I hear the tubers market is really a good investment nowadays.

I never really thought about it.. I love the zoo.

I think that it's okay to display them in a zoo. It can be a learning experience for ALL AGES. Also, it keeps the animals safer and more well-fed then they would be in the wilderness.

As long as these animals are not being hurt, I don't see why it's wrong.

The zoo's only funny until an animal gets hurt. Then it's hilarious.

not really. the zoos are loosing to video games and TV.

if only there were no bars, or moats... then the zoo would be really entertaining...

first class entertainment- animals vs. people.

i think a law needs to be passed declaring all football statiums into arenas.

i wonder how the broncos would deal against tigers....

I think cagefights are more interesting personally. The raw power takes the cake from the tiring your opponent by running around any day.

it does have its good and bad points. Like endangered animals are kept in a zoo =) and sometimes the younglings don't know that their bred in captivity because the zookeepers don't show their faces. Like I saw on television that the zookeepers were watching over a baby flamingo dressed as a flamingo.

How does that work... our body types aren't exactly conducive to that.

^ well usually they dress in all white and hide in a nearby bush or something but they have like a hand puppet and pretend their a flamingo. And that's how they teach the flamingos to fly and stuff. It was wierd but the zookeepers were like jumping up and down. Then the flamingo baby flew!

the hand become the head and the arm the arm's the neck.

i don't that will cause any speicies confusion, do you?

::imagines tarzan being greeted by an ape in a man suit::

Why?



Wikipedia is different from a normal encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, anybody can edit it to their liking. The information isn't always correct. A normal encyclopedia at the local library, on the other hand, cannot be edited. The information it stores must be correct, or else people wouldn't use it. Wikipedia can be changed by anyone, but I've found it to be a pretty reliable source, anyway.



Yes; great idea. To prevent confusion and distress among newborn animals, we should just not have newborn animals! Then all the creatures at the zoo can die out very quickly, leaving behind their rotting carcasses next to empty cages. What a wonderfully educational experience for all of us.



And of course forcing animals to brutally mutilate each other is a much more humane and sensible alternative to merely imprisoning them.



Books. Television. Media. Movies. Travel.
A student doesn't need to spend a day in Europe to know the history of France. You don't have to be right next to an animal to learn about wildlife.

Why not?



Obviously, they can be edited. Why do you think they all have editors? Editors are people too; just with more money.



Death is an integral part of life. We should not hide that from children. We can always bring in new ones, you know.



Someone said that animals in zoos lose their survival skills. I think cagefights would teach them the important skills they need for surviving in the wild.



No, but it helps get them interested. Why do you think people tour historic sites?

It isn't right because every animal deserves freedom, and not a life confined within the bars of a small cage, possibly with several other members of the same species, to be handed food and water. Sounds sort of like the sentence we condemn murderers and criminals to, doesn't it?

It is okay for an animal to be kept in a normal living space, shaped into their natural habitat. It is possible to keep an animal content and happy in a zoo.



Yes, editors are people too. People who are paid to edit mistakes in encyclopedias and straighten out the writing, not twist them around to suit their own preferences. Encyclopedias don't hold opinions; they hold facts. Even if an editor decides to screw around with a publisher's book, someone will eventually find out and he/she'll be disgraced and lose his/her customers.



Yet another brilliant idea. To prevent confusion with newborns, we can merely leech off mother nature until she's brought staggering to her knees with a dwindling population and more animals in cages than in the wild. We've already cut down countless amounts of trees instead of planting new forests to provide more resources and the consequences of those actions aren't exactly uplifting. Ensnaring more animals from their homes to fill up empty cages in a zoo will be basically the same thing.

It's not like a newborn animal will be unable to survive in a simulated environment, anyway. Everyone's able to adapt; it's just that it would be not as natural. If an animal has trouble with being released into the wild, I'm sure some experts will find a solution.

||edit||

I'm not saying logging is a horrendous crime; I understand that it's necessary. I'm using it as an example.



Somehow, killing fellow cagemates to the crazed cheering of drunkards doesn't seem much to me like what mother tigers teach their young. Besides, what use will survival skills for the wild be when you're never going to BE in the wild? You might as well try to learn swimming when you're in the desert.



