Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

“Good Dogs, Bad People, And Cats”

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Do Animals have moral values?...

…Blah blah blah blah blahb blah blah blah blahb blah blah blah blahb blah blah blah blahb blah blah blah blahb blah blah blah blahb blah blah blah blahb blah blah blah…

...dog morality is to human morality as chimpanzee language is the human language…

…Blah blah blah blah blahb blah blah blah blahb blah blah blah blahb blah blah blah blahb blah blah blah blahb blah blah blah blahb blah blah blah blahb blah blah blah…

…Animals that evolved as solitary predators feel no moral bonds of restrictions on their behavior.  Cats, in other words, are safe.  They have no morals, which is one of the reasons why so many people love them.

It really hurt to see this in the Science section of the New York Times… so much for the NYT. Here is the link, I really felt like sharing the burden, please rant at will to make me feel better. :dough:

Edit: Link doesn't work (darn the NYT again). If interested just google { "good dogs" "james gorman" }

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link doesn't work (darn the NYT again).  If interested just google { "good dogs" "james gorman" }

It does, you just have to be an online subscriber. If if makes you feel any better, the author obviously has no knowledge of science, does not understand that science has to do with this little thing we like to call "facts", and also he has clearly never owned two dogs (people who own just one dog have no clue of the mindless yet cute savagery of two dogs). Maybe Gorman is really Neuroto Sophist, you think?

Isn't nature remarkable? It turns out that there is absolutely no difference between dogs and humans, when it comes to anything cognitive. It took the deep insights of a literary critic to reveal this stunning truth, which we were blinded to by our reliance on simplistic observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really hurt to see this in the Science section of the New York Times… so much for the NYT.

Time was when the NYT was a respectable newspaper, a great source of firsthand information and an accurate reporter on current scientific papers. Those days are long gone and they are no better than whatever paper is the currently No. 1 gossip rag. It is very difficult for the average person to get a decent sense of what is actually going on in science. A shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outside of popular media, are you aware of any reputable layman's science news sources?

Science News, a weekly magazine with news and articles on all aspects of science, for years used to be a really nice source for laymen. In recent years the quality of the writing and the reliability of the information has gone downhill, and I no longer recommend it except with great reservation. Now I would rather recommend a British weekly, New Scientist. The overall quality of the writing is superior to the current Science News, and they cover more in terms of general news and provide a better in-depth focus, the latter usually written by a respectable scientist in the field. However, like most all popular journals, they do tend to focus more on the spectacular, but often it is more in terms of outrageous headlines rather than content. I would recommend New Scientist as a single source for the layman, albeit with reservations about occasional sensationalism and lack of objectivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

…Animals that evolved as solitary predators feel no moral bonds of restrictions on their behavior.

(without actually reading the source article) To me, the worst thing about the quoted material is the implication that society is the basis for morality. Yuck.

Cats, in other words, are safe.  They have no morals, which is one of the reasons why so many people love them.

I really wonder if the writer of the article has any clue how revealing a statement this is. What a bizarre twist on the cat people/dog people dichotomy. Although... I admit I like my cats because they plan to kill me, take my money, and go into the catnip business with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you.

You're welcome.

You mentioned previously that you use RSS/RDF. New Scientist doesn't offer a feed, but I found one here, if you or others would like it: http://rsise.anu.edu.au/rdf?nsc

Oh, great. Now in addition to the endless emails they keep sending me, I can now replicate them automatically in my feed! :confused: (Just kidding.)

Thanks for pointing this out. Others might find it useful. The updates are nice but the print magazine is worth the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outside of popular media, are you aware of any reputable layman's science news sources?

Scientific American. Its usefulness depends on your background and your interest, since the emphasis is more on "pure" science as opposed to how current events are impacted by science. The science always seems to come first, so in this regard, it definitely meets the criterion of being reputable. And there's a science news section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...