You’re right, but in that vein it’s incredibly difficult to scientifically confirm that other humans have emotions outside of explicit communication. If you follow that line of thinking, you might as well assume that babies can’t really feel pain or something (which up until somewhat recently was the going assumption). You might not know, but it’s not unreasonable to assume they do unless proven otherwise, even if you don’t know what they’re feeling or to what extent.
There is a vast difference between human emotions and feeling pain. I think it’s ridiculous that anyone could equate the two. The nuance is in whether a cat can feel love or if it’s something more basic.
We actually know that some people don’t feel normal emotions. That is a strong indication that emotions are not innate to all animals.
This is a pretty strange stance to argue. As far as I can see you’re saying:
we can’t know another animal’s emotional state
some humans rarely have abnormalities in how they feel emotions
from 1 and 2 it is possible that emotional capacity is not universal in animals
from 3 it is unlikely non human animals are comparable to human animals in emotional capacity
I just don’t see how you get from 3 to 4. It would seem to me given how similar humans are to at least other mammals, specifically in the neural structures we believe to be where emotions arise and in the behaviours we believe to be emotionally driven, we should strongly suspect they have emotions highly comparable to us and not the reverse.
I postulate that there comes a point where language is required to achieve a higher state of emotion.
Right, just so we’re clear you’re making shit up and clothing it in the language of science.
I am not banning you yet because I’m not sure you quite understand what you just implied but it’s hard not to read this as a claim that humans with different capacities for language don’t reach your enlightened heights of emotional complexity.
That is a very dangerous attitude which has been used to justify absolutely horrendous stuff.
You’re right, but in that vein it’s incredibly difficult to scientifically confirm that other humans have emotions outside of explicit communication. If you follow that line of thinking, you might as well assume that babies can’t really feel pain or something (which up until somewhat recently was the going assumption). You might not know, but it’s not unreasonable to assume they do unless proven otherwise, even if you don’t know what they’re feeling or to what extent.
There is a vast difference between human emotions and feeling pain. I think it’s ridiculous that anyone could equate the two. The nuance is in whether a cat can feel love or if it’s something more basic.
We actually know that some people don’t feel normal emotions. That is a strong indication that emotions are not innate to all animals.
This is a pretty strange stance to argue. As far as I can see you’re saying:
I just don’t see how you get from 3 to 4. It would seem to me given how similar humans are to at least other mammals, specifically in the neural structures we believe to be where emotions arise and in the behaviours we believe to be emotionally driven, we should strongly suspect they have emotions highly comparable to us and not the reverse.
Why would the default assumption be they don’t?
Removed by mod
Right, just so we’re clear you’re making shit up and clothing it in the language of science.
I am not banning you yet because I’m not sure you quite understand what you just implied but it’s hard not to read this as a claim that humans with different capacities for language don’t reach your enlightened heights of emotional complexity.
That is a very dangerous attitude which has been used to justify absolutely horrendous stuff.
Do you uh, wanna backpedal from that claim?
Ah finally! A justification to eat my own child! Thank you kind stranger!