Intelligent mute animals?
Peter Knutsen
(permanently) quite often, but not always given the ability to speak,
traditions for communication will evolve.
Humans temporarily (or permanently) shapechanged into animal form may
also try to use those traditions, as may non-intelligent animals who
want to fake intelligence (usually in hope of getting food or attention,
or due to general confusion).
One I've come up with is dogs sort of squeezzing their lips together and
blowing out air, to make a kind of farting sound, used to express
contempt (e.g. contempt for a human's feeble illusion spells that are so
obviously fake, neither smelling right nor sounding right). Except, can
dogs actually do that? I mean physiologically...
What about cats? I know they don't like to walk long distances, but if
they like a particular human, or want to get to some place (or, although
I imagine this is rare, if they want to pretend to like a particular
human) they might utilize some kind of pick-me-up signal. What could
that be?
Normal dogs have a "I want to play"-stance that they use with humans (I
don't know if they use it amongst themselves too), that involves
lowering the front end of the body. That's a fairly "loud" kind of body
language, but I find it hard to imagine that cats would adopt a dog-like
body gesture. Especially sentient cats. Yet it has to be obvious enough
for us silly and inattentive humans to notice it, and notice it
consistently (because I don't think intelligent cats enjoy being ignored
or overlooked, when they try to communicate).
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
James A. Donald
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> I'm sure that in an area where animals are rendered intelligent
> (permanently) quite often, but not always given the ability to speak,
> traditions for communication will evolve.
>
> Humans temporarily (or permanently) shapechanged into animal form may
> also try to use those traditions, as may non-intelligent animals who
> want to fake intelligence (usually in hope of getting food or attention,
> or due to general confusion).
>
> One I've come up with is dogs sort of squeezzing their lips together and
> blowing out air, to make a kind of farting sound, used to express
> contempt (e.g. contempt for a human's feeble illusion spells that are so
> obviously fake, neither smelling right nor sounding right). Except, can
> dogs actually do that? I mean physiologically...
Dogs cannot make that sound. Dog sounds are very limited. They can,
however, sneer. It is a different sort of snarl.
You never see this vocalization and body language directed against
humans, but you do see it directed against other dogs, typically small
yappy dogs, the implication (easily readable by a human) being "I am
not going to fight you because you are too insignificant and I have
better things to do"
> What about cats? I know they don't like to walk long distances, but if
> they like a particular human, or want to get to some place (or, although
> I imagine this is rare, if they want to pretend to like a particular
> human) they might utilize some kind of pick-me-up signal. What could
> that be?
Cats can make a variety of word like vocalizations, and have a lot of
body language in their tails, but the meaning is hard for humans to
read, and cats are not as good as dogs at reading human vocalizations
or posture. Presumably sentient cats would be better at it.
Jacey Bedford
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> writes
>Normal dogs have a "I want to play"-stance that they use with humans (I
>don't know if they use it amongst themselves too), that involves
>lowering the front end of the body. That's a fairly "loud" kind of body
>language, but I find it hard to imagine that cats would adopt a
>dog-like body gesture.
We once ended up with a young Charolais bull in our back garden. He'd
managed to walk out of the farmyard next door. He was only 2 years old
and had been left to get acquainted with a heifer but had got bored and
wandered off. We called the farmer who walked up to him, cuffed him
gently round the earhole and told him in no uncertain terms he was a bad
boy. And then the bull did exactly that... Lowered the front end of his
body and jumped from side to side to invite a game. It was early spring
and the ground was wet from snowmelt and the holes in our lawn where his
hooves landed were nearly a foot deep. Needless to say the farmer
declined to play and towed him off back to the farmyard pretty sharpish.
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
Ben Crowell
> What about cats? I know they don't like to walk long distances, but if
> they like a particular human, or want to get to some place (or, although
> I imagine this is rare, if they want to pretend to like a particular
> human) they might utilize some kind of pick-me-up signal. What could
> that be?
What I want is for cats to be genetically engineered so that they can
understand what *I* say. E.g., "If you keep on climbing the curtains,
you will be stew tomorrow."
Dorothy J Heydt
No, no, not stew. Carnivores don't taste good. Gloves, maybe:
that's what my daughter threatens her cats with.
And there was a story online the other day about a cat in
Australia who somehow got transported into the outback and made
its way back to the coast. Took it three years; but it did walk
a long distance.
And there have been rare instances of cats who will speak a
phrase or two, on the order of "I love you" and "Feed me."
I think it's simply that most cats don't WANT to take the trouble
to talk. Motivate them somehow, and we might get more cat
utterances. They can't pronounce most human-style consonants,
but they ought to be able to handle vowels tolerably, so that the
humans could understand a few fixed phrases. A tonal language
like Chinese might work even better.
On the other paw, I have a grandson pushing two years, who isn't
quite talking yet. He understands a lot, though, and one of
these days he's going to start talking, and then we will spend
the next several years trying to persuade him to be quiet. Let
us think, while we are at it, about whether we really *want*
talking cats.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
David Friedman
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> On the other paw, I have a grandson pushing two years, who isn't
> quite talking yet. He understands a lot, though, and one of
> these days he's going to start talking, and then we will spend
> the next several years trying to persuade him to be quiet. Let
> us think, while we are at it, about whether we really *want*
> talking cats.
My mother used to say that when she got married she lost half her
conversation, and when I learned to talk she lost the other half.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_
Ric Locke
I recall a story, not too long ago, in which genetic(magic?) engineers
had produced cats with opposable thumbs. Horrific notion (and I like
cats; we have lots of them.) They're good at batting. If they could
grip, it'd be disastrous.
We've had several cats that could talk -- horrid accent, limited
vocabulary, and no syntax at all, but understandable words: "Out",
"Food", and similar concepts, and one tomcat who would, upon being given
some delectable morsel, look directly at you and say "tangk" before
diving in. Cats do sibilants at the back of the throat, and can't do
labials at all -- "n", "k", and "t", but not "m" or "p", and "s" doesn't
really work -- so they'll never be orators. In English, anyway.
The story "Into Your Tent I'll Creep" had to be about dogs. Cats
wouldn't want to rule the world -- it'd be 'way too much work and cut
into naptime.
Regards,
Ric
Eric Ammadon
>What about cats? I know they don't like to walk long distances, but if
>they like a particular human, or want to get to some place (or, although
>I imagine this is rare, if they want to pretend to like a particular
>human) they might utilize some kind of pick-me-up signal. What could
>that be?
If a cat wants picked up it will (a) rub against your leg, then (b)
allow you to pick it up rather than clawing you for an attempted
indignity.
If you do something a cat finds extremely offensive, it will turn
away, then dig with its rear feet, as if covering up scat. The
implied insult is surprisingly obvious.
--
arggh, is it priate day again?
Eric Ammadon
It's a matter of wall-training, Ben. When a cat does something
distateful, pick it up by the scruff of its neck (thus insultingly
calling it a child) and throw it against the nearest wall with intent
to kill. Eventually one of you will get the idea and the problem will
be no more.
[Disclaimer: I do not "own" a cat, and have not for over 2 decades
been owned by one, we understand each other well enough that neither
can abide the other.]
Suzanne Blom
"Ben Crowell" <crow...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote in message
news:00b3d3bb$0$17156$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
But, if they're that smart, they'll also be able to figure out that you
don't Really mean it.
Suzanne Blom
"Peter Knutsen" <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:4b37d34e$0$278$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> I'm sure that in an area where animals are rendered intelligent
> (permanently) quite often, but not always given the ability to speak,
> traditions for communication will evolve.
>
> Humans temporarily (or permanently) shapechanged into animal form may also
> try to use those traditions, as may non-intelligent animals who want to
> fake intelligence (usually in hope of getting food or attention, or due to
> general confusion).
>
> One I've come up with is dogs sort of squeezzing their lips together and
> blowing out air, to make a kind of farting sound, used to express contempt
> (e.g. contempt for a human's feeble illusion spells that are so obviously
> fake, neither smelling right nor sounding right). Except, can dogs
> actually do that? I mean physiologically...
>
was a child, he and his siblings would manipulate the dog's mouth to make
speech sounds.--Not quite what you're asking for I know.
> What about cats? I know they don't like to walk long distances, but if
> they like a particular human, or want to get to some place (or, although I
> imagine this is rare, if they want to pretend to like a particular human)
> they might utilize some kind of pick-me-up signal. What could that be?
>
They already have that. It has a sound like a baby's cry embedded in it.
Try google for this; it was just figured out in '09.
> Normal dogs have a "I want to play"-stance that they use with humans (I
> don't know if they use it amongst themselves too), that involves lowering
> the front end of the body.
I believe many mammals use it among themselves.
That's a fairly "loud" kind of body
> language, but I find it hard to imagine that cats would adopt a dog-like
> body gesture. Especially sentient cats. Yet it has to be obvious enough
> for us silly and inattentive humans to notice it, and notice it
> consistently (because I don't think intelligent cats enjoy being ignored
> or overlooked, when they try to communicate).
>
They might well be able to convince themselves that they weren't behaving in
an immature fashion, they were simply using their cunning to manipulate
human behavior.
Gerry Quinn
> In article <00b3d3bb$0$17156$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Ben Crowell <crow...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote:
> >What I want is for cats to be genetically engineered so that they can
> >understand what *I* say. E.g., "If you keep on climbing the curtains,
> >you will be stew tomorrow."
> No, no, not stew. Carnivores don't taste good.
Do we know that, or do we just not usually eat land carnivores because
they are expensive to feed?
We eat lobsters and frogs; I understand snakes are eaten in some
places.
- Gerry Quinn
Ben Crowell
I hear that dog is very tasty. Haven't tried it myself.
Eric Ammadon
I recommend the little yappy ones. (I've not tasted them, but I
dislike those and would prefer they be taste-tested to extinction.)
Drak Bibliophile
naturally) is that it would depend on how social the animals are.
Animals that only associate with others of their species for mating (or
short term child raising) will have only limited communicative abilities.
Pack or Herd beings would develop complex communications. Even
'unintelligent' animals of this type have communications more complex
communications than solitary 'unintelligent' animals.
