# fear factor cruelty



## maxwellxxv (Nov 1, 2004)

I seen a ff episode and was appalled at what U saw. They put a whole bunch of Ts in the same tank on someone head. they even showed one being killed as also a mating. Hey people.. am I wrong for saying that isd animal cruelity? I am really jerked over this. should we , as a gathering , say something?


----------



## Nerri1029 (Nov 1, 2004)

UNfortunately people are easily riled when it comes to the Furry and friendly critters.. 

However insects and arachnids DO NOT elicite the same response..

In fact the estes rocket code says NOT to launch mice etc as passengers.. but INSECTS are OK..

GO FIGURE..


----------



## WayneT (Nov 1, 2004)

It's fixing to air in my time zone as I write this...I am debating whether or not I feel like getting my blood pressure up tonite....

And to answer your question, yes, to me it's animal cruelty, exploitation, etc.


----------



## edesign (Nov 1, 2004)

i saw one where they were doing partners competitions and they made the female lie down in a clear (plexiglass?) chamber with goggles...think they strapped the legs and arms down, could be wrong...and poured in a bunch of tarantulas and some other bugs. Their partner had to use their mouth to take out all of this nasty stuff in a "U" shaped tube above the tank as fast as possible. Fastest couple wins...

well...one of the women did NOT want to get in that chamber at all. They tried talking her in to it calmly but she really didn't want to...on the verge of crying even. Finally they get her to get in  but I can't believe they'd try to talk someone in to that considering how obviously scared she was and were going to put a bunch of poisonous spiders in with her. not toxic, at least not individually but we're talking 30+ spiders here. Needless to say she didn't last long...by the time they got her out she was sobbing and on the verge of freaking out.

Unfortunately i'm sure the producers make all contestants sign a waiver alleviating themselves from any injury's that may occur, physical and/or mental. That's the only episode i've seen where i was actually appalled at what happened...i've seen about 10 of them and that was the only time it seemed cruel to me as they were trying to force her to do something against her will, even her boyfriend was trying to get her to do it


----------



## shogun804 (Nov 1, 2004)

im getting ready to watch it now its just starting were i am i hope i dont see what you described earleir thats just wrong...


----------



## earthgirl (Nov 1, 2004)

*they are very wrong*



			
				maxwellxxv said:
			
		

> I seen a ff episode and was appalled at what U saw. They put a whole bunch of Ts in the same tank on someone head. they even showed one being killed as also a mating. Hey people.. am I wrong for saying that isd animal cruelity? I am really jerked over this. should we , as a gathering , say something?


You are not wrong - it is certainly cruel.
Most people are in the dark ages when it comes to knowledge of tarantulas.
 :wall:


----------



## MilkmanWes (Nov 1, 2004)

Mostly there were house spiders or avics in there. Glad to see there wasn't anything that would flick hairs, getting a mouthfull would suck.


----------



## flamingo-kid1 (Nov 1, 2004)

*Kill it at the SOURCE*

So who is the IDIOT that sold them the tarantulas??? That's who shoudl be in trouble.

It is certainly WRONG to do this sort of thing to ANY living creature, but as long as the public will pay...

never underestimate the power of STOOPID people!


----------



## Greaper (Nov 1, 2004)

Honestly, I think of if it would be possible to file a lawsuit. These are innocent creatures that they violate and abuse on that show. I have seen it with spiders, whipless tail scorps, scorpions, etc. Entertainment is one thing, hurting animals for pleasure of an audiance at home is another. God i would love to have 5 minutes with the people who make all the animal stunt decisions so I can give them a peice of my mind.


----------



## Ice Cold Milk (Nov 1, 2004)

I saw that FF episode where they had the couples, and the women got in a tank w/ the tarantulas---  from what i saw it looked more like 100 or so T's in the tank, all were G. Rosea's....one girl, upon finishing the stunt, complained that she was itching really badly---
I thought it was a really messed up thing when i saw how they kept all the T's in a huge bucket all together...Have no idea what they would have done with them all after the stunt was over.


----------



## sanguinarian (Nov 1, 2004)

The other day I saw a commercial for Battle for Ozzfest and you hear someone say the contestants have to bite the head off a live bat. They showed a fruit bat and then someone with a mouth dripping blood.


----------



## Professor T (Nov 1, 2004)

I won't watch shows like that for said reason. Our society has rules to protect vertebrates from cruelty, however invertebrates are only protected if endangered or threatened. 

You can pour salt on a slug, or step on a tarantula and its not punishable. I'm trying to teach the young people that I come into contact with to respect life. Fear factor respects nothing, especially your intelligence.


----------



## edesign (Nov 1, 2004)

Ice Cold Milk said:
			
		

> I saw that FF episode where they had the couples, and the women got in a tank w/ the tarantulas---  from what i saw it looked more like 100 or so T's in the tank, all were G. Rosea's....one girl, upon finishing the stunt, complained that she was itching really badly---
> I thought it was a really messed up thing when i saw how they kept all the T's in a huge bucket all together...Have no idea what they would have done with them all after the stunt was over.


i saw it a long time ago and didn't want to overestimate the number...i too wonder what happened to them after the show. Scorched the hairs off and coated them in chocolate?


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 1, 2004)

Cruelty is a loaded term that is being bandied around alot in this thread without any basis but your anthropomorphic attribution of characters not possessed by tarantulas to them.

Is Fear Factor a show for utter morons? Yes.
Is Fear Factor a show for utter morons as contestants? Yes.
Why did NBC try to out-Fox Fox? The world may never know.
Is it a huge waste of money and animals from our niche point of view? Yes.
However, is what Fear Factor does with inverts *cruel*? Absolutely not.

Anyone who attributes emotional capacity to the majority of invertebrates (some cephalopods are genuinely intelligent) isn't any brighter than a Fear Factor contestant. Without emotional capacity to suffer needlessly you just can't have cruelty. There are reasons why there aren't animal cruelty laws governing inverts and it isn't just because of the ignorant bias of the the majority of humans.


----------



## PapaRoacher (Nov 2, 2004)

Are you sasying we shouldn't feel sorry for little T's being crushed by rolling contestants in a tub?  

I personally think it's a waste of life...


----------



## Mister Internet (Nov 2, 2004)

PapaRoacher said:
			
		

> Are you sasying we shouldn't feel sorry for little T's being crushed by rolling contestants in a tub?
> 
> I personally think it's a waste of life...


You're certainly free to feel sorry for them, but Code is saying that you can't make a case for CRUELTY.  Invertebrates as a rule, and certainly tarantulas without exception, don't "suffer" or feel pain like higher mammals or companion animals.  If you're not able to inflict pain and suffering on an animal, it's quite hard to be cruel to it.

When you cut off a Tarantulas leg, about the only thing that registers in their teeny-tiny nerve center is "Oh, there's not a leg there anymore."  Inverts are so fragile that it simply doesn't behoove them to have very developed nervous systems, as they would live their lives in a state of almost constant pain due to the damage they must take on a frequent basis.

We've had this discussion a few times before, and it always ends up being a giant pissing match between the "cutesy-wootsey, fuzzy-wuzzy, widdle precious T" type keepers and the adroitly realistic keepers who enjoy them for what they are: fascinating, but largely unintelligent and completely incapable of emotion.


----------



## Washout (Nov 2, 2004)

Well the only reason it's possible is because of how cheap wild caught adult G. rosea are. A. avics are almost as cheap too though. So I guess people buying them to eat or whatever will never really be stopped. Not until there are only CB T's from hobbiests that won't sell to people like this.


----------



## PapaRoacher (Nov 2, 2004)

I can feel sorry for it as a shame that the Tarantula has lost a leg or whatnot...

But, I'm hardly going to go on strike outside NBC for showing Ts being crushed...  I just think it's a shame to use them like that, like, capable of Emotion or not, I think it's pretty sad that a bunch of Ts have to lose their lives because some prick wants $50,000...


----------



## Nerri1029 (Nov 2, 2004)

Code Monkey said:
			
		

> Cruelty is a loaded term that is being bandied around alot in this thread without any basis but your anthropomorphic attribution of characters not possessed by tarantulas to them.
> 
> Is Fear Factor a show for utter morons? Yes.
> Is Fear Factor a show for utter morons as contestants? Yes.
> ...


I won't argue the LOGIC behind what you are saying..
Do inverts have the capacity to 'feel' pain? fear? distress?  the same as verts, probably not.. there's alot of evidence to support that.

Be careful those of you who are letting emotions get in the way here, don't be hypocritical..
How many of you keep crickets and allow many to die, be cannibalized?

My earlier post was just to point out a contrast 

Now for Fear factor... should we ( as a race ) be condoning such behavior i.e. the disregard for life.?

Well my beliefs are probably NOT popular..
If for a purpose YES.

Should Avon put their products in the eyes of rabbits? NO
Should Bristol Myeres inject rats with substances to test toxic doses.. YES
Should you be able to put a worm on a fishing hook? a cricket? a slug? .. YES
Should you be able to shoot a dog that enters your property and threatens you and your family.. YES YES YES..
Should we feed crickets to our T's?? YES.. 
Should we be able to get rid of a rodent from our house..  YES.

ARE ALL creatures of equal status and equal rights? NO.
DOES ALL life deserve some respect YES..

FIND your own position on the continuum..


----------



## T-Bite (Nov 2, 2004)

Mister Internet said:
			
		

> You're certainly free to feel sorry for them, but Code is saying that you can't make a case for CRUELTY.  Invertebrates as a rule, and certainly tarantulas without exception, don't "suffer" or feel pain like higher mammals or companion animals.  If you're not able to inflict pain and suffering on an animal, it's quite hard to be cruel to it.
> 
> When you cut off a Tarantulas leg, about the only thing that registers in their teeny-tiny nerve center is "Oh, there's not a leg there anymore."  Inverts are so fragile that it simply doesn't behoove them to have very developed nervous systems, as they would live their lives in a state of almost constant pain due to the damage they must take on a frequent basis.
> 
> We've had this discussion a few times before, and it always ends up being a giant pissing match between the "cutesy-wootsey, fuzzy-wuzzy, widdle precious T" type keepers and the adroitly realistic keepers who enjoy them for what they are: fascinating, but largely unintelligent and completely incapable of emotion.



So essentially what you're saying is that I could stab my Ts with needles and it wouldn't ne considered torture since they cant feel pain? This is so cool. I always wanted to see who would win between my Goliath and my Salmon Pink but I thought it would be cruel. Thanks Mr. Internet!

And I was going to make a video of my Usambara fighting with my Emperor scorpion if anyone is interested, since I now feel better about putting them in together.


----------



## Sting Crazy (Nov 2, 2004)

Actually you could make the argument that keeping wild animals, such as Ts in captivity is cruel in of itself.


