I'm going to cancel my WSPA subscription if you can't

>>1970429
Bump due to gross insensitivity and vulgar request posted.

Why should I care about how you spend your money?
Just ask bugguy when you see him in this board.

File: Dumbass ALERT.jpg (12KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 225x225px

>>1970429
This ones for you OP.

File: 1423079264881[1].jpg (7KB, 262x192px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 262x192px

>>1970444
>this guy
ask a retarded googlebot?

>>1970429
Go find a small dog and kick it really hard. Observe its reaction. There you go, OP. Unless you are a sociopath (in which case it is impossible to help you), you will see that you caused pain to that dog.

I hope that the owner of that dog then shoots you in the face. Good day.

>>1972549
>hit concrete with a hammer
>concrete makes noise
>concrete feels pain

>>1972560
To be honest, if the ground itself started rumbling everytime you hit it, it would make sense to assume it felt pain.

>>1972560
>>concrete feels pain
Concrete is an inanimate object.

>>1972581
that's what the Chinese would make you believe, while we all ignore shoddy Chinese concrete works, with all their structures and bridges collapsing. All that concrete.. suffering.. dying..

>inb4 70 posts of arguing with bugguy

DO NOT POST IN TROLL THREADS
REPORT ALL TROLL THREADS

>>1970429
Humans feel pain
Humans are animals
Hence, animals feel pain

Q.E.D

>>1972599
I'm not that, anon, and I certainly don't think animals can't feel pain.

However, that syllogism is totes faulty. Using that model, you can claim that people are rocks.

File: 13423436765.jpg (49KB, 416x431px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 416x431px

>mfw people reply seriously in these threads

they can't.

your money is going towards animal species that don't need help anyway.

File: 1438979159716.jpg (26KB, 529x399px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 529x399px

>>1972549
Look who it is again, ID Heaven. I'm fed up with your shit faggot. The other day when you called me a newfag, yeah, haven't forgotten about that yet. Fuck you I've been on here for months and probably get on here more than you anyways. Don't you know that you make yourself look like a newfag when you call others newfag? Just because you learned how to hack your name and change it to "Heaven" does not give you the right to disrespect anyone at any time.

>>1972625
they cant feel pain? Did you ever had a basic biology course?

>>1972640
you apparently didn't because this is what you learn in the first days of basic ethology.

>>1972646
all that time I tough you were argumenting with people for real, that you were trying to prove a point and stuff. But know I got it. you are just laughin at everyone taking you seriously and giving you a reputation. youre pretty good.

>>1972648
go ahead and check the definition of pain.

regular, neurological, biological, pick any, it doesn't matter.

File: bugdude.jpg (72KB, 780x497px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 780x497px

>>1972650

>>1972650

"highly unpleasant physical sensation caused by illness or injury."

>>1972650

>animals can't feel pain
>implying humans aren't animals

Wut.

>>1972549
>Unless you are a sociopath
Sociopaths know what they are doing is hurting others, they just don't care.

>>1972654
>unpleasant
you need subjectivity to find something unpleasant.
>>1972656
humans make up about 0,0% of all animals.

>>1972662
>you need subjectivity to find something unpleasant.
That's not answer, that's a fucking cop out and you know it.

>implying apes/monkeys can't feel pain...

>>1972662
>you need subjectivity to find something unpleasant

Says who exactly? You?

>>1972666
you need subjectivity to find something about anything.

you can't say something is bad without judging it.
>implying apes/monkeys can't feel pain...
we're talking about animals as a whole.

>>1972669
enlighten the world about how you know something is unpleasant without judging it.

>>1972672

>Give Buguy a definition of pain that disagrees with him
>watch him twist it so it fits his own definition

You're such an autistic fuck

>>1972674

I'm just sick an tired of reading the same bullshit every day. You're literally the only fucking person I have ever heard say this. No one fucking agrees with you, no one.

I don't even care if you're right or wrong, stop being an egotistical ass and have a normal conversation you autistic faggot.

>>1972672

>apes can feel pain, but dogs can't

Alrighty then.

>>1972676
> that disagrees with him
it doesn't.

in order to find something unpleasant you need to judge it, that requires subjectivity and subjectivity requires consciousness.
>>1972677
because you don't know anyone that knows anything.

the only people you'll find agreeing with your standpoint are people that don't understand or are into science, house wifes and hipsters for the most part that follow some scientific news blog and pretend they're into it.

