JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Jul 26, 2011 17:12:55 GMT
Money is more important than human life? How can you describe this animal as a human Because he is one In fact, what he has done is very un-animal-like, because last time I checked there were very few, if any wild animals that kill just for the sake of killing - they all kill to eat I haven't read through his rather large manifesto and I doubt I will, but those who have say that he has coherent, if extremely radical views, and that he seems to be quite well-educated. He just lost any form of rational perspective at some point along the way, hence why he now believes it was "necessary" to kill many innocent people and that he is a warrior fighting a war against the left who have encouraged immigration (particularly Muslims) and "destroyed" Norwegian culture and national identity It's not like he just flipped, like Derrick Bird who went on the rampage in Cumbria last year - this guy has been planning this attack for the best part of a decade. The best, most well-known comparison I can think of that has been made throughout this is with Timothy McVeigh, the man who bombed the Murragh Building in Oklahoma City, who was incredibly anti-government (the same as ABB), primarily as a result of the Waco Siege And the thing is, it's easy to bash a guy like this Norwegian chap (not that I'm saying it shouldn't be done or anything). It's also easy (and "cool") to bash the American right for their loony views, for instance. But I find it both quite funny and very disturbing that often the ones criticising these people actually hold quite similar views themselves, especially when it comes to things like immigration. A lot of people don't realise how conservative they actually are. We like to think of ourselves as a progressive society (hence Cameron's constant use of the word during the last election - it's meaningless, because you can't be conservative and progressive, as the two things mean completely opposite things), but actually I think we are closer to American conservatism than the progressiveness of continental Europe Norway is a great example of this, and it's quite surprising an attack like this could come from there as it was previously believed that the far right in Norway is very small. It seems there's very little to complain about, even though they have a very liberal legal system. Surely that is proof that, despite what much of the British people think about liberals living in a utopian fantasy land and that we should grind criminals into the ground, liberal legal systems system work, unlike the punishment-based British system and resulting high re-offending rates. What has happened to inspire Breivik to commit these terrible acts is paper talk, the same sort of scaremongering we get from many of our papers as well This is why the media, especially the likes of The Daily Mail and The Sun, are at the moment (or, in the Mail's case, always has been) very dangerous, because they are encouraging the spread of dangerous ideas based on lies and half-truths. And honestly I wouldn't be surprised if there are now follow-up attacks in other countries |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jul 26, 2011 17:34:49 GMT
How can you describe this animal as a human Because he is one In fact, what he has done is very un-animal-like, because last time I checked there were very few, if any wild animals that kill just for the sake of killing - they all kill to eat I haven't read through his rather large manifesto and I doubt I will, but those who have say that he has coherent, if extremely radical views, and that he seems to be quite well-educated. He just lost any form of rational perspective at some point along the way, hence why he now believes it was "necessary" to kill many innocent people and that he is a warrior fighting a war against the left who have encouraged immigration (particularly Muslims) and "destroyed" Norwegian culture and national identity It's not like he just flipped, like Derrick Bird who went on the rampage in Cumbria last year - this guy has been planning this attack for the best part of a decade. The best, most well-known comparison I can think of that has been made throughout this is with Timothy McVeigh, the man who bombed the Murragh Building in Oklahoma City, who was incredibly anti-government (the same as ABB), primarily as a result of the Waco Siege And the thing is, it's easy to bash a guy like this Norwegian chap (not that I'm saying it shouldn't be done or anything). It's also easy (and "cool") to bash the American right for their loony views, for instance. But I find it both quite funny and very disturbing that often the ones criticising these people actually hold quite similar views themselves, especially when it comes to things like immigration. A lot of people don't realise how conservative they actually are. We like to think of ourselves as a progressive society (hence Cameron's constant use of the word during the last election - it's meaningless, because you can't be conservative and progressive, as the two things mean completely opposite things), but actually I think we are closer to American conservatism than the progressiveness of continental Europe Norway is a great example of this, and it's quite surprising an attack like this could come from there as it was previously believed that the far right in Norway is very small. It seems there's very little to complain about, even though they have a very liberal legal system. Surely that is proof that, despite what much