As for communicating with 'humans' or other intelligent species, IMO it is
unlikely that Species A could 'speak' Species B's language.
However, Species A might learn to understand what Species B is saying and
the same for Species B understanding what Species A is saying.
It would depend on what level of association the two species had.
I had an idea (but never used) for a Tool-Making Species becoming associated
with another Species of their home-world.
The second Species had an ecological role similar to Earth Wolves.
They began to associate when hunting large animals and the relationship
lasted even after the Tool-Makers developed very high technology.
In my idea, the Tool-Makers never 'spoke' the languages of the 'Four-Legged
Brothers' and the 'Four-Legged Brothers' never 'spoke' the languages of the
Tool-Makers, but both learned to understand the other's languages.
--
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile), AIM id DrakeBookLover
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins! [Polite Dragon Smile]
*
"Peter Knutsen" <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:4b37d34e$0$278$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
Peter Knutsen
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:36:22 +0100, Peter Knutsen
>> One I've come up with is dogs sort of squeezzing their lips together and
>> blowing out air, to make a kind of farting sound, used to express
>> contempt (e.g. contempt for a human's feeble illusion spells that are so
>> obviously fake, neither smelling right nor sounding right). Except, can
>> dogs actually do that? I mean physiologically...
>
> Dogs cannot make that sound. Dog sounds are very limited. They can,
> however, sneer. It is a different sort of snarl.
Good thing I asked, then.
> You never see this vocalization and body language directed against
> humans, but you do see it directed against other dogs, typically small
> yappy dogs, the implication (easily readable by a human) being "I am
I don't think I've ever seen (heard) that. How different is it from a snarl?
> not going to fight you because you are too insignificant and I have
> better things to do"
So it's an indication of superiority, and since dogs are smaller than
humans, they don't use it against us? What about a very large dog vs a
very small human, e.g. a teenaged girl? The dog still wouldn't use its
"sneer" sound then?
>> What about cats? I know they don't like to walk long distances, but if
>> they like a particular human, or want to get to some place (or, although
>> I imagine this is rare, if they want to pretend to like a particular
>> human) they might utilize some kind of pick-me-up signal. What could
>> that be?
>
> Cats can make a variety of word like vocalizations, and have a lot of
> body language in their tails, but the meaning is hard for humans to
> read, and cats are not as good as dogs at reading human vocalizations
> or posture. Presumably sentient cats would be better at it.
Those sentient cats that care, anyway.
They're rather more able to catch their own food than dogs are, being
allowed to live in various communities as mousers (cats in general, not
sentient cats specifically) although the level of abuse (thrown stones
and so forth), from children and from (often superstitious) adult
ailurophobes, varies by culture, and sometimes from place to place
within the same culture.
Obviously some cats are also kept as familiars by magic users; these may
have been made more intelligent (to varying degrees) and sometimes given
the ability to speak (or, in odd cases, given the ability to speak
without being made more intelligent at all, although I have no idea
precisely what that would be like). Apart from that, I'm a bit sceptical
of cats-as-pets in a medieval context.
I imagine that making a cat intelligent will tend to make it more
curious and interested in learning and experiencing new things, and in
having more kinds of fun and perhaps more sophisticated kinds of fun, in
addition to all the usual cat needs such as good food (do cats actually
really like fish, or is that a cartoon convention?) and being left alone
while napping. It will not, however, in all cases make the cat
particularly interested in humans.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> We once ended up with a young Charolais bull in our back garden. He'd
> managed to walk out of the farmyard next door. He was only 2 years old
> and had been left to get acquainted with a heifer but had got bored and
> wandered off. We called the farmer who walked up to him, cuffed him
She wasn't his type?
> gently round the earhole and told him in no uncertain terms he was a bad
> boy. And then the bull did exactly that... Lowered the front end of his
> body and jumped from side to side to invite a game. It was early spring
> and the ground was wet from snowmelt and the holes in our lawn where his
> hooves landed were nearly a foot deep. Needless to say the farmer
> declined to play and towed him off back to the farmyard pretty sharpish.
Sounds like it may be a standard "body language gesture" for mammalian
quadropeds...?
Or something they learn, individually, to use with humans, if they are
(raised to be) playful? Because we respond to is instinctively?
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
That comes with the raised intelligence. They don't need to be made able
to speak in order to understand human language.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> In article<KvCAG...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com says...
>
> Do we know that, or do we just not usually eat land carnivores because
> they are expensive to feed?
>
> We eat lobsters and frogs; I understand snakes are eaten in some
> places.
I think the difference may be that carnivorious mammals eat a lot of
meal, in order to sustain their warm-blooded metabolisms, whereas a
lobster or frog or snake eats much, much less, to maintain a given body
mass.
The "test" of this will be what diet food dogs are fed: Are they fed
meat or vegetable matter? Or fish? If my suspicion is correct, they're
fed either exclusively on vegetable matter, or on a combination of
vegetable matter and fish.
What about cats, though? ISTR that cats are eaten in some cultures, and
getting cats to accept a vegetable diet is difficult. Perhaps eating
fish doesn't have the same effect on the resulting meat taste as eating
mammailian meat or bird meat?
Or is there a distinct dis-flavour to animals who have primarily had a
carnivorous diet? Dorothy seems to suggest this, and I've also come
across it before, but it could just be that raising carnivorous mammals
as food animals is very expensive.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>> What about cats? I know they don't like to walk long distances, but if
>> they like a particular human, or want to get to some place (or, although
>> I imagine this is rare, if they want to pretend to like a particular
>> human) they might utilize some kind of pick-me-up signal. What could
>> that be?
>
> If a cat wants picked up it will (a) rub against your leg, then (b)
> allow you to pick it up rather than clawing you for an attempted
> indignity.
Sure, but intelligent cats might want something subtler. They're rather
more solitary than humans, so when they do want to reach out, socially,
they may be particularly sensitiv about rejection, preferring to "probe"
very subtly first, to see if the human shows interest.
> If you do something a cat finds extremely offensive, it will turn
> away, then dig with its rear feet, as if covering up scat. The
> implied insult is surprisingly obvious.
Interesting information, thanks! What actions might a cat find extremely
offensive, though?
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> "Peter Knutsen"<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
>> What about cats? I know they don't like to walk long distances, but if
>> they like a particular human, or want to get to some place (or, although I
>> imagine this is rare, if they want to pretend to like a particular human)
>> they might utilize some kind of pick-me-up signal. What could that be?
>>
> They already have that. It has a sound like a baby's cry embedded in it.
> Try google for this; it was just figured out in '09.
Interesting! Do they use it on humans too? And do adult cats use it?
>> Normal dogs have a "I want to play"-stance that they use with humans (I
>> don't know if they use it amongst themselves too), that involves lowering
>> the front end of the body.
>
> I believe many mammals use it among themselves.
Jacey's post seems to suggest the same.
> That's a fairly "loud" kind of body
>> language, but I find it hard to imagine that cats would adopt a dog-like
>> body gesture. Especially sentient cats. Yet it has to be obvious enough
>> for us silly and inattentive humans to notice it, and notice it
>> consistently (because I don't think intelligent cats enjoy being ignored
>> or overlooked, when they try to communicate).
>>
> They might well be able to convince themselves that they weren't behaving in
> an immature fashion, they were simply using their cunning to manipulate
> human behavior.
Yes, but many cats made intelligent might be sensitive about rejection,
exactly the same way (normal, but presumably also intelligent) dogs are
often extroverted and carefree (being instinctively inclined to enter
into a pack power structure, on the bottom rung if necessary).
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> My thoughts on Intelligent Mute animals (basically ones that have developed
> naturally) is that it would depend on how social the animals are.
>
> Animals that only associate with others of their species for mating (or
> short term child raising) will have only limited communicative abilities.
True. An animal "rendered intelligent" is clearly a magic thing, a
fantasy phenomenon. The actual experience of change is probably worth
exploring.
> Pack or Herd beings would develop complex communications. Even
> 'unintelligent' animals of this type have communications more complex
> communications than solitary 'unintelligent' animals.
Yes. Wolves have lots of ways to avoid having to kill each other, for
instance. Rather better than humans, I'd say.
> As for communicating with 'humans' or other intelligent species, IMO it is
> unlikely that Species A could 'speak' Species B's language.
>
> However, Species A might learn to understand what Species B is saying and
> the same for Species B understanding what Species A is saying.
[...]
Yes. I tend to think of that as the "Star Wars effect".
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Eric Ammadon
Try offering some really bad food. <g>
Peter Knutsen
>> understand what *I* say. E.g., "If you keep on climbing the curtains,
>> you will be stew tomorrow."
>
> No, no, not stew. Carnivores don't taste good. Gloves, maybe:
> that's what my daughter threatens her cats with.
Nevertheless, cats know that they are seen as prey by larger carnivores,
so it is something they are instinctively inclined to understand. "If
you do not cease this behaviour, I will re-classify you as prey".
> And there was a story online the other day about a cat in
> Australia who somehow got transported into the outback and made
> its way back to the coast. Took it three years; but it did walk
> a long distance.
Yes, but my point is, it was uncomfortable and slow for it. A dog only
slightly larger could probably have made the walk in one year. Perhaps
much less. Same way a wilderness-competent human could.
Normal cats have no reason (or at most very little) to wish to be in
places far away from where they currently are, but an intelligent cat
might have friends in other villages or similar places, or know about
faraway places it wants to visit or re-visit, places it dislikes having
to walk to, but wouldn't mind being carried to (if it can't hitch a ride
on a wagon).
In a way, being carried makes the cat look like a kitten, but it isn't
by the scruff of the neck (intelligent adult cats hate that, and many
older kittens consider themselves too old for it), and it can be seen as
the human being the servant of the cat, which is appealing to most
(intelligent, at least) cats.
> And there have been rare instances of cats who will speak a
> phrase or two, on the order of "I love you" and "Feed me."