>>1972679
dogs fail every test that demonstrates components of consciousness.

>Dog bleeds
>human bleeds

>Dog has nerves that react to external stimuli
>Human has nerves that react to external stmuli

Dogs feel pain<
Op is a faggot<

>>1972682
pain isn't external stimuli.

humans are conscious, dogs are not.

>>1972686
>Pain isnt an external stimulus
I knew you were stupid but damn...

>>1972680

>because you don't know anyone that knows anything.
>the only people you'll find agreeing with your standpoint are people that don't understand or are into science

Egotistical Ass.

>>1972686

>dogs aren't concious

Lol wtf???

>>1972681
>dogs fail every flawed test in an imperfect world we know hardly anything about

Dogs have personalities don't they?

>>1972688
>I knew you were stupid but damn...
he's right.
the process of sensing injury in the nerves isn't pain.
neither is the reaction in the brain to that sensation.

not by itself anyways.
Pain is the sensation, the reaction, and the conscious awareness of both.

>>1972690
>Dogs have personalities don't they?
no, they have temperaments.
only persons have personalities.

>>1972691

>pain is the sensation

Aka an external stimuli you bugguy loving faggot

>>1972688
pain isn't the external stimulus, it's the subjective experience of it.

it's formed between your ears, without conscious brain there is no pain.
>>1972689
like i said, this is very basic ethology.

pretty much everyone that's into animal sciences agrees with me.

>>1972692
>no, they have temperaments.
only persons have personalities.

Alright. trolling/10

>>1972693
it's all three things I listed, not any one of them.

and to further fuck with you, pain can also be caused by internal stimuli, and often by no stimuli at all.

>>1972695

>pretty much everyone that's into animal sciences agrees with me.

Citation needed. I'm yet to see you ever post a link.

>>1972691
But the fact that dogs can react to that stimuli/sensation is enough proof in itself, if i kicked you so hard your bones broke would you wince in pain? Do dogs cry out when hit? Would a CAT scan of a dogs brain whilst in pain show the same as a humans? Do dogs require oxygen, food and water? Do dogs react to other external stimuli? There's a list going on forever

>>1972690
>Lol wtf???
i know it's hard to believe when you've been told misinformation all your life.
>Dogs have personalities don't they?
no, dogs have temperaments.
>>1972693
>Pain is the sensation, the reaction, and the conscious awareness of both.
you need all of them combined for pain.

lack one of them and it's not pain.
>>1972696
it's called PERSONality for a reason.

>>1972695

So what's it called then. If they can't experience "PAIN" what is the word for what they can experience. If you burn a dog it will have a negative reaction to it, most normal people would call that pain, why do you call it?

>>1972698
ausfag, if you're honestly interested I can provide a few links.

Most of them can be found in the Wikipedia article, "Pain in Fishes."

Ethologists in general agree an animal must be self-aware to experience pain. Where they disagree is on which animals are self-aware and how to test for that.

>>1972703
They call it a "boo boo" i assume

>>1972703
that's called nociception.

>>1972704

>wikopedia
>fishes

Yeah no one is talking about fish or insects. Post me a link showing

1. Dog's aren't concious.
2. Dogs can't feel pain.
3. That the vast scientific community believes this.

So can I finally go around kicking dogs and cats and if their owners are mad, I can remind them animals can't feel pain?

>>1972698
i don't need to spoonfeed you.
and it's not like you'll understand any of it, hence why after arguing with you multiple times your point of view still hasn't changed.
>>1972700
>But the fact that dogs can react to that stimuli/sensation is enough proof in itself
no.
>if i kicked you so hard your bones broke would you wince in pain?
humans are demonstrated to be conscious after the mirror stage.
>Would a CAT scan of a dogs brain whilst in pain show the same as a humans?
a CAT scan wouldn't demonstrate pain.

pain isn't hormones
it's not the sensation.
it's not the reaction.

it is the SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE of it.

no they don't, we just put animals under anesthesia for surgery and give them pain mess after because it's fun and the possible complications keep us from getting bored, obviously

you're an idiot

>>1972706

"Specialized peripheral sensory neurons known as nociceptors alert us to potentially damaging stimuli at the skin by detecting extremes in temperature and pressure and injury-related chemicals, and transducing these stimuli into long-ranging electrical signals that are relayed to higher brain centers."

Sooooo pain. Semantics much?