I agree with you on this one. You're right. Like I said before, I support zoos as long as the quality is acceptable.

Why do animals deserve anything? Our laws and institutions guarantee rights for people.



It is possible for me to hire someone to track you down and murder you. But that doesn't mean I should do it.



Are you kidding me? Everyone has biases. Why do you think people refer to 'liberal' and 'conservative' editors? An editor can try to be neutral; but no one will ever have a completely neutral point of view.



What if the people don't agree on what the facts are? The Battle of Cold Harbor, for example; nobody agrees on whether it was a Union or a Confederate victory. Or casualty ratios in the Korean War? The US claims that we shot down 10 Russian planes for every American plane, while the Russians claim that they shot down 4 American planes for every Russian. Both are probably exaggerated; the truth is probably somewhere in between, but even a completely neutral editor would lie closer to the American or Soviet sides. I've seen editors of well-reputed reference books go both ways. Or what about the causes of the American revolution? Some people say taxes were the main cause; some say tariffs; some say occupation.. It largely depends on your worldview. Everybody has a worldview.



When it reduces the price of buying a new home by 33%, that's pretty uplifting to all the people who need new homes.



As giving homeless people houses in suburbia? I don't see the connection.



Like sell them to poachers! Muahahaha!



Take out the drunkards. My wholesome Midwestern values will not allow me to condone alcohol in zoos. Kids are going to be there, you know?

Mother tigers teach their young to kill. A tiger's going to have a hard time surviving without being able to hunt and kill and defend its turf.



Well, if they're really good, they'll be able to break out of their cages and take the train to Connecticut. That way, only the strong are in the wild, and thus they survive, and the weak are killed and eaten.

Before the Civil War, slavery was legal in all 13 colonies of the US. Our laws and institutions guaranteed rights for whites, and not much for blacks. Why did the african americans deserve anything? Do you propose that they should have remained slaves?

Our laws and institutions aren't perfect.



Technically, it's possible to do anything, like kill our families or rob banks. But we don't, because it we aren't uncivilized heathens - we're humane, feeling people. Tracking me down and murdering me doesn't fall under the category of humane. Ensuring that animals are safe and comfortable even after we take them from their homes, however, does.







Should differing opinions of books and people stop us from interacting or learning from them? No person will ever base his entire opinion on one source.




A mature tree reprocess enormous amounts of carbon dioxide gas and lets it back into the atmosphere as enough oxygen for 30 adult humans to breathe in 24 hours. We can develop as many fancy gadgets and machines as we want, but we will never be able to live life without breathing. All the walking creatures on the planet breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.

Forests are the habitats for countless amounts of species of insects, plants, and animals. The rainforests by themselves hold up to 50 million creatures - over half of the world's animals - that cannot live anywhere else. Tropical rainforests hold up to 60%-90% of all life. By cutting them down, we are endangering the lives of all those creatures that deserve to live just as much as we do.

Loss of biodiversity, climate disruption, soil erosion, flooding, a contaminated atmosphere - I could go on and on.

If you want to be selfish and ask, "yes, but what has it done for HUMANS," consider that 25% of all medicines come from the forest. Consider that trees purify the air that we continuously pollute. Think about all the products that come from trees - paper, chairs, doors, closets, bedframes, tables, books - if we don't take care in the amount of trees we cut down, we'll lose all of those items and our homes. Millions of tribal and indiginous people live in the forest as well.

When deforestation reaches a critical point, when we end up with not enough air to breathe or trees to use for houses and shelter for future generations, when animals in the forest lose their treetop homes and food, we're going to suffer.

I just realized how much I sound like a tree-hugging hippie. Oh well. I probably am.



I don't know, I was thinking more along the lines of teaching, not killing.



People who force animals to fight are usually gamblers. Gambling is as much of a sin as drinking.

A mother tiger will be able to teach her young more survival skills than any man will, anyway.



I highly doubt that any animal will be able to escape a zoo without being stopped. There are fences, guards, cages, and security for a reason. There is very little chance of an animal in a zoo being able to return to the wild without the zoo's consent. If they are released, there will be better methods to teach animals to live in the wild.