> I think it's simply that most cats don't WANT to take the trouble
> to talk. Motivate them somehow, and we might get more cat
> utterances. They can't pronounce most human-style consonants,
> but they ought to be able to handle vowels tolerably, so that the
> humans could understand a few fixed phrases. A tonal language
> like Chinese might work even better.
I've seen some subtitled videos on the YouTube website, but they weren't
at all convincing. It looked more like joke material to me; humans
hearing what they wished to hear.
It is possible that cats could learn to speak, but with tens of millions
of cats living in people's homes in the Western world, for over half a
century, and many of those humans interacting heavily with their cats,
why hasn't any noteworthy communication been documented yet? Even just
as a video?
> On the other paw, I have a grandson pushing two years, who isn't
> quite talking yet. He understands a lot, though, and one of
> these days he's going to start talking, and then we will spend
> the next several years trying to persuade him to be quiet. Let
> us think, while we are at it, about whether we really *want*
> talking cats.
Well, it's individual magic users choosing to enhance individual cats in
various ways, using known and relatively reliable methods, for various
personal reasons (wanting a sort of familiar but not being willing or
able to go the "real" familiar route, or being very curious about what
cats in general - or a particular cat - might have to say in general or
about particular subjects). It's not a big social project like the
Manhattan Project that will get discussed at length before it is or is
not carried out.
Some cats that are enhanced with raised intelligence are also given the
ability to speak. I think folk wisdom in (parts of) the ï¿œrth setting is
that it is rather safer to render a cat able to speak than a dog,
because a dog that can speak will speak a lot, perhaps especially one
whose intelligence wasn't raised to full human level. A cat will be more
inclined to shut up if told so, as well as to not speak in the first
place unless it is certain there is at least one interested listener.
Some cats given the ability to speak with a cat-like voice choose to
never utter a single word in their entire lives (giving an animal the
ability to speak with a fully human-like voice is a bit more expensive);
this has never been known to happen with a dog, or indeed most other
species (most other species we interact with, e.g. horses or cows, are
flock or pack or herd animals).
It isn't cheap to enhance animals, though, and an enhanced dog that can
also talk is more useful than one that is mute, e.g. for use while
hunting, so that it can tell the hunter quickly and clearly what kinds
of scents it has detected, or run for help (Lassie style) if a solitary
hunter has been injured.
A mute dog with intelligence sufficiently raised can of course be taught
specific and very unambiguous signals for various animal scents, and
relatively quickly, but if it's a multi-human party (and/or a multi-dog
party) everyone might not know the "code" used by the dog, and then
interpretation is required.
Also in general enhanced dogs are more useful than enhanced cats, being
more obedient and more loyal, but for some special interests, an
enhanced cat friend can be very valuable, e.g. a thief or spy.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Ric Locke
> So it's an indication of superiority, and since dogs are smaller than
> humans, they don't use it against us? What about a very large dog vs a
> very small human, e.g. a teenaged girl? The dog still wouldn't use its
> "sneer" sound then?
There are two (at least) dimensions of "superiority".
All dogs are, more or less, intellectually equivalent. If you consider
dog "intelligence" (scare quotes because the term is badly defined) as a
fraction of human intelligence, the variation is even smaller in
proportion -- and the fraction itself is very small.
Dogs accept that human intellectual superiority makes humans valid
bosses. This does not mean that all dogs accept that /gracefully/, but
the acceptance is there. Dogs will compete among themselves on both the
physical and the intellectual axes, but only in rare instances will they
attempt to assert that physical superiority (which doesn't require a
very big dog) over a human trumps intellectual inferiority. You might
well find a dog who would use the "sneer" at a human, but that dog is an
outlier by several sigma.
Cats differ in subtle but significant ways. Cats (that is, canonical or
exemplary cats) accept that humans are intellectually superior, but note
that they use their superiority to provide food and housing to cats,
making them foolish. Cats then set out to exploit that foolishness; it
is, in our terms, cynical.
They both end up "domesticated", that is, as helpless dependents.
Sometimes the same place is reached by very different roads.
Regards,
Ric
Peter Knutsen
> In article<KvCAG...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> On the other paw, I have a grandson pushing two years, who isn't
>> quite talking yet. He understands a lot, though, and one of
>> these days he's going to start talking, and then we will spend
>> the next several years trying to persuade him to be quiet. Let
>> us think, while we are at it, about whether we really *want*
>> talking cats.
>
> My mother used to say that when she got married she lost half her
> conversation, and when I learned to talk she lost the other half.
Non-human animals have a rather different perspective on things than we
humans, so I think there'll be a lot of "agree to disagree" happening.
I wonder if religious characters will try to get their intelligent
animals involved in religion?
Magic use is frowned upon by most ï¿œrth Christians, but not Moslems, and
Moslems also believe that non-humans can be good Moslems (at least
humanoids, but perhaps also animals). A Moslem might try to get his
familiar to pray, or to abstain from pre-marital sex, and finding an
imam willing to marry two animals might be difficult except in the
largest cities (I think there might be one such marriage a year, on
average, in Bagdhad).
Pagans, rather more likely to use magic (especially in Ireland), are
often less fanatical, but might invite their animals to participate in
various rituals, like sacrifices or ritual drinking (e.g. a Norse "sumbel").
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 01:50:55 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> On the other paw, I have a grandson pushing two years, who isn't
>> quite talking yet. He understands a lot, though, and one of
>> these days he's going to start talking, and then we will spend
>> the next several years trying to persuade him to be quiet. Let
>> us think, while we are at it, about whether we really *want*
>> talking cats.
>
> I recall a story, not too long ago, in which genetic(magic?) engineers
> had produced cats with opposable thumbs. Horrific notion (and I like
> cats; we have lots of them.) They're good at batting. If they could
> grip, it'd be disastrous.
>
> We've had several cats that could talk -- horrid accent, limited
> vocabulary, and no syntax at all, but understandable words: "Out",
> "Food", and similar concepts, and one tomcat who would, upon being given
> some delectable morsel, look directly at you and say "tangk" before
Really?
> diving in. Cats do sibilants at the back of the throat, and can't do
> labials at all -- "n", "k", and "t", but not "m" or "p", and "s" doesn't
> really work -- so they'll never be orators. In English, anyway.
Interesting.
Enabling animals to speak, in the �rth setting, tends to come in two
forms, both fully understandable, but the lesser form resulting in speak
that sounds clearly like an animal, e.g. "the way a cat would sound if
it could speak", and the greater form sounding completely like a human
(imagine first hearing a cultured human voice, and then immediately
after seeing that it comes from a snake).
There could well be a more primitive version of the magic that gives
truly limited speech, that is not fully understandable to those not
acquainted with the animal.
> The story "Into Your Tent I'll Creep" had to be about dogs. Cats
> wouldn't want to rule the world -- it'd be 'way too much work and cut
> into naptime.
A cat that tries to take over the rule of the world will most likely
turn out to be case of demonic possession (or divine possession; that
may have happened in Egypt at a much earlier time). Or perhaps magical
brainwashing. I can't see why magic can't be used to affect permanent
changes to the personality of a human or animal. It's just expensive and
difficult, and can be reversed after some research.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Ric Locke
It's more complex than that.
In a fully adult bull, that same motion addressed to another bull is a
request/demand for violent, horn-tangling competition over who gets to
be boss bull; addressed to a human or other intruder into the field, it
is a warning to get out or be trampled/gored. In other words, the
behavior is "play" in youth, "competition" in adulthood.
Two years of age is a sort of "awkward adolescent" analog for cows and
horses. If they have been handled and petted up to then, and mostly kept
away from other bovines and equines, they preserve childish behaviors
and address them to their human handlers. The same critter, left to
itself and the herd, will already be taking on the adult versions of
those antics by that time. Examples can be found of childish dependence
and "play" beyond that age, but it is very, very dangerous to assume
that a tonne-and-a-half of bull who lowers his head and weaves from side
to side wants to play.
Much the same pattern is found in other animals, and I reckon it's the
thin edge of the wedge that allowed domestication in the first place,
but keeping tigers, wolves, bears, etc. into adulthood is very dangerous
because although you can extend childhood and childish behavior into
what is calculated by time into adulthood, the animal is very likely to
eventually mature behaviorally, whereupon the switch from "play"
behavior to "competition" behavior occurs.
Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke
Cats are obligate carnivores. They have a very simple digestive system,
adapted to the task of converting meat into other meat, which is much
simpler than converting plant matter into meat. Dry cat food contains
plant matter, which is almost all passed, and meat byproducts, which is
what is digested; cats will eat a much smaller volume of meat or
meat-byproduct food than they do of dry. Feeding cats dry food gets
storage convenience at the expense of a larger problem of feces
disposal.
Dogs are sort of on the edge. Their digestive systems can process some
plant matter, but not nearly to the extent an omnivore (us) or herbivore
(cows, sheep, etc) are nourished by it; they gain some nutrition from
the plant matter in dry dog food, but again most of it is passed. A dog
fed a primarily meat diet will produce a /much/ smaller volume of feces
than one fed dry dog food, and very small dogs, whose digestive systems
are simply too small to accommodate the volume of plant matter necessary
for them to derive nourishment, may require a much larger proportion of
meat in their diet for health than large dogs.
The taste of the meat comes from minor constituents of the diet which
are not digested, but are chemically tied to what is digested and then
incorporated into the meat -- a cow fed on "bitterweed" or other
undesirable plant species will taste bad. The taste of carnivore meat
depends on what the herbivores it's been feeding on eat.
Regards,
Ric
David Friedman
Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> Magic use is frowned upon by most �rth Christians, but not Moslems, and
> Moslems also believe that non-humans can be good Moslems (at least
> humanoids, but perhaps also animals).
True of Moslems in our world true. Some of the Djinn heard the Prophet
preach and were converted.
David Friedman
Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> Yes. Wolves have lots of ways to avoid having to kill each other, for
> instance. Rather better than humans, I'd say.
>
Any data on the actual intraspecies death rate?