>>1972703
nociception.
>>1972710
it's still needlessly causing negative stimuli to them, which isn't ethic.

>>1972711

That's because you don't post anything to support your claims, you just pretend like you're the world fucking expert on everything.

God I'm so fucking sick of your shit. How the fuck has your own family not murdered you. Do you live alone?

>>1972712
anesthesia is used to block or weaken the signals to the brain.

you can't be subjective about something you're not experiencing and you can't react to stimuli you're not receiving, so it works for both nociception and pain.
>>1972713
no, pain is the subjective experience of that.

>>1972715
i don't want to change your mind because i find it hilarious to watch you struggle in arguments.

all i'll tell you is that you can easily google these things, but you're too incompetent to even do that so the hilarity ensues.

>>1972716

>Unlike behavioral analyses, Burns’s work is providing actual neurological evidence that dogs, like so many other animals, experience consciousness and emotions at a level comparable to humans

>>1972717

>struggle

>bugguy the most hated guy on the board laughing at anyone else

You're really high on the autism spectrum..

>>1972718
>Burns’s work is providing actual neurological evidence
>doesn't post said evidence.
kek.

>>1972717

"Science leaders have reached a critical consensus: Humans are not the only conscious beings; other animals, specifically mammals and birds, are indeed conscious, too."

>>1972720
i'm glad, i wouldn't be able to enjoy this as much as i do if i weren't.

>>1972717
except Google contradicts everything you say..

and we all know you don't post sources because you have none

>>1972727
Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>>1972723
"In June, during a series of lectures I presented in Germany, a number of people asked questions of the sort, "Isn't it about time we accept that animals are sentient and that we know what they want and need? Shouldn't we stop bickering about whether they are conscious, feel pain and experience emotions?"

Oh wow this sounds familiar.

""Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

>>1972708
>1. Dog's aren't concious
bugguy is correct that dogs haven't passed the mirror test.
2. bugguy is also correct that animals that aren't conscious don't feel pain.
3. the community consists of about 23 people, and I doubt more than 2 of them agree with bugguy.

>>1972726
you're not telling me things I didn't know.

there's one bird and the only mammals are our relatives, dolphins and one species of elephant.

it's outdated though, because it doesn't include ants.

also
>Science leaders
fucking kek.

>>1972733

>conciousness is only' determined by the mirror test

You idiot.

>>1972734

>ants are concious
>dogs aren't

I'm done.

>>1972732
>neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness.
yet they fail every tests for it's components, right.
>>1972733
most of them agree with me to some degree.

most of the ones that have trouble with it studied under the same autistic professors.

>>1972740
>everyone who doesn't agree with me had autistic teachers

a sign of true intelligence, surely?

give your source saying dogs don't feel pain

>>1972736
go ahead and think of a better test.
>>1972739
it's funny because it's true.

>>1972740

"Enter, howling, professor emeritus Marc Bekoff of the University of Colorado. Bekoff thinks a test that uses sight to determine self-recognition is unfair to animals that depend on their noses. Dog brains are much better at smelling than ape brains, so Bekoff decided to design a self-recognition test that would make sense to a dog."

>>1972741
no it's a sign of bad teaching.

>give your source saying dogs don't feel pain
these aren't the christian dark ages, you need to provide evidence that proves they do, it's your claim not mine.

>>1972744
>animals that depend on their noses
the only scientific study I've ever found on the subject found that dogs rely on vision over smell.

>>1972744
>a test that uses sight to determine self-recognition is unfair to animals that depend on their noses.
the primare sense of dogs is sight.

they do not depend on their noses, a blind dog has a low survival rate and a dog that can't smell will lead a fairly normal life.

conscious animals pass the mirror test even if sight isn't their primare sense, unconscious animals don't pass it no matter how much you cherrypick tests to fit their every need.

considering they have pain receptors this is a pretty stupid question

>>1972743

I just love that you're entire argument rests on the mirror test. One flawed test is you're entire definition of conciousness?

>it's funny because it's true.

Good lord.
>the scientific community agrees with me
>ants are concious and dogs aren't

I just can't...

>>1972752
buggy belongs on /r9k/ with everyone who believes theyre completely and undoubtably correct in every situation just because they say so

>>1972752
the mirror test only demonstrates an important aspect of consciousness.

there aren't tests for consciousness itself, only it's components.

most of your argument is ad hominem, if you want me to reply to you atleast make it worth the hassle.

