free porn

sonicreducer wrote:

i am in college to teach high school biology. there are a thousand pictures of dissected eyeballs that i could show my students. there is no reason to actually do it.

if a student is in medical school and will actually be performing studies or surgeries then yes, of course, use it,... but come on, does every average joe have to dissect a rat, a cow eye, a cat, a frog, a lamprey, a dogfish shark, a perch, a frog again, a rat again (but bigger) all in the same semester? (this is from anatomy and vertebrate biology combined)

i think it's important in college to do these things b/c you are trying to gain an advanced knowledge of subject matter. But now after doing it, do the pictures really do it justice? I had cadaver anatomy during my masters work and it really opened my eyes and expanded my knowledge of anatomy that I took in undergrad (about 4 classes worth). I understand where you're coming from with it being a little weird but remember, you are becoming an expert in something so you should be exposed to it at a higher level.

chopitdown wrote:

i think it's important in college to do these things b/c you are trying to gain an advanced knowledge of subject matter. But now after doing it, do the pictures really do it justice? I had cadaver anatomy during my masters work and it really opened my eyes and expanded my knowledge of anatomy that I took in undergrad (about 4 classes worth). I understand where you're coming from with it being a little weird but remember, you are becoming an expert in something so you should be exposed to it at a higher level.

Also considering many people are tactile learners, they will learn better and faster with hands-on experience, as opposed to looking at pictures or reading text.

halv wrote:

Are you serious? Your saying other non-human animals do not have consciousness?? You seriously belive that?
Sentient :the possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive. Sentience is the ability to sense.
Your telling me a cow cannot feel or percieve? If you really believe that than I would have to say that you are not a sentient creature because you obviously have no ability to perceive. Plus you mention the "worms living inside your pets stomach" but no mention of the pet itself. Are you saying that your dog or cat is sentient but a cow isn't? That's just an argument of convience. Just a way of justifying the brutaility to other animals for human want, but not need.

It's quite simple really, I don't know why this issue has to be so complex. Cats and Dogs have limit functionality. Language is a good indication of a creatures brain features. They don't view life the same way we do. Their concerns are rather limited, a cow's concerns are even more limited. The consciousness part of all life is variable, sure cats and dogs are more conscious than cows and sheep, but not as conscious as apes or dolphins. When you are talking about a Cow, you are talking about an animal with virtually no consciousness and it would eat you if you looked tasty. It's the nature of nature, a dog or cat loves meat, it will eat it all up. Because it tastes good, the Cat's consciousness would never understand the concept of ethics, most domestic cats think they are human.

I mention stomach worms, heart worms, all kinds of parasites, because they feed on other organisms. They actually destroy their ecological system, much in the same way humans do.

Read this article and see the different viewpoints on the subject of consciousness, about the only constant is that not all life is conscious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Sentience refers to possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different usages in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".

That's where the mistake was, my apologies, sapient was the word I intended.

BlackCorduroy wrote:

My school does cats.

:eek: I am totally against any form of disection in schools but cats.....:eek: How insensitive can one get!

Ahnimus wrote:

It's quite simple really, I don't know why this issue has to be so complex. Cats and Dogs have limit functionality. Language is a good indication of a creatures brain features. They don't view life the same way we do. Their concerns are rather limited, a cow's concerns are even more limited. The consciousness part of all life is variable, sure cats and dogs are more conscious than cows and sheep, but not as conscious as apes or dolphins. When you are talking about a Cow, you are talking about an animal with virtually no consciousness and it would eat you if you looked tasty. It's the nature of nature, a dog or cat loves meat, it will eat it all up. Because it tastes good, the Cat's consciousness would never understand the concept of ethics, most domestic cats think they are human.

I mention stomach worms, heart worms, all kinds of parasites, because they feed on other organisms. They actually destroy their ecological system, much in the same way humans do.

Read this article and see the different viewpoints on the subject of consciousness, about the only constant is that not all life is conscious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Sentience refers to possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different usages in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".

That's where the mistake was, my apologies, sapient was the word I intended.

