Animal Emotions

Do animals think and feel?

Animal Cruelty and Antisocial Behavior: A Very Strong Link

Eleonora Gullone's book "Animal cruelty, antisocial behaviour, and aggression: More than a link" shows there is strong empirical evidence linking various types of abuse. Because animal cruelty is invariably trumped by, but closely associated with, human cruelty, she argues that we can learn a lot about the etiology of human cruelty by studying abuse to animals. Read More

Rammifications?

I fully support removing animals as mere property section of legislation. I believe they also have rights, most of which are currently severely interfered with. In this regard, the legal system is completely broken, especially with regards to farmed animals and other captive animals.
I am just curious what the ramifications are if human abusers can be charged for mistreatment of other animals, will non-human abusers be charged similarly? What of a cat that attacks another cat, a dog or human? I assume legislation would quickly take into consideration and permit carnivores to be carnivores (e.g. a cat could be allowed to kill its prey), but what about abuse of animals by non-human animals? While many will raise this as a joke kind of issue to derrogate AR activists, I actually think it is in issue that merits some discussion and possibly debate.

Rammifications?

I fully support removing animals as mere property section of legislation. I believe they also have rights, most of which are currently severely interfered with. In this regard, the legal system is completely broken, especially with regards to farmed animals and other captive animals.
I am just curious what the ramifications are if human abusers can be charged for mistreatment of other animals, will non-human abusers be charged similarly? What of a cat that attacks another cat, a dog or human? I assume legislation would quickly take into consideration and permit carnivores to be carnivores (e.g. a cat could be allowed to kill its prey), but what about abuse of animals by non-human animals? While many will raise this as a joke kind of issue to derrogate AR activists, I actually think it is in issue that merits some discussion and possibly debate.

animal abuse should be legal

ANIMAL ABUSE SHOULD BE LEGAL - AND IT SHOULD NOT BE CALLED "ABUSE".

i was searching for gay-themed topics on google, when i saw a headline that went something like this: "does homosexual behavior in dogs tell me that i was born gay?". now, i realize that to equate humans' expansive understanding of life with dogs' limited understanding is just a childlike thing to do (and makes google's headline as moot a point as rick springfield telling jessie's girl that he loves her), but it did get me thinking...

if we are told that homosexual behavior in dogs says that humans are born gay, it should be legal to hump my dog who humps my leg. let me explain: if people compare humans to dogs in an effort to justify their own sexual deviancy, then inter-species sexual behavior in dogs should justify that i was born an inter-species humper. it should suggest that my having sex with dogs should not be regarded as problematic. if dogs hump members of their own gender then they were born gay, it's as simple as that. if dogs can be born gay, i was born gay also. and if dogs hump outside of their species, they were born to be inter-species humpers. if dogs can be born inter-species humpers, then people also can be. therefore, i was born an animal abuser and i should not be looked down upon when i hump dogs.

i can understand how the opposing (ahem, CONSERVATIVE) side would say that dogs are horny and that they don't care what they hump. CONSERVATIVES would probably even relate this sexual apathy to homosexuals, blaming homosexuality on horniness as if we all lived in a single-gendered prison and had no other sexual options but to discover homosexuality within ourselves (and later maintain that we were BORN gay). the problem with conservatives (and heterosexuals not in prison) is that they just don't understand the issues with self-esteem and gender-identity that homosexuals have. conservatives don't understand what it's like to see a discovery zone in members of their own gender, they only see a discovery zone in the opposite gender. they only stare in dumbfounded curiosity at naked members of the opposite sex, the conservative heterosexual (or any heterosexual) does not stare in dumbfounded curiosity at naked members of their own gender.