>>1972748
>>1972750

Of course they do, they're not a blind mole.

But they have poor vision when compared to other males/birds and their sense of smell is million times better than ours. Hence why they fucking pee on everything, they rely on scent cues for a lot of stuff.

File: noa27.jpg (915KB, 2764x1843px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 2764x1843px

>>1972755
>But they have poor vision
dogs have excellent vision.

sighthounds still don't pass the mirror test.

your argument is based on ignorance, you don't know what I'm talking about and you don't know anything about dogs.

go and break a dog's leg, and as they're screeching and whimpering with some sensation that is apparently a mystery to you, tell the people who are wondering what the fuck is wrong with you it's okay because a troll on 4chan told you they can't feel pain!

>>1972755
>they rely on scent cues for a lot of stuff.
sure, but to say they can't pass a visual test because their nose works really well seems a bit dishonest. They respond to visual cues constantly.

>>1972592
>>1972592

Bugguy can jews feel pain? Is it true that zionists dont have mirror reflection?

>>1972754

>ants are concious and dogs aren't

You can see yourself out.

>>1972753
He's still yet to post a source.

ask any vet, they'll laugh in your face

>>1972746
bugguy, just curious, I dont care about the debate going on.

do you have a scientific background?

>>1972765
no he just has an Internet connection

>>1972763
>He's still yet to post a source
there is no study out there that says dogs aren't conscious.

it's just one of those things you either believe (parsimony) or reject (anthropomorphization).

/an/thropomorphization is a cardinal sin in zoology, but luckily nobody here studied zoology.

>>1972758

>For dogs, their color vision is most similar to a human with red-green color blindness, although there are other differences. Dogs are less sensitive to variations in gray shades than humans are, as well as only about half as sensitive to changes in brightness.

>Dogs also tend to be nearsighted to varying degrees. A poodle, for example, is estimated to have what we would call 20/75 vision in the US (about 6/24 elsewhere in the world).

Dogs have good motion vision, but they are not good at details.

>>1972762
Is there a proper blessing... for the Tsar?
>>1972763
you can find it on the mirror test wiki page.

>>1972769
>but they are not good at details
luckily the mirror test is done at distances a near-sighted animal would have no trouble with.

several of the animals that pass the mirror test have terrible vision.

>>1972770
im a vet.

animals, like dogs, feel pain and emotions.

/thread

>>1972765
yes, but I'm not a scientist.

I still help people out from time to time though.
>>1972769
what do colors have to do with this?

I'm partially color blind yet have 20/10 vision.

there's breeds specifically bred for sight, they are good at sight, but they still can't recognize themselves.

>>1972777
trips don't lie

/thread

>>1972777
you've also pretended to be a farmer and a gardener in the past.

you pretend to be whatever suits your argument, it's OK.

>>1972770

>ants are concious and dogs aren't

...

>>1972777
>im a vet.
>can't use commas
sure you are, champ.

>>1972781
seeing you're retarded here
http://www.journalofscience.net/File_Folder/521-532%28jos%29.pdf

>>1972781
tbh the ant study is potentially bullshit.

it looks decent, but it wasn't published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

it was published in a fake journal from iran and india.

>>1972778
you have scientific background? cool, what is it?

>>1972783
yeah, that's the one.
"Journal of Science" isn't actually a scientific journal.

>>1970429
Look I don't care, believe what you want, your little garbage of a contribution makes no difference.

>>1972784
shhhh let buggy believe his fantasy that he's always right

>>1972784
it's still better than nothing right.

>>1972783
BUGGUY SAID :
>>1972680

"the only people you'll find agreeing with your standpoint are people that don't understand or are into science, house wifes and hipsters for the most part that follow some scientific news blog and pretend they're into it."

And he posts journalofscience

LOL

>>1972790
maybe. It looks promising.
I'd like to see the authors submit it to an actual journal. If it's true it'd probably get published.

>>1972791
you're not going to find me pretending ants have pain and emotions if that's what you're thinking.

>>1972792
if it's true more ants species should be tested.

it would be funny if most animals that pass the mirror test are ants.

>>1972785
bugguy, im curious, what is it?

>>1972755
The issue with dogs might be similar to that of rats. Rat doesn't know an other rat by it's visage. It knows him by smell. He only sees the visual information and he doesn't act like knowing the other rat.