----------



## Malhavoc's (Nov 2, 2004)

Mister Internet said:
			
		

> You're certainly free to feel sorry for them, but Code is saying that you can't make a case for CRUELTY.  Invertebrates as a rule, and certainly tarantulas without exception, don't "suffer" or feel pain like higher mammals or companion animals.  If you're not able to inflict pain and suffering on an animal, it's quite hard to be cruel to it.
> 
> When you cut off a Tarantulas leg, about the only thing that registers in their teeny-tiny nerve center is "Oh, there's not a leg there anymore."  Inverts are so fragile that it simply doesn't behoove them to have very developed nervous systems, as they would live their lives in a state of almost constant pain due to the damage they must take on a frequent basis.
> 
> We've had this discussion a few times before, and it always ends up being a giant pissing match between the "cutesy-wootsey, fuzzy-wuzzy, widdle precious T" type keepers and the adroitly realistic keepers who enjoy them for what they are: fascinating, but largely unintelligent and completely incapable of emotion.


 THey may not posses emotion as we understand it, but if you hold a flame to an invert, do they not try and escape? If you try to kill them or damage them slowly do they not fight back, or again try to run? when you pull or sever a tarantulas leg from its body do they not flea while it twitches. Pain is a defensive mechanism which they do posses. They register it as pain as damage and know it will harm them-and insictualy try to flea from it. To argue that they have no emotion is easy, but they certainly do have pain weather it's on our level of comprehension or a completely different basis.



			
				Washout said:
			
		

> Well the only reason it's possible is because of how cheap wild caught adult G. rosea are. A. avics are almost as cheap too though. So I guess people buying them to eat or whatever will never really be stopped. Not until there are only CB T's from hobbiests that won't sell to people like this.


 Poeple eat tarantulas around the world, weather it be part of their cutlure, religion or just every day diet. Alot of things offered in the 'eating phase' of FF are usualy from different cultures who enjoy eating what most 'civalized  ' people would consider gross. And FF is jsut capatilizing on this by introduceing the 'Civilized' persoon to this menu.

 Day to Day, we 'consume' tarantulas aswell. We buy them and put them in plastic,glass,plexiglass ect. Prisons for our various levels of pleasure, FF merely assults people with them for Viewers pleasure. They make a buck doing it, we don't. So which is more cruel? them spending the lives of therphosa [spelling] for their pleasure or us spending the millions of lives of crickets mice and other various feeder objects for our pleasure? how can you argue the 'cruelty' of FF without arguing the very 'cruelty' of our hobby in itself, sure I bet you will come up with alot of reasons why we're better then they are but I bet if you took the arguement to them they'd do the very same thing.

Edited for my horrible type-os


----------



## Professor T (Nov 2, 2004)

T-Bite said:
			
		

> So essentially what you're saying is that I could stab my Ts with needles and it wouldn't ne considered torture since they cant feel pain? This is so cool. I always wanted to see who would win between my Goliath and my Salmon Pink but I thought it would be cruel. Thanks Mr. Internet!
> 
> And I was going to make a video of my Usambara fighting with my Emperor scorpion if anyone is interested, since I now feel better about putting them in together.


Do we really know what a T feels? The answer is no. 

Do we care what they feel is really the question.

Dogs don't get to decide what is cruel, people get to decide.

I feed mice to snakes. Not creul.

I feed crickets to Ts. Not Cruel.

Pouring salt on a slug. Cruel.

Starving your snake to death. Cruel.

If you need to know what's cruel and what not, please post the example and I'll decide for you.   

Goliath vs. Pink Salmon...cool!  :clap: 

Usambara vs. Emperor...cruel! I've already tried this, the Emperor just pulls the legs off the Usambara...very disappointing pay-per-view.
 :liar:


----------



## RaZeDaHeLL666 (Nov 2, 2004)

maxwellxxv said:
			
		

> I seen a ff episode and was appalled at what U saw. They put a whole bunch of Ts in the same tank on someone head. they even showed one being killed as also a mating. Hey people.. am I wrong for saying that isd animal cruelity? I am really jerked over this. should we , as a gathering , say something?


HEY tahst terrible, we should do something about this cruelty to our bugs!!


----------



## knightjar (Nov 2, 2004)

Just because an animal doesn't have the _same_ way of experiencing pain as we do doesn't mean it doesn't experience it. Equally just because we don't understand _how_ such an apparently basic nervous system is capable of experiencing distress doesn't mean that it can't.

There is much more going on in animals' nervous systems than we currently understand. for example, how can something that supposedly has no memory be trained or tamed? Goldfish get bad press for their supposed lack of memory, but I've seen them exhibit pavlovian excitement when they see a fish food tub. Anyone who has kept invertebrates will have observed similar examples  - the tarantula that waits at a dry water dish, normally defensive animals that can be safely handled thanks to becoming familiar with human contact. 

Mike


----------



## tkn0spdr (Nov 2, 2004)

A good way to gauge what might be considered needlessly cruel or not is to ask yourself if this would be a situation that happens in nature or not.

Feeding one animal to another (if it's a natural prey item) - not cruel
Killing animals for viewing pleasure (either FF or Roman gladiators) - cruel
Any sort of chemical/drug testing on an animal that hasn't asked to be a test subject - cruel

You can make the case that since they don't suffer the way other animals do that it's not cruelty, but since we're the ones with the highly evolved brains we ought to be better decision makers that we've shown ourselves to be so far.


----------



## Scott C. (Nov 2, 2004)

Cruel? Maybe not....
Wrong? Definitely!


----------



## Sting Crazy (Nov 2, 2004)

Having to watch Fear Factor -Cruel


----------



## Seinfeld- (Nov 2, 2004)

Yup! i saw this too, i didnt see the mating or ne thing but it doesnt suprise me. they were all adult G.Roseas in both stunts as far as i can tell. BOY they musta been itching all over at that lol...

And yes if they kill any it is very wrong i would say.


----------



## Vanan (Nov 2, 2004)

I think it's more a matter of ethics than cruelty.


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 2, 2004)

Vanan said:
			
		

> I think it's more a matter of ethics than cruelty.


Now that I can agree with. I find the callous disregard for other lifeforms to be an *ethical* issue, just not one of cruelty. Of course, this demands that we answer some ethical questions: where does snuffing out lifeforms without a need for food or survival become an ethical violation?

You snuff out millions of innocent life forms that were completely harmless just by doing your laundry. Do you exempt the millions of lives you individually snuff out every day just because it's a matter of convenience and potentially greater hygeine to wash our hands, wash our clothes, and wipe down the kitchen sink with a soapy sponge? It's a nice ethical swamp to start trying to draw the line at where lives demand our consideration before we snuff them out. 

I raise this question because we, as a group, have quite the bias towards these top level predators of the arachnids, yet we think nothing of rearing up cockroaches, crickets, mealworms, etc. to toss as food to our chosen favorites. I don't find it intellectually complete to make the argument that the spider needs to eat and therefore it is automatically ethical to feed it. To use the example that came up earlier, I find keeping snakes utterly barbaric on a personal level. A snake isn't much brighter than one of our tarantulas, but people take pleasure in tossing living rats to their snakes. That rat has more intelligence and more emotional capacity than every snake in captivity put together. My personal sense of ethics says that to rear snakes in captivity, an entirely unecessary hobby for most people keeping them, and then to sustain that snake on a production line of emotive creatures is far more unethical than dumping a few hundred tarantulas on some idiots for cash - yet some of the people condemening the Fear Factor stunt used the snake feeding as a counter example of ethical killing/inflicting of pain on animals...

See where this sort of nitpicking gets you?


----------



## Xanzo (Nov 2, 2004)

Well CM as you are mentioning the deaths of millions of bacteria, I don't think that works. Bacteria don't feel pain, the closest thing to it is chemotaxis-moving away from undesirable/dangerous chemicals. I don't think anyone feels it is wrong to wipe out large numbers of a innumerable creature that doesn't feel pain, and if they do, people need to realize they are suffering from an extreme case of hypersensitivity.


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 2, 2004)

Professor T said:
			
		

> Do we really know what a T feels? The answer is no.


Actually we do: it "feels" nothing as even that is indicative of more anthropomorphosising. The nervous system of most inverts is non-centralized, non-complex. They are no more aware that they have lost a limb than you are another hair fell out - they continue to try and carry out hardwired subroutines when all manner of damage is done to them because there isn't any central consciousness that registers the damage in any sense that you or I could fathom. You want a skinner-box, the tarantula is it. There is limited habituation and learning, and Vernier's example of water dish banging shows even some ability to put cause & effect together, but even that merely results in a switching to some other subroutine. It's one of the reasons why I wonder why some people have so much trouble transferring Ts and take refuge in the bathtub, they are essentially completely predictable.

Where we have a bundle of thousands and thousands of axons in our spinal cord for the huge amount of information flowing to and fro our brain, inverts have a handful of giant axons because they only move a few data points from sensory system to brain and back again. It's faster than our nervous system, but it's hitting something with a rock versus the moon landing for complexity comparisons. Most things are handled by distributed ganglia centers that have but a couple of purposes. For example, in the tarantula, although the nervous command to move may originate in the brain, each leg is controlled by a particular ganglion. And when you push them on the rump to get them move where you want, that doesn't even reach the brain, it gets processed by a couple of abdominal ganglia and the "decision" to move/not move is purely a function of doing the math.

To attribute things like feelings, suffering, etc. to an invert such as a tarantula is to disrespect what intelligence and emotive capacity in higher animals actually is.

As for the argument that they react to pain and therefore "feel" it, well, so doesn't an amoeba, an organism without a single neuron at all. Pain, as an objective type of stimulus is felt by all living things with anything that qualifies as a sensory system. Pain as something that causes emotional distress and/or physical suffering is only a result of emergent consciousness. As an organism becomes more and more subject to a more and more voluntary central consciousness, the psychological concept of pain become necessary for faster learning of danger avoidance.


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 2, 2004)

Xanzo said:
			
		

> Well CM as you are mentioning the deaths of millions of bacteria, I don't think that works. Bacteria don't feel pain, the closest thing to it is chemotaxis-moving away from undesirable/dangerous chemicals.


Tarantulas don't feel pain either and that is why I mention the bacteria. Besides, there are dust mites, skin mites, and all other manner of organisms in there that do, by your false definition of 'feeling pain', feel pain.




> I don't think anyone feels it is wrong to wipe out large numbers of a innumerable creature that doesn't feel pain, and if they do, people need to realize they are suffering from an extreme case of hypersensitivity.


And that is *exactly* how the vast majority of humanity sees inverts and their deaths


----------



## Xanzo (Nov 2, 2004)

I don't think it's accurate to lump together the response to simple stimulus, such as an amoeba would, and the response to pain as a tarantula would. 

The ameoba only reacts due to chemical receptors on the cell membrane. A tarantula reacts to pain which has been interpreted by the ganglion. There is no interpretation device in the amoeba, just a chemical homeostasis which it needs to live (generalizing) The amoeba receives and reacts, using cilia to move away from the stimulus. There is no arguing that the tarantulas methods are far more advanced. Many of my tarantulas do not negatively react to light touching, it is possible that the light touch isn't registering, but I find that to be unlikely. Tarantulas certainly react to pain.