of the British people think about liberals living in a utopian fantasy land and that we should grind criminals into the ground, liberal legal systems system work, unlike the punishment-based British system and resulting high re-offending rates This is why the media, especially the likes of The Daily Mail and The Sun, are at the moment (or, in the Mail's case, always has been) very dangerous, because they are encouraging the spread of dangerous ideas based on lies and half-truths. And honestly I wouldn't be surprised if there are now follow-up attacks in other countries Very enlightened and well written piece there mate, I applaud you! Perhaps I should have labelled him differently as it seems that animals do behave differently than he is capable of and I feel I have done a massive injustice to animals here! Not bringing `snakes` into it!  And whilst mentioning snakes I also feel that it maybe very unfair to compare previous encumbants to those reptiles ( this doesn`t include DTG`s opinion of snakes as he has serious issues with them)! ;D Although I am rather impressed by your reasoning I would still like to know what we can learn from keeping this guy alive at the expense of the Norwegian tax payer who he was intent on killing! There possibly isn`t a solution that we can come up with for the justification of letting him live and risk release or escape to re-offend and at the same time there probably isn`t a solution that we can come up with that justifies killing him, so it`s a descision, either way, that is very difficult to deal with. Another issue I thought might get you thinking was that of `The Human Rights Act` and how this will change over the next decade or two, the chances are that this guy might actually somehow meet the criteria to be released due to some loop-hole or law change, how would that change todays thinking? |
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Jul 26, 2011 17:47:31 GMT
How can you describe this animal as a human Because he is one In fact, what he has done is very un-animal-like, because last time I checked there were very few, if any wild animals that kill just for the sake of killing - they all kill to eatI haven't read through his rather large manifesto and I doubt I will, but those who have say that he has coherent, if extremely radical views, and that he seems to be quite well-educated. He just lost any form of rational perspective at some point along the way, hence why he now believes it was "necessary" to kill many innocent people and that he is a warrior fighting a war against the left who have encouraged immigration (particularly Muslims) and "destroyed" Norwegian culture and national identity It's not like he just flipped, like Derrick Bird who went on the rampage in Cumbria last year - this guy has been planning this attack for the best part of a decade. The best, most well-known comparison I can think of that has been made throughout this is with Timothy McVeigh, the man who bombed the Murragh Building in Oklahoma City, who was incredibly anti-government (the same as ABB), primarily as a result of the Waco Siege And the thing is, it's easy to bash a guy like this Norwegian chap (not that I'm saying it shouldn't be done or anything). It's also easy (and "cool") to bash the American right for their loony views, for instance. But I find it both quite funny and very disturbing that often the ones criticising these people actually hold quite similar views themselves, especially when it comes to things like immigration. A lot of people don't realise how conservative they actually are. We like to think of ourselves as a progressive society (hence Cameron's constant use of the word during the last election - it's meaningless, because you can't be conservative and progressive, as the two things mean completely opposite things), but actually I think we are closer to American conservatism than the progressiveness of continental Europe Norway is a great example of this, and it's quite surprising an attack like this could come from there as it was previously believed that the far right in Norway is very small. It seems there's very little to complain about, even though they have a very liberal legal system. Surely that is proof that, despite what much of the British people think about liberals living in a utopian fantasy land and that we should grind criminals into the ground, liberal legal systems system work, unlike the punishment-based British system and resulting high re-offending rates. What has happened to inspire Breivik to commit these terrible acts is paper talk, the same sort of scaremongering we get from many of our papers as well This is why the media, especially the likes of The Daily Mail and The Sun, are at the moment (or, in the Mail's case, always has been) very dangerous, because they are encouraging the spread of dangerous ideas based on lies and half-truths. And honestly I wouldn't be surprised if there are now follow-up attacks in other countries A well reasoned post and the only bit I would take issue with is the widely held view that animals do not kill for fun. They do and there is well documented scientific research to support that. Amongst the animals that are known to kill for fun both members of their own species and other species are the big cats, orcas, dolphins, hyenas, opussums, and numerous bird species. It is not always easy to find this research as the debate in recent years was dominated by the anti-hunt lobby who used the inaccurate statement that only humans kill for fun as part of their argument, but there are authenticated and properly validated studies which show clearly that animals also kill for fun. |
