You can note all the abstract thought that animals exhibit, perhaps some equations on a chalkboard?

All the glowy, drippy, lovey, drug feelings you’re expressing might feel so intuitively, deeply true, but my guess is you’re being convinced by the human brain’s outrageously impressive ability to rationalize via language just about anything it wants in order to feel less agitated. Religion in a sense.

You think you are right, but I know that I am right, and I know that you have to choose to overcome your willful ignorance before you, too, can experience the depth of happiness and purpose that I experience in our poverty.

Good luck! I wish you all peace and happiness, but that begins with you, my friend. It is your choice to either seek the truth, or remain happy with where you are.

And it is inarguable, tho many try.

The issue that I think you're highlighting is that we can't map our measures of intelligence directly on to other animals. Animals can't write, so it wouldn't make sense to use a measure that requires writing when evaluating a fox or squirrel.

A fox or squirrel absolutely will not, nor will they break out that chalk.

No matter how confidently you state this, no matter how patronizing of a reply you make to someone who doesn't share your belief, you cannot know this as fact. A choice to believe this is not based on evidence, but faith (or for some, "hope" that they weren't wrong all along).

But as long as you're treating creation right (humans, animals, and ecosystems) then go with peace, brother (or sister).

Well, how can I argue with someone who knows what I cannot know? I'd say Occam's Razor suggests that Dunning-Kruger explains that the most vociferous and confident are the ones who aren't really the true-experts, who require humility to get where they have gotten.

You do not have my evidence, and no words of my evidence will convince anyone. You can traverse my comments over the past few days and learn why you should, but it's easier to choose willful ignorance, as the vast majority do.

Or, maybe -- just maybe -- I'm just plain right. Maybe (hint, hint) that's why no one can put forth a cogent argument against what I say. But they sometimes flag me in their frustration, tho.

And I am at peace because I'm serving humanity by teaching the (mostly unaccepted) view that we should be choosing cooperative compassion instead of competitive callousness. We are each choosing, each and every day, how we beat our butterfly's effect wings. And look at the world we have created out of our ignorantly destructive selfishness, the results of all these selfish cultural tendencies.

Because when you've already closed yourself off to any other possible conclusion, dismissing known evidence and preemptively dismissing unknown evidence, you've made it clear you're speaking dogma, not knowledge. A decision you've made, not a truth.

> And I am at peace because I'm serving humanity by teaching the (mostly unaccepted) view that we should be choosing cooperative compassion instead of competitive callousness.

If that was all it seemed like you were doing here, that'd be great. I actually spend much time doing the same. In fact, I view this very topic as part of that mission: to challenge the idea that these animals so many view as nearly alien in their experience of life might very well share more in common with our experience than we give credit to.

We should be taking care of this planet, not fighting for supremecy, which, as a race, we have already won.

Animals are not alien, they're part of the design for our happiness. We are not to treat them cruelly, because that is bad for our soul. We are to become consumed with love, but we must recognize our unique place on this Earth.

I have been friends with a dog who could not contain herself when I reappeared after a year away. I had let her run free in a local park when the snow had shut everything down. We jogged over and I let her go on the trails. What a magnificent day! She was a very good girl (whippit & golden mix).

And I held a doberman dog-friend of mine's paw when I took him to the vet when the cancer got to be too much for him. It was an exceptional morning for his last trot. He had been a vegetarian until the last six months of his life, and no dog has ever enjoyed a bowl of regular Alpo more than ol' Max, and his gas was a testament to his lifetime of eating against his body's nature. Whew!

It would be a lie if I acted like I didn't know the truth, or couched it in anything other than just that. The problem is that the world is mired in moral confusion, not understanding the nature of reality, but the problem is not mine, it's that of the willfully ignorant.

We love you. You have closed yourself off from the truth. The evidence for this statement is that no one can make a cogent argument against what I say here. Not a single one, so they ad hominem, which makes me say, in the spirit of the moment, "checkmate." (WCC is happening as I type this.)

Good morning, friend. Read from my comment history, because I have put selfless effort into my comments. Animals are not "alien", they are our cousins, but we are more, and we must use our consciences, minds, and free wills to be better than the animals, for each other, for them, and for the Earth, herself. Peace be with you.

I think you took the word "alien" from my comment about animals more a bit less metaphorically than it was intended. At any rate, this comment is just a sermon, not knowledge.

> The evidence for this statement is that no one can make a cogent argument against what I say here.

Nobody can make cogent argument against statements of fact rooted in faith. You've stated you already know the absolute truth of the matter while making claims that are inherently unfalsifiable. How does one argue against animals being "part of the design for our happiness?" It's not a statement rooted in fact, it's not falsifiable as it touches on mysticism. What is the cogent argument beyond the ample evidence of our shared evolutionary history, and the repeated and growing empirical evidence for our similarities vs. differences?

And the truth is never falsifiable.

While true, real truth stands up to falsifiability testing, it does not set itself above evidence.

That is all behavior that helps the survivability of the group, and is all explained by kinship theory. "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."

As to brain structures, where are the animals' structures that allow the discovery, explication, and acceptance of General Relativity? It's not there, and there will never be a study that shows that they have them, because it is simply not possible.

Flogiston is not real, my friend, no matter how it appears to explain the physical transfer of heat and lack thereof. And the solar wind is real, no matter what Eugene Parker's contemporaries thought and fought all those years ago. Now the Parker Solar Probe is in space doing its work, and I am, too, in my own small way.