Why do cockatoos act like such spergs
>>2040696
because just like spergs they don't have any feelings.
>>2040700
I wouldnt go that far, they just think theyre the shit and rock their stupid little head around
>>2040700
I think it's the opposite, and they have too much feeling.
>>2040708
neither do autistic people
>>2040708
>>2040712
most of /an/ agrees with him.
the rest are soft-headed anthropomorphizing women from Australia. Sound asleep right now in their daddy's backhouse.
>>2040696
Because they can afford it.
>>2040716
who could argue with that? no one, that's who
cockatoos are amazing animals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C7q03eZUI4
>>2040731
Such a brat, reminds me of my budgie
>>2040700
this is retarded, there's extensive and conclusive data that almost all developed amniotes feel in a way similar to that of humans, we all share the basic kit of emotions (anger, fear, joy, sadness, surprise and disgust) while we humans develop secondary emotions on from these ones, animals can't; that's why while we can feel say, condemn or shame, animals cant.
Cockatoos are among the smartests creatures on earth, they are with humans the only species able of enjoying music and dance to it, and their pack of secondary emotions is pretty big, obviously not human but big.
>>2041053
>there's extensive and conclusive data that almost all developed amniotes feel in a way similar to that of humans
I notice you didn't cite even a scrap of it.
>>2041064
Panksepp, J. (1982). "Toward a general psychobiological theory of emotions". Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (3): 407–422. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00012759.
"Emotions help animals to make choices (press release)". University of Bristol. 2010. Retrieved October 26, 2013.
Jacky Turner and Joyce D'Silva, ed. (2006). Animals, Ethics and Trade: The Challenge of Animal Sentience. Earthscan. ISBN 9781844072545. Retrieved October 26, 2013.
Wong, K. (2013). "How to identify grief in animals". Scientific American. Retrieved October 26, 2013.
Bateson, M.; Desire, S.; Gartside, S.E.; Wright, G.A. (2011). "Agitated honeybees exhibit pessimistic cognitive biases". Current Biology 21 (12): 1070–1073. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.017. PMID 21636277.
Fox, E. (2008). Emotion Science: An Integration of Cognitive and Neuroscientific Approaches. Palgrave MacMillan. pp. 16–17. ISBN 978-0-230-00517-4.
how ignorant can one be?
>>2041053
>Source?
The burden of proof lies with the one spouting nonsensical bullshit.
Still waiting on your sources.
>>2041064
Basic emotions
Examples of basic emotions
For more than 40 years, Paul Ekman has supported the view that emotions are discrete, measurable, and physiologically distinct. Ekman's most influential work revolved around the finding that certain emotions appeared to be universally recognized, even in cultures that were preliterate and could not have learned associations for facial expressions through media. Another classic study found that when participants contorted their facial muscles into distinct facial expressions (e.g. disgust), they reported subjective and physiological experiences that matched the distinct facial expressions. His research findings led him to classify six emotions as basic: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise.[21]
He then found the same emotions in dogs and other animals.[22]
All people playing semantics on here lmao, emotions are nothing but neurological chemistry, which is shared in pretty similar ways in all upper amniotes (mammals and birds), there's no reason nor logic for claiming animals don't have feelings rather than just aspergering over such a loosely defined word as "emotion", being factual all animals feel, since emotions are a natural response to stimulae, social animals tend to develop more complex emotions (like dogs or humans which are pretty fucking expresive animals) while solitaire animals have more basic ones.
It has literally been studied for 40 years
>>2041070
parsimony requires no source.
without evidence for emotions the assumption is that it doesn't exist.
>>2041065
hey look, not a single one of your sources backs your claim.
>>2041072
the methodology is weak, but even if we allow it, is it "extensive and conclusive data that ALMOST ALL developed amniotes feel in a way similar to humans"?
at best it's equivocal speculation that dogs feel in a way similar to humans.
you've got several thousand more species to go.
>>2041081
emotion is conscious experience.
so when you say all mammals and birds experience emotion you're saying they are all conscious.
this claim is unsupported and impossible to prove. Any rigorous examination will conclude it's bullshit.
>>2041082
I've provided evidence that animals do feel, saying that animals don't is just playing semantics on the definition of emotion.
I've backed up my claims (and I've also read what I've posted and it DOES back up what i claim, either you didn't read it or are just blantantly lying)
>>2041082
>methodology is weak
>literally a milestone of
neuroethology, human psychology and biology in the last 40 years
>a "theory" so accepted and praised it was the basis on the best movie of last year, Inside Out.
On the other hand unless you can prove me that upper amniotes don't feel, I won't take you seriously, sorry but science is CONCLUSIVE ON THE MATTER, ANIMALS DO FEEL, THIS HAS BEEN STUDIED SINCE DARWIN'S The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, TO CLAIM THEY DON'T IS LIKE DENYING EVOLUTION, WHICH IT IS
>>2041085
>emotion is conscious experience
It isn't dipshit, that's just an empiric human definition of it, emotion has no academic definition, there's been several attempts at reaching one.
You are literally choosing the most exclusive and UNSUBSTANTIABLE "meaning" of a word just to leave animals out of your "concious (not even proved)" circlejerk.
Grow up kid, there's so much concensus on the similarity of thought process in animals and us, that at any case the claim that would need to be detestified is that animals DONT feel.
>>2041091
>>literally a milestone of neuroethology, human psychology and biology in the last 40 years
so you're saying all that relies on the similarity between human facial expressions and those of dogs?
hell, nobody on /an/ believes that when a dog is 'smiling' it feels happy, so you're not going to get any support on that bullshit here.
>I've also read what I've posted and it DOES back up what i claim
I assume since you didn't provide a single quote backing your claims that you're still talking out your ass.
as usual
and I'm pretty sure you made up the term "upper amniotes."
>>2041111
Idk mang. This doge looks happy AF.
>>2041091
>upper amniotes