For modern humans, ordinary private murder tends, if I remember
correctly, to be in the range of one in a hundred thousand to one ten
thousand per year. The Democide estimate I'm familiar with is somewhere
around 100-200 million people killed by their own governments over the
course of the 20th century. Guessing about 10-20 billion human lives
lived in the course of that century gives a democide rate of about
1/10,000 per year. My guess is that the figure for deaths in war would
be similar, although I don't actually have numbers. Add those together
and you get a very rough estimate of 2-3 in 10,000 for human/human
killing per year.
I wouldn't be surprised if the rate among wolves was higher than that,
but don't actually know.
Eric Ammadon
Boy it's a good thing those industrial cattle farms realized they
could just grind up any cows that die and chuck that into the feed of
the ones that haven't died. I guess the cows don't like it though,
they seem to get mad about it. But hey, them guys are in it for the
money. Dude, you got any of those green cookies laying around? <g>
Jacey Bedford
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> writes
I've never seen a quadruped as big as a bull use it before, though you
do see it in lambs at play as well as the obvious dogs.
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
Jacey Bedford
<warric...@gmail.com> writes
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks Ric.
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
R.L.
> In article <4b3f4735$0$276$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Yes. Wolves have lots of ways to avoid having to kill each other, for
>> instance. Rather better than humans, I'd say.
>>
>
> Any data on the actual intraspecies death rate?
>
> For modern humans, ordinary private murder tends, if I remember
> correctly, to be in the range of one in a hundred thousand to one ten
> thousand per year. The Democide estimate I'm familiar with is somewhere
> around 100-200 million people killed by their own governments over the
> course of the 20th century. Guessing about 10-20 billion human lives
> lived in the course of that century gives a democide rate of about
> 1/10,000 per year. My guess is that the figure for deaths in war would
> be similar, although I don't actually have numbers. Add those together
> and you get a very rough estimate of 2-3 in 10,000 for human/human
> killing per year.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if the rate among wolves was higher than that,
> but don't actually know.
Huh? Well, first we'd need to distinguish the wolves'
one-on-one personal or status or food fights/killing
pack vs pack
pack vs individual
I don't think that anything wolves do is comparable to any of the following
human activities:
human nation vs nation
government vs mass citizens
mafia vs citizens or other mafia
Wolves' pack activity might be comparable to teenage small gang activity.
Personally I can't imagine a wolf pack following a crazed leader into mass
executions of their own members.
Anyway, since this is a literary newsgroup, here's a starting place:
Now this is the Law of the Jungle 嚙碼 as old and as true as the sky; And the
Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must
die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk the Law runneth forward and back
嚙碼
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is
the Pack.
Wash daily from nose-tip to tail-tip; drink deeply, but never too deep;
And remember the night is for hunting, and forget not the day is for sleep.
The Jackal may follow the Tiger, but, Cub, when thy whiskers are grown,
Remember the Wolf is a Hunter 嚙碼 go forth and get food of thine own.
Keep peace with the Lords of the Jungle 嚙碼 the Tiger, the Panther, and Bear.
And trouble not Hathi the Silent, and mock not the Boar in his lair.
When Pack meets with Pack in the Jungle, and neither will go from the
trail,
Lie down till the leaders have spoken 嚙碼 it may be fair words shall prevail.
When ye fight with a Wolf of the Pack, ye must fight him alone and afar,
Lest others take part in the quarrel, and the Pack be diminished by war.
The Lair of the Wolf is his refuge, and where he has made him his home,
Not even the Head Wolf may enter, not even the Council may come.
The Lair of the Wolf is his refuge, but where he has digged it too plain,
The Council shall send him a message, and so he shall change it again.
If ye kill before midnight, be silent, and wake not the woods with your
bay,
Lest ye frighten the deer from the crop, and your brothers go empty away.
Ye may kill for yourselves, and your mates, and your cubs as they need, and
ye can;
But kill not for pleasure of killing, and seven times never kill Man!
If ye plunder his Kill from a weaker, devour not all in thy pride;
Pack-Right is the right of the meanest; so leave him the head and the hide.
The Kill of the Pack is the meat of the Pack. Ye must eat where it lies;
And no one may carry away of that meat to his lair, or he dies.
The Kill of the Wolf is the meat of the Wolf. He may do what he will;
But, till he has given permission, the Pack may not eat of that Kill.
Cub-Right is the right of the Yearling. From all of his Pack he may claim
Full-gorge when the killer has eaten; and none may refuse him the same.
Lair-Right is the right of the Mother. From all of her year she may claim
One haunch of each kill for her litter, and none may deny her the same.
Cave-Right is the right of the Father 嚙碼 to hunt by himself for his own:
He is freed of all calls to the Pack; he is judged by the Council alone.
Because of his age and his cunning, because of his gripe and his paw,
In all that the Law leaveth open, the word of your Head Wolf is Law.
Now these are the Laws of the Jungle, and many and mighty are they;
But the head and the hoof of the Law and the haunch and the hump is 嚙碼 Obey!
Suzanne Blom
"Peter Knutsen" <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> On 28/12/2009 20:44, Suzanne Blom wrote:
>> "Peter Knutsen"<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> [...]
>>> What about cats? I know they don't like to walk long distances, but if
>>> they like a particular human, or want to get to some place (or, although
>>> I
>>> imagine this is rare, if they want to pretend to like a particular
>>> human)
>>> they might utilize some kind of pick-me-up signal. What could that be?
>>>
>> They already have that. It has a sound like a baby's cry embedded in it.
>> Try google for this; it was just figured out in '09.
>
> Interesting! Do they use it on humans too? And do adult cats use it?
>
That's what we figured out.
David Friedman
"R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:12:04 -0500, David Friedman wrote:
>
> > In article <4b3f4735$0$276$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> > Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes. Wolves have lots of ways to avoid having to kill each other, for
> >> instance. Rather better than humans, I'd say.
> >>
> >
> > Any data on the actual intraspecies death rate?
> >
> > For modern humans, ordinary private murder tends, if I remember
> > correctly, to be in the range of one in a hundred thousand to one ten
> > thousand per year. The Democide estimate I'm familiar with is somewhere
> > around 100-200 million people killed by their own governments over the
> > course of the 20th century. Guessing about 10-20 billion human lives
> > lived in the course of that century gives a democide rate of about
> > 1/10,000 per year. My guess is that the figure for deaths in war would
> > be similar, although I don't actually have numbers. Add those together
> > and you get a very rough estimate of 2-3 in 10,000 for human/human
> > killing per year.
> >
> > I wouldn't be surprised if the rate among wolves was higher than that,
> > but don't actually know.
>
>
> Huh? Well, first we'd need to distinguish the wolves'
>
> one-on-one personal or status or food fights/killing
> pack vs pack
> pack vs individual
I'm not sure why. I was estimating the sum of all major sources of
human/human killing, in order that it could be compared to the
corresponding sum for wolf/wolf.
> I don't think that anything wolves do is comparable to any of the following
> human activities:
>
> human nation vs nation
> government vs mass citizens
> mafia vs citizens or other mafia
>
> Wolves' pack activity might be comparable to teenage small gang activity.
> Personally I can't imagine a wolf pack following a crazed leader into mass
> executions of their own members.
I agree that the forms of intraspecies violence are different. But one
can still compare the totals. That seems like the simplest test of the
claim that wolves are better at avoiding intraspecies killing than
humans are.
...
(Kipling quote snipped. Very good writing, but I don't think Kipling
gives a very reliable picture of actual animal behavior.)
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>> Moslems also believe that non-humans can be good Moslems (at least
>> humanoids, but perhaps also animals).
>
> True of Moslems in our world true. Some of the Djinn heard the Prophet
> preach and were converted.
Yes, I think that's where I got it from. Some of Judith Tarr's
historical fantasies, then later supported by other "sources".
Do you know about animals being devout/good Moslems, though? The only
thing I've read is something about all the animals being told to come
and show respect to Mohamad the prophet, but the cat decided not to go,
or something like that, and that's probably heavily apocryphal anyway.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
> "Peter Knutsen"<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4b3f46c3$0$276$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>> On 28/12/2009 20:44, Suzanne Blom wrote:
>>> They already have that. It has a sound like a baby's cry embedded in it.
>>> Try google for this; it was just figured out in '09.
>>
>> Interesting! Do they use it on humans too? And do adult cats use it?
>>
> Ah, sorry. Didn't make myself clear. Adult cats use this on humans.
> That's what we figured out.
Okay, thanks!
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>> Yes. Wolves have lots of ways to avoid having to kill each other, for
>> instance. Rather better than humans, I'd say.
>
> Any data on the actual intraspecies death rate?
Sorry, no, but I believe it is well known that wolves are extremely good
at establishing and accepting dominance/superiorrity patterns, without
one wolf having to do any noticable physical damage to the other.
Two humans meeting, stereotypically males although females are catching
up these days, and disliking each other, is very likely to end up with
one of them bleeding, perhaps bleeding badly.
> For modern humans, ordinary private murder tends, if I remember
> correctly, to be in the range of one in a hundred thousand to one ten
> thousand per year. The Democide estimate I'm familiar with is somewhere
> around 100-200 million people killed by their own governments over the
> course of the 20th century. Guessing about 10-20 billion human lives
> lived in the course of that century gives a democide rate of about
> 1/10,000 per year. My guess is that the figure for deaths in war would
> be similar, although I don't actually have numbers. Add those together
> and you get a very rough estimate of 2-3 in 10,000 for human/human
> killing per year.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if the rate among wolves was higher than that,
> but don't actually know.
Wolves don't live packed very close, compared to modern humans.
Recently there's been news stories about Sweden allowing the culling of
their wolf population, because it is thought there are too many.
Compared to Denmark, Sweden is a huge country, in terms of square
kilometers, but their wolf population is on the order of 100
individuals, with a few dozen being allowed to be culled.
Obviously if we humans didn't use a lot of the land for farming and
living on, there could be more wolves, but probably not more than an
order of magnitude more.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
David Friedman
Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> On 02/01/2010 17:06, David Friedman wrote:
> > Peter Knutsen<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> >> Magic use is frowned upon by most �rth Christians, but not Moslems, and
> >> Moslems also believe that non-humans can be good Moslems (at least
> >> humanoids, but perhaps also animals).
