Disabled people generally use labs, because they are overgrown sensitive cats And for every dog that saves a person, 150 more attack a person, or bite a baby Nice try Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.