----------



## Rourke (Nov 2, 2004)

Code Monkey said:
			
		

> You want a skinner-box, the tarantula is it.


LMAO, Chip....LM<edit>AO.

stimulus.....response
stimulus...........response
stimulus..................response

The inability of the human mind to step, even transiently, outside of its instinctive tendency toward anthropomorphism is unfortunate.  Yessir....


----------



## Xanzo (Nov 2, 2004)

Code Monkey said:
			
		

> Tarantulas don't feel pain either and that is why I mention the bacteria. Besides, there are dust mites, skin mites, and all other manner of organisms in there that do, by your false definition of 'feeling pain', feel pain.
> 
> 
> And that is *exactly* how the vast majority of humanity sees inverts and their deaths


Dust mites and skin mites don't exactly have nervous tissue to interpret the pain stimulus, they just react, like amoeba, they don't interpret. 

I agree, and I am not arguing that the death/suffering of any creature is wrong, it's a natural process, just like extinction, then again I think the majority of people are hypersensitive.


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 2, 2004)

Xanzo said:
			
		

> Dust mites and skin mites don't exactly have nervous tissue to interpret the pain stimulus, they just react, like amoeba, they don't interpret.


Um, since their nervous system is pretty much a carbon copy of the tarantulas, that's a bit of an odd argument, wouldn't you say? Sure, it may be Windows 3.1 versus Windows95, but it's still Windows under the hood.


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 2, 2004)

Xanzo said:
			
		

> The ameoba only reacts due to chemical receptors on the cell membrane. A tarantula reacts to pain which has been interpreted by the ganglion. There is no interpretation device in the amoeba, just a chemical homeostasis which it needs to live (generalizing) The amoeba receives and reacts, using cilia to move away from the stimulus. There is no arguing that the tarantulas methods are far more advanced. Many of my tarantulas do not negatively react to light touching, it is possible that the light touch isn't registering, but I find that to be unlikely. Tarantulas certainly react to pain.


Not reacting is called habituation. And if you can find me one objective difference between the chemical stasis system of the amoeba and the simple equation of excitatory and inhibitory chemicals at the nerve synapse, I'd love to hear them 

Pain, love, sadness, longing, you know, _emotion_, is an emergent effect of billions of nerve junctions acting in a synergistic system. There is no more of that type of nervous system synergy going on in a tarantula than there is deep thoughts on topographic mathematical theory in George Bush's head.


----------



## Xanzo (Nov 2, 2004)

Code Monkey said:
			
		

> Um, since their nervous system is pretty much a carbon copy of the tarantulas, that's a bit of an odd argument, wouldn't you say? Sure, it may be Windows 3.1 versus Windows95, but it's still Windows under the hood.



You caught me, and since I was unable to find any sources for mite anatomy/nervous system I made a (stupid) assumption and went off the idea that mites lacked a ganglial nerve structure because of their small size.


----------



## Rourke (Nov 2, 2004)

Xanzo said:
			
		

> I don't think it's accurate to lump together the response to simple stimulus, such as an amoeba would, and the response to pain as a tarantula would.
> 
> The ameoba only reacts due to chemical receptors on the cell membrane. A tarantula reacts to pain which has been interpreted by the ganglion.


A ganglion is nothing more than a group of cells, each responding individually to stimuli through chemoreceptors in its membrane.  Same goes for each of us.  At the root, none of it is any more esoteric than that.

Maybe it would be helpful to think of the individual neurons as binary switches.  A binary switch is profoundly simple.  But put enough of them together interacting in the proper manner, and you have a computer.  Neat, hey?  But it requires a critical mass, an amplification of many orders of magnitude to achieve such a gestalt.  To deepen the analogy, let's say that a bacterium is composed of a very few of these switches, 50 or so.  Not very complicated.....maybe roughly on par with a zener diode-based rectifier or something.  Then what is a tarantula, metaphorically?  A calculator?  No probably not even that.  An early digital watch, maybe.  A veritable infinity away from a contemporary computer.  And even the fanciest computers can't touch the human intellect, right?  I might argue that nothing which is not capable of grasping the concept of pain or suffering, or cruelty, is susceptible to any of those things.

What about a monkey?  I say yes.  Pain and suffering are possible.  A dog?  A cat?  A bird?  My instinct is again yes for all of these.  A mouse?  A fish?  Well.....now I am less sure.  You see, there is a large gray area here, and our current picture of integrative neurophysiology is not advanced enough to make the call in many such cases.  I think we know enough, though, to place invertebrates, even cephalopods, well outside the boundaries of this gray area with respect to the very human concepts of pain, suffering, and cruelty.

Rourke


----------



## Xanzo (Nov 2, 2004)

This topic is somewhat confusing (not because of the biology) but because I think everyone is approaching pain differently, if we are talking about reacting to pain then yes, tarantulas feel pain if pain equals suffering, then tarantulas suffer. 

You (CM and Rourke) are going on the premise that tarantulas don't understand pain (I agree) thus don't suffer (I disagree).


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 2, 2004)

Xanzo said:
			
		

> This topic is somewhat confusing (not because of the biology) but because I think everyone is approaching pain differently, if we are talking about reacting to pain then yes, tarantulas feel pain if pain equals suffering, then tarantulas suffer.


That's a syllologism that you haven't offered any support for. Pain (as a stimulus) no more necessarily equals suffering than a female human exiting a room necessarily equals a devastating breakup. You need a lot of emotional capacity to *suffer* or you're not talking about suffering but merely equating a pain stimulus response as suffering. You can make that tautological argument, but I'd hold that most people would consider that particular way of making your case invalid. 




> You (CM and Rourke) are going on the premise that tarantulas don't understand pain (I agree) thus don't suffer (I disagree).


That much is obvious, but I don't think you've really made a case to distinguish your "understanding" from "suffering" since I would wager most people consider them equivalent. Without emotive capacity to become distressed at the pain stimulus response, you can't have suffering in any way other than your tautology: _pain = suffering_.


----------



## maxwellxxv (Nov 2, 2004)

As I have read every response to my posting, I am very interested in every reply to it. There are some very good arguments about the whole topic. If nothing else.. it certainly shows that we are all very passionate  in our beliefs and views. I could take each argument and pick it apart. Even my own original post after reading the numerous responses..do they feel pain? yes or no
do they interpret pain? well i have to say that evey thing that is considered alive must feel pain as a self preseravtion response. the will and want to be and stay alive.


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 2, 2004)

maxwellxxv said:
			
		

> I could take each argument and pick it apart.


Doubtful at best. You can refute the emotional responses as me and Rourke have, but that's not really picking them apart, and unless you care to tackle modern neurophysiology you won't be picking anything apart with our refutations to the emo responses.




> do they interpret pain? well i have to say that evey thing that is considered alive must feel pain as a self preseravtion response. the will and want to be and stay alive.


Part 1, sure, pain stimulus response is necessary as a survival mechanism. Part 2, utter bollocks. Very little out there in the sheer volume of living things experiences anything such as 'want' or 'will'.


Also, when I read stuff like this:





> As I have read every response to my posting, I am very interested in every reply to it....Even my own original post after reading the numerous responses.


I am thinking you are waxing very close to troll territory. Basically, you just admitted to doing a drive-by for the sake of stirring up controversey as opposed to genuinely expressing outrage at the show.


----------



## tkn0spdr (Nov 2, 2004)

Code Monkey said:
			
		

> Also, when I read stuff like this:
> I am thinking you are waxing very close to troll territory. Basically, you just admitted to doing a drive-by for the sake of stirring up controversey as opposed to genuinely expressing outrage at the show.


I read that too mean that he truly felt the way that he did when he posted originally, but upon reading all the replies he may have ammended his position - or at least is more open to other peoples views.


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 2, 2004)

tkn0spdr said:
			
		

> I read that too mean that he truly felt the way that he did when he posted originally, but upon reading all the replies he may have ammended his position - or at least is more open to other peoples views.


I considered this interpretation but went with 'possible troll' as my favored interpretation because of the bold claim of being able to pick apart all the answers _but without offering anything further_. That just smacked of trying to add a little fuel injection to the thread at the point it had died down and became largely some semantic nitpicking between a handful of posters.

It may not be his intention, but as a mod it is my job to discourage simply trying to cause trouble versus genuine discussion.


----------



## flamingo-kid1 (Nov 2, 2004)

*Happy Happy Joy Joy*



			
				Professor T said:
			
		

> If you need to know what's cruel and what not, please post the example and I'll decide for you.
> 
> Usambara vs. Emperor...cruel! I've already tried this, the Emperor just pulls the legs off the Usambara...very disappointing pay-per-view.
> :liar:



Please tell me whether or not it is cruel to make me have a mental image of your home-made pay-per-view as well as, as well as the exact same time,  listen to Presidential poll returns. Jeez.

You owe me a drink.


----------



## shogun804 (Nov 2, 2004)

well i feel that it sucks to kill any animal if they feel it or not....but if they cannot feel it..it puts my mind at ease knowing that they do not get hurt like we do...so killing animals inverts whatever is wrong it happens all the time and its a way of life i feel bad for the little T's but if it brings them no pain it brings me no pain....IMO


----------



## dangerprone69 (Nov 3, 2004)

Nerri1029 said:
			
		

> I won't argue the LOGIC behind what you are saying..
> Do inverts have the capacity to 'feel' pain? fear? distress?  the same as verts, probably not.. there's alot of evidence to support that.
> 
> Be careful those of you who are letting emotions get in the way here, don't be hypocritical..
> ...



WELL STATED. 

I may not like or agree with some of what they do on that show, but I'm not one of the morons who watches it. I let dozens of crickets get eaten by my T's and scorpions each month, as well as being cannibalized by their own kind. There's not much difference between what we do with them and what FF does. 

But I would love to see an episode where FF's producers get locked in a tank with a couple full grown T. Blondi's.


----------



## tkn0spdr (Nov 3, 2004)

Code Monkey said:
			
		

> I considered this interpretation but went with 'possible troll' as my favored interpretation because of the bold claim of being able to pick apart all the answers _but without offering anything further_. That just smacked of trying to add a little fuel injection to the thread at the point it had died down and became largely some semantic nitpicking between a handful of posters.
> 
> It may not be his intention, but as a mod it is my job to discourage simply trying to cause trouble versus genuine discussion.


That's why you be the mod and I be the peon!


----------



## Professor T (Nov 3, 2004)

Code Monkey said:
			
		

> Actually we do: it "feels" nothing as even that is indicative of more anthropomorphosising. The nervous system of most inverts is non-centralized, non-complex. They are no more aware that they have lost a limb than you are another hair fell out - they continue to try and carry out hardwired subroutines when all manner of damage is done to them because there isn't any central consciousness that registers the damage in any sense that you or I could fathom. You want a skinner-box, the tarantula is it.
> .