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Jul 26, 2011 18:05:13 GMT
Although I am rather impressed by your reasoning I would still like to know what we can learn from keeping this guy alive at the expense of the Norwegian tax payer who he was intent on killing! There possibly isn`t a solution that we can come up with for the justification of letting him live and risk release or escape to re-offend and at the same time there probably isn`t a solution that we can come up with that justifies killing him, so it`s a descision, either way, that is very difficult to deal with. It is a tough decision, I agree. I know for me it is a bit easier because I believe quite staunchly that we don't have the right to take another human's life. I don't think the money side of things should come into it because you're putting a price tag on someone's life and I don't see that as morally right or fair. Plus as I said earlier in the thread, if you kill him, you give him even more immortality than what he already has, and he becomes a martyr to the cause Another issue I thought might get you thinking was that of `The Human Rights Act` and how this will change over the next decade or two, the chances are that this guy might actually somehow meet the criteria to be released due to some loop-hole or law change, how would that change todays thinking? I'm not a big expert on the HRA but one of my flatmate's friends is studying law and he said that getting rid of it is an incredibly stupid decision which will take away far more rights from the innocent man on the street than from criminals As for the punishment this guy will receive, The Sun started spreading this thing about the maximum sentence in Norway being 21 years but, surprise surprise for that particular paper, it was a lie - there is no maximum sentence in Norway, as they can choose to not let you out if they think you're a threat to society. They'll never let this guy out - they're not going to treat him the same as any other criminal The greatest threat is the influence this attack will have on more people, because it will show these small far right would-be terrorist cells that there is an avenue that they can go down to gain notoriety A well reasoned post and the only bit I would take issue with is the widely held view that animals do not kill for fun. They do and there is well documented scientific research to support that. Amongst the animals that are known to kill for fun both members of their own species and other species are the big cats, orcas, dolphins, hyenas, opussums, and numerous bird species. It is not always easy to find this research as the debate in recent years was dominated by the anti-hunt lobby who used the inaccurate statement that only humans kill for fun as part of their argument, but there are authenticated and properly validated studies which show clearly that animals also kill for fun. Fair enough. I wasn't sure, hence my caution |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jul 26, 2011 18:20:09 GMT
Didn`t say getting rid of the HRA, just how it might change over the future and thus possibly benifit this nutter! I feel the HRA needs seriously looking at and mechanisms put into place to stop people taking the piss out of the law and the ability to adjust it once it`s sorted. Really struggling right now to find any good arguements to put forward, give me some time! |
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Jul 26, 2011 18:33:57 GMT
The reason why I said about getting rid of the HRA is because apparently (at least according to my mate's mate when we were discussing this a few months ago) that is what's on the table in Brussels at the moment. It does indeed need a bit of tinkering, I agree, but the problem is it has become so stigmatised as a result of pressure from the right and the media, it has got to the extent where many will not be satisfied until it has gone, which would be very short-sighted
|
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Jul 26, 2011 20:15:59 GMT
A well reasoned post and the only bit I would take issue with is the widely held view that animals do not kill for fun. They do and there is well documented scientific research to support that. Amongst the animals that are known to kill for fun both members of their own species and other species are the big cats, orcas, dolphins, hyenas, opussums, and numerous bird species. It is not always easy to find this research as the debate in recent years was dominated by the anti-hunt lobby who used the inaccurate statement that only humans kill for fun as part of their argument, but there are authenticated and properly validated studies which show clearly that animals also kill for fun. To say they do it for 'fun' is a bit of a stretch, but there is evidence that the reward centres of an animal's brain such as cat's is activated when they hunt - whether they get to eat their prey or not. A similar thing can be found in with human behaviours such as empathy. Most humans find it rewarding to give to charity or to a beggar or to help someone they don't know. This seems couter-intuitive. Why would a person use resources to help someone they don't know and will get no material advantage from? Because doing so activates the reward centres of our brains. This might sound cynical but it makes perfect sense when you consider that human beings are social creatres and that any person who doesn't find it pleasurable to behave in an ultruistic or empathetic way is probably going to find themselves ostracised or excluded if they are incapable of behaving in such a way amongst their peers or within thei society. |