> >
> > True of Moslems in our world true. Some of the Djinn heard the Prophet
> > preach and were converted.
>
> Yes, I think that's where I got it from. Some of Judith Tarr's
> historical fantasies, then later supported by other "sources".
>
> Do you know about animals being devout/good Moslems, though? The only
> thing I've read is something about all the animals being told to come
> and show respect to Mohamad the prophet, but the cat decided not to go,
> or something like that, and that's probably heavily apocryphal anyway.
I don't know--but I'm pretty sure there are hadith implying that
Mohammed was pro-cat and negative on dogs. On one occasion the Angel
Gabriel was supposed to come visit Mohammed and didn't. The later
explanation was that there was a dog in the house, and angels do not
come into houses with dogs in them.
Nothing else occurs to me.
David Friedman
Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> On 02/01/2010 17:12, David Friedman wrote:
> > Peter Knutsen<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> >> Yes. Wolves have lots of ways to avoid having to kill each other, for
> >> instance. Rather better than humans, I'd say.
> >
> > Any data on the actual intraspecies death rate?
>
> Sorry, no, but I believe it is well known that wolves are extremely good
> at establishing and accepting dominance/superiorrity patterns, without
> one wolf having to do any noticable physical damage to the other.
>
> Two humans meeting, stereotypically males although females are catching
> up these days, and disliking each other, is very likely to end up with
> one of them bleeding, perhaps bleeding badly.
Your original comment was about "ways to avoid having to kill each
other." The numbers I offered suggest that humans are considerably
better at that than you seem to think.
...
> Wolves don't live packed very close, compared to modern humans.
>
> Recently there's been news stories about Sweden allowing the culling of
> their wolf population, because it is thought there are too many.
> Compared to Denmark, Sweden is a huge country, in terms of square
> kilometers, but their wolf population is on the order of 100
> individuals, with a few dozen being allowed to be culled.
The policy is to keep the total below 210, at least according to a news
story. On the other hand, if the Wikipedia article is to be believed,
Belarus and Ukraine have about 2000 each, Romania somewhat more, Russia
25,000-30,000, Mongolia 10,000-20,000, Kazakhistan about 30,000, Canada
52,000-60,000.
But in any case, the wolves have to be in contact with each other in
order to mate, which provides opportunities for conflict. So I don't
think your "wolves don't live packed very close" tells us much about how
much intraspecies lethal conflict there is.
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>> Yes, I think that's where I got it from. Some of Judith Tarr's
>> historical fantasies, then later supported by other "sources".
>>
>> Do you know about animals being devout/good Moslems, though? The only
>> thing I've read is something about all the animals being told to come
>> and show respect to Mohamad the prophet, but the cat decided not to go,
>> or something like that, and that's probably heavily apocryphal anyway.
>
> I don't know--but I'm pretty sure there are hadith implying that
> Mohammed was pro-cat and negative on dogs. On one occasion the Angel
I'm well aware of the anti-dog sentiment, although I've often wondered
whether it was a Moslem or Arabic or Middle Eastern thing or whatever,
and have also heard something pro-cat (and then there's Egypt which was
culturally pro-cat long before Islam).
Also it seems to me Islam is pro-horse, although I suspect that is an
Arabic thing that predates Islam.
> Gabriel was supposed to come visit Mohammed and didn't. The later
> explanation was that there was a dog in the house, and angels do not
> come into houses with dogs in them.
Very Interesting data point!
> Nothing else occurs to me.
Thanks, you've been helpful!
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
James A. Donald
> I agree that the forms of intraspecies violence are
> different. But one can still compare the totals. That
> seems like the simplest test of the claim that wolves
> are better at avoiding intraspecies killing than
> humans are.
Wolves are more social than humans. Good canine
behavior has always been an inspiration for good human
behavior, and dogs support prosocial behavior by
watching, guarding, and defending, rather than
antisocial behavior. Everyone uses dogs to defend, no
one uses dogs to wrongfully attack.
But on the other hand, more sophisticated human cultures
are better at avoiding intraspecies killing than more
primitive cultures (the twentieth century being an
alarming regression to a more primitive state) which
would make it likely we do better than wolves.
Primitive societies that have something like trial by
jury - a trial conducted by an elders front of the
assembled warriors have a pretty low level of violence.
Primitive societies that determine guilt by the shaman
getting high on hallucinogens and discovering in his
dreams the person responsible for some bad event have a
pretty high level of violence.
Magical thinking among humans tends to be highly
correlated with violence, thus cultures classified as
"Manist" in Unwin's analysis of cultures tend to have
high levels of violence. The magical thinker believes
the Jews or the capitalists or the anglo saxons or some
such are responsible for whatever he is unhappy about.
James A. Donald
> whether it was a Moslem or Arabic or Middle Eastern thing or whatever,
Moslem: Islam holds that dogs are dirty
JF
>> Try offering some really bad food.<g>
>
> Like what?
Whiska's Top Super Premium. Today. After they ate it avidly
yesterday and you went out to buy a discounted six weeks supply.
JF
R.L.
Humans have weapons of mass killing, and sometimes there are mass
sociological factors that force some people to kill in spite of their
inclinations (eg draftees). Imo this inflates the human-killed totals
unfairly.
R.L.
Eric Ammadon
Thou shalt place no discounts before me, saith the feline.
Eric Ammadon
That doesn't seem valid somehow; wolves may kill whatever is subject
to killing, without the need for game tags, licenses, time off from
work, etc.
Eric Ammadon
> Everyone uses dogs to defend, no
>one uses dogs to wrongfully attack.
Hence the phrase "attack dogs".
>Primitive societies that have something like trial by
>jury - a trial conducted by an elders front of the
>assembled warriors have a pretty low level of violence.
Democracies small enough that agents of the elected government are
subject to having their noses bloodied in the local pub have a "pretty
low level" of corruption.
Eric Ammadon
>On 02/01/2010 17:12, David Friedman wrote:
>> Peter Knutsen<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>> Yes. Wolves have lots of ways to avoid having to kill each other, for
>>> instance. Rather better than humans, I'd say.
>>
>> Any data on the actual intraspecies death rate?
>
>Sorry, no, but I believe it is well known that wolves are extremely good
>at establishing and accepting dominance/superiorrity patterns, without
>one wolf having to do any noticable physical damage to the other.
Humans do that too, only in human terms what is offered is not the
throat but payoff money in cash, sycophancy, or some other form, all
symbolic throats. Coercion in terms of blackmail, extortion, an
employer intimidating employees, bullies demanding submission, those
are all domination patterns.
Canines will submit thus establishing patterns, but felines will fight
to the death rather than submit (at least that is my observation, if
anyone has seen a cat submit to domination I'd like to hear about it;
as far as I can tell mature cats are immune to coercion).
>Two humans meeting, stereotypically males although females are catching
>up these days, and disliking each other, is very likely to end up with
>one of them bleeding, perhaps bleeding badly.
I expect that most humans who are murdered actually are murdered for
failing to submit.
James A. Donald
> > Everyone uses dogs to defend, no one uses dogs to
> > wrongfully attack.
Eric Ammadon
> Hence the phrase "attack dogs".
So who has been wrongfully attacked by an attack dog?
Obviously bad dogs and evil dogs exist, but they are
pretty rare compared to bad humans and evil humans.
If you want some wrongful attacking done, you will
get a human to do it. You could get a dog to do
it, but you would be pushing uphill.
Eric Ammadon
"no one uses dogs to wrongfully attck"
"you could get a dog to do it"
End of argument.
John F. Eldredge
I have been bitten a couple of times by dogs without having provoked
them. Once, as a child, I went to visit a neighbor. The dog from the
next yard didn't recognize me, so it bit me. Another time, I was riding
my bicycle down the street when a dog gave chase and bit me on the
ankle. In both cases, the dog may have felt that the attack was
justified, but I certainly didn't think so.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Michelle Bottorff
> Two humans meeting, stereotypically males although females are catching
> up these days, and disliking each other, is very likely to end up with
> one of them bleeding, perhaps bleeding badly.
This strikes me as a completely ludicrous statement.
I've never actually seen two people in real life fighting and drawing
blood. Ever. I know it happens, but if it's "very likely" why has it
never happened around me? Am I supposed to assume every human I've ever
seen meet another human *liked* them?
Riiiiigggghhhht!
My dog, on the other hand, *has* drawn blood from my husband.
So much for the bloodless conflict of the canine kind.
Now I'm perfectly willing to concede that wolves are less likely to
murder each other than people are, but not if I have to also accept that
two human males disliking each other are obviously going to physically
damage each other.
--
Michelle Bottorff -> Chelle B. -> Shelby
L. Shelby, Writer http://www.lshelby.com/
Livejournal http://lavenderbard.livejournal.com/
rec.arts.sf.composition FAQ http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
Bill Swears
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>>> Everyone uses dogs to defend, no one uses dogs to
>>>> wrongfully attack.
>> Eric Ammadon
>>> Hence the phrase "attack dogs".
>> So who has been wrongfully attacked by an attack dog?
>>
>> Obviously bad dogs and evil dogs exist, but they are
>> pretty rare compared to bad humans and evil humans.
>>
>> If you want some wrongful attacking done, you will
>> get a human to do it. You could get a dog to do
>> it, but you would be pushing uphill.
>
> "no one uses dogs to wrongfully attck"
>
> "you could get a dog to do it"
this was used in the TV series "Bones" a few years ago. Guy was running
a dog fighting ranch, and somebody threatened to expose it. The guy who
owned the property didn't sic the dog on the whistle-blower, but one of
the assistants did.
I think the reason we don't see it in real life is that training a dog
to actually kill - go for the throat, isn't at all easy. Much easier to
buy a gun illegally, shoot your enemy, then dispose of the gun.
Bill
--
Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise
your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
Bill Swears
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Two humans meeting, stereotypically males although females are catching
>> up these days, and disliking each other, is very likely to end up with
>> one of them bleeding, perhaps bleeding badly.
>
> This strikes me as a completely ludicrous statement.
