Skunks and zoophilia...
Eric A. Schwartz
Tony Velasquez <vela...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>In article <1993Nov2.0...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> two...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Thomas Wolfe) writes:
>>Are there any out there who are sexually attracted to skunks?
>>
>
> Can you imagine that? I mean, those little guys spray that stinky
>stuff! How're you going to ...well... you know... without the little guy
>stinking you to kingdom come?!? BTW, no, I'm not sexually attracted to
>skunks, but I did have a crush on a girl who was sort of irritating sometimes.
>
Well, a lot of us love that smell. You'd just have to watch
out not to get any in your eyes. I think their small size would
be more of a problem.
I think they are sentient, BTW. They seem far too selective in their
spraying not to be. Mustelids have rather well developed brains.
E.S.
Quozl
**}}FROM: Eric A. Schwartz
**}}SUBJECT: Skunks and zoophilia.
**}}ON: 11-08-93 22:24
EAS> In article <2b4qt4$j...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>,
EAS> Tony Velasquez <vela...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>In article <1993Nov2.0...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> two...@nyx10.cs.du.edu
EAS> (Thomas Wolfe) writes: >>Are there any out there who are sexually
EAS> attracted to skunks? >>
>
> Can you imagine that? I mean, those little guys spray that stinky
>stuff! How're you going to ...well... you know... without the little guy
>stinking you to kingdom come?!? BTW, no, I'm not sexually attracted to
>skunks, but I did have a crush on a girl who was sort of irritating sometimes.
>
EAS> Well, a lot of us love that smell. You'd just have to watch
EAS> out not to get any in your eyes. I think their small size would
EAS> be more of a problem.
My point precisely... Although I don't know how large a skunk's organs are, but
I do know otters' organs are fairly good sized....
EAS> I think they are sentient, BTW. They seem far too selective in their
EAS> spraying not to be. Mustelids have rather well developed brains.
I have read that (depending on whether you're a dog-person or a cat-person),
they're considered as smart as dogs or cats (respectively), and may be amongst
the smartest native North American mammals... :)
....Quozl!
(qu...@teamhbbs.com)
(denni...@teamhbbs.com)
(Denni...@f313.n161.z1.fidonet.org)
(Dennis Falk @ 1:161/313.0 @ Fidonet/FurNet)
... "I've been *JUICED*!" -Fifi La Fume, TTA
---
. Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 .
----
{ Team H BBS - Richmond, CA - 510-236-5114 - Anonymous accounts available }
{ Japanese Animation & Adult *** Stories, Pictures, Conversation }
{ Also supporting Pagan, Fat, and GLB issues }
{ Now carrying RIME and ThrobNet! }
Eric A. Schwartz
>
>My point precisely... Although I don't know how large a skunk's
>organs are, but
>I do know otters' organs are fairly good sized....
>
are still too small, and they are larger than skunks. A river
otter's (male) genitals are bigger than a finger, but smaller than
a human's. Sea otters would be possible except that there isn't any
way to hold on to them, and they hate being grabbed. (It squeezes the
insulating air out of their fur.) So while big enough, it really
wouldn't work unless you could mate like a sea otter, and I've never
met anyone whose jaw muscles could hold tightly to the female's
nose for that long. :-) And my nose shudders at the thought of
being grabbed in the jaws of a male sea otter... :*( Shame too,
because they are such _gorgeous_ animals. ;-) And you don't even
have to buy them a fur coat... :-)
>EAS> I think they are sentient, BTW. They seem far too selective in their
>EAS> spraying not to be. Mustelids have rather well developed brains.
>
>I have read that (depending on whether you're a dog-person or a cat-person),
>they're considered as smart as dogs or cats (respectively), and may be amongst
>the smartest native North American mammals... :)
>
I think the very smartest is a close contest between raccoons and
otters. My personal bias is towards the otters, but I have to admit
the 'coons are pretty bright, too. The otters are definitely
friendlier, though. But even as far "down" the weasels as the
mink, they are smart enough to engage in extensive play time, and
that indicates very high inteligence. Skunks are way up there,
for sure.
E.S.
Quozl
**}}FROM: Eric A. Schwartz
**}}SUBJECT: Skunks and zoophilia.
EAS> In article <129.13...@teamhbbs.com>, Quozl <qu...@teamhbbs.com>
EAS> wrote: >
>My point precisely... Although I don't know how large a skunk's
>organs are, but
>I do know otters' organs are fairly good sized....