This brings up some interesting arguments. Many human animals are not as intelligent as non-human animals. Many humans are unable to communicate with language or make choices. How about people in a vegatative state? Babies? The mentally handicapped? They all fall into this same category. So is it than morally ok from a human viewpoint to kill them and use them as we please? It's an inconsistency that can't be overlooked. And because of this many scientists and philosphers have said that what defines a sentient creature is not whether it can feel or percieve, but can it suffer. And I don't think there is any question that non-human animals can suffer.
I'm not going to say that cows are as intelligent as humans, but you obviously have never spent time around them. Mother cows are extremely protective of their calves. And ask any dairy farmer how the mother cow reacts when her calf is taken away after two days to be sent to a veal farm. She often will wail and search around for her calf, often for days or weeks.
Ever seen a captive animal once it's escaped or been set free? Their ecstatic! There was an ariticle in the New York Times just the other day about an escaped Emu. Neighbors in the rural area commented on how whenever they saw it it seemed to be playing and having fun. It was caught weeks after escaping and died of a heart attack within hours.
There's no denying non-human animals can feel these senses, just in a different way from us. Non-human animals can communicate, just in a way humans can't understand.
And you mention about dogs and cats being more intelligent. Pigs are as smart if not smarter than dogs. Yet we kill them and use them all the time.
And just because their concerns are more limited why does that make their lives any less important? (Again, many humans have limited concerns as well).

halv wrote:

This brings up some interesting arguments. Many human animals are not as intelligent as non-human animals. Many humans are unable to communicate with language or make choices. How about people in a vegatative state? Babies? The mentally handicapped? They all fall into this same category. So is it than morally ok from a human viewpoint to kill them and use them as we please? It's an inconsistency that can't be overlooked. And because of this many scientists and philosphers have said that what defines a sentient creature is not whether it can feel or percieve, but can it suffer. And I don't think there is any question that non-human animals can suffer.
I'm not going to say that cows are as intelligent as humans, but you obviously have never spent time around them. Mother cows are extremely protective of their calves. And ask any dairy farmer how the mother cow reacts when her calf is taken away after two days to be sent to a veal farm. She often will wail and search around for her calf, often for days or weeks.
Ever seen a captive animal once it's escaped or been set free? Their ecstatic! There was an ariticle in the New York Times just the other day about an escaped Emu. Neighbors in the rural area commented on how whenever they saw it it seemed to be playing and having fun. It was caught weeks after escaping and died of a heart attack within hours.
There's no denying non-human animals can feel these senses, just in a different way from us. Non-human animals can communicate, just in a way humans can't understand.
And you mention about dogs and cats being more intelligent. Pigs are as smart if not smarter than dogs. Yet we kill them and use them all the time.
And just because their concerns are more limited why does that make their lives any less important? (Again, many humans have limited concerns as well).

Well, I've watched hours and hours of lectures on Language. I've read up on Broca's and Wernicke's areas. The language of non-human animals is way different. The only close relations to humans are birds, birds make music when they speak and they make the exact same tones every time. But it's most commonly believed that there is little variation in their songs because they aren't conscious of what they are singing.

For your information, when I was on my uncle's farm as a kid. I had to beat a cow with a big chunk of wood while my uncle put a slug in the calf's brain. Yes the mother cow was very protective, up until the point her calf was dead, then it went about it's business. In this particular case, the calf had a birth defect, it's throat was tied in a knot and it couldn't eat or drink anything, it couldn't even get up off the ground. I remember it quite clearly.

civ_eng_girl wrote:

i'm sorry.... did you honestly just say that a cow would eat a human? :rolleyes:

they're herbivores for christssake!

Well, I don't think a cow would specifically, although if there was no grass around...

I figured someone would mention that cows are herbivores. Cats and Dogs eat meat, they will eat you if they are hungry.

civ_eng_girl wrote:

lol! well, cows don't have any top teeth, so the best they could do is lick you death....


thankfully, my cat's favorite food is cantaloupe - i think i'm safe...

Have you seen what they can do to those salt-licks?

Be afraid, be very afraid!

double cheeseburger...

mayo
onion
extra pickles..........