Comments on: Tech Support http://averagecats.com/107 Your cat is average. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:43:25 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Paige http://averagecats.com/107/comment-page-1#comment-6965 Paige Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:41:30 +0000 http://averagecats.com/?p=107#comment-6965 In response to all the very interesting anthromorphism posts, I am personally of the belief that humans, if anything, are the least intelligent. Of course we shouldn't be judging cat's or any animal's intelligence on how well they can mimic us - it's really rather vain to assume that we are superior to everything. How can we really know whether we're advanced as we believe we are? If you take a second to think about our existence as a race, you'll realise just how important appearance is to us. It seems to me that improving on how things look isn't at all worthwhile, and when you compare that to animals, who focus on survival for the most part and being happy, it doesn't seem to me that we're as advanced as we think. Humans seem to spend their days finding more ways to be miserable - setting higher standards that are nearly impossible for the public to achieve which for the most part ends in failure. Those who do meet todays standards are still not complete and are just continuously expected more of. It just seems to me that even if judging other species on our own achievements was right, humans would be losing. But then again, how can we really know at all? When someone discovers the meaning of life, I'll re-evaluate my beliefs and then we'll really see the superior race. For the moment however, I choose to believe that the greatest achievement is happiness. I think cats, and any other animals, are far happier than humans, whether we think/know it or not. In response to all the very interesting anthromorphism posts, I am personally of the belief that humans, if anything, are the least intelligent. Of course we shouldn’t be judging cat’s or any animal’s intelligence on how well they can mimic us – it’s really rather vain to assume that we are superior to everything. How can we really know whether we’re advanced as we believe we are?

If you take a second to think about our existence as a race, you’ll realise just how important appearance is to us. It seems to me that improving on how things look isn’t at all worthwhile, and when you compare that to animals, who focus on survival for the most part and being happy, it doesn’t seem to me that we’re as advanced as we think. Humans seem to spend their days finding more ways to be miserable – setting higher standards that are nearly impossible for the public to achieve which for the most part ends in failure. Those who do meet todays standards are still not complete and are just continuously expected more of.

It just seems to me that even if judging other species on our own achievements was right, humans would be losing.

But then again, how can we really know at all? When someone discovers the meaning of life, I’ll re-evaluate my beliefs and then we’ll really see the superior race. For the moment however, I choose to believe that the greatest achievement is happiness. I think cats, and any other animals, are far happier than humans, whether we think/know it or not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

]]> By: Shane http://averagecats.com/107/comment-page-1#comment-6964 Shane Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:51:00 +0000 http://averagecats.com/?p=107#comment-6964 Sorry it's been so long since I've written here, but I just wanted to say "Thank you" to everyone who responded to my post and put their ideas in as far as this goes. I think my issue with "anthropomorphism" meaning that we "falsely attribute personhood where there isn't any for a desired effect" (such as humor or literary tone) is my issue with the way that the concepts of "personhood" and "the beingness of humans" have seemed to melded into one concept, an equivocation or something. Thus, if something does not have human intelligence, or even if we grant them a "limited sort of intelligence," some may assume it doesn't have personhood (which, I guess I would define at this point as "the quality of an entity which enables will and the ability to act according to that will). Another issue of this sort that brings us further down the Rabbit Hole is the idea that personhood can only be attributed to things that are biological in form, or more definitely, have a biological form even more closely-related to humans, such as those which have a spinal cord and a nervous system close to ours. Anyways, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I thank people again for their insights, which have reminded me that the above issue is what I'm concerned with. Basically, there could be other "persons" out there that are not human, and we could be misunderstanding them or dismissing them entirely simply because they do not have a body similar to ours, or that they do not interact with the world in the same way we do. I noticed this specifically because of the wording that SuccessfulTroll laid before us, which is, that ""aptitude at certain skills"" may have been included to "mean "intelligence"". Thank you again to all those who responded, and again, I'm sorry for my rants! I just think this is a very important issue and stance that humans generally take for granted, and sites like this or others may show an unconscious tendency to take a stance towards other beings which might grant them a personhood we have not even realized before. Thank you, again! Sorry it’s been so long since I’ve written here, but I just wanted to say “Thank you” to everyone who responded to my post and put their ideas in as far as this goes. I think my issue with “anthropomorphism” meaning that we “falsely attribute personhood where there isn’t any for a desired effect” (such as humor or literary tone) is my issue with the way that the concepts of “personhood” and “the beingness of humans” have seemed to melded into one concept, an equivocation or something. Thus, if something does not have human intelligence, or even if we grant them a “limited sort of intelligence,” some may assume it doesn’t have personhood (which, I guess I would define at this point as “the quality of an entity which enables will and the ability to act according to that will).

