To be honest Chris scientifically dispite your emotional and considerable ramblings you've offered little except conjecture and I was quite careful with my wording to express that animals are not aware of cruelty or choice which is the usual argument put forward by the usual bandwagon at this time of year. I didn't at any point question any animals ability to sense pain but since you brought it up you clearly believe the capacity to do so is positively correlated with mental dexterity - with the ability to socialise, reason and so on? I see no reason at all why there should be a correlation and I certainly haven't read anything by Dawkins or any other author to suggest that, on the contrary pain is primal, like the ability to see or hear, if you needed some intellect to experience, sense or process pain it wouldn't serve it's primary purpose which is ultimately to protect.
There is no doubt that "all" animals with some semblance of a nervous system sense something which could be defined as pain not just those higher mammals however and just because my dogs don't like going to the vet I don't imbue them with additional awareness because they can relate an experience to that environment, that's just a primitive learning function/reaction . As for your extrapolated definition of what you thought I meant by the projection of ones emotions or feelings unto an animal, culturally Westerners who have a lesser sense of family, community and tend to lead further isolated lives like to project onto pets how they themselves would like to be treated, that isn't anthropomorphism that's sentimentality which is simply a product of lonelyness. What I find disturbing is that affection between owner and pet isn't symbiotic, they are not favouring the pet they are favouring themselves by filling the lack of affection they have in their own lives. My elderly mother does the same to her lap dog because as much as I involve her in my own family she lives alone and I have some neighbours who constantly tell me how well they treat their animals and that tells me more about them than they'd ever care to truely reveal to me.
As far as higher brain function being related to social species is concerned that's really only a convenient half truth, do I really need to list species that are highly socially structured but not particularly well developed where the traditional meaning of "social" is based on collective organisation, advancement and interaction amongst creatures whether they aware or not? It's poignant that you should try and use Shakespeare as an example, as humans what sets us apart from other species is our use of language and communication because we have sacrificed our other primary senses over time as our intellectual capacity and function has increased. We are absolutely special and separate in that regard and no other species comes close to our capacity to reason and learn so I completely refute that homo sapien if you're suggesting is just another primate and to do so is a fairly basic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. As for the umbrage taken by my use of "dim beast" I'm fairly comfortable with that description as I find horses to be only marginally smarter than cows and possibly on par with swine it's only the UK's cultural, immature and hypocritcal attitude that prevents them from entering the food chain, I'd happily chow down on horse if it were available, morally and ethically it is far more respectful to me than say using the beast for pet food or glue.
As for the concept of suffering or cruelty that's what I'm really interested in philosophically, Ebilpirate mentions it is in the eye of the beholder and I would agree a horse doesn't think that what is happening to it is cruel or it's suffering, that is purely a human construct defined by our ability to empathise and therefore used to play on it. I heard an RSPCA representitve on R4 compare a jocky's choice to race in the national with a horses choice which is a frankly ridulous notion, without sport and therefore exploitation as you would describe it the animal wouldn't exist, now that really is a consequence of a higher brain function and organisation. Like most pack or heard animals a horse described as "sensing fear" is just a poor and inaccurate interpretation of how the animal is reacting to say a nervous human approach, the horse as a flight animal is indeed highly tuned to body language and threatening behavior, this sensory flight response is no more proof that my dogs demonstrate a higher conciousness by being nervous at the vets. It's learned, it's inbuilt and flys basically react in the same way.
I suspect Vinny in his own inimitable style is as bored and annoyed by over sensitive self proclaiming animal lovers who find it hard to differentiate between human and animal as I am. My response was as much a reaction to your indignation however TSR is still a censorship free zone and that has nothing to do with whether you were or are made to feel welcome, you're as free to air your beliefs as I am but I don't think you've done a particularly interesting or convincing job of discrediting mine, threatening to leave because you are offended or disagree just demonstrates to me a distinct lack of perspective, which is what I expect.