OK tough guy, I'm going to have to call you out on this one!

First of all, apples and SUVs on the comparison between capacity to learn and capacity to feel.   

Show me one valid peer reviewed scientific study that concluded Ts can't feel pain. Just one. You can't, because you just pulled it out of your arse. No scientific basis, just a myth you might have learned in school.   

On a different topic, FYI many primative animals are driven by instinct, but show trial and error behavior. Just because a T can't function in a box designed for a rat, doesn't mean human's couldn't latter devise a test to show Ts function with 99% insinct and 1% learned behavior. Even the instinct behavior in some animals has some learning involved (ie. imprinting behavior).

You're making some conclusions that you need a complex nervous system to feel pain. Define what a complex nervous system is!?

Did you know that Ts have a central nervous system? All the nerve fibers passing from the periphery toward the central nervous system are called *afferents.* Large arachnids like Ts possess many more afferent fibers. In some ways T peripheral nerves are very different than insect nerves. Their functional implication is still unclear, but according to Rainer F. Foelix, "we must assume some nervous integration is already taking place".

Ts have neurobasts form within each segment that form ganglia that produce a coherent mass of nervous tissue. All adbominal ganglia migrate into the large subesophageal ganglion. The cheliceral ganglion shifts anteriorly so that becomes part of the supraesophageal ganglion. The proto and deuterocerebrum of the supraesophageal ganglion develop as part of the cephalic lobe and become connected with the subesophgeal ganglion. The outgrowth of nerve fibers gives rise to a neropil and the peripheral nervous system. 

My point is how are you so sure Ts can't feel pain, with all these nerves,  when nobody else has been able to make a similar conclusion? Are you getting ready to publish an earth shattering neurobiology research paper?


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 3, 2004)

Professor T said:
			
		

> My point is how are you so sure Ts can't feel pain, with all these nerves,  when nobody else has been able to make a similar conclusion? Are you getting ready to publish an earth shattering neurobiology research paper?


Not in the slightest, but you are arguing like a creationist using a lot of good science sounding arguments, and I think you're still bickering about semantics regarding what pain is.

It is not on me to prove the negative. Plenty of very good neurobiologists would smack you upside and down for trying to declare the lack of a paper proving a negative as support when every paper there is shows no evidence of *emotive* capacity. Demonstrate the proof of their emotive capacity (I never said anything about learning) and I'll assume you're the one not pulling things out of your butt.

EDIT: OK, now that I have a minute or two to write instead of the quick response, I'll clarify the above a bit more...

I *think* we may be arguing semantics, perhaps even unintentionally. If by 'feel pain' you mean their nervous system is aware of a strongly negative stimulus, I am with you. I don't think that matters, though, because of what I meant by 'feel pain', which is "suffers some form of psychological/emotional/conscious *distress* as a result of the perception of a negative stimulus".

If you are arguing that my definition of feeling pain is a possibility for a tarantula, then you should be the one pulling out papers because that would be quite the feat. You, as someone who purports to be a scientific kind of guy, should know that you don't get to upset the establishment by demanding they prove your wacky idea is impossible, you have to show your wacky idea isn't so wacky. Genuine intelligence in the form of limited consciousness or emotive capacity, a prerequisite for *feeling* pain, not just *sensing* pain, has never to my knowledge even been suggested in a paper regarding any inverebrate with the sole exception of the cephalopods. They have been shown to demonstrate fairly sophisticated problem solving and social communication which is indicative that they are probably ahead of many vertebrates. However, that's an outlier in a phylum otherwise considered to be defined by non-intelligent, stereotyped, hardwired behaviors. Now, I suppose you can make the argument that just because there is no objective sign of intelligence and/or emotional capacity we don't absolutely know it isn't there, but that's hardly scientific or rational.


----------



## Professor T (Nov 3, 2004)

Code Monkey said:
			
		

> Not in the slightest, but you are arguing like a creationist using a lot of good science sounding arguments, and I think you're still bickering about semantics regarding what pain is.


Code Monkey,

Creationists use bad "science". You are avoiding my challenge. You said "it feels nothing" referring to pain (since they can feel vibrations, heat, chemicals). I say prove the statement. Since you can't, I think I have just kicked the King of Nad Kicking in the NADS!

I'm not asking you to prove the negative. I admit nobody knows if a T can feel pain. YOU are the one that stated they can't like its fact. Time to put up or shut up...name one peer reviewed study that supports your statement, or go out and buy a cup to protect your nads.

The truth is you made a statement you BELIEVE to be true without any real science to back it up. You passed it off as truth, when its myth. 

I am now the new king of nad kicking. Every dog has his day. Don't worry, I'll give you a title shot rematch the next time I'm wrong and you're right. 

Peace and love,
Professor T
The New King of Nad Kicking


----------



## maxwellxxv (Nov 3, 2004)

I am thinking you are waxing very close to troll territory. Basically, you just admitted to doing a drive-by for the sake of stirring up controversey as opposed to genuinely expressing outrage at the show.
__________________
 I find this statemnet to be very upsetting. That was not my intention. I am now sorry for even posting this thread. For it has stirred up passions in every one, including this insult. by a moderator! My intent was that I thought what the show did was wrong. I love the hobby and was jerked at what took place. I do not post just to stir up $#@&... I would never do that! If some one thought I posted to stir up stuff they are dead wrong. I really dig this hobby and really dig this site.


----------



## RaZeDaHeLL666 (Nov 3, 2004)

Isnt What There Morons Are Doing Cruetly To Animals?? Whether They Feel It Or Not, I Feel It!! tHEY ARE DEPRIVING THESE ANIMALS OF THIER CHANCE AT LIFE!!!


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 3, 2004)

Professor T said:
			
		

> Creationists use bad "science". You are avoiding my challenge. You said "it feels nothing" referring to pain (since they can feel vibrations, heat, chemicals). I say prove the statement. Since you can't, I think I have just kicked the King of Nad Kicking in the NADS!


No, you've now just proven an utter lack of comprehending the written language. Not only did I never make the statement in the context you say I did, I even followed up your challenge with a major attempt at clarifying what we were talking about in the first place.

And by the way, you are using bad science. Throwing around a bunch of terminology doesn't a case make, particularly since I no longer have any clue what your case was other than being deliberately obstinate and confusing the situation. You are either still trying to say that Ts can *sense* pain and using the colloquial and loaded 'feel' to denote that, in which case as I said there is no argument, merely mistaken semantics. Or, you are trying to argue that an animal with only a few hundred thousand neurons is the emotional equivalent to a mammal with anywhere from a few billion neurons in something like a mouse to a few trillion neurons in something like us. If your argument is the first point, then there is no argument since I never disagreed with you in the first place, if your argument is the second, the burden of proof is all on you and no amount of childish antics changes that.




> I'm not asking you to prove the negative. I admit nobody knows if a T can feel pain. YOU are the one that stated they can't like its fact. Time to put up or shut up...name one peer reviewed study that supports your statement, or go out and buy a cup to protect your nads.


I stand by that fact, it is fact, it will remain fact until you can prove they are conscious and emotional, something you know well they are not, and furthermore, apparently may never have been your claim in the first place. You're running this argument in circles like a special ed kid in a round room trying to find the corner.




> I am now the new king of nad kicking. Every dog has his day. Don't worry, I'll give you a title shot rematch the next time I'm wrong and you're right


You're no more a nadkicker than I am a warm fuzzy bunny.

Challenging me on a mistaken interpretation on *your* part and then ignoring me pointing out *your* mistake and then claiming victory must be among the more pathetic attempts I've seen at someone claiming they won. I'd say what I really think of this quoted post, but 'pathetic' seems to do for now.




> Peace and love


Given my mood for the day, not the best sentiment to send my way, I'm pretty much about burning hatred and scorn right now.


----------



## Salmissra (Nov 3, 2004)

New to T's here, don't know all there is to know but I know one thing, if I take a hat pin and poke my 8" P.cancerides with it one of two things will happen: he'll run away or he will bite me.

Is this conclusive evidence that he "feels" pain? I'll let someone else try that one!


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 4, 2004)

maxwellxxv said:
			
		

> I find this statemnet to be very upsetting. That was not my intention. I am now sorry for even posting this thread. For it has stirred up passions in every one, including this insult. by a moderator! My intent was that I thought what the show did was wrong. I love the hobby and was jerked at what took place. I do not post just to stir up $#@&... I would never do that! If some one thought I posted to stir up stuff they are dead wrong. I really dig this hobby and really dig this site.


There's no harm if that was your intent, I merely stated an observation and was careful to merely call it a possibility.


----------



## danread (Nov 4, 2004)

Salmissra said:
			
		

> New to T's here, don't know all there is to know but I know one thing, if I take a hat pin and poke my 8" P.cancerides with it one of two things will happen: he'll run away or he will bite me.
> 
> Is this conclusive evidence that he "feels" pain? I'll let someone else try that one!


Hi Salmissra,

Nobody is deniying the fact that tarantulas or indeed most animals. right down to protozoa, can respond to a stimulus that we might consider painful. The question is whether they can actually feel pain in the sense that it can cause distress emotionally. I'm 100% with Code on that one. There is no evidence that invertebrates are distressed by pain in any way, they can survive and feed with legs missing and don't have the complex neurological sytems required to interpret "pain" as anything other than a presence or absence of that stimulus.

ProfessorT,

your argument of "here is my theory, prove me wrong" is compeltely the wrong way to go about it. There is no evidence for tarantulas feeling pain, and for them to do so would go against the conventional belief of 99% of behavioural and neurological scientists, so that should stand as the hypothesis. If you want to prove it wrong, it is up to you to find the evidence to disprove it, not the other way round. I'm not saying that there is no possibility of you being right, but i find it highly unlikely. 

Cheers,


----------



## T-Bite (Nov 4, 2004)

Okay, I'm not seeing how it affecting it emotionally means that their pain isn't real. We had a dog that we would have to literally smack the crap out of when he did something wrong and it should have caused him a great deal of pain, but it never seemed to cause him any "distress" at all. He would just get back up and do the same bad stuff over and over. Does this mean he's incapable of feeling emotion? And you guys keep saying "when tarantulas lose a leg they can continue on fine" which is a bad example since many lifeforms including vertebrates can continue on with out limbs fine. I had a mouse that was literally a qradraplegic (spelling?) after a attempted escape and kept feeding none the less. Come on guys surely you can give us better examples than this?

And I have seen tarantulas that turn into hair kicking refusing to eat messes when I get them home from buying them in pet stores and slowly seem to come out of it like they do gte stressed much like a vertebrate can. They even seem to exhibit more personality than a lot of my snakes and lizards.