>
EAS> I've never seen a skunk's organs either, but otters (at least river
EAS> otters) are still too small, and they are larger than skunks. A
EAS> river otter's (male) genitals are bigger than a finger, but smaller
EAS> than a human's. Sea otters would be possible except that there isn't
EAS> any way to hold on to them, and they hate being grabbed. (It squeezes
EAS> the insulating air out of their fur.) So while big enough, it really
EAS> wouldn't work unless you could mate like a sea otter, and I've never
EAS> met anyone whose jaw muscles could hold tightly to the female's
EAS> nose for that long. :-) And my nose shudders at the thought of
EAS> being grabbed in the jaws of a male sea otter... :*( Shame too,
EAS> because they are such _gorgeous_ animals. ;-) And you don't even
EAS> have to buy them a fur coat... :-)
I'm *not* going to comment on how you know! ;) :)
>EAS> I think they are sentient, BTW. They seem far too selective in their
>EAS> spraying not to be. Mustelids have rather well developed brains.
>
>I have read that (depending on whether you're a dog-person or a cat-person),
>they're considered as smart as dogs or cats (respectively), and may be amongst
>the smartest native North American mammals... :)
>
EAS> I think the very smartest is a close contest between raccoons and
EAS> otters. My personal bias is towards the otters, but I have to admit
EAS> the 'coons are pretty bright, too. The otters are definitely
EAS> friendlier, though. But even as far "down" the weasels as the
EAS> mink, they are smart enough to engage in extensive play time, and
EAS> that indicates very high inteligence. Skunks are way up there,
EAS> for sure.
Well, considering that cats are incredibly intelligent, and skunks are compared
favorably to cats, otters must be damn smart! ;)
(Note that I'm a cat person, hence my comparison... ;) )
Imagine: had no non-native high-sentient being (like Man) ever made it to North
America, in a few million years, the first high-sentients in NA would have been
some mustelid... And skunks are well-developed for full anthropomorphization!
*grin!*
....Quozl!
(qu...@teamhbbs.com)
(denni...@teamhbbs.com)
(Denni...@f313.n161.z1.fidonet.org)
(Dennis Falk @ 1:161/313.0 @ Fidonet/FurNet)
... Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.
Peter da Silva
The word "sentient" means "having senses". A cockrach is sentient.
The word "sapient" means "having intelligence".
I think most people mean "sapient" when they say "sentient".
--
Peter da Silva. <pe...@sugar.neosoft.com>.
`-_-' Ja' abracas-te o tey lobo, hoje?
'U`
Looks like UNIX, Feels like UNIX, works like MVS -- IBM advertisement.
Phil OKunewick
>An FYI:
>
>The word "sentient" means "having senses". A cockrach is sentient.
>
>The word "sapient" means "having intelligence".
>
>I think most people mean "sapient" when they say "sentient".
Languages change with time; you'll find many words in use today
which mean something other than they did in the past. This is why
"Skunk" can be translated to "Malaria" if you go through the proper
sequence of translations. Dictionaries regularly get revised to meet
the contemporary usage of a word.
"Nit-picking" originally meant removing body lice and other tiny
parasites from people, but through time it has taken on a meaning
which is only vaguely similar to it's original use. Although removing
body lice has little to do with the current thread, the term would be
most appropriate if applied here.
--
"When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean."
---Lewis Carroll
Peter da Silva
> pe...@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >The word "sentient" means "having senses". A cockrach is sentient.
> >The word "sapient" means "having intelligence".
> >I think most people mean "sapient" when they say "sentient".
> Languages change with time; you'll find many words in use today
> which mean something other than they did in the past.
Sure. "hacker", for example. I had to retire the "hackercorp.com" domain
because of that.
You consider this nit-picking. I consider it a communication problem. There
is an attribute of animal life called "sentience". It has a specific technical
term and generally is considered the attribute that separates animals from
plants and fungi. Using it to mean something else that already has a fine
word serving the purpose, and that people will understand perfectly well, is
just plain laziness.
Of course skunks are sentient. There's no question of that. Sapient, they're
not. Ask me about chimps or dolphins, that's a much tougher call.
[spam deleted]
> "When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean."