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Jul 26, 2011 20:45:17 GMT
A well reasoned post and the only bit I would take issue with is the widely held view that animals do not kill for fun. They do and there is well documented scientific research to support that. Amongst the animals that are known to kill for fun both members of their own species and other species are the big cats, orcas, dolphins, hyenas, opussums, and numerous bird species. It is not always easy to find this research as the debate in recent years was dominated by the anti-hunt lobby who used the inaccurate statement that only humans kill for fun as part of their argument, but there are authenticated and properly validated studies which show clearly that animals also kill for fun. To say they do it for 'fun' is a bit of a stretch, but there is evidence that the reward centres of an animal's brain such as cat's is activated when they hunt - whether they get to eat their prey or not. I'm not that sure it is 'a bit of a stretch' as if they are not killing for food or to defend themselves then it doesn't really leave many other reasons. I suppose as they are animals unless you have somehow developed the skills of Dr Dolittle Lambie (unlikely for a city gent!) then I suppose we will never know for certain. |
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jul 26, 2011 21:43:11 GMT
I think the most shocking thing about this whole tragedy is that it happened in a progressive liberal country where crime is low and general outlook is one of safety and self imposed order and restraint. It's probably the most shocking thing to happen to a Scandinavian country since Sweden's Prime Minister Olof Palme was assasinated walking back home from the cinema with his wide back in 1986.
They've never actually found out who his killer was. The guy who was originally convicted, Christer Petterson, was later acquitted as they never found the murder weapon, nor could they find any motive or even trust Olof Palme's wife who identified Petterson from a Police Line up. The Police file is still open and there are several alternatives suspects including involvement from the Yugoslavian Secret Service, the PKK (there are many kurds who live in Sweden), South African Security Services (Palme opposed Apartheid and make alleged contributions to the ANC), The Red Army Faction (because Palme was Prime Minister during the 1975 West German Embassy siege in Stockholm) and rumours that Palme was implicated in curruption with arms manufacturer Bofors in a huge arms deal with India.
In the case of Anders Behring Breivik lets hope that the full reason why this atrocity was committed in the first place comes out during the investigation. I hope it isn't part of a wider pan european far right extremist movement as some media sources suggest.
|
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Jul 26, 2011 22:01:09 GMT
I hope it isn't part of a wider pan european far right extremist movement as some media sources suggest. I doubt it is, as I think that's paper talk. But I am worried by how many people share views on things like immigration that are actually not far removed from what Breivik has said - he has extensively quoted the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, Winston Churchill and the deputy political editor of The Sun in his manifesto. I think certain elements of the British people don't quite realise how conservative and potentially dangerous their views are - I see a lack of critical thought in a lot of people The potential is certainly there for the far right to emerge once again. I apologise for invoking Godwin's Law here, but while the Holocaust is taught in schools, we as a people haven't learned from it, and as they say, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Jul 26, 2011 23:25:48 GMT
To say they do it for 'fun' is a bit of a stretch, but there is evidence that the reward centres of an animal's brain such as cat's is activated when they hunt - whether they get to eat their prey or not. I'm not that sure it is 'a bit of a stretch' as if they are not killing for food or to defend themselves then it doesn't really leave many other reasons. I suppose as they are animals unless you have somehow developed the skills of Dr Dolittle Lambie (unlikely for a city gent!) then I suppose we will never know for certain. I just think 'fun' is something humans feel. Even 'pleasure' (as we experience it) is something we can only know as human beings. We will probably never know if animals share that same experience. There is evidence that animals and humans experience the same reward mechanisms within the brain however (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_stimulation_reward). The question for me though isn't: do animals do X because they 'enjoy' it? But why do animals 'enjoy' X? It seems logical to me that an animal (human or otherwise) will 'enjoy' activities which it is genetically predisposed to perfom for its survival, even if being domesticated or current circumstance make such activities unecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by chrish on Jul 26, 2011 23:31:22 GMT
