I think that the reason this happens is because animal emotions are something humans dont know the anwser to. I think the thought that we may actually never know what animals think is really frustrating to scientists and academics who claim to know animals. But if you cant understand the main thinking process it challenges how much they really do know?

This makes me think about how as humans we have an fear that comes from dinosaurs, however humans have never really witnessed a dinosaur or that we know has been threatened since they have never been alive at the same time.

This also makes me think beyond just thinking about daily things in dreams but the possibility that these animals also have an imagination based on there interpretation of the world. This also makes me wonder if while humans have created imaginations of certain animals, if the animals also dream or create a story of what humans are. With that however I critique my own thought since like humans we can only imagine a world based on our perception of our current one. And much like that an animal would only be able to imagine a world that is specifically curated to there experience with the world.

I think the moments in the text where he author breaks character of speaking as the animal in his experience. I think it adds a good leval of commentary to the text and show us that he is still human with human thoughts at the end of the day. It also places the audience back into the lense that he does not necessarily speak on scientific facts but his own experience and thoughts.

I wonder what benifit comes from writing sbout this in first person, other than to make the audience think you are odd.

I wonder behind what basis he makes these claims. Although he is trying to be a badger, I wonder how he technically thinks his thought process is the same as the animal. And if becoming the animal makes him have an epiphany of how these animals think, I wonder why this isnt more widley done in science.

Im still confused and I wonder if its the readers intent. Im assuming still that he is human, but some of his descriptions arnt humanlike and its harder to relate with what hes talking about

I think the use of badgers is interesting because i assume most readers dont know as much about them as other animals, so it is kind of up to the author to describe the aura of them. this then shapes mosts only understanding of badgers

I wonder if the author is describing himslef as a badger as he used first person but then goes on to talk about his badgers eat the worms

I wonder how he knows this? This seems like such a graphic way to tell this story that there seems to be some kind of personal experience or the author is relating to something.

I wonder if the phenomena of werewolf's has cast a bad shadow on how humans view wolves. I wonder if it harms them as humans have a notion that they are scary and bad when in reality most people dont scientifically know much about the qualities and traits of wolves.

I think since a werewolf is a made up charicture different authors have different takes on how they act and what there capable of. Its weird to think about how they are descibed in this text, yet in twilight they are seen as a love interest not a killer who craves human flesh. I think this definition can also be confusing as there are so many imaginations of that a werewolf really is, but it could also make it whats so intriguing.

I also think its interesting to note how in alot of texts and films the ides of becoming a werewolf or an animal is often a threat or a quest that needs to be conqured. I think in this nature it also makes them seem more human and some kind of curse to be scared of.

This text reminds me of the book how to read literature like a professor, where there are certain symbolic moments found in alot of texts and they all hint at the same understsnding

Its interesting how we have been studying how many animals perceived character traits can be harmful to them, but when thinking about werewolves, the ideology comes directly from the name, and they are an animal specifically curated to represent something.

I think what also makes vampires and werewolfs so scary or conceptually moving is our ability to connect with them due to there close resemblance of humans. I think that this differs from our understanding of other monsters like aliens, or animals where humans cant relate. I also think that once we can relate there comes a feeling of fear and threat that they can overtake us

Im not sure why, but whenever humans are acting out of place they are compared to warewolf. I think its the lonesome, inhumane qualities of a wolf mixed with a human that makes a warewolf so appealing for imagery in novels and text.

This feels like for norma it is beyond just being vegan but a personal attack that she feels and is causing her to be really defensive towards the mother.

I think that historically we categorize some animals as food, and i think the ones we dont its alot more historically rooted. Like there is proof of hunting back in the survival days, and we still do that today, and as a society we have never chosen to eat for example cats or hamsters. I think its just an ideology of these animals that stems back to a long time ago

I feel like by saying we do this it almost feels forced but when you say we dont do this it seems like everyone has a collective understanding on refraining of something and seems more united.

Its interesting to think that these pictures couldve ment anything yet humans create a narrative to mean what they want it to. But in reality I dont think humans will ever really know how an animal thinks and it couldve been done by chance.

I just dont understand why he feels the need to protect others from his mom when they just listend to her give a entire presentation

I think there is a misunderstanding here because she is speaking on a lot more than just not eating meet she is trying to change the way they think and this response just shows how little he is able to understand.

Gives some insight on what he thinks about his mother. Its an odd dynamic because he disagrees and doesn't understand her but a part of him wants to protect her still, however that might just be a way of protecting his own peace.

I think this is a really powerful statement made that creates a blur between what is seen as human and animal, and is saying that the audience should place them self in the shoes of the animal and if they cant then something is wrong with there ability to think beyond them self.

Do we think that a bat is aware that its a bat?

The same thing can be said for a bat trying to be a human, thats pretty much what they are telling the gorillas to act like humans in order to judge there intelligence

It makes me wonder what I would fist think. I do argue that humans arnt all as easy to read and understand as they might think.

What does this mean? I think the ability to write is not what makes a human human.

How do they measure ones mental capacity when humans are the ones testing them on test that is made for the human standard and understanding of the brain.

I argue that by shutting down other philosophers she may loose potential followers but at the same time shows shes not in it for that but instead in it to speak her mind and what she thinks without filtering based on if others will like it.

This was a strong way of addressing other philosophy on this subject

She has very bad delivery, it is really blunt and brutal. I think it just means she is very passionate but I can see how it can be a turn off for those who dont view it in the way she does

Is she comparing human concentration camps to animal production facilities?

The comment about bedtime stories makes me wonder if he resents his mother due to lack of ability to relate to her, and that she influences other young people but couldn't influence him when he was a child.

Its crazy to think that they are so bothered by her opinion/ passion for something. Typically a family member would love to see someone being passionate and successful.

This also may be a reason she is hostile to the mother because she is successful by doing something norma doesnt approve of

This description already makes her seem like she is not well liked, also there is tension with the word "this"

As someone who comes from a household where my brother is gluten free it is hard when people make accommodations and it can feel really isolating so i understand.

It is surprising to me why the quantity of animals killed is still a measure of success and pride. I understand how back int he beginning the men who could hunt the most and feed there families were successful, but now in the modern world its crazy to me that this concept is still present.

I think this is a good example to note all of the adjectives that automatically placed on animals, and this connotation is one of the reasons animals in photos can be so expressive in relation to if it was just a person. While a person can also portray these descriptions they can rarely do it from just being in the picture.

This could be used to represent that there actions directly relate to the thoughts. Therefor anything the animal is doing is what it is thinking about.

Along with this, an octopus is able to conquer any pray with its size and ability to have 8 arms holding or restricting there pray in any direction. This choice of animal in itself may be a reason the photo was associated with unconsentual acts, where the animal is conquering the woman.

I think about if this movie was casted with human actors that fit these stereotypes, they would receive a lot of backlash, and by using animals they become a symbolic representation of humans and different human roles/ stereotypes in society.

I think it is interesting to think about how human life is being told through the means of animals. It got me thinking about if these same disney movies and shows were told with a cast of humans, and the difference the films would have. I think they are able to touch on topics that could be serious to a much younger audience.