dare i say that heterosexuals are "straight" with themselves as legitimate members of their own gender, dare i say that the lack of curiosity that keeps heterosexual men from regarding other mens' bodies as "discovery zones" results in a life void of gay sex. i used to play a game called "king's quest" as a boy. i remember this quote: "The leprechauns revere the power of the four-leafed clover. With it in your possession they will leave you absolutely alone." i remember the leprechauns in the presence of the clover, they were spellbound and were walking around aimlessly like they couldn't make sense of anything around them. isn't that what sexual attraction is - i know that i couldn't speak to matthew muchnok (or any big and strong football player) without fumbling around like a stuttering retard who was spellbound. just yesterday, i was getting chiropractic with anthony manes dc and i realize now that i must've seemed like such a wide-eyed man-worshipper, gawking in anticipation as i was talking to him. i am in spellbound fantasy every time i am in the presence of a MANtasy...and why would anyone stick their hand up someone's ass if they weren't spellbound? i'm sure that poop is disgusting to at least 90% of people, why doesn't poop keep people from being curious of "fisting"? it's because the curiosity of gender (sexual fantasy) trumps both reality and (quite frankly) common sense. to further my point, i will bring up a parody of steve winwood's "don't you know what the night can do" that i wrote. i called it "don't you know what's inside a dude". i've seen enough gay porn to know that sexual gratification is obtained from someone sticking their hand up someone's ass, i'm sure that the gay "men" (i use quotes because gay males are really emotional masculivoids) know what's "inside a dude," but gays just don't care about anything except for satisfying their curiosity. they get an emotional high from their own gender like it's something they're not acquainted with, they think they were all born to be as "inexplicably curious" as a dog...but dogs' curiosity is not bound by gender, so i therefore can justify the aforementioned google headline as a "moot point".

i have a mental image of "inexplicably curious" gays, it involves rainbow-colored question marks circulating around their heads 24 hours a day,

let me get back to my original point. if society is wholeheartedly going to accept the "born gay" panacea (placebos look legitimate and taste legitimate, but they have no active ingredients to justify their actual legitimacy), then they should just accept that i was BORN to be a dog-humper. and NOBODY should try to give me any kind of therapy to curb my dog. er, my appetite for dogs.

dylan terreri, i
sheldon cooper, ii
--------------------------
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays
--------------------------
*** Get Your Free E-mail Address At www.obamamakesmeracist.com
*** Yet another production of www.jaggedlittledyl.com, LLC
--------------------------

degrading women with femininity

dear sir or vagina:

this is my letter to the parody-group known as "the apologetix". i've emailed with j. jackson before, so i guess it's meant for him.

hello, brother-man, i am "jagged little dyl," my website of song parody is "jaggedlittledyl.com," and i am your brother in parody. similar to parodies of the apologetix, my parodies are christian-based, but mine justify God's wrath and are anti-antichrist while yours are positive songs of praise and faith. hmn, there's a madonna parody in that sentence, madonna discovered alanis morissette, but i'm NOT here to remind you of the mess you left when you went away. i simply am here to suggest a parody relating to local pittsburgh-area politics. now, i don't know whether VOGEL is a gay-affirming baby-killer or if he's a conservative, but the apologetix should do a parody of madonna's "vogue" and make it all about vogel. send it to his election headquarters, maybe they'll take us both off of their mailing list. i hate junk mail. and i stress "junk".

i won't attempt to write "voguel" - i'd have to research mr. vogel enough to make the parody elephant...er, the parody relevant...and frankly, i do not care about politics. it's a "lesser of two evils" thing for me, and i keep away from the wetback-supporting, gay-affirming, "a woman can do anything a man can do"-believing (beLIEving) crowd by voting straight R. i mean, really, if we're going to give mexicans a free pass into america (as we gave to blacks), then mexicans should also be enslaved. it's only fair. blacks, actually, should be outraged that mexicans AREN'T being enslaved as a rite of passage. oh, i am serious...and don't call me "shirley".

as a side note, from believer to believer and from me to you, i believe that the whole "a woman can do anything a man can do" campaign is disrespecting god (pardon me, God) and his (His) work by misrepresenting it. it's not like the lesser gender is "tough enough" (there's a fabulous thunderbirds parody waiting to happen) not to rely on gender-based sports teams to triumph. dare i mention gender-based military requirements and gender-based eating competitions, but i often ask myself why so-called "Christians" are against God's creations enough to placate the lesser gender with the word "strong". every time i go to the gym, i realize the dunces that "strong women" are. i get angry that "strong" is almost a prefix to "woman," this is because of the size of barbells that "strong women" can(not) lift. besides being a mark of sexism, feminism is disrespect of God's creation. God created man and wombn, God must be so insulted when people insult his work and regard the genders as interchangeable...just as God should be insulted by people regarding chastity bono as a man. chastity bono is NOT a man, it is a fabrication and it belongs in a halloween freakshow where EVERYONE is wearing a costume and pretending to be something that they're not.