> ---Lewis Carroll
Nitpick: it was Humpty Dumpty said that. Charles Dodgson was fond of
playing games with language, but never doubt he was perfectly capable of
using it with precision and respect. You need to read his less popular
works, instead of taking your cues from a childrens' book.
Phil OKunewick
But like the odor, some could find it pleasant.
(But hey, there's no accounting for taste.)
pe...@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <CGLCD...@cse.psu.edu> okunewck@pds16 (Phil OKunewick) writes:
>> pe...@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> >The word "sentient" means "having senses". A cockrach is sentient.
>
>> >The word "sapient" means "having intelligence".
>
>> >I think most people mean "sapient" when they say "sentient".
>
>> Languages change with time; you'll find many words in use today
>> which mean something other than they did in the past.
>
>Sure. "hacker", for example. I had to retire the "hackercorp.com" domain
>because of that.
>
>You consider this nit-picking. I consider it a communication problem.
A comunication problem exists when the intended message isn't
received or the meaning is missunderstood by the recipeient. In the
case in point, the mesage got across just fine. There was no
comunnication problem. However, the originel thread has now been
completely obfuscated by the curent discussion. Obfuscation of a
mesage is a comunication probelm.
Even things like horendous speling and gramar dont interfear with a
mesage as long as its understood. You could point out my erorrs hear,
but doing so would no help my original mesage come across properly.
In other words, you wood be nit-picking.
>There
>is an attribute of animal life called "sentience". It has a specific technical
>term and generally is considered the attribute that separates animals from
>plants and fungi. Using it to mean something else that already has a fine
>word serving the purpose, and that people will understand perfectly well, is
>just plain laziness.
Laziness is not the proper word for this. If a word is used which
is understood, that is all the effort required. If linguists were in
charge of digging holes, the backhoe would have never been invented -
a shovel would still be the proper tool for removing dirt. Is it lazy
to use a backhoe? Or is it an effective way of getting the job done?
By your reasoning, "sentient" should be discarded altogether. One
could just as easily use the term "animal", since being an animal
infers sentience.
[Perhaps then the question would arise whether the venus fly trap
is sentient, and whether a plant that bends toward light is also
sentient. Taking the matter further, you could consider that a plant
that thrives where it can get the proper growing conditions is
sentient, because it could be argued that the plant is responding to
stimuli by growing.]
Now, why do we use "vegetarian" when "herbivore" is more
applicable? And can you think of a more ludicrous term than
"flashlight"? They don't flash; it's an electric torch or an electric
light! And should Pittsburgh really have an 'h' at the end?
People will use whatever words they darn well please, as long as
the message is understood by the recipient. In common contemporary
usage, "sentient" implies having high intelligence. "Spaient"
literally means this. But to an individual who does not pursue
anthropology, "Sapient" means "man" and at the same time carries the
subliminal message that the speaker feels that he is far more learned
than the recipient. This intimidates or even offends the recipient,
thus interfering with communication.
To put it simply, using what you consider to be the "proper" term
causes a communication problem, while using what is now a slang term
gets the message across. There certainly is a communication problem
here, but it lies with the person who is too nit-picky to speak the
common language.
>Of course skunks are sentient. There's no question of that. Sapient, they're
>not. Ask me about chimps or dolphins, that's a much tougher call.
Yes, what about "chimps"? Do you consider it laziness that a
perfectly good word, "chimpanzee", is used less often than an
informal, slang term? A century or two ago, there was no such thing
as a "chimp". Would it have been proper for you to flame the people
who first used the term?
>> "When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean."
>> ---Lewis Carroll
>
>Nitpick: it was Humpty Dumpty said that.
"Lewis Carroll" wrote it.
>Charles Dodgson was fond of
>playing games with language, but never doubt he was perfectly capable of
>using it with precision and respect.
Precision and respect, yes. And intentional abuse. He was very
fond of games and puzzles, both mathematical and literal. And
speaking of classics, look at Shakespere - where did he get off,
saying things like "the undiscovered country" and "the green eyed
monster"? Should he have used the "proper" words for these things?
>You need to read his less popular
>works, instead of taking your cues from a childrens' book.
(Nit-pick: your ' is in the wrong place ^)
(Are you too "lazy" to properly make a plural word posessive? :-)
Oooh, that hurt. And was most inappropriate too - Alice in
Wonderland was written as a political and social commentary, not as a
"children's book". Most of the characters were parodies of
influential individuals of the time; Humpty's story itself was an
observation about the self-destructive arrogance of a certain
individual, and his resultant downfall despite the political clout of
his mentor. You need to read more about history, instead of taking
your cues from the literal interpretation of the classics.