>
> I've never actually seen two people in real life fighting and drawing
> blood. Ever. I know it happens, but if it's "very likely" why has it
> never happened around me? Am I supposed to assume every human I've ever
> seen meet another human *liked* them?
>
>
noses and damage in my middle school at least once a week (after school,
and off school grounds, but visible from the bus route). That was in the
early seventies, and it was girls duking it out almost as often as boys.
Middle-schoolers. The high school had real race problems, but the
middle-school just had a lot of kids who wanted to fight each other.
Drak Bibliophile
news:KoydnZK-kcDcWN3W...@posted.mtasolutions...
> Eric Ammadon wrote:
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>>>> Everyone uses dogs to defend, no one uses dogs to
>>>>> wrongfully attack.
>>> Eric Ammadon
>>>> Hence the phrase "attack dogs".
>>> So who has been wrongfully attacked by an attack dog?
>>>
>>> Obviously bad dogs and evil dogs exist, but they are
>>> pretty rare compared to bad humans and evil humans.
>>> If you want some wrongful attacking done, you will
>>> get a human to do it. You could get a dog to do it, but you would be
>>> pushing uphill.
>>
>> "no one uses dogs to wrongfully attck"
>>
>> "you could get a dog to do it"
>
> this was used in the TV series "Bones" a few years ago. Guy was running a
> dog fighting ranch, and somebody threatened to expose it. The guy who
> owned the property didn't sic the dog on the whistle-blower, but one of
> the assistants did.
>
> I think the reason we don't see it in real life is that training a dog to
> actually kill - go for the throat, isn't at all easy. Much easier to buy
> a gun illegally, shoot your enemy, then dispose of the gun.
>
> Bill
>
From what I've heard, it is easier to create a 'bad dog' by mistreating it.
Of course, this 'bad dog' very likely will attack humans and other dogs when
the owner doesn't want it to do so.
--
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile), AIM id DrakeBookLover
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins! [Polite Dragon Smile]
*
Bill Swears
> "Bill Swears" <wsw...@gci.net> wrote in message
> news:KoydnZK-kcDcWN3W...@posted.mtasolutions...
>> Eric Ammadon wrote:
>>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Everyone uses dogs to defend, no one uses dogs to
>>>>>> wrongfully attack.
>>>> Eric Ammadon
>>>>> Hence the phrase "attack dogs".
>>>> So who has been wrongfully attacked by an attack dog?
>>>>
>>
>> actually kill - go for the throat, isn't at all easy. Much easier to buy
>> a gun illegally, shoot your enemy, then dispose of the gun.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
>
> From what I've heard, it is easier to create a 'bad dog' by mistreating it.
> Of course, this 'bad dog' very likely will attack humans and other dogs when
> the owner doesn't want it to do so.
>
Teaching an eighty lbs dog to kill somebody is harder, because they
learn behaviors through repetition and enforcement more than anything.
I'm not sure that even a fighting dog would generalize "go for the
throat" from other dogs to humans without specific training.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>> Everyone uses dogs to defend, no one uses dogs to
>>> wrongfully attack.
>
> Eric Ammadon
>> Hence the phrase "attack dogs".
>
> So who has been wrongfully attacked by an attack dog?
>
That would be me.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Eric Ammadon
>James A. Donald wrote:
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>>> Everyone uses dogs to defend, no one uses dogs to
>>>> wrongfully attack.
>>
>> Eric Ammadon
>>> Hence the phrase "attack dogs".
>>
>> So who has been wrongfully attacked by an attack dog?
>>
>
> That would be me.
He said "wrongfully".
<g> Just kidding.
Personally I'm not a pet-guy. Dogs are inveterate crotch-sniffers.
Cats and me are too alike and we cannot agree on who's in charge so
one way or another they go out the door asap. Fish require too much
fiddling, and birds shit on the floor. So it goes.
We have a pet bear. We call it that because it lives on our land from
time to time. We've seen it twice in a little less than a decade.
That's enough petness for me.
[Except the Penthouse variety, but that's a whole 'nother deal.]
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>>>> Everyone uses dogs to defend, no one uses dogs to
>>>>> wrongfully attack.
>>> Eric Ammadon
>>>> Hence the phrase "attack dogs".
>>> So who has been wrongfully attacked by an attack dog?
>>>
>> That would be me.
>
> He said "wrongfully".
>
Given what happened to the dogs, it was a very wrong choice on
SOMEONE's part. (evil grin)
James A. Donald
> > If you want some wrongful attacking done, you will
> > get a human to do it. You could get a dog to do
> > it, but you would be pushing uphill.
Eric Ammadon
> "no one uses dogs to wrongfully attck"
>
> "you could get a dog to do it"
But no one ever does. It is hard.
Brian M. Scott
<mbot...@lshelby.com> wrote in
<news:1jbqmfv.p2hmoew0xexdN%mbot...@lshelby.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>> Two humans meeting, stereotypically males although
>> females are catching up these days, and disliking each
>> other, is very likely to end up with one of them
>> bleeding, perhaps bleeding badly.
> This strikes me as a completely ludicrous statement.
That makes two of us. It completely ignores the influence
of circumstances and the surrounding culture.
[...]
Brian
Peter Knutsen
Do you know what their argument for that is? I mean what they claim it
is, not what the actual (somewhat logical) reason for the meme is, like
trichinosis causing the aversion to pork.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
John F. Eldredge
I suspect that both the Jewish kosher laws and the Moslem halal laws
originated as a way to discourage people from eating any animal that
might have eaten carrion. The realization that eating an animal that had
died for unknown reasons was risky came along centuries before anyone
figured out that germs caused disease (the animal might have died from
something contagious to humans, plus many decay products are poisonous).
Dogs aren't averse to eating carrion; I once saw my beagle eat a pigeon
that smelled like it had been dead for several days.
James A. Donald
<wsw...@gci.net> wrote:
> Creating a 'bad dog' isn't all that hard, with the
> right breed. Teaching an eighty lbs dog to kill
> somebody is harder, because they learn behaviors
> through repetition and enforcement more than anything.
> I'm not sure that even a fighting dog would generalize
> "go for the throat" from other dogs to humans without
> specific training.
But a dog will go for the throat when the situation
demands without specific training. The hard bit is
training him to go for the throat when the situation
does not demand.
James A. Donald
> > If you want some wrongful attacking done, you will get a human to do it.
> > You could get a dog to do it, but you would be pushing uphill.
"John F. Eldredge"
> I have been bitten a couple of times by dogs without having provoked
> them.
Bad dogs exist - but not bad on command.
JF
>> Moslem: Islam holds that dogs are dirty
>
> Do you know what their argument for that is? I mean what they claim it
> is, not what the actual (somewhat logical) reason for the meme is, like
> trichinosis causing the aversion to pork.
You know the latest bomber with his pants (UK) full of explosive
which fizzed rather than banged? Apart from hoping that he'd
burnt off his tonker, I got to wondering what happens to the body
parts of suicide bombers. Do they get carefully collected and
buried according to best practice? What if bits are missing? I
mean, some bits might well be vaporised by the explosive.
In the latter case, does the resurrected hero sashay up to his 72
houris with only one foot, or whatever? It's a shame, if that is
the belief, that the recent bomb didn't make just a little more
of a bang. The houris would have had a very nasty surprise --
eternity with a deficient lord and master.
It could be worse than vaporisation. Dogs, street dogs, are
notoriously prone to eating anything they can pick up.
JF
JF
> Dogs aren't averse to eating carrion; I once saw my beagle eat a pigeon
> that smelled like it had been dead for several days.
Obwriting: Beagle Boy did worse than that.
JF
>
Ric Locke
According to the story, Mohammad had an appointment with an angel, who
didn't show up. When he asked why, later, he was told that there was a
dog in the house, and angels won't go into houses with dogs in them.
Regards,
Ric
David Friedman
"R.L." <del...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > I agree that the forms of intraspecies violence are different. But one
> > can still compare the totals. That seems like the simplest test of the
> > claim that wolves are better at avoiding intraspecies killing than
> > humans are.
>
> Humans have weapons of mass killing, and sometimes there are mass
> sociological factors that force some people to kill in spite of their
> inclinations (eg draftees). Imo this inflates the human-killed totals
> unfairly.
Perhaps.
But given that my estimate for human/human killing of all sorts is 2-3
per 10,000 per year, I'm not sure it inflates it above the wolf/wolf
figure.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_
David Friedman
Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> Also it seems to me Islam is pro-horse, although I suspect that is an
> Arabic thing that predates Islam.
I think a horse race and an archery contest of are two of the small
number of things that it is permitted to bet on.
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>> Also it seems to me Islam is pro-horse, although I suspect that is an
>> Arabic thing that predates Islam.
>
> I think a horse race and an archery contest of are two of the small
> number of things that it is permitted to bet on.
I didn't even know Islam had a prohibition against betting.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Eric Ammadon
A comment so fragile that it advocates for pitiable arguments.
James A. Donald
> > Islam holds that dogs are dirty
Peter Knutsen
> Do you know what their argument for that is?
You want religion to make sense?
JF
speculation is that it's the language which makes us, not the
other way round so the lack of words, if extended into the mind,
would preclude intelligence.
The story is very dense, allusive, and is probably the most
extreme SF short I've done. This is how it ends.
>>
[]
where am i... they always say that in films... hospital,
still in hospital, where was i though when i was trying to miss
that bastard, while the men were cutting me out of the car, while
the ambulance was taking me to the hospital, while they patched
me up, where was i is a much better and more urgent question...
question... words... language, the language thinking itself,
perhaps all we are is the template on which the language runs and
everything we are is the language, like the chinese room, the
words have taken over the ape and made us human, words give us
all our intellect and morals and ideals and loves, words bring
all the human things that make us more than apes, we are more
than apes, even lying in hospital with a worried nurse and family
and the edges going black, we are more than apes, we give the
tray with most sweets away but we know what we're doing because
the language lets us be more than apes, we can beat the monkey
see, monkey grab because we think in symbols, in words, but if
it's words that make us what we are then what are we in the end,
not apes, not an ape no, not I, not an ape, i'd rather be just
language but then where will i go when the... when the
template... ends, be brave say the word, dies, when the template
dies the words end and we're gone...
getting very dark...
dark... rage against the dying of the light... memorials...
words on stone... not marble nor the gilded tombs of princes...
obituaries... in time naught but the word endures... words in
books and mags and computer games... i am immortal, i'm on a cd,
i'm in print, i'm on the internet... my words will remain,
symbols waiting to be in another mind, the karaoke of being,
waiting to live again however briefly as the symbols run on
another template, words, perhaps that's all we ever are, all
everyone is, perhaps in the end we're just
words
>>
The argument is more developed earlier in the piece, referring to
the observation that a bonobo working with symbols can solve
problems that it fails to solve when presented with the real
world objects.