>>1972794
>it would be funny if most animals that pass the mirror test are ants.
it would be horrifying.
can you imagine how much it would suck to be a conscious ant?

>>1972795
janitor at a college science building, probably

>>1972796
it's possible.
rats don't pass the mirror test but they display empathy which is really only possible if they're conscious.

>>1972795
botany.
>>1972799
there's also evidence they have metacognition.

>>1972800
>botany
>pretends they know more than vets about animals

maximum kek

>>1972801
>thinks being a vet means you understand animals on a scientific level.

double maximum kek.

>>1972800
>there's also evidence they have metacognition.
metacognition is just a technical term for consciousness.

>>1972802
yes, you actually DO KNOW animals at a scientific level you fucking retard

>>1972801
Vet's aren't retarded, they won't tell you if they think fido can't consciously feel pain.

and from a physiological standpoint it doesn't matter. Nociception produces exactly the same stresses and symptoms as pain does.

>>1972802
cause who needs professional education when you got Google amiright?

you're just a wannabe

>>1972803
metacognition is a component of consciousness like self-awareness is.

>>1972805
vets* not you

>>1972808
all three of those terms mean exactly the same thing.

>>1972805
if only, but no.
>>1972806
this is true.

>>1972811
they're essentially part of the same thing, but they're still components that can be judged seperately.

>>1972814
>>1972809
>>1972805

of course you dont, I made a typo

>>1972817
I know.

File: johncenawwechamp_crop_north.jpg (33KB, 328x219px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 328x219px

>>1972818
allright everyone bugguy wins okay?? talk about something else

gg bugguy!! gg!! : D

bugguy is the second coming of jesus christ.
All priase our Messiah

>>1972819
I always wonder how many people have argued this subject on /an/ only to take a college level animal behavior class and hear their professor saying the same things bugguy does.

it's kindof a funny thought.

>>1972818
Agave americana

>>1972823
well I had a college level behaviour class, and we learned that animals feel pain and even emotion

>>1972826
which animals?

>>1972823
>hear their professor saying the same things bugguy does

except he didn't

File: IMG_20150203_172727.jpg (22KB, 280x170px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 280x170px

>>1972827
lets say a ferret

File: Emu.jpg (3KB, 120x90px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 120x90px

>>1972783
>you're retarded
>looks at what bugguy posted

Idiot.

>mfw the only link bugguy has ever posted and it's that

>>1972823
it probably happens.

the same thing happened with outdoor cats, now most of /an/ agrees with me but that wasn't the case 5-6 years ago.

>>1972778
Look fagguy just because you want to justify dog abuse and your furry dreams doesn't mean you're right

File: IMG_20150106_162210.jpg (213KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1600x1067px

>>1972827
ops sorry for the resolution

>>1972831
He's posted it before and not one of you dumbasses took the time to check the JIF on the journal, let alone read the article.

he's not the only idiot in this thread.

>>1972823

No one hears that you idiot. Even Bugguy didn't hear it because he studied Botany.

>>1972826
in english?

most language don't seperate nociception from pain.

like they don't seperate ape from monkey or turtle from tortoise, etc.
>>1972831
like I said if you don't have any arguments just stay out of it, it's not even funny to correct posts like this.

>>1972835

Please stop sucking his dick. It's making you sound like his little bitch.

>>1972836
>No one hears that you idiot.
true.
secret handshakes.

>>1972836
>studie
I bet he read about botany on his journal of science

>>1972833
i don't justify animal abuse.

most people don't realize it but I'm against causing any sort of needless negative stimuli to animals, I don't care whether they're conscious or not.

>>1972837
In french.

read about nociception on wikipedia but it didnt say much

>>1972838
I'm the one that pointed out his "journal" is a fake.

I don't think any more of you for not checking it than I do of him for posting it. How pathetic are you? You claim to have a zoology degree and didn't spot that fake?

>>1972837

>stay out of it

Lol

>ants are concious and dogs aren't
>Bugguy believes this

There is no argument. You're fucking retarded.

>>1972841
>I'm against causing any sort of needless negative stimuli to animals
>unless they're cats
>in my garden.

>>1972843

Nigger I went and did some other stuff for a while.

>getting on my back because I didn't look at his link the second he posted it

Lol you little bitch.

>>1972842
french doesn't differentiate pain from nociception, they have no word for it.

it's the same issue with most languages.

if you want to study science you'll have to do it in english.