as another side-note, i believe that gays (and their cross-eyed gender-identities) are also guilty of the same disrespect. homosexuality is disrespect of God's creation because "men" who do not feel complete without a man in their lives are basically returning the man they were given and wanting a replacement. here follows another parody idea, probably more suited to "jagged little dyl" than to "the apologetix": poor, poor, pitiful me. "poor, poor, pitiful me, i need another man in my life because God created a masculivoid instead of a man who is whole enough to see other men through the eyes of an insider rather than through the eyes of an out-of-touch and gawking masculine slight". God doesn't make mistakes, therefore He didn't make anyone gay - nobody is born gay. nobody is born straight, for that matter, because gender-identities are realized through day-to-day experience, sexual attraction isn't realized until a child realizes who he is in relation to the genders around him. i was awarded a sexual attraction to my own gender when i realized who i was in relation to the genders around me - when being the last boy picked for teams in gym class became a regular thing. i realized who i was in relation to the genders around me when girls wouldn't swoon over me like they did over the athletes. i realized who i was in relation to the genders around me every day in the locker room until i was halfway through my teens - armpits, armpits everywhere but not a hair on mine.

i realized who i was in relation to the genders around me because i didn't tend to myself and i didn't do anything to earn anything reminiscent of masculine esteem. i credit josh lane, a football-hero at delaware valley regional high school, for providing me with a basis for self-love and self-respect. i have come to regard self-love and self-respect as wholly anti-gay because, well, what'd the vagina say to her husband when the man became a philanderer?

"am i not woman enough for you"

it is an insult to every man's masculine esteem to stare wide-eyed and gaping-mouthed at any naked specimen of manhood, it doesn't matter if the perfect specimen of manhood is tim tebow or josh lane or matthew muchnok. homosexuality is self-insulting, and it has NOTHING to do with self-love or self-respect. self is reality, gender-identity is a matter of one's mind, and minds can be changed. let me repeat that: minds can be changed. a mind possessing a complete disinterest in football can be changed by moving to a town in western pennsylvania which is full of dimwitted nitwits whose very existences revolve around a schedule of home-games. a mind possessing a complete disinterest in gambling can be changed by a single trip to a casino. last, but certainly not least, a boner's burning desire to jump into bed (or onto a sling) with any big and strong and hairy-chested football player has been changed by the realization of masculine identity so that it is simply a boner with little desire to do anything but ejaculate.

i am not going to enjoy sexy times with anyone just because my mind saw reason to give me a boner. likewise, i am not going to enjoy being in casinos just because my mind has a gambling addiction. whether i am attracted to gambling or to masculine images, a mental or physical hard-on for either does not warrant or justify my enjoyment of either. there has to be a reason for my semen, if you will. as a skinny slight of a man, i was always in awe of perfect masculine bodies. "opposites attract" is just another way of saying "absence makes the heart grow fonder," or even "absence makes the dick grow longer". there is a reason for the semen. taking a line from a screenplay i've posted on my site, i will continue: "opposites" is what you feel inside about yourself, it's not strictly male or female on the outside! i'm jealous, therefore i lust! i'm jealous of your body like you're jealous of saxy's! i need a man in my life for the same reason you need a vagina, i feel left out!

the preceding paragraphs are another reason i could not write "voguel" - it's because it seems that everything i write turns into a gay-bashing, vagina-bashing metropolis which belittles masculine wannabees - whether they are females wanting masculine bodyweight/bodyheight/bodystrength, or gay "men" wanting masculine identity. this is another reason i could not write "voguel," but i could sure be in the video. when i was 15, i would watch the following video over and over again, trying my best to emulate every move:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wx-aNWVvMD8

having expressed my idea to do a parody of madonna's "vogue" and relate it to "vogel," i will end my letter to the apologetix.

mr. dylan terreri, i
dr. sheldon cooper, ii
--------------------------
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays
--------------------------

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options

Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

more...

Subscribe to Animal Emotions

Current Issue

Just Say It

When and how should we open up to loved ones?