And you guys can keep quoting what your biology teachers know or *think* they know all day. Scientists have been found to be wrong before. Scientists are still baffled about a species of jumping spiders learning capabilites. And I guarantee they have never done this research on tarantulas since research on these animals are almost non-existent, while they do have the largest brains of any bug out there.


----------



## 8SEXYLEGS (Nov 4, 2004)

I started reading this entire fear factor thing yesterday. I don't agree with any animal cruelty, weather it be on taranula's or elephants or kittens. I did not see this episode that is in question but I think people view taranula's as icky insects and not fascinating pets like we do. If fear factor were to do some stunt that put cute little puppies in harm, you would have "Peta" and every other agreesive animal rights group throwing a hissy fit, but people don't think of T's as "pets"
As for the pain thing-I don't think T's can feel emotions. My T's do not know that I am their "mommy'" and  don't have a special bond with me because I feed them and make sure they are taken care of.
My opion is this, if you don't agree on how Fear factor treats T's and scorpions then simply don't watch the show, just like I don't buy CD's from Wal-Mart because of their censorship on all music.


----------



## Professor T (Nov 4, 2004)

Code Monkey,

I'm sorry you're having a bad day. I'm going to try to cheer you up.

In response to me saying we don't really know if a T feels pain, you responded:



			
				Code Monkey said:
			
		

> Actually we do: it "feels" nothing as even that is indicative of more anthropomorphosising. The nervous system of most inverts is non-centralized, non-complex. They are no more aware that they have lost a limb than you are another hair fell out.


In reality, actually we don't know if they do or they don't. You could not site one scientific piece of evidence that supports they feel nothing. Ts do have a central nerves system. So, you were wrong twice in the above quote. My point is you stated they can't feel pain as if that were fact, and its far from it, its a myth you believe.

The only thing that is subject to interpertation is your statement that their nervous system is non-complex. Its very complex compared to sponges, cnidarians, and flatworms. Its not complex compared to cephalopods or mammals. Whether or not its non-complex is semantics and has no meaning unless you define complex, so I won't say you are flat out wrong on that issue, just too vague to have meaning.

So, you were dead wrong twice, and vague once.

Now comes the part to cheer you up. After over 3,000 posts, the chances of you being right 100% of the time is a probability close to zero. You do kick nads, however not this time.

This is a golden opportunity to say the words..."Professor T was right and I was wrong, nobody has a freaking clue if Ts can feel pain".

If you admit this it will liberate you from thinking you have to be perfect 100% of the time. One mistake in 3,000 ain't bad!


----------



## Professor T (Nov 4, 2004)

Rourke said:
			
		

> LMAO, Chip....LM<edit>AO.
> 
> stimulus.....response
> stimulus...........response
> ...


Rourke,

The inability of most humans to grasp real science from rhetoric is unfortunate. Here's the logic Chip was using: The T can't function in a box designed for a rat, therefore the T is so primative it can't feel pain. See anything funny about that jump to a false conclusion?

Here's his latest arguement: Nobody has ever proven a T can feel pain, so its a fact it can't! See anything wrong with that logic?

Let me spell it out for you, its the same logic that can lead to this conclusion:

Nobody has ever proven there is life outside of our biosophere, so its a fact there is no other life in the Universe. See anything wrong with that logic?

Just because humans are limited in what they can prove, doesn't mean the antithesis is true.

ROTFLMAO  :worship:


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 4, 2004)

Professor T said:
			
		

> ROTFLMAO  :worship:


Yes, that's pretty much where I am with my opinion of you. Professor indeed, come down to the University sometime and try your logic with the same smarmy cockiness on some of the neurobiologists. They'll do the equivalent of intellectually bitch slapping you black and blue before they send you packing. What you're doing is arguing (badly) existentialist philosophy regarding sense using tautalogical arguments, it's no more scientific to do what you have done than pray for rain.

Also, try learning a little more than the terminology itself before you try and sound all smart the next time. You clearly don't know what a truly centralised nervous system is - a mouse has a centralised nervous system, the T does not (note, I never said they didn't have a brain, something your predeliction for misguided semantic nitpicking led you to read). Most inverts, Ts included have *centers* of concentrated processing, but it's still distributed. Once again you hide behind a wall of semantic nitpicking instead of realising that you are a mental midget hoping for a pair of platform shoes for Christmas. Since you've seen fit to do nothing but blather like spider monkey in a bear trap such that I'm still not sure what your case was, you might as well go hang with the creationists since you seem incapable of accepting that the scientific method does not require us to absolutely prove every single specific before we can make claims about it:

Decades of research going back over half a century with thousands upon thousands of published papers, not *one* of which suggests that your platform is a remote possibility, but you still hold that it's unscientific to conclude that Ts are incapable of *feeling* pain 

Basically, welcome to my virtual ignore list.


----------



## Professor T (Nov 4, 2004)

Disclaimer:

While I'm having some fun with Code Monkey, please understand he is hands down the MVP on this board. He makes coming here intellectually simulating and few have the expertise and mind this guy has. As stated, he's on the money almost all of the time...he's scary. I love that guy, and I'm not even gay.   

Not to slight other amazing contributors like Immortal Sin (best/hottest avitar), KellyGirl (too cute for words), Joy (her name says it all), and JMorningstar (the too modest millipede expert), but Code Monkey is in a category by himself. Nobody entertains me more than him... or stirs up a thread like he can.  :worship:


----------



## Mendnwngs (Nov 4, 2004)

Wow..

Keeping my personal opinions out of it, this is a very interesting, and informative thread.

I gotta come through this forum more often.



-Jason


----------



## Salmissra (Nov 4, 2004)

Okay, so if we change the phrase "feels pain" to "responds to negative stimulus" will that clear the air? 
Sounds like some are interpreting the word "feel" emotively where in fact you do not have to. I can "feel" the floor beneath my feet, I'm not getting all choked up about it though!
Sounds like much ado about nothing but semantics.

BTW: I love watching you all, especially Prof. T and CM dust off and shake your intellects at each other! I have learned more reading your interactions than I would have from a book. This has been an interesting thread.


----------



## Professor T (Nov 4, 2004)

danread said:
			
		

> Hi Salmissra,
> 
> ProfessorT,
> 
> ...



Thank you Salmissra, that was *exactly* my point when Code Monkey made the statement Ts can't feel pain. Its commonly believed they can't, which I also believe, but I recognize its not fact, just a common belief.

Some people might find it highly unlikely there is life in the Universe outside Earth's biosphere, but that doesn't make it fact.


----------



## Professor T (Nov 4, 2004)

Code Monkey said:
			
		

> Yes, that's pretty much where I am with my opinion of you. Professor indeed, come down to the University sometime and try your logic with the same smarmy cockiness on some of the neurobiologists. They'll do the equivalent of intellectually bitch slapping you black and blue before they send you packing. What you're doing is arguing (badly) existentialist philosophy regarding sense using tautalogical arguments, it's no more scientific to do what you have done than pray for rain.


Junior, I got my degree in zoology before you were born. If you listen instead of always trying to be right at all costs, you'd see I'm right.



> Also, try learning a little more than the terminology itself before you try and sound all smart the next time. You clearly don't know what a truly centralised nervous system is - a mouse has a centralised nervous system, the T does not (note, I never said they didn't have a brain, something your predeliction for misguided semantic nitpicking led you to read).


I read, _The Biology of Spiders_ by Rainer F. Foelix, thats where I got the information they have a central nervous system.




> Basically, welcome to my virtual ignore list.


Your choice, but many Americans put Kerry on their ignore list.  :wall:


----------



## danread (Nov 5, 2004)

Professor T said:
			
		

> that was *exactly* my point when Code Monkey made the statement Ts can't feel pain. Its commonly believed they can't, which I also believe, but I recognize its not fact, just a common belief.
> 
> Some people might find it highly unlikely there is life in the Universe outside Earth's biosphere, but that doesn't make it fact.


How on earth do you keep twisting this argument to suit your needs? If you re read my post i was saying that you are in the wrong for trying to call out Code to prove his statement, as what you are claiming goes against all conventional understanding of invertebrate nervous systems. It's up to you to find proof of inverts feeling pain, not the other way round. Whilst there is not single paper or article proving inverts don't feel pain, there is a host of evidence if you want to go and look for it in the study of insect nervous systems.

Try looking at this article. The point about an insect walking with a crushed tarsus (lower leg) will continue applying it to the ground with undiminished force seems particuarly valid and is good evidence for me. Right, your turn....


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 5, 2004)

danread said:
			
		

> How on earth do you keep twisting this argument to suit your needs?


Apparently he got a bug in his butt to see me publicly admit that my posts to these boards are not suitable for publication in the scientific journals because I use terms too loosely.


----------



## T-Bite (Nov 5, 2004)

"Although it is impossible to know the subjective experience of another animal with certainty, the balance of the evidence suggests that most invertebrates do not feel pain."

Proof that this really is just a hypothesis and not FACT. Keep trying to write it off as such. 

And all this "research" is inconclusive. They try and characterize how an invertebrate should react to "stimulus" based on what the know in vertebrates. Sorry, apples and oranges here. I've personally witnessed a deer whose leg was broken, but still kept trying to put it's full weight on it as it would keep collapsing. Yet ANOTHER bad example. And in ONE instance they say the roach continued to eat while it was eaten. Amazing how different my roaches react to being eaten by my tarantulas. They sure don't seem to be enjoying it much.


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 5, 2004)

T-Bite said:
			
		

> And all this "research" is inconclusive. They try and characterize how an invertebrate should react to "stimulus" based on what the know in vertebrates. Sorry, apples and oranges here.


No, it's not, and to continue to kid yourselves that it is is just saddening. You *want* to believe in your anthropomorphosisms so much that you are willing to go through all manner of mental gymnastics to hold out that one little glimmer of hope. If you must pat yourself on the back that it's ultimately just a theory of neurobiology that inverts are not conscious and intelligent, keep at it, it won't make you sound any smarter or any more correct.

Further, truth be told, a very large amount of what we know about vertebrate neurophysiology is from studying inverts, in detail, at length. It's largely because you can decapitate a roach, remove all of it's internal organs, and the nervous system continues to function perfectly, unlike, say, our tightly intergrated and centralised nervous system that would have shut down from massive shock if you tried such a thing. It's also valid because a nerve is just a nerve; a nerve that is activated by ACh in a human is no different in its basic functioning than one from a cockroach.

Even today, much of the fundamental neurophysiology work is done with invertebrates because no one is going to seriously suggest that there is any ethical violation occuring with all manner of evisceration and probing of inverts, but if you want to do the same thing with even a white mouse you have prove a lot more about the necessity of the animal model because it is considered to be an ethical issue for good reason.

-----------------

Once more the board is overrun with emo-cases, only this set wants to toss around just enough science to sound like they have an argument, sigh...