>>1972844
so its true..

File: 1385824355997.png (79KB, 838x983px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 838x983px

>>1972849
forgot pic

>>1972848
>if you want to study science you'll have to do it in english

oh my god

>>1972844
i don't think ants are conscious, there's just more evidence suggesting they do.
>>1972845
that's not needless, I also don't mind hunting.
>>1972847
we've had this argument atleast 5 times before and that link was posted in 3 of them.

even if it were true, you wouldn't accept it.

you're not a scientist, you're a equal to a biased housewife.

>>1972848
yea I try check my information in english since its the "business" language

>>1972847
this isn't the first time that link has been posted in a thread you were in.

>>1972850

That's awesome

>>1972854

>implying I stay till the end of the thread

I've never seen it before.

>>1972852

Lol

>im bugguy, you have to immediately believe every single thing I say cause i'm an amazing scientist.

>>1972852

>more evidence suggesting ants are more concious

Then our tests are fucking shit.

>>1972858
or dogs just aren't conscious.

some potentially fake journal is still more than the whole lot of nothing dogs have going for the,.

>>1972859

If not one single test can't prove a dog isn't more concious than an ant, then our tests are faulty. How can you even argue that? That's absolutely ridiculous.

>>1972863
>then our tests are faulty
you're biased towards ants.
>That's absolutely ridiculous.
ants are some of the most complex organisms on earth, it isn't ridiculous.

without ants, we die, without us, ants thrive.

>>1972867

I think you mean biased against.

>ants are some of the most complex organisms on earth, it isn't ridiculous

Not from an intelligence standpoint, which is completely necessary for conciousness.

>>1972867
holly shit the arguments on this thread.

>without ants, we die, without us, ants thrive

we have reached autism levels that shouldnt even be possible

>>1972871
>Not from an intelligence standpoint
yes they are.

ants have the highest brain to body in the animal kingdom.

>>1972863
>Dogs demonstrate a theory of mind by engaging in deception, including one example where a dog hid a stolen treat by sitting on it until the rightful owner of the treat left the room.[20] Although this could have been accidental, it suggests that the thief understood that the treat's owner would be unable to find the treat if it were out of view.[20][25]

>>1972873

>implying brain size correlates with intelligence
>implying the fact that ants are smart for an insect means they are "smart"

>Bugguy logic, ants are concious and super intelligent

Holy fucking shit balls.

>>1972883
lack of reading comprehension.

brain to body correlates with intelligence.

stay out of a discussion you're unable to understand.

either way im going to sleep now it's past bed time.

>>1972883
It's funny how you and Ausfag both misspell "conscious" exactly the same way.

>>1972890

That's cause it's me. I didn't mean to have the name off. I'm surprised he didn't notice lol

>>1972896
>I'm surprised he didn't notice lol
I doubt he reads most of the stuff he responds to.

>>1970429
It is easier to convince you that you dont feel pain, cause you are obvious lacking a brain.

>>1972740
>most of the ones that have trouble with it studied under the same autistic professors.
bullshit.
you learned of the concept from me, and I studied under the Queen of Autism, Dr. Grandin.

notice also that the two people promoting the concept are one likely autist and another diagnosed one.

I think autistic people find the concept easier to grasp because we're incapable of anthropomorphizing, we don't read emotions in faces. We don't assume just because something has a face it thinks like us. Something that's clearly demonstrated itt, since presumably most of the anons you're arguing with have faces and not one of them thinks like you.

>>1972940
lol actual autist

saged

>>1972940
you keep pretending that but you know it's not true.
I got most of it from tarantula forums a long time ago.

it works both ways, the only people delusional enough to keep promoting an idea that has zero evidence supporting it in 2k15 are also autists, they're just lower on the spectrum.

I have no issues with any of that.

>>1973072
i've also met a couple people like it over the years.

they're die-hard religious with PDD-NOS, religious arguments function the same way as pro-pain arguments.

they rely on trying to push the burden of proof on the other party and try to appeal to emotions or popularity as much as they can, then when more dumb people show up because they're always loud and annoying they pretend they've won even though they're just standing there yelling nonsensical shit like a bunch of angry chickens.

it's what's happening here, as you can see most of the people arguing against this concept don't actually post any arguments for it they just assume and shitpost like
>>1972955

>>1973072
>you keep pretending that but you know it's not true.
there's no point in lying to me, we both know better.