We sexualize animals to get on their level. To get down to our primal desires and feel good about it. Animals are not embarrassed of their instincts so why should we be?

Do you think humans were more inclined to go up to this wolf because it resembled a man. Since there is more to relate to is it more comfortable to be around or is it not even more terrifying that it resembles us?

According to this the paragraphs above are not examples of werewolves or shapeshifters. One must be able to switch back and forth. As said in the one example they must not eat human flesh to be able to change back, would that be then an example once the change is made?

Is this because the werewolf is based on a mammal where the others are either fish or birds. We as humans relate more to mammals because we are mammals. I think this adds to vanessa's point above, we sexualize the thing to feel comfortable, to put it on a relatable level, or put us on a relatable level to the animal. (sharing this nature of attraction)

The fantasy of the werewolf is an interesting one, in the way that we humans made it up, but cannot truly understand the wolf side. If werewolves were real the transformation would be so altering, that "persons" way of life would change so drastically. Would they have memories of changing or even control of themselves in that state? Some movies/books portray it as full control or none at all.

We are unaware of how conscious and not animals really are. All animals differ I would say on these levels as well. This statement is too general.

I think this is why I'm bored of this character. He is there to be a centrist or whatever, so people can relate and be comfortable. Maybe that is the right approach to most things? He is so useless.

Is he shading his wife? She seems to be very stuck in her thoughts about eating animals.

animal cruelty is an issue that has forever not been taken serious enough. People that push for equality or just peace between humans and animals are still so extreme, that its so hard to get past the surface level. Is it human nature that makes us so adamant on eating animals, instinct to survive?

She eggs the people on to think more than surface level on the monkey experiments. Following this statement she mentions she wishes the monkeys were playing with the humans, they are that smart. I think with the experiment data/analysis you have to question everything because we do not actually know what the animal is thinking.

I kind of despise this. She wouldn't be asked to talk if she wasn't qualified. I guess don't believe all scholars but like leave his mother alone... ( i don't know all the backstory but there is some disdain)

I don't think the speech is that hard to follow... so i am curious why Norma despises her so. is she to philosophical that a science-y person cannot bear what she has to say. The speech is a little confusing and harsh at points but overall she is comparing our lifespan - and grasping that with how to grasp an animals life... Maybe we should treat each with the same amount of questioning, fear and care.

it seem the monkeys were unaware of being held captive... even when they are started to be mistreated. They now start to use critical stinking/problem-solving to survive but still don't understand that they are not free, and they must do anything they could to survive. They obviously get to that point but there is this wrap around process to get to that point.

reason is the same as morals here? People follow the law because of morals or at least the just way to feel about certain things like murder. If something attacks you, you defend yourself... that is the reason man took away animals power, this is the reason people justify murder as well (self-defense)

The brain is developing the fastest during the period of time, or can consume knowledge fast during these years. I think schooling makes sense versus learning when you want/how you want. I don't know if she's trying to also take a stab at accessibility of knowledge, which is all too unfair, and thats when passion/ambition have to come into play.

Comparing the holocaust to anything usually fails as a comparison because of how unimaginable and horrific it really was. Like said before, no one can imagine what a million deaths really is, means. or looks like. I cannot see people picking up her idea.

I think it is hard to place blame on civilians outside the camp because the feeling of helplessness really defers people. Nobody really could save those people from the camps unless they wanted death themselves. I like this sentiment though but it is unrealistic...

The connection she goes about making between her and animals, is that personal or is she trying to tie it to us all? From this point I think it is a lesson to be learned. That we should all respect and love animals. That we can experience the world differently through them and that doesn't make us better than them but it helps us grow/understand.

I am curious about how his mother feels about animal testing and experiments involving them like Harry Harlow's attachment style experiments. The monkeys themselves grew up mentally disturbed and couldn't survive in the wild after. Is this sacrifice worth it for science?

This notion helps you assume that the mother and mother in law do not get along. This is a foreshadowing for the paragraphs following shortly after. It also is mentioned that the mother and son have a not so intimate relationship, no physical touch as a love language. The wife seems to not know this preference.

This ties back again to our first class conversation, people would come see these rare or exotic animals as prizes and symbols of conquering, of the primal instincts of man. It shows we are the top mammal, it differentiates us so much we have to look at dead stuffed animals in a museum.

I always wondered how they put prices on animals. Later in the reading it seems they are looking for the "perfect" animal to display.. fur intact, large, healthy. In this case whay makes the elephant 10000 dollars?

This want of having animals displayed as clothing or decoration brings me back to our first conversation in class. We reflect back on the people storming the capital wearing animal hide as maybe a power play or some metaphor on colonialism and our roots as a country. Is this idea the same thing? I would say yes.

I think this circles back to the beginning, of us fully not understanding the animal because we think about it compared to the humans. The animal is depicted sexually almost like a human when that is fully unrealistic. We share cognitive processes but everything is displayed or acted out differently. For example, the female octupus is dull and thin, but most don't notice her pain, similar to them both being confined when they are destined to be curious.

Octopuses are seen as sexual animals often... This image laid out for us seems to almost praise octopuses as being better than man. This starts us off at the beginning of the text by bringing octopuses in comparison to humans: one versus the other.

The octopus has two modes of functioning, its higher cognitive processing and its body. My understanding is that the body almost works on its own at points. Being able to change shape and color for whatever needs it sees fit. The body works at the survival level and deals with its senses, while the brain processes things like novel tasks over time.

This is something everything can understand, survival. I think bringing it back to this notion debunks the black-and-white thinking of whether animals are conscious or not. Feelings like hunger and thirst immediately overpower feelings of love or acceptance.

The comparison of octopuses to aliens differentiates them from humans. They are like humans in all these listed ways above, like problem-solving, but they are not human. Obviously, They are different but there's always an emphasis on humans versus blank. In the paragraph below, this is done maybe to give humans a tool to learn.

I enjoyed that this was pointed out. I have never heard of the show animals and it makes sense because there is no filter. It starts to tackle real life even though with animals... intimidating for some.

The movie Zootopia, as said in the article, is almost a utopia if it were flopped with humans instead of animals. It is easy for children and even adults to understand the lesson that anyone is capable of achieving what they want, and there could be peace amongst different types of animals. I think a movie like this with humans vs animals is harder to grasp, and sparks more controversy between adults. This again reiterates that humans and animals are different in the sense that animals are not taken seriously.

This end to the paragraph reiterates that we still are different than animals even though we place all our burdens on them. Through storytelling and allegories Animals are taken less seriously because they are different, so we can experiment with our higher thinking through them, for example, animal farm. This book could be read and some people may miss the allegory hidden in the lines, this is so because it's about pigs and other farm animals.