That strange actor who used to do things at SF conventions would
have been perfect, just a face or -- better -- just a mouth
spouting the words with increasing desperation and a green amber
red light. It should be taken at a slower pace than
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8C4HL2LyWU
And knowledge itself must pass away.
JF
Peter Knutsen
Bill Swears
http://www.submission.org/pets/dogs2.html
indicates that the Quran never says anything bad about dogs, and makes
the point that a particular dog lives in a cave with a fully righteous
family. There are many Hadith's that contradict the idea that dogs
could live among the righteous, which the second link attributes most
to somebody named "Abu Hurayra. Abu Hurayra, whose name is translated
as, father of the little cat."
We Christians also have examples of Jesus teaching being over-ridden in
favor of later interpretations that clearly oppose His will (sorry about
the editorial comment).
Eric Ammadon
>On 04/01/2010 10:21, James A. Donald wrote:
>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>>> Islam holds that dogs are dirty
>>
>> Peter Knutsen
>>> Do you know what their argument for that is?
>>
>> You want religion to make sense?
>
>In a way, yes, so that I can write about religious characters.
I think the key there might be that they don't expect it to make sense
as long as they can remember what they're supposed to believe.
Religion is about faith, not sense; if it was about sense, it would be
called science or philosophy or something other than religion.
Brian M. Scott
<n...@spam.thankee> wrote in
<news:reu5k597p0kabomgv...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>On 04/01/2010 10:21, James A. Donald wrote:
>>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>>>> Islam holds that dogs are dirty
>>> Peter Knutsen
>>>> Do you know what their argument for that is?
>>> You want religion to make sense?
It usually does, for the most part, once you understand its
postulates and cultural starting point.
>> In a way, yes, so that I can write about religious
>> characters.
> I think the key there might be that they don't expect it
> to make sense as long as they can remember what they're
> supposed to believe. Religion is about faith, not sense;
> if it was about sense, it would be called science or
> philosophy or something other than religion.
You have an unrealistically narrow understanding of
religion. The boundary between philosophy and religion is
anything but sharp; religious belief is not always about
faith, and it is frequently about sense as well as faith.
(Between having some interest in history and anthropology on
the one hand, and a dislike of religion on the other, I've
actually bothered to learn a little about the subject.)
R.L.
> In article <t0uwt0qkq8g$.1p2dvdwz0p6yg$.d...@40tude.net>,
> "R.L." <del...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>> I agree that the forms of intraspecies violence are different. But one
>>> can still compare the totals. That seems like the simplest test of the
>>> claim that wolves are better at avoiding intraspecies killing than
>>> humans are.
>>
>> Humans have weapons of mass killing, and sometimes there are mass
>> sociological factors that force some people to kill in spite of their
>> inclinations (eg draftees). Imo this inflates the human-killed totals
>> unfairly.
>
> Perhaps.
>
> But given that my estimate for human/human killing of all sorts is 2-3
> per 10,000 per year, I'm not sure it inflates it above the wolf/wolf
> figure.
I'm coming in late, so I don't know where you got a wolf/wolf figure, or in
what situations wolves do kill each other.
R.L.
Eric Ammadon
>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:40:23 -0700, Eric Ammadon
><n...@spam.thankee> wrote in
><news:reu5k597p0kabomgv...@4ax.com> in
>rec.arts.sf.composition:
>
>> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>On 04/01/2010 10:21, James A. Donald wrote:
>
>>>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>>>>> Islam holds that dogs are dirty
>
>>>> Peter Knutsen
>>>>> Do you know what their argument for that is?
>
>>>> You want religion to make sense?
>
>It usually does, for the most part, once you understand its
>postulates and cultural starting point.
>
>>> In a way, yes, so that I can write about religious
>>> characters.
>
>> I think the key there might be that they don't expect it
>> to make sense as long as they can remember what they're
>> supposed to believe. Religion is about faith, not sense;
>> if it was about sense, it would be called science or
>> philosophy or something other than religion.
>
>You have an unrealistically narrow understanding of
>religion.
You have a penchant for jumping to conclusions then issuing them as
pontifications, and your ability to detect subtle snidery seems sorely
lacking.
There is religion (that which relates to deity whether well-thought or
ill-thought), there is religion (the business of emptying hats filled
by the faithful) and there are religious people (who may fall into the
thoughtful or faithful catetory but very seldom both).
"Religious characters" do tend to be "characters" don't they, rather
than simple realistic people, unless you're writing lit-ra-cher or
documentary.
> The boundary between philosophy and religion is
>anything but sharp; religious belief is not always about
>faith, and it is frequently about sense as well as faith.
Yes, those of us who are not idiots recognize that, Brian.
>(Between having some interest in history and anthropology on
>the one hand, and a dislike of religion on the other, I've
>actually bothered to learn a little about the subject.)
Sonny-boy, any time you start going on about how "I've
actually bothered to learn a little about the subject" you have
already screwed the pooch in terms of argumentation.
Your chest-pounding naivte embarasses me and it apalls me to imagine
you to be such a fool that it does not embarass you.
netcat
warric...@gmail.com says...
> We've had several cats that could talk -- horrid accent, limited
> vocabulary, and no syntax at all, but understandable words: "Out",
> "Food", and similar concepts, and one tomcat who would, upon being given
> some delectable morsel, look directly at you and say "tangk" before
> diving in.
I had a dog that could say the equivalent of "Out" in Estonian when it
wanted to go outdoors. The word having no consonants helped, I suppose.
Did your cats pick it up on their own (as my dog did) or did you train
them to speak this way?
rgds,
netcat
netcat
pe...@sagatafl.invalid says...
> On 28/12/2009 11:03, Eric Ammadon wrote:
> > Peter Knutsen<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> >> they like a particular human, or want to get to some place (or, although
> >> I imagine this is rare, if they want to pretend to like a particular
> >> human) they might utilize some kind of pick-me-up signal. What could
> >> that be?
> >
> > If a cat wants picked up it will (a) rub against your leg, then (b)
> > allow you to pick it up rather than clawing you for an attempted
> > indignity.
I've had lots of cats do the leg-rubbing part to me with no desire to be
picked up or handled in any way whatsoever.
> Sure, but intelligent cats might want something subtler. They're rather
> more solitary than humans, so when they do want to reach out, socially,
> they may be particularly sensitiv about rejection, preferring to "probe"
> very subtly first, to see if the human shows interest.
>
> > If you do something a cat finds extremely offensive, it will turn
> > away, then dig with its rear feet, as if covering up scat. The
> > implied insult is surprisingly obvious.
>
> Interesting information, thanks! What actions might a cat find extremely
> offensive, though?
Your presence where you're not wanted, if you're not their owner, is
often enough. And if you do not take the hint, they will take a dump in
your shoes.
rgds,
netcat
Ric Locke
I suppose the right answer would be "on their own", but my wife and I
both have the habit of talking to pets as if they could comprehend. If
every time the cat is by the door meowing, you say "Out" a couple of
times in response to the vocalizations, some of them eventually pick it
up. If you mean, "did we sit down and try to formally train them", no.
Neither of us has the patience, even with more biddable critters.
Regards,
Ric
netcat
says...
> Cats and me are too alike and we cannot agree on who's in charge so
> one way or another they go out the door asap.
I'm a cat person who prefers dogs for the very same reason.
rgds,
netcat
netcat
pe...@sagatafl.invalid says...
> On 02/01/2010 17:12, David Friedman wrote:
> > Peter Knutsen<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> >> instance. Rather better than humans, I'd say.
> >
> > Any data on the actual intraspecies death rate?
>
> Sorry, no, but I believe it is well known that wolves are extremely good
> at establishing and accepting dominance/superiorrity patterns, without
> one wolf having to do any noticable physical damage to the other.
>
> Two humans meeting, stereotypically males although females are catching
> up these days, and disliking each other, is very likely to end up with
> one of them bleeding, perhaps bleeding badly.
I assume you have a very different meaning for the word "dislike" than I
do. I dislike a lot of people. I haven't hit any of them, and none of
them have hit me.
rgds,
netcat
netcat
warric...@gmail.com says...
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:26:29 +0200, netcat wrote:
>
> > In article <ofatla5d0pfk$.18onikwf72jsa$.d...@40tude.net>,
> > warric...@gmail.com says...
> >> We've had several cats that could talk -- horrid accent, limited
> >> vocabulary, and no syntax at all, but understandable words: "Out",
> >> "Food", and similar concepts, and one tomcat who would, upon being given
> >> some delectable morsel, look directly at you and say "tangk" before
> >> diving in.
> >
> > I had a dog that could say the equivalent of "Out" in Estonian when it
> > wanted to go outdoors. The word having no consonants helped, I suppose.
> >
> > Did your cats pick it up on their own (as my dog did) or did you train
> > them to speak this way?
> both have the habit of talking to pets as if they could comprehend. If
> every time the cat is by the door meowing, you say "Out" a couple of
> times in response to the vocalizations, some of them eventually pick it
> up.
Ah, ok, in that case that's similar to what I did.
rgds,
netcat
David Friedman
"R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
I don't have a wolf/wolf figure. I was responding to someone who implied
it was lower than the human/human figure, so I estimated the latter and
asked him for the former. He didn't have it.