Perhaps from now on I'll just leave my counterargument to the emoheads at the level of Tom's rebuttal back on the first couple of pages. It says the same thing without leaving room for all this grasping at straws to make a case


----------



## Professor T (Nov 5, 2004)

T-Bite said:
			
		

> "Although it is impossible to know the subjective experience of another animal with certainty, the balance of the evidence suggests that most invertebrates do not feel pain."
> 
> Proof that this really is just a hypothesis and not FACT. Keep trying to write it off as such.


No matter how much logic you use you won't convince them that their belief is a hypothesis, not a fact. They learned it in school as fact, like Columbus discovering America. Let them wallow... :wall:


----------



## Professor T (Nov 5, 2004)

danread said:
			
		

> ProfessorT,
> 
> I'm not saying that there is no possibility of you being right, but i find it highly unlikely.
> 
> Cheers,


Dan the man,

This was your quote, I just used it to prove my point, I turned NOTHING around. If you admit there is a possibility of me being right although in your opinion highly unlikely...you just pointed out the FACT that your "fact" isn't "fact" just a nice hypothesis. Unless anything you personally find highly unlikely becomes fact?   

You have no further points that can be valid to claim your opinion is fact. By your own statement you won this debate for me...thanks.


----------



## Rourke (Nov 5, 2004)

Professor T said:
			
		

> You have no further points that can be valid to claim your opinion is fact. By you own statement your won this debate for me...thanks.


Gee Mr Perfessor....how many peer-reviewed publications do YOU have in the life sciences?  Are you a PhD?  Or just a Master of Convolution?  Or a BS?  

I'd kick your nads myself, but basically, there's nothing left to be kicked.  The King has spoken, and you are hanging nadless for all to see.  I'm not sure why Code Monkey is still hopping up and down on them......

Rourke


----------



## Professor T (Nov 5, 2004)

Rourke said:
			
		

> Gee Mr Perfessor....how many peer-reviewed publications do YOU have in the life sciences?  Are you a PhD?  Or just a Master of Convolution?  Or a BS?
> 
> I'd kick your nads myself, but basically, there's nothing left to be kicked.  The King has spoken, and you are hanging nadless for all to see.  I'm not sure why Code Monkey is still hopping up and down on them......
> 
> Rourke


Rourke,

There was no substance in your post. Do you have an opinion on this topic or are you only capable of blowing hot air?

You obviously haven't followed anything that was said; or you tried to follow it but it went over your head. I've already taken the nadkickers title on this one and he has admitted that I'm correct, and then he used the rationalization I was too technical for the purpose of this board, something he is guilty of all the time. It was a graceful way of saying he got his nads kicked in. I'm sorry your hero fell fan boy, but if you read the entire exchange and had code monkey explain it to you slow...you might sort of get it.

As for you kicking anyones nads...stick to the baby pool where you're safe.   

If you have anything intelligent to say on this topic, I'd LOVE to hear it. 

The New And Improved King Nadkicker,
Professor T


----------



## Xanzo (Nov 5, 2004)

It is my opinion that this topic is getting to the point of being repetitive. Would be nice if this thread were to settle to the bottom and eventually disappear into the archives.


----------



## Scott C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Being right, for any purpose other than being right, is something that *might* justify quiet celebration. Even *if* you're right, childish behavior clouds that fact.... hypothesis....


----------



## Sequin (Nov 5, 2004)

RaZeDaHeLL666 said:
			
		

> Isnt What There Morons Are Doing Cruetly To Animals?? Whether They Feel It Or Not, I Feel It!! tHEY ARE DEPRIVING THESE ANIMALS OF THIER CHANCE AT LIFE!!!



agreed...even if they are not going to do anything significant in their life..haha.... They still shouldn't be killed for entertainment purposes whether they feel it or not


----------



## danread (Nov 5, 2004)

Professor T said:
			
		

> Dan the man,
> 
> This was your quote, I just used it to prove my point, I turned NOTHING around. If you admit there is a possibility of me being right although in your opinion highly unlikely...you just pointed out the FACT that your "fact" isn't "fact" just a nice hypothesis. Unless anything you personally find highly unlikely becomes fact?
> 
> You have no further points that can be valid to claim your opinion is fact. By your own statement you won this debate for me...thanks.



ProfessorT,

You are being anal down to the nth degree. Of course i have to consider it a hypothesis, but on that basis, i have to consider everything i have ever been taught as hypotheses. I know that the moon is made of rock, not cheese. I know this because all the evidence available points to the fact is is rock and not a milk based dairy product. Despite all the evidence, if i was to explain this to someone else using your reasoning, i would have to acknowledge that my statement is only a hypothesis since i haven't actually _been_ to the moon myself. Using your logic, someone could argue that the moon was indeed made of cheese because of the fact i have to admit the statement that of the moon being made of rock it is only a hypothesis. You see how lame your last point was?

I am happy to cite the evidence of inverts carrying out tasks such as feeding, grooming and walking when heavily injured or dying as evidence that inverts don't feel pain. Where is your evidence to prove your belief? I can also add photographic evidence if you wish.... I had left this male mantid in with the female over a weekend. When i came back i found the remains of what i thought was the dead male in the bottom of the encosure, the whole of his body had been eaten. Much to my suprise he was still alive, and able to move his head and focus on my moving finger. Just for a laugh i gave it a cricket, and look what happened. he proceded to eat about half of it before my girlfriend made me put it out of its misery. 

Cheers,


----------



## Professor T (Nov 5, 2004)

Scott C. said:
			
		

> Being right, for any purpose other than being right, is something that *might* justify quiet celebration. Even *if* you're right, childish behavior clouds that fact.... hypothesis....


Scott C,

Thanks for being the mature one, but lets not forget what I was responding to:



			
				Rourke said:
			
		

> I'd kick your nads myself, but basically, there's nothing left to be kicked. The King has spoken, and you are hanging nadless for all to see. I'm not sure why Code Monkey is still hopping up and down on them......
> Rourke


I think I showed excellent retraint given the moderator needs a moderator IMHO.


----------



## Rourke (Nov 5, 2004)

Professor T said:
			
		

> I think I showed excellent retraint given the moderator needs a moderator IMHO.


Code Monkey, somebody, ANYBODY, PLEASE.......moderate me.  I'm trying here.  I'm tryin'.....REAL.....HARD.....to be the shepherd.


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 5, 2004)

Professor T said:
			
		

> I've already taken the nadkickers title on this one and he has admitted that I'm correct, and then he used the rationalization I was too technical for the purpose of this board, something he is guilty of all the time.


No, see, there's where you are definitely wrong, heh. I freely admitted that if this were a peer reviewed journal, blah, blah, blah, because from the obtuse angle you have been arguing from you are right. I gave you that. However, there was no rationalisation; you are chasing windmills in the sense that you're demanding the inherently provisional nature of science on a web board, something that is pretty damn stupid in my book because we would never be able to do much of anything but throw up our hands and say, "I don't know! No, really I don't know."

At the same time, you ignore the use of science as provisional tool. Nobody runs around afraid to get in an airplane or take an elevator because gravity is "only" a theory. Nobody fails to take their medication because we don't know every single molecular reaction that takes place afterwards (or for that matter that the atomic nature of matter is "only" a theory). Science *IS* inherently provisional, I'll give you that, but when something is well enough established you act upon that provisional finding as if it were fact. Only in journals and academic departments (well, before now) where everybody is more anal retentive and unfun than myself do you find people who will actually not only point out that nothing much is really fact and only a provisional finding but argue _ad nauseam_ with those who would dare to use science for the tool it is in a pragmatic matter.

Myself, if you show me a better documented 'provisional finding', I'll change what I believe to be the dominant 'provisional finding' in a second, I am not tied to my 'provisional findings' except as the best explanation the scientific method provides. However, I also spend my time as you do and as everyone else does treating those 'provisional findings' as _shudder_ facts  unless they happen to be genuinely provisional.

This is repetitive, this is tiresome, and this does nothing to make me respect Professor T's credentials one bit because from the beginning it's been nothing but one tiresome post after another without any purpose other than trying to take *me*, a "lowly entomology grad student", down a few notches when, while we both know the technical correctness of P_T's nitpicking in other contexts, we also both know where all the evidence shakes out of this one. Now, maybe I'm being too kind, maybe P_T really is a bit of a radical in science and he actually holds out hope that tarantulas are the octopi of the arachnid world, and, quite openly, he could be right, but so far everything points to him being wrong.

This really wouldn't need to be going on except for the emo side's insistence on having the last jab, and they can have it if they want so long as they stop trying to drag capitualations out of me that I never made. I still believe the chances that Ts are to any degree conscious and emotional - a necessity for *feeling* pain as opposed to simply sensing it - to be so slim as to be zero, the statement as fact that tarantulas cannot feel pain is something that I stand next to _provisional upon someone showing they can at some point in the future._ If someone shows it, I'll stop making the claim, but for now I feel equally confident in claiming they can't feel pain as I do claiming they can't learn to hold a pencil and write in English (something else never proven with the scientific method that they cannot do ;P).

The nature of the hobby demands that we work with what we have, and the nature of human nature demands that we don't expend a lot of time and mental energy trying to teach the dogmatic intricacies of the scientific method to every hobbyist that comes on this board. Now, maybe my rhetoric style leaves me open for more counter argument, and as rule I welcome it, it's entertaining for me and the board usually learns something. However, other than that we're both anal retentive asshats I don't think they learned anything, and certainly nothing of value.

For those of you who want to turn this board into a bunch of "could be"s and "the evidence suggests"s and even "the best hypothesis we have right now"s, hey, have at it. You can phrase *your* posts however you damn well want (and even I use such phraseology when the subject warrants it). But, to have wasted pages on what should have been at most a good bashing of Fear Factor on the turn of a phrase was pathetic.


----------



## Tony (Nov 5, 2004)

I think its ridiculous and stupid, but not 'cruel' as has been stated..

btw is Rourke the first mod moderated for language?....and I was surprised at all the high brow talk in THIS thread, no lining up the producers for a shot to the head??? (Got that one second hand). 
Oddly, this is the only site I frequent where political avatars are allowed..
T


----------



## Sheri (Nov 5, 2004)

monantony said:
			
		

> I think its ridiculous and stupid, but not 'cruel' as has been stated..
> 
> btw is Rourke the first mod moderated for language?....and I was surprised at all the high brow talk in THIS thread, no lining up the producers for a shot to the head??? (Got that one second hand).
> Oddly, this is the only site I frequent where political avatars are allowed..
> T


Oddly, avatar discussion seems misplaced here, no T?

And maybe this is the best site you visit...


----------



## Rourke (Nov 5, 2004)

Professor T said:
			
		

> Rourke,
> 
> There was no substance in your post. Do you have an opinion on this topic or are you only capable of blowing hot air?
> 
> ...