Disclaimer: all mispelled words in this posting were intentional. So there.
Dave Marks
In article <CGr9v...@cse.psu.edu>, okunewck@pds16 (Phil OKunewick) wrote:
> By your reasoning, "sentient" should be discarded altogether. One
> could just as easily use the term "animal", since being an animal
> infers sentience.
Only being a *well-functioning* animal implies sentience (not "infers"...
although I hate nit-picking) (no... wait a minute... that's not right... I
*LOVE* nit-picking!!); a very sick or very dead animal is not sentient.
Furthermore, as you demonstrated in your own well thought out example,
plants may be construed as "sentient" as well; so the two terms, "animal"
and "sentient" are *not* equivalent. My vote goes to keeping the word
"sentient" around for a while longer.
> People will use whatever words they darn well please, as long as
> the message is understood by the recipient.
Damn shame, too. Compromises precision. If science were run like that,
we'd still be eating unhealthy fried junk food and watching I Love Lucy
reruns for entertainment.
This notion of "common usage" is what keeps `philosophers' and other
parasites employed at our universities. If it ever got out that they just
say what they damn well feel like without a shred of discipline to temper
their blather, well... I shudder to think.
> In common contemporary
> usage, "sentient" implies having high intelligence.
Do you have any evidence of this? Can you name EVEN ONE dictionary that
lists "high intelligence" -- nay, even "intelligence" -- as a synonym in
common usage, or otherwise, for "sentience"? I doubt it. If you ask me,
"sentient" does not mean "sapient". At best, you'll get "perceptive" or
something. If we ask you, it does. I say that you've been misusing a
certain word for a while. (Not that I haven't also misused words, of
course.)
> "Spaient"
> literally means this. But to an individual who does not pursue
> anthropology, "Sapient" means "man" and at the same time carries the
> subliminal message that the speaker feels that he is far more learned
> than the recipient. This intimidates or even offends the recipient,
> thus interfering with communication.
This is a joke, right?
> To put it simply, using what you consider to be the "proper" term
> causes a communication problem, while using what is now a slang term
> gets the message across. There certainly is a communication problem
> here, but it lies with the person who is too nit-picky to speak the
> common language.
ummm....
> Yes, what about "chimps"? Do you consider it laziness that a
> perfectly good word, "chimpanzee",
Do you have any evidence that "chimpanzee" is a perfectly good word? I've
never been all that fond of it, myself, prefering "monkey" or "Democrat"
most of the time. (Oops... wrong newsgroup!)
> Alice in
> Wonderland was written as a political and social commentary, not as a
> "children's book". Most of the characters were parodies of
> influential individuals of the time; Humpty's story itself was an
> observation about the self-destructive arrogance of a certain
> individual, and his resultant downfall despite the political clout of
> his mentor.
Now wait a minute... I don't recall this from "The Annotated Alice" at
all... cite your evidence! (Sorry... science isn't going so well this
week, so I'm forced to pick nits instead for my intellectual gratification
and adolescent ego-appeasement. Apologies.)
DMM
__________________________________________________________________________
Dave Marks, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL 60208
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, 708/491-8615, Fax: 708/491-9982; Materials
Science Dept., 708/491-3571, Fax: 708/491-7820 dma...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Eric A. Schwartz
Peter da Silva <pe...@NeoSoft.com> wrote:
>
>Of course skunks are sentient. There's no question of that. Sapient, they're
>not. Ask me about chimps or dolphins, that's a much tougher call.
>
I haven't had much contact with skunks, but judging from what I've
come to know of otters and ferrets, I would find the idea of sapient
skunks entirely plausible. Mustelids in general are just about the
smartest animals you could find. The otters at the zoo outclass the
monkeys by no small margin, and I've read quite a few accounts by
other researchers that put them right up with chimps. My ferrets aren't
far behind, either. I see no reason to say that skunks could not be
just as capable mentally as at least ferrets. If you don't think ferrets
are sapient, get one. They think far ahead of what they're doing,
need to learn something only once (and often just by seeing it done)
and in general show every sign of possessing every aspect of full
mental capacity, if not quite as much of all aspects as a human.
E.S.
Peter da Silva
> >You consider this nit-picking. I consider it a communication problem.