I hope it isn't part of a wider pan european far right extremist movement as some media sources suggest. I doubt it is, as I think that's paper talk. But I am worried by how many people share views on things like immigration that are actually not far removed from what Breivik has said - he has extensively quoted the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, Winston Churchill and the deputy political editor of The Sun in his manifesto. I think certain elements of the British people don't quite realise how conservative and potentially dangerous their views are - I see a lack of critical thought in a lot of people The potential is certainly there for the far right to emerge once again. I apologise for invoking Godwin's Law here, but while the Holocaust is taught in schools, we as a people haven't learned from it, and as they say, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it I think Norway is probably more religious than most countries and has probably been exposed less to immigration than most countries, or at least a lower impact of immigration. At the moment in Norway there are just under 5 million people with about half a million who are considered to be immigrants including 80,000 Swedes, 65,000 Poles, 54,000 Danes, 41,000 Germans, 36,000 British and just less than 36,000 Pakistanis. Interestingly 90% of all population growth in Norway is down to immigrants having children and immigration. As for religion, well they reckon 80.6% of the country are attached to Lutheranism or almost 4,000,000 people with 60,000 (including a lot of Poles one would imagine) attached to Catholicism and almost 100,000 attached to nasty old demonic Islam. If you compare Norway to Sweden. Sweden has roughly double the population of Norway and slightly more than double the number of population classified as immigrants. The major difference being that the background of Sweden's immigrants, you could argue, could present a slightly more volatile mix and might be slightly harder to integrate. The largest group of immigrants are Finns (172,000) former Yugoslavians (152,000), Iraqis (120,000), Poles (70,000), Iranians (60,000) plus around 120,000 Kurds. Sweden's immigration is one based on refugee migration as opposed to Norway's which seems to attract people looking to cash in on Norway's very stable and prosperous economy. I think you're probably right about the lack of a Pan European Far Right extremist movement but I think in Norway is more of a fear of other people taking advantage of what Norway have built for themselves. Lets not forget that certain forms of conservative protectionalism exist in countries like Austria, Switzerland and Italy and that far right political parties have major political success in Austria (Jorg Haider's FPÖ party) and in Italy's case you have the Lega Nord who are more of an ultra conservative protectionalist party looking out for the best interests of big business in northern Italy, especially in the rich regions of Veneto, Lombardy and Piedmonte, who actually shape Italian politics in a coalition with Italy's modern day Casanova. For the guy to specifically target the ruling Norwegian Labour Party seems to point to that specific party opening up Norway further to immigration and multiculturalism. I would argue that if he took Jeremy Clarkson's views of the world seriously then he is a complete nutter. |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Jul 26, 2011 23:35:53 GMT
I hope it isn't part of a wider pan european far right extremist movement as some media sources suggest. I doubt it is, as I think that's paper talk. But I am worried by how many people share views on things like immigration that are actually not far removed from what Breivik has said - he has extensively quoted the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, Winston Churchill and the deputy political editor of The Sun in his manifesto. I think certain elements of the British people don't quite realise how conservative and potentially dangerous their views are - I see a lack of critical thought in a lot of people The potential is certainly there for the far right to emerge once again. I apologise for invoking Godwin's Law here, but while the Holocaust is taught in schools, we as a people haven't learned from it, and as they say, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it I agree. And that isn't to say that there aren't other nutters about. It is unsettling to think that Breivik's world view is not that far apart from that of the average Daily Mail columnist and many of those who read and agree with them. My hunch for what it’s worth is that Breivik's 'co-conspiritors' are a figment of his imagination. Having watched his video and read his 'manifesto' the thing that struck me was how banal and unoriginal it all was. Pathetic was another word that sprung to mind. Pinching words from the Unabomber's writings is one thing, quoting Melanie Phillips' writings word for word must be about as unsophisticated and emasculating as its gets for man who thinks as much of himself as he does. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2011 0:25:19 GMT