OK, Perfessor.  Don't equivocate.  My post had no substance _which you felt prepared to address_.  Perfectly forgivable, and I understand entirely your reluctance.  The substance consisted of:

1.  Pointing out the convoluted nature of your argument, which essentially amounted to a series of _non sequiturs_.  And....
2.  Allowing you define, for those parties interested, what might be your qualifications to render an opinion with respect to the scientific method and critical thought.

As far as saying anything intelligent on the subject, see my post #41 of this thread.  Call it unintelligent if you like, but I let it stand to be judged by anyone.

So again, I ask:  What, precisely, are your credentials?  Your Username implies a PhD, and I am simply curious if the reality bears this out.  I am also curious as to your publication record.  The format of the boards here allows basically anyone to say just about anything.  Publications in peer-reviewed journals, especially multiple publications in widely respected journals, serve to demonstrate your ability to think critically, to draw strong conclusions from specific data, and further present them in a format which the scientific community as a whole finds relevant and appropriate.  I was only hoping, due to your approach to an argument (and your lofty Username) that you might have a little substance of your own to back you up.  I reassert:  It's quite understandable to me if you do not wish to address this, and I shall not feel the least bit slighted if you don't.

BUT, apparently you DO have some degree in Zoology, right?  We just don't know WHAT degree.  And did you literally earn it before Code Monkey was born?  I mean, that's great, but I know it's hard for an old timer to keep up, particularly if not engaged in active research!  No shame in it, you know!  But....._the baby pool_?  Please.  OK, I'll go back there if you promise to go to the drooling old folks' home, how's that?

And one final note:  King Nadkicker is a title earned and bequeathed.  You have certainly not earned it, nor has it been given to you.  I'm confident that most here will find your delusional self-anointment pompous and offensive.

Perfessor Rourke


----------



## bonesmama (Nov 5, 2004)

I've never watched fear factor because I always thought they were cruel-even to worms, and I hate worms!There are trees that release a toxin into there leaves when they are being eaten....what triggers this response? Do they FEEL their leaves being torn off? I don't know.I beleive all animals feel pain, or at the least discomfort-does this give humans the right to use them in whatever way they want? I think not. What I DO know is there are alot of people who can't see beyond their own noses and have no respect for any life beyond their own.


----------



## Sheri (Nov 5, 2004)

Professor T said:
			
		

> You obviously haven't followed anything that was said; or you tried to follow it but it went over your head.


Over his head? Right... and bugs _feel_ too, I forgot!
Perhaps it didn't occur to you that since CM's logic was clearly not effective with you, that perhaps a little humour would be? Or is that technique not detailed in the 1953 textbook you read?




			
				Professor T said:
			
		

> I'm sorry your hero fell fan boy, but if you read the entire exchange and had code monkey explain it to you slow...you might sort of get it.


And fan boy?  What a thinly veiled expression of jealousy... but totally understandable.
Ummmm, if you truly believe _"slow"_ to be an accurate adjective for Rourke then clearly, critical thinking is the guest that's not showing up for this pool party... despite repeated invites.




			
				Professor T said:
			
		

> If you have anything intelligent to say on this topic, I'd LOVE to hear it.


I think if nothing else, you've proven beyond all doubt that your auditory skills require an _aid_, perhaps two.




			
				Professor T said:
			
		

> As for you kicking anyones nads...stick to the baby pool where you're safe.
> The New And Improved King Nadkicker,
> Professor T


Call yourself nadkicker all you want... 
I'll just be cheering for the other team ok? 
Yeah, the one over there in the baby pool making all the *sense*.
Feel free to join us anytime - the water's warm...


----------



## Anansi (Nov 5, 2004)

Guys this is forum about tarantulas...Come back down to earth...This has turned into some democrat/ republican *edit*....


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 5, 2004)

*Full disclosure...*



			
				Code Monkey said:
			
		

> Of course they feel pain. The question isn't "do they feel pain?", it's "how do they feel about feeling pain?".


I think this sums up the crux of the debate with a bit more humor than this bunch of horse apples.

This is from a thread 2 years ago on this board where I actually make some of the same sort of arguments Professor T does, although not to the same extremity and without the obtuseness. I do, however, have to admit to falling back on the "we just don't know" platform as part of my counterargument (unfortunately biased in that I was arguing with someone I didn't much care for personally - bad monkey, no banana for you ). However, and here's where I have found myself questioning his qualifications, this was prior to taking two separate 6000 level courses related to invert physiology and neurobiology along with some fantastic courses on invert behavior which overlap the neurobiology. After these courses, reading primary literature, carrying out neurophysiology labs where we measured and observed nerve actions _in vivo_, and hours of discussions with some people who know more about the invert nervous system than clearly all of us on this board put together, I know as closely as you can know something in science that these organisms do not possess anything that would allow them have the psychological capacity to feel pain in the way I have defined 'feel' for the purposes of this debate.

Professor T may be a zoologist, he may even be a professor, but he's not close to the caliber of professors I've had the pleasure of studying under these past couple of years when it comes to issues of neurobiology and behavior. Furthermore, something that Rourke hits upon in his (admittedly barbing) post is the inability to keep up on things once you get out of grad school. Time and time again I hear the faculty lamenting how they can't even keep up on the literature in their particular sliver of the pie, let alone the rest of the science pie. The rate of scientific knowledge is doubling about every 18 months nowadays; if Professor T really did get his PhD before I was born, there's hundreds of times more known today about invert neurobiology than when he was learning it, and if he's been active in zoology, I can tell you what he hasn't been reading up on


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 5, 2004)

Anansi said:
			
		

> Guys this is forum about tarantulas...Come back down to earth...This has turned into some democrat/ republican *edit*....


The rest of the forum, yes, this thread, however, left orbit some time ago ;P


----------



## maxwellxxv (Nov 6, 2004)

wow...I am humbled at all the positions people have taken on my origanal post. I was jerked at what the show did with the Ts. and yes i have read all the posting here on this thread. 1st off. i care for my hobby. i was offended by the show. i also made a comment that i could pick apart all the arguments made. but you all  did and are doing a fine job of that already. as for being some one to stir up this kind of passion amongst you all.. that was not my attention. I certainly did not mean to offend. i certaionly did not mean to insult anyone. and certainly did not mean for any one think i was just trying to stir up trouble. that was not at all my intention. i was called a troll..now that is insulting..i have never insulted any one here or would..it certainly shows that everyone is passoinate about our hobby.. and after all i read i wish i never posted this original thread at all...and for all who are offended by the simple thought that. i thought the show did wrong .. i am truly sorry.


----------



## dtknow (Nov 6, 2004)

Not to sure the show has been attacked in his way, but from my view, it is a waste not because of cruelty, but because of the animals used.

I could care less(aside from the lesson it teaches)if they used crickets, mealworms, heck, even rats in these shows. But they are using something else. Did someone go and breed all the G. rosea and avics to the size for the show...nope. They were ripped from the wild(and the numbers must be quite large) just for a laugh and some amusement. While small scale collection to add the occasional new blood to a stock(which eventually wouldn't be needed when the number of CB individuals got large enough)...this is clearly toom uch for slow reproducing T's to bear if it continues...both for the pet trade and shows like this.


----------



## Professor T (Nov 6, 2004)

sheri said:
			
		

> Call yourself nadkicker all you want...
> I'll just be cheering for the other team ok?
> Yeah, the one over there in the baby pool making all the *sense*.
> Feel free to join us anytime - the water's warm...


OK, fan girl you do that   

You moderators have a nice little fan club going for each other.

I was correct on this thread, my point was accepted by your ruler code monkey, so I'm not giving the peon moderators the time of day. Code monkey can explain it to you at your next worship service.


----------



## Professor T (Nov 6, 2004)

Rourke said:
			
		

> 1.  Pointing out the convoluted nature of your argument, which essentially amounted to a series of _non sequiturs_.  And....


My point was nobody really knows if Ts feel pain, its a hypothesis not a fact. At first code monkey corrected me that it was a fact.  Code monkey now admits this is not a fact, so check with him if you need clarification at the next moderators' worship service.



			
				Rourke said:
			
		

> 2.  Allowing you define, for those parties interested, what might be your qualifications to render an opinion with respect to the scientific method and critical thought.


I agree 100% with the position Ts don't feel pain like you do when I kick your nads with this post, however its just my opinion, not fact.



			
				Rourke said:
			
		

> BUT, apparently you DO have some degree in Zoology, right?


Yes, you catch on fast. I do have a degree in zoology, I hope we can still be friends. I have spent more time in lab both as a student and teacher than you've spent in front of the TV watching Jerry Springer. I've had course work in Sociobiology, Ichthyology, Herpetology, Ornithology, Entomology, Neurobiology, and other big words you don't know the meaning of. And for over two decades I've taught classes in biology, invertebrate zoology, vertebrate zoology, ecology, and wildlife management. You can have code monkey explain the hours of coursework that might entail.



			
				Dork said:
			
		

> And one final note:  King Nadkicker is a title earned and bequeathed.  You have certainly not earned it, nor has it been given to you.  I'm confident that most here will find your delusional self-anointment pompous and offensive.


ROTFLMAO,    A PhD, a MS, and a BS are titles earned and bequeathed. King Nadkicker is a tongue in cheek invention of code monkey that is entertaining, and keeps this board interesting. The day code monkey needs you to defend him on any topic, is the day he should kill himself.

God of Freaking Thunder,
Professor T

Did I earn that title or just type it?


----------



## Professor T (Nov 6, 2004)

Code Monkey said:
			
		

> Now, maybe I'm being too kind, maybe P_T really is a bit of a radical in science and he actually holds out hope that tarantulas are the octopi of the arachnid world, and, quite openly, he could be right, but so far everything points to him being wrong.


In the interest of accuracy lets not claim I said anything I didn't. I never said Ts can feel pain. I never said I believed they could. 

In a post to somebody else, I said nobody really knows if Ts can feel pain. You corrected me by saying, "Actually they do".

I was making the point my statement was 100% accurate. I believe exactly what you believe on this topic, but I understand its not fact, and so do you.



			
				Code Monkey said:
			
		

> but for now I feel equally confident in claiming they can't feel pain as I do claiming they can't learn to hold a pencil and write in English (something else never proven with the scientific method that they cannot do ;P).


I agree 100%. I think you should be pretty confident about your claim that they can't feel pain like you do, because ALL the science points to that.


----------



## Rourke (Nov 6, 2004)

Excellent.  Things are clearing up nicely here.  Code Monkey was right all along; tarantulas can't feel pain; the Perfessor has spent more time in the lab than I have spent doing.....ummm....something I NEVER do; and he isn't even really a perfessor.  He earned a 2 year degree in Zoology from a community college in the 60's, and he has never published any scientific work.  This last bit is, of course, not proven fact.  Merely a theory based on a significant body of evidence.  Thanks for your participation, fanboys and fangirls!

Now.....everyone check your nads...........


----------



## Sheri (Nov 6, 2004)

Professor T said:
			
		

> The day code monkey needs you to defend him on any topic, is the day he should kill himself.
> 
> You can have code monkey explain the hours of coursework that might entail.
> 
> ...