Another issue of this sort that brings us further down the Rabbit Hole is the idea that personhood can only be attributed to things that are biological in form, or more definitely, have a biological form even more closely-related to humans, such as those which have a spinal cord and a nervous system close to ours.

Anyways, I guess the point I’m trying to make is that I thank people again for their insights, which have reminded me that the above issue is what I’m concerned with. Basically, there could be other “persons” out there that are not human, and we could be misunderstanding them or dismissing them entirely simply because they do not have a body similar to ours, or that they do not interact with the world in the same way we do. I noticed this specifically because of the wording that SuccessfulTroll laid before us, which is, that “”aptitude at certain skills”" may have been included to “mean “intelligence”".

Thank you again to all those who responded, and again, I’m sorry for my rants! I just think this is a very important issue and stance that humans generally take for granted, and sites like this or others may show an unconscious tendency to take a stance towards other beings which might grant them a personhood we have not even realized before. Thank you, again!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

]]> By: tay(: http://averagecats.com/107/comment-page-1#comment-6212 tay(: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:00:48 +0000 http://averagecats.com/?p=107#comment-6212 way to be obvious. you should actually makr these pictures funny Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

]]> By: Ceiling kitteh http://averagecats.com/107/comment-page-1#comment-5431 Ceiling kitteh Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:59:06 +0000 http://averagecats.com/?p=107#comment-5431 Basment cat has gon on teh NET! FEAR!!1 Basment cat has gon on teh NET! FEAR!!1

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

]]> By: SnazzyCactus http://averagecats.com/107/comment-page-1#comment-4548 SnazzyCactus Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:50:02 +0000 http://averagecats.com/?p=107#comment-4548 My friend's cat was on google one time. My friend’s cat was on google one time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

]]> By: SemiInterestedBistander http://averagecats.com/107/comment-page-1#comment-3967 SemiInterestedBistander Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:37:40 +0000 http://averagecats.com/?p=107#comment-3967 Agrees with above. By a cats way of thinking we could be considered unintelligent because we lack the ability to track and hunt smaller prey, such as mice. Agrees with above. By a cats way of thinking we could be considered unintelligent because we lack the ability to track and hunt smaller prey, such as mice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

]]> By: Lady Dragonshade http://averagecats.com/107/comment-page-1#comment-2551 Lady Dragonshade Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:50:01 +0000 http://averagecats.com/?p=107#comment-2551 Cats can however wipe your hard drive by walking across your keyboard when you are running DOS. True story... Cats can however wipe your hard drive by walking across your keyboard when you are running DOS. True story…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

]]> By: SuccessfulTroll http://averagecats.com/107/comment-page-1#comment-2451 SuccessfulTroll Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:28:08 +0000 http://averagecats.com/?p=107#comment-2451 @Shane: You've got a very good point. I'm sure that a cat, if we were to scale such measurements appropriately, could be easily intelligent enough to insert a RAM card into a slot, if we base this against a similar task more readily adapted for feline goings-on as opposed to considering them "unintelligent" because of their incapacity to perform tasks which, frankly, elude many humans. I think the flaw in the wording above is that we assume "aptitude at certain skills" to mean "intelligence". I wonder how many good mousers humanity has produced compared to felines. @Shane: You’ve got a very good point. I’m sure that a cat, if we were to scale such measurements appropriately, could be easily intelligent enough to insert a RAM card into a slot, if we base this against a similar task more readily adapted for feline goings-on as opposed to considering them “unintelligent” because of their incapacity to perform tasks which, frankly, elude many humans. I think the flaw in the wording above is that we assume “aptitude at certain skills” to mean “intelligence”.

I wonder how many good mousers humanity has produced compared to felines.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

]]> By: Jackie http://averagecats.com/107/comment-page-1#comment-2449 Jackie Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:58:48 +0000 http://averagecats.com/?p=107#comment-2449 Omgggggggggggggg i have the same laptop Omgggggggggggggg i have the same laptop

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

]]> By: Billy Mays' Ghost http://averagecats.com/107/comment-page-1#comment-2088 Billy Mays' Ghost Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:50:12 +0000 http://averagecats.com/?p=107#comment-2088 This will SAVE YOUR LIFE! Oxi-Clean is still in style! Just get Oxi-Clean and you'll know what I am talking about! OXI-CLEAN WILL SAVE YOU LIFE! Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

]]>