Alex Markov
wrote:
> In article <ffb1lbqie54q$.10qhzk3ei121p$....@40tude.net>,
>
> "R.L." <see-...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
> > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:19:46 -0600, David Friedman wrote:
>
> > > "R.L." <dela...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> I agree that the forms of intraspecies violence are different. But one
> > >>> can still compare the totals. That seems like the simplest test of the
> > >>> claim that wolves are better at avoiding intraspecies killing than
> > >>> humans are.
>
> > >> Humans have weapons of mass killing, and sometimes there are mass
> > >> sociological factors that force some people to kill in spite of their
> > >> inclinations (eg draftees). Imo this inflates the human-killed totals
> > >> unfairly.
>
> > > Perhaps.
>
> > > But given that my estimate for human/human killing of all sorts is 2-3
> > > per 10,000 per year, I'm not sure it inflates it above the wolf/wolf
> > > figure.
>
> > I'm coming in late, so I don't know where you got a wolf/wolf figure, or in
> > what situations wolves do kill each other.
>
> I don't have a wolf/wolf figure. I was responding to someone who implied
> it was lower than the human/human figure, so I estimated the latter and
> asked him for the former. He didn't have it.
>
Here is it, and it seems that life of wolf pretty much sucks.
www.nps.gov/dena/naturescience/upload/WolfMonitoring2009.pdf
Mortality of collared wolves
Denali is one of the few areas in the world where
humans are not the primary cause of wolf mortality.
Of 190 collared wolves that have died, about
20% were killed by humans (mostly legal harvest
when they ventured outside park boundaries). At
least 40% were killed by neighboring wolf packs,
generally in winter when packs roam beyond their
usual territories. Another 40% died of natural
causes. Many of these wolves were too decomposed
or consumed to determine the cause of death, but
some were undoubtedly also killed by wolves. Other
known causes of natural mortality include avalanche,
starvation, drowning, old age, and disease.
Suzanne Blom
"Alex Markov" <ale...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:0fe6c102-466b-4bc2...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
www.nps.gov/dena/naturescience/upload/WolfMonitoring2009.pdf
>Mortality of collared wolves
Yeah, I had the hunch that wolves (and other animals) were more likely to
kill each other than humans are to kill others of their own species. For
one thing, humans are capable of living in much larger groups than most
other species. Passenger pigeons are the main exception I know of.
Michelle Bottorff
> > Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Two humans meeting, stereotypically males although
> >> females are catching up these days, and disliking each
> >> other, is very likely to end up with one of them
> >> bleeding, perhaps bleeding badly.
>
> > This strikes me as a completely ludicrous statement.
>
> That makes two of us. It completely ignores the influence
> of circumstances and the surrounding culture.
Black Flag has a very violent culture where people think that hitting
each other is a pretty good way to work out various sorts of problems.
I imagine their school rooms are at least as bloody as Bill's schoolyard
in Albequerque, probably more so.
I know one of my characters who grew up in the Black Flag claims that
there pretty much wasn't a time during his boyhood when he *wasn't*
sporting a black eye -- I assume that a lot of bloody noses were
involved as well.
And, if anything, fighting becomes *more* respectable when a crewman
reaches adulthood.
And yet, I have two minor characters who dislike each other intensely
and who have not gotten into a fight.
Why not? Well.... I just can't imagine them *starting* a fight with out
some exterior cause that is yet to present itself. I don't think it's a
failure of imagination on my part -- I certainly can imagine any number
of the other Black Flag characters getting into fights. In fact, I
have a lot of fights built into the canon already.
So I'm sort of hoping that it's just a failure on my part to reduce half
of humanity to a two dimensional status.
Culture, circumstance AND personality?
--
Michelle Bottorff -> Chelle B. -> Shelby
L. Shelby, Writer http://www.lshelby.com/
Livejournal http://lavenderbard.livejournal.com/
rec.arts.sf.composition FAQ http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
Bill Swears
>
> And yet, I have two minor characters who dislike each other intensely
> and who have not gotten into a fight.
>
> Why not? Well.... I just can't imagine them *starting* a fight with out
> some exterior cause that is yet to present itself. I don't think it's a
> failure of imagination on my part -- I certainly can imagine any number
> of the other Black Flag characters getting into fights. In fact, I
> have a lot of fights built into the canon already.
>
> So I'm sort of hoping that it's just a failure on my part to reduce half
> of humanity to a two dimensional status.
>
> Culture, circumstance AND personality?
some people should not ever fight each other because one or both will
die. I can even imagine enemies who choose not to fight because they
each realize intellectually that the other's death would make the world
a poorer place.
James A. Donald
> > > > Islam holds that dogs are dirty
Peter Knutsen
> >> Do you know what their argument for that is?
James A. Donald:
> > You want religion to make sense?
Peter Knutsen
> In a way, yes, so that I can write about religious
> characters.
Religion makes emotional sense, not logical sense.
Consider the argument that Jesus died for our sins.
And not all religions even make a emotional sense, Islam
being a notorious counter example. Loving death is just
stupid.
In general, countries that are more Christian, or in
Israel's case more Jewish, have a higher fertility rate,
lower suicide rate, higher rate of business start ups,
and more scientific discoveries, suggesting that
Christianity and modern Judaism has something right with
them, but making sense is not one of those things.
JF
> Yeah, I had the hunch that wolves (and other animals) were more likely to
> kill each other than humans are to kill others of their own species. For
> one thing, humans are capable of living in much larger groups than most
> other species. Passenger pigeons are the main exception I know of.
http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/images/grants/photocomp/WinnerWholeOrganismPop2007.jpg
JF
Ric Locke
Well, yes.
Some people simply prefer not to fight. In a culture such as the one you
depict, which is a sort of extreme version of many societies that have
existed, a person who prefers not to fight needs to be very good at
fighting, and known to be so. Such a person will occasionally be
challenged by those seeking status, but will be offered other forms of
resolution otherwise. Shel Silverstein, in typical 4/4 time with the
meter not just broken but smashed:
A hunk of a man with a beer in his hand
He looked like a drunk old fool
And I knew if I hit him right
That I could knock him off of that stool
But ever'body, they said, Look Out!
Hey, that's Tiger Man McCool
He's had a whole lot of fights
And he's always come out the winner
Yeah, he's a winner
But I'd had myself about five too many
And I walked up tall and proud
Faced his back, and I faced the fact
That he had never stooped or bowed
I said "Tiger Man, you're a pussycat,"
And a hush fell on the crowd
I said "Let's go outside
And see who comes out the winner
Yeah the winner
Well he gripped the bar with one big hairy hand
And he braced against the wall
Slowly stood up from his beer
And my God, that man was tall
He said "Boy, I can see you're a scrapper
So just before you fall
I'm gonna tell you just a little
'bout what means to be a winner
Yeah, a winner.
"Now you see these bright white smilin' teeth
Well y'know they ain't my own
Mine rolled away like Chicklets
Down a street in San Antone
But I left that person cursin'
Nursin' seven broken bones
An' he only broke, ah, three of mine
That makes me the winner
Yeah, the winner."
[Two more verses in that vein, which I don't remember]
"I got arthuritic elbows, boy,
I got dislocated knees
From pickin' fights with thunderstorms
And chargin' into trees
An' my nose been broke so often
I might lose it if I sneeze
And son, you say you still wanta be a winner
Yeah, a winner
"Now you remind me a lot o'my younger days
With your knuckles clenchin' white
But boy, I'm gonna sit right here
An' sip this beer all night
An' if there's somethin' you gotta gain or prove
By winnin' some silly fight --
Well, OK. I quit.
I lose.
You're the winner."
So I stumbled from that barroom
Not so tall and not so proud
And behind me I still hear the hoots
Of laughter from the crowd
But my eyes still see and my knees still work
And my teeth are still in my mouth
And y'know, I guess that that makes me
The winner!
I suspect your Black Flag guys would like that song, and the two guys
who hate one another may just be winners, both of them.
Regards,
Ric
R.L.
Wasn't the original claim that wolves _had_ more ways of avoiding killing
each other -- presumably with less violent fights over status and mating
and such. When there really isn't enough food or territory to go around,
they may choose otherwise.
R.L.
Brian M. Scott
<n...@spam.thankee> wrote in
<news:5076k552nd75u20uh...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:40:23 -0700, Eric Ammadon
>> <n...@spam.thankee> wrote in <news:reu5k597p0kabomgv2ihfve8
>> qkgn0...@4ax.com> in rec.arts.sf.composition:
>>> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>>>On 04/01/2010 10:21, James A. Donald wrote:
>>>>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>>>>>> Islam holds that dogs are dirty
>>>>> Peter Knutsen
>>>>>> Do you know what their argument for that is?
>>>>> You want religion to make sense?
>> It usually does, for the most part, once you understand
>> its postulates and cultural starting point.
>>>> In a way, yes, so that I can write about religious
>>>> characters.
>>> I think the key there might be that they don't expect it
>>> to make sense as long as they can remember what they're
>>> supposed to believe. Religion is about faith, not sense;
>>> if it was about sense, it would be called science or
>>> philosophy or something other than religion.
>> You have an unrealistically narrow understanding of
>> religion.
> You have a penchant for jumping to conclusions then
> issuing them as pontifications, and your ability to
> detect subtle snidery seems sorely lacking.
At least I don't confuse it with crass insult.
> There is religion (that which relates to deity whether
> well-thought or ill-thought),
Not necessarily, no.
> there is religion (the business of emptying hats filled by
> the faithful) and there are religious people (who may
> fall into the thoughtful or faithful catetory but very
> seldom both).
> "Religious characters" do tend to be "characters" don't
> they, rather than simple realistic people, unless you're
> writing lit-ra-cher or documentary.
Characters, religious or otherwise, are characters. Some
are simple cardboard; some are complex cardboard mosaics;
some are simple and realistic; and some are complex and
realistic.
>> The boundary between philosophy and religion is
>>anything but sharp; religious belief is not always about
>>faith, and it is frequently about sense as well as faith.
> Yes, those of us who are not idiots recognize that, Brian.
Apparently this recognition doesn't prevent from asserting
something that contradicts it.
[...]