Animal language, does it exist? (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-08-06 03:38:24 by caikgoch
I have been thinking. Recent debates over consent always seem to end up with questions of communication with non-humans. I know they have and use language but how do I prove it to outsiders? Then I realized something.
English is a very bastardized language. It has stolen many words and concepts from other languages. Some of them even come from animal languages.
"Put your foot down" Anyone that has ever survived a meeting with a horse knows what that means.
"Pinned his ears back" applies to many species but dogs and horses especially.
How many more can you think of? Such a list would be handy when the "antis" come calling.
Tail tucked between their legs.
A biologist I know told me this very reasonable thing.
"There is no general animal language. The language-barrier between you and a cat is as big as the barrier between a cat to a cow."
I can't argue with that, BUT, I am far more adaptable than a cow. I already speak more than one language.
I have no idea what you are trying to argue here.
It's not that complicated. I communicate with my horse using standard symbols taught for centuries and based on innate horse behaviors. I also have expanded symbols peculiar to me and my horse that we have worked out between us. I have been told (by people like you biologist friend) that this isn't possible, that I am imagining the communication that I experience daily. Then it occurred to me that many of these common animal symbols (NOT trained behaviors) have found their way into human language. I would like to make a list of these commonly used bits of animal language.
See how easy that is?
mmmmmmm debatable...
Animals are more used to using body language than humans are, as it is usually their primary form of communications. Other animals would have an innate advantage when responding to other animals because they would automatically begin looking for physical responses, while the untrained human would instead probably seek out some kind of verbal response (neigh, yip, etc.) before looking for a physical response.
I'd say there's grounds to argue nature vs nurture here. A human society predicated on body language may not have the difficulties that the average person does.
One of the speculations that I have always favored is that zoophilia has a Darwinian basis. Consider that a human particularly adept at controlling or predicting the behavior of animals would be a major asset at any time in history up to the last century. That explains how a behavior so obviously detrimental to reproduction could be conserved in the gene pool.
When I want to emphasise something, I stomp my foot. I literally "put my foot down". That is extremely significant to a horse because it is a normal part of horse interpersonal communication. Isn't it curious that exactly the same action means exactly the same thing in human interpersonal communication.
It probably has roots much deeper than that -- a good deal of evolution was historically catalyzed by interspecies hybridization.
Here's a counterpoint: Humans are inherently social animals who will naturally attempt to read motive and 'communication' into others, and this includes other species. Also consider that even same-species human communication contains a large amount of non-verbal communication. I find it unlikely other species that are less social and/or less inclined to interact with other species (beyond eating/being eaten) are going to be more able to read or even attempt to read another species' signals beyond threat/non-threat signals. Even in domestic dogs who are very attentive to human signals don't really pay the same attention to, say, horse body language.
Horses and dogs that are raised together (like on a human ranch) can become quite adept at interspecies communication. This is startling when you remember that they are worst enemies in the wild. Single horses have been known to "adopt" just about any animal as a companion to fill the "herd" void.
But the question today is more about how many of those widely recognized behaviors has found its way into human verbal communication.
Figures of speech and idioms tend to vary culturally depending on what's valued. A society that has strong roots in agriculture and hunting will have more idioms related to the animals involved. If it's assumed that most people have exposure to horses, dogs, livestock, and game and are aware of their habits, comparisons to them will be easy to interpret. Of course a few generations removed, people learn to understand them from their context rather than because they can relate to what's described.
Yes and no, there are some fairly universal themes in animal (human included) body language because there are certain things that need to be communicated across species boundaries. As an example, making oneself larger and displaying defensive structures (teeth, spines, horns) is a pretty clear threat you'll see in creatures including insects and fish.
How about "ass chewing" or any of a dozen variants to refer to being disciplined. That is how boss horses "correct" other horses. They bite them, usually on the butt.
That's a bit of a reach. It's a form of 'chewed out' (likely a shortening of 'chewed up and spat out') with 'ass' thrown in for emphasis.
Humans are pattern finders, social species that will find communication patterns even with other species, without communication there won't be domestication; anyone who says there's not an animal communication mechanism that we can understand is clearly retarded.
This is sooo stupid... And desperately trying to connect it to Darwin´s survival of the fittest is even more. And you said you are an old guy, even older than me...well, you argue like a 12 year old and have the vision of a 6 y. o. trying to find a nature´s law why your parents MUST buy you your favourite chocolate bars in the supermarket...
And I really wonder how you think this will help in an argument with antis..." You fuck animals, you disgusting twat!!" - "Yes, but we say "Put your foot down" and therefor, fucking animals is totally legit! "
This is gonna work for sure... sigh
Certain gestures in mammals are archetypical and can be perceived equally in a whole bunch of species, but trying to see a justification for fucking animals in this simple fact is just pathetic and almost at the same level as saying "animals have vaginas and penises, humans too have them, so fucking animals is what nature wants us to do"...
Silentium aurum est....
I'm looking for an original thought. Even Shakespeare had a few of those. How about you?
It's very likely that antis will understand "language" literally. Proving that animals can communicate with you somehow is easy, but I think the most important thing in discussions will be to show that verbal communication is not necessary to agree to something. Remember all this rage "consent is when you verbally say yes"? This example may help: First person asks if second person wants a tea and second answers by nodding his head. No words, no literal language, information passed.
And that is exactly what I am thinking. If body language symbols have passed into verbal language doesn't it seem likely that the meaning passed from the beginning. I like "put your foot down" as an example because it is a fairly complex concept. "If you continue to do that I will punish you" is an exact translation of what a horse is saying. That's a conditional statement with recognition of time and forethought in evidence.
Well... Yes. But they will argue that maybe animals can say something, but you can't rely on this. So after proving occurrence of communication we would still need to prove it's validity. That's ridiculous, but... antis.
Proving its validity is easy. There are studies and books and vids and courses that all "translate" horse behaviors for humans. You match many of these up with spoken language to show that the meaning has been constant and historical.
After that, is "I wanna fuck" any more complicated than "don't do that again"? Both have relevance to the consent argument.
If it wasn't "valid" studies like this one would not be possible.
That was one of my inspirations but I forgot where I saved it.
Thank you.
dolphins literally have a language with names and all
like a deer in the headlights
it exists in sharks, it exists in lions, no need for a list, there is google, that has this extensive list of animals and known behavior
I find people who reject the fact that humans are animals, that earth is spherical, that evolution exist. No matter how many facts you slap these people with, they reject them. And a cording to studies, the more facts you show them, the more strong their irrational believes becomes. Sigh...