Some good & interesting points made by everyone. I'd just like to add some observations to a couple of points made by JamesB The avenue of killing lots of innocent people has been a sure fire way to gain noteriety from time immemorial surely ? If you rob a bank & killing a dozen people while doing it, if you are a small far left group & you kill 10 or 20 innocent people in the hope that it might in some way further your cause, would not noteriety result just the same ? I would think it would show every individual & every group of whatever political persuasion that slaughter of the innocents results in noteriety, that's if for the sake of argument I accept your view that they needed showing & didn't know what the usual human reaction to such atrocities invariably is. Not that I usually hand out advice to the Left but do you not feel that the 'right & the media' are pushing at an open door on this. If we just take yesterday's (26/7/11) Daily Mail as our right wing media example - they sight three headline mentions of 'Human Rights'...there may have been more but I didn't search too hard. Walking the street, the hate preacher banned by Britain . . . and now he's using human rights law to stay.Strolling in the sunshine, seemingly without a care in the world, this is the Islamic extremist who has made a mockery of Britain’s border controls. Salah is claiming efforts to remove him are in breach of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, the right to free speech. Secondly we have the freeing of Tracie Andrews : No remorse as ‘road-rage fantasy’ killer is set free: Victim’s family grieve... but Tracie Andrews cites human right to a new life.The former barmaid was jailed for life for killing Mr Harvey, 25, in 1996 during a row as they drove in a country road. She cut his throat and stabbed him 37 times with a penknife in the back, face, neck and chest.Lyn Costello, who runs the support group Mothers Against Murder and Aggression, said: ‘In terms of the law, she is right about her human rights. But in terms of morals and decency, she’s wrong. And thirdly we have dear old father of six, Mr.Chapti: Requiring immigrants to speak English 'breaches human rights,' claims couple as they launch legal bid to overturn ruling. At the High Court sitting in Birmingham, Manjit Gill QC, representing the couple, told the court the requirement was a breach of their human rights. He said it contravenes several Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights - Article 8, the right to family life, Article 12, the right to marry, and Article 14, to be free of discrimination. I really feel that the Mirror, The Guardian , the BBC, the London based Guardianista's that use this site etc don't do anywhere near enough to counter this. The law abiding man in the street just isn't being told in what way he is benefiting more from the Human Rights Act that those who often are not so well behaved. Why is the message not getting across to people like Aussie & others ? When your law studying friend tells us that losing the Human Rights Act would "take away far more rights from the innocent man on the street than from criminals" these gains for the innocent need to be spelt out, they need to be listed, but I think the Left's PR machine which can be so effective when it wants to be, just isn't publicising these advantages. And all the time the innocents are left in ignorance of just how it is that it is they who are the big winners of the Human Rights Act . Stories such as 'You Can't Deport Me..I've Got A Girlfriend' will continue to have a major influence on the publics view of the Act until the Left gets it's act (pun intended) together. Let's go back a month or so & see what The Telegraph actually said Robber spared deportation because he has a girlfriend. Immigration judges have allowed a convicted robber to stay in Britain simply because he has a girlfriend in this country. The Sri Lankan was jailed for 15 months but fought off an official attempt to deport him to his homeland because he said his human right to a “private and family life” was not being respected as he was going out with a woman here. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8513989/Robber-spared-deportation-because-he-has-a-girlfriend.htmlAs can be seen, your average Daily Mail reader is getting fed two or three stories such as this each day (assuming yesterday is typical), yet stop that same reader in the street and ask him or her how he'd suffer if the Act was scrapped or what benefits he/she has felt since it was introduced & I feel they'd be stuck for an answer. The Left clearly have a very good case according to your Law Studying friend, isn't it time they devoted more effort to getting their case across to Joe Public, in fact they're probably entitled to a European grant in order to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Jul 27, 2011 5:46:01 GMT
I'm not that sure it is 'a bit of a stretch' as if they are not killing for food or to defend themselves then it doesn't really leave many other reasons. I suppose as they are animals unless you have somehow developed the skills of Dr Dolittle Lambie (unlikely for a city gent!) then I suppose we will never know for certain. I just think 'fun' is something humans feel. Even 'pleasure' (as we experience it) is something we can only know as human beings. We will probably never know if animals share that same experience. There is evidence that animals and humans experience the same reward mechanisms within the brain however (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_stimulation_reward). The question for me though isn't: do animals do X because they 'enjoy' it? But why do animals 'enjoy' X? It seems logical to me that an animal (human or otherwise) will 'enjoy' activities which it is genetically predisposed to perfom for its survival, even if being domesticated or current circumstance make such activities unecessary. Watch footage of young felines learning, they definately play! |
|
And whilst mentioning snakes I also feel that it maybe very unfair to compare previous encumbants to those reptiles ( this doesn`t include DTG`s opinion of snakes as he has serious issues with them)! 