> A comunication problem exists when the intended message isn't
> received or the meaning is missunderstood by the recipeient
It isn't.
The basic problem is that the words even in this recent usage (which pretty
much is restricted to SF fans, I've found) *don't* have the same meaning.
Sentient seems to be a more flexible word, one that's less useful because
different people have different ideas of what it means.
So someone asks "Are skunks sentient" and someone who uses it loosely says
"sure", someone who think it means exactly the same thing as "sapient" says
"no way", and I use the strict meaning and say "by definition they are".
If you ask "are skunks sapient" there's only one possible answer, and it
doesn't depend on the listener's personal definition of the word.
It's a communication problem. And in this forum with its low bandwidth it's
even more important to use precise and accurate language. This doesn't mean
you have to talk like a schoolteacher or avoid the use of abbreviations or
fannish terms (chimp, fannish, netiquette, ...). This doesn't even mean you
have to be precise and accurate in spelling, though to quote a well known
piece of netiquette:
> Even things like horendous speling and gramar dont interfear with a
> mesage as long as its understood. You could point out my erorrs hear,
> but doing so would no help my original mesage come across properly.
> In other words, you wood be nit-picking.
Poor spelling and grammar in a news posting communicate the same message
as soiled clothes in other social contexts.
But I wouldn't call someone on that. Nor do I bother with most other use
of casual language. This particular case, however, and a few others like it
are situations where the fannish or casual usage of the word is itself
awfully poorly defined. It's best to avoid a word like that if you want to
engage in an enjoyable and productive discussion.
This one, by the way, is neither enjoyable nor productive.
Peter da Silva
> I see no reason to say that skunks could not be
> just as capable mentally as at least ferrets. If you don't think ferrets
> are sapient, get one. They think far ahead of what they're doing,
> need to learn something only once (and often just by seeing it done)
> and in general show every sign of possessing every aspect of full
> mental capacity, if not quite as much of all aspects as a human.
I have no doubt that they're intelligent animals, but sapient implies things
like the ability to use and extend a symbolic language. Certainly anyone who
thinks dumb animals are *stupid* just because they can't talk is awfully
short-sighted... problem solving ability has been found a common trait
throughout the animal kingdom, but attributing anything like the intelligence
of a chimpanzee to something with a brain the size of a walnut... I don't
buy it.
Eric A. Schwartz
Peter da Silva <pe...@NeoSoft.com> wrote:
>
>like the ability to use and extend a symbolic language. Certainly anyone who
>thinks dumb animals are *stupid* just because they can't talk is awfully
>short-sighted... problem solving ability has been found a common trait
>throughout the animal kingdom, but attributing anything like the intelligence
>of a chimpanzee to something with a brain the size of a walnut... I don't
>buy it.
>--
for the sake of argument, I'll humor you. :-) :-) :-)
Otters can use symbolic language. I taught mine a sign for "I have no
food" and after a while I found I could abreviate the sign to just a
part of the more complicated (and direct) original and they still knew
what it meant. They also extended it to anyone else, so if they heard
a keeper approaching they learned to come over to me and be told whether
"fffishshsh", (yes there was food coming) or "sign" (nobody has food).
They still remember the original meaning of the sign in context, too,
and if they are being fed by the keeper and I have no fish, they take the
same sign to mean "Eric has no fish, go to the keeper." The language
is symbolic in that the current form of the "no food" sign is no longer
the obvious display that my hands were empty, and in that its meaning is
a function of context. Otter brains are considerably larger than walnuts,
BTW, and while skunk brains aren't (nor ferret brains), they are much
smaller animals than chimps, with very poor eyesight, less manual dexterity,
and a considerably simpler social structure. All that means they need
less brain for those activities, and that means they could have a much
larger proportion left over for thought.
Don't be so anthropocentric. Chimp (and human) brains are visual
processors and cetacean brains are sonar analyzers. Of course
they are big. Mustelids tend to feel and sniff their way around
more and that doesn't require the same amount of brain matter. But
they are still _very_ smart animals. I don't think they outdo
chimps or dolphins, but they certainly aren't "not sapient" just
because their brain structure isn't the same as ours.
E.S.
Bill Marcum
and a fish brain, and the caption said something like "theoretically, the
human should outsmart the fish every time".
Peter da Silva
That's humans for you. Jack of all trades and master of none.