Just wondering, _maybe_, if *you* should minister the next service...


----------



## Professor T (Nov 6, 2004)

Rourke said:
			
		

> Excellent.  Things are clearing up nicely here.  Code Monkey was right all along; tarantulas can't feel pain;


Hello, anyone home in your bald head? Are you unable to follow this logic? Nobody knows for sure if Ts really feel pain or not. While its highly probable they don't feel pain like you're feeling now, it not a fact. They might actually feel pain *differently* than you do...they might not feel pain at all.



			
				Rourke said:
			
		

> and he isn't even really a perfessor.  He earned a 2 year degree in Zoology from a community college in the 60's,


OK, you broke me down. I don't really have a degree in zoology. I'm really a pet psychic. And I have to tell you that all of your Ts think you're gay...not that there's ANYTHING wrong with that!  



			
				Rourke said:
			
		

> and he has never published any scientific work.  This last bit is, of course, not proven fact.  Merely a theory based on a significant body of evidence.


Its never been work, its always been passion, but I've not only published papers, I was the coauthor of an ecology textbook.   

The ecology computer models I derived were written in FORTRAN. This was way before the VIC-20 was invented. My computer took up an entire room.   

When I got my first degree landing a man on the moon and creating new life forms were both science fiction.   

If you don't keep current in history, you can still fake your way through it. But if you don't keep current in zoology, your fired...or worse...you get freshman biology (which I still request to teach once per year if my schedule allows it because its fun and easy).


----------



## Professor T (Nov 6, 2004)

sheri said:
			
		

> Just wondering, _maybe_, if *you* should minister the next service...


Thanks for the invitation, but I'd rather cut my nads off and donate them to the Smithsonian.


----------



## Rourke (Nov 6, 2004)

Anansi said:
			
		

> Guys this is forum about tarantulas...Come back down to earth...This has turned into some democrat/ republican *edit*....


At first, I wondered where in the hell you saw politics in this thread at all.....but finally it has become clear.  It manifests itself boldly in avoidance of the question.  Ah, well....no sense in asking it again I suppose.

Incidentally, in the interest of full disclosure:  I DO have a degree in Zoology.  As well as graduate coursework in molecular and cellular biology, ecology and evolutionary biology, biochemistry, and genetics.  I also have several publications in prominent academic journals, including _Nature Genetics, Development, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Molecular and Cellular Biology,_ and _Methods in Enzymology_.  All of these have been in the last two decades.

Perfessor, do you really think the Smithsonian would be interested in your crusty old nads?  Again, this seems pompous.


----------



## Professor T (Nov 6, 2004)

Rourke said:
			
		

> Perfessor, do you really think the Smithsonian would be interested in your crusty old nads?  Again, this seems pompous.


OK, you broke me down again. No, I don't think having my nads on display at the Smithsonian would be as interesting as looking at the dinosaurs, even though they are both from the late crusty-atious period.


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 6, 2004)

Professor T said:
			
		

> ROTFLMAO,    A PhD, a MS, and a BS are titles earned and bequeathed. King Nadkicker is a tongue in cheek invention of code monkey that is entertaining, and keeps this board interesting.


Ah, and here's where your pompous know-it-allness can bite you in your own nads, I no more made up the title than I have 8 legs and type with a prehensile tail. It was bequeathed upon me:

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=840


----------



## Professor T (Nov 6, 2004)

Code Monkey said:
			
		

> Ah, and here's where your pompous know-it-allness can bite you in your own nads, I no more made up the title than I have 8 legs and type with a prehensile tail. It was bequeathed upon me:
> 
> http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=840


Was this what you call beqqueathed?



> Arachnopets Fightclub
> 
> OK! Time to decide who could thrash whom if we had a general melee...
> 
> I vote for either Botar the Mighty, or SHD. I would go with Code Monkey, but you can kinda tell from his eyes that he'd be a dirty fighter, and swiftly kick you in the 'nads, if you had some.


Thats weak bequeathment! You were voted President of the United States on an archnoboards poll. I think thats a little stronger.


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 6, 2004)

Professor T said:
			
		

> Was this what you call beqqueathed?


I believe that deliberate obtuseness is a character trait with you, if you scroll down to post 14 of that thread you would see where Mr. D bequeathed the honorific (his frequent abuse of his admin privileges is a long standing problem around here ). I became, iirc, a lowly Lord Nadkicker, then Prince Nadkicker, Demon of Nadkicking, etc. It was bequeathed and then I nadkicked my way through the ranks like anyone else to become the King Nadkicker. I didn't just nitpick a thread-fight and declare the title mine, I never asked for it in the first place, but at least I actually earned it.

Now, can we get back to something that resembles a productive use of this board or are you going to see what other minutiae you can drag out for a few days?


----------



## Professor T (Nov 6, 2004)

Code Monkey said:
			
		

> I believe that deliberate obtuseness is a character trait with you, if you scroll down to post 14 of that thread you would see where Mr. D bequeathed the honorific (his frequent abuse of his admin privileges is a long standing problem around here ). I became, iirc, a lowly Lord Nadkicker, then Prince Nadkicker, Demon of Nadkicking, etc. It was bequeathed and then I nadkicked my way through the ranks like anyone else to become the King Nadkicker. I didn't just nitpick a thread-fight and declare the title mine, I never asked for it in the first place, but at least I actually earned it.


Thanks for clearing that up, the waterhole arachnopet fightclub thread was so interesting I don't know why I didn't scroll to read the whole thing???

A belated congratulations on the bequeathment of Nadkicker! Maybe you can tell us the story of how you went from prince to king? Did that happen somewhere between post 2,000 and 3,000? It must feel great to be king! Even if its just king of a messageboard. 

Yes, I think it might be time to post something about invertebrates. I think we've crossed the last synapse and its time for this thread to rest.


----------



## Rourke (Nov 6, 2004)

Code Monkey said:
			
		

> Now, can we get back to something that resembles a productive use of this board or are you going to see what other minutiae you can drag out for a few days?


Yessir, Mr. Code Monkey.  You are right, of course.  I already regret the extent of my participation in the degeneration of this thread.  Enough truth has been spoken here that further prattle is unnecessary, and let the words of all stand as evidence of their dispositions, their intellectual strengths/weaknesses, and their respective possession, or lack thereof, of nads.

Rourke


----------



## ShaunHolder (Nov 6, 2004)

dtknow said:
			
		

> Not to sure the show has been attacked in his way, but from my view, it is a waste not because of cruelty, but because of the animals used.
> 
> I could care less(aside from the lesson it teaches)if they used crickets, mealworms, heck, even rats in these shows. But they are using something else. Did someone go and breed all the G. rosea and avics to the size for the show...nope. They were ripped from the wild(and the numbers must be quite large) just for a laugh and some amusement. While small scale collection to add the occasional new blood to a stock(which eventually wouldn't be needed when the number of CB individuals got large enough)...this is clearly toom uch for slow reproducing T's to bear if it continues...both for the pet trade and shows like this.


Thats how I feel about it. Wether or not T's feel pain or wether or not anyone considers it a cruel act to the T, it is completley uneeded waste of life. 

Also, I would consider it cruel. Not in that the T's are feeling pain, but the type of person that would recieve pleasure out of this. I think it's a cruel act. I also consider myself to be a cruel person to a degree. I find ammusment out of watching a predator kill it's prey. Especially when the prey has no chance of surviving. The cruelty isn't what distrubs me, I know and realise that it's my own personal bias that makes me like watching a cricket get harmed by a tarantula over a tarantula hurting another.

I've enjoyed reading youre responces. It's really cool when I get to read about so many people getting into it and giving good reasons and trying to prove thier points using sound logic. The personal attacks are uninteresting, but Im not going to tell anyone to stop either. It happens, everytime without fail. Someone gets upset, and ends up trying to attack someone on a personal level. Oh well, what are you going to do. It usually calms down with humor and apologies, and it will all blow over anyway. Then another poster will make a smiliar topic and it all starts over again.

Whats cool about it is something new always is brought into the mix. I was really blown away by the half eaten mantis eating the cricket. What an effective use of imagery to prove a point. And a cool story to boot, thx for sharing.


----------



## MrArachnid (Nov 10, 2004)

Code Monkey said:
			
		

> Cruelty is a loaded term that is being bandied around alot in this thread without any basis but your anthropomorphic attribution of characters not possessed by tarantulas to them.
> 
> Is Fear Factor a show for utter morons? Yes.
> Is Fear Factor a show for utter morons as contestants? Yes.
> ...


So, let me get this straight...You're implying that, merely based on the IMO quite moot fact that invertebrates don't have feelings, then they should be mamed, destroyed, crushed and it really doesen't matter? who's to feel sorry for them? themselves? nahhh.  Well, based on that...I know of quite a few people who have no feelings, I'd definately enjoy crushing them, is that legal? No because they are human beings and that is against the law.  However, because Tarantulas don't serenade you, or shed tears, immediately that implicates their lesser-being right? Regardless of what is thought of me, or anyone who might even semi-agree with me, it really doesen't matter.  

The conservation and protection of Arachnids and Invertebrates is vital and tremendously important to me atleast, they are a part of nature and if I might say so, far more pure than you, or me or any other human being.  Spiders were here before man, remember that...I suppose in the end we'll all get what we deserve for destroying their environments and for treating them like dirt based on the fact that they "don't have feelings" oh boo-hoo man...All I can say is Arachnids are tremendously important to me, and out of the six that I presently own, I would be absolutely heart broken if any of them died, or were injured, but I guess thats just me and rather they have feelings or not, I care about them deeply and societies B.S. over-dramatic arachnophobia and your rediculous opinion about Invertebrates not mattering based on their lack of feelings is never going to change a thing for me...You're allowed your opinion, I'm allowed mine.  Funny enough, I actually stopped visiting and posting on this website a long time ago for personal reasons, it figures I'd post again based on something as awful as this.  So, thats enough non-sensistic babbling for me, and as Dennis Miller might say, its just my opinion, I could be wrong.

-Sincerely, Mr.Arachnid


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 10, 2004)

MrArachnid said:
			
		

> So, let me get this straight...You're implying that, merely based on the IMO quite moot fact that invertebrates don't have feelings, then they should be mamed, destroyed, crushed and it really doesen't matter?


You're a week too late to this thread and then some. Try reading the rest of the saga, and then if you still don't understand why it's not *cruel* try doing a little research yourself into relevant topics, and if you still don't understand my point, don't waste my time as I am not about to revisit this topic with someone who didn't even pay enough attention to my first post to understand what I said in that one, let alone the other dozen or so posts that follow.


----------



## Arachnoboards (Nov 10, 2004)

It seems what we have here is difference of opinions.  :wall: 

Let's all just agree to disagree and move on, shall we?

Good, glad that we ALL agreed.   


The Arachnoboards Team


----------

