• naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is a pretty strange stance to argue. As far as I can see you’re saying:

    1. we can’t know another animal’s emotional state
    2. some humans rarely have abnormalities in how they feel emotions
    3. from 1 and 2 it is possible that emotional capacity is not universal in animals
    4. from 3 it is unlikely non human animals are comparable to human animals in emotional capacity

    I just don’t see how you get from 3 to 4. It would seem to me given how similar humans are to at least other mammals, specifically in the neural structures we believe to be where emotions arise and in the behaviours we believe to be emotionally driven, we should strongly suspect they have emotions highly comparable to us and not the reverse.

    Why would the default assumption be they don’t?

      • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I postulate that there comes a point where language is required to achieve a higher state of emotion.

        Right, just so we’re clear you’re making shit up and clothing it in the language of science.

        I am not banning you yet because I’m not sure you quite understand what you just implied but it’s hard not to read this as a claim that humans with different capacities for language don’t reach your enlightened heights of emotional complexity.

        That is a very dangerous attitude which has been used to justify absolutely horrendous stuff.

        Do you uh, wanna backpedal from that claim?

      • mathemachristian[he]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I postulate that there comes a point where language is required to achieve a higher state of emotion.

        Ah finally! A justification to eat my own child! Thank you kind stranger!