No, not like poaching or hunting.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]
Before the Civil War, slavery was legal in all 13 colonies of the US.[/quote]

Nope; it was only legal in six of the original thirteen (Georgia, the two Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware). It wasn't until the Dred Scott decision in the 1850s that slavery became "legal" in every state, but even then, states found ways of getting around it.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Our laws and institutions guaranteed rights for whites, and not much for blacks. Why did the african americans deserve anything? Do you propose that they should have remained slaves?[/quote]

African-Americans are members of our species. Notice people say human rights. If a dog bites you, should the dog be held accountable the way a person would and be put through the same legal process? No, because it's not a member of the same species. Race is scientifically invalid; species is not.

Until animals start paying taxes and upholding the laws, they should not have rights.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]
Technically, it's possible to do anything, like kill our families or rob banks. But we don't, because it we aren't uncivilized heathens - we're humane, feeling people.[/quote]

What about sadists? It's possible to rob banks or kill families, but, while most people don't because they're humane, the law is also there to check the remaining people.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Tracking me down and murdering me doesn't fall under the category of humane. Ensuring that animals are safe and comfortable even after we take them from their homes, however, does.[/quote]

Taking away the right of people to have zoos might be considered inhumane, too. In fact, I say any restriction on voluntary individual acts that doesn't adversely affect other people is inhumane. So to 'humanely' treat animals, your proposed course of action would be 'inhumane' to people. And notice the root of the word humane.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Should differing opinions of books and people stop us from interacting or learning from them? No person will ever base his entire opinion on one source.
A mature tree reprocess enormous amounts of carbon dioxide gas and lets it back into the atmosphere as enough oxygen for 30 adult humans to breathe in 24 hours.[/quote]

A mature Tokyo oxygen bar does that too, only the oxygen it lets out is fresher and provides for a lot more than 30 adult humans.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]We can develop as many fancy gadgets and machines as we want, but we will never be able to live life without breathing. All the walking creatures on the planet breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.[/quote]

21% of the atmosphere is Oxygen, and there are far more plants than humans. We are far from the point of environmental disaster.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Forests are the habitats for countless amounts of species of insects, plants, and animals. The rainforests by themselves hold up to 50 million creatures - over half of the world's animals - that cannot live anywhere else. Tropical rainforests hold up to 60%-90% of all life. By cutting them down, we are endangering the lives of all those creatures that deserve to live just as much as we do.[/quote]

Every species competes with every other species over the resources they need. It's not inhumane; it's a biological fact. Nothing in the natural world 'deserves' to live; it only lives if its genes are good enough to. That's why people exist in the first place. The rules of 'civil' society were created because people realized everyone was better off from not killing/enslaving/robbing each other. But cutting down trees? No.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Loss of biodiversity,[/quote]

For every creature we find that cures cancer; we'll find a hundred that cause it.

Medical science is mostly the story of manmade chemicals triumphing over natural diseases, not vice versa.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]climate disruption,[/quote]

...which can't be blamed on human activity, seeing as whale flatulence lets off more CO2 than all human industry in the world combined.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]soil erosion,[/quote]

Could this be attributed to overfarming because people are living in poverty, because in third world countries, they aren't utilizing the environment enough? I think it could.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]flooding,[/quote]

Which isn't nearly as devastating as it used to be. Ever since Holland started putting up dykes in the 17th century, flooding has ceased to become a threat in the western world. The Allegheny flooded last year. I think a cat might've drowned. Maybe.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]a contaminated atmosphere - I could go on and on.[/quote]

The atmosphere's a big place, created over almost five billion years. The chemical makeup of the atmosphere has not changed significantly over the last 100 years. It's the same mix of nitrogen, oxygen, and trace elements that it's always been.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]If you want to be selfish and ask, "yes, but what has it done for HUMANS,"[/quote]

No, the definition of selfish is what has it done for me.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]consider that 25% of all medicines come from the forest.[/quote]

So do 50% of the diseases that those medicines are supposed to cure. Smallpox and malaria, two of the biggest killers of humans in history, both originated from rainforest environments. Much of Africa is totally unusable because of the Tsetse flies that lurk in the jungles.

We have to look at both sides of everything. I can say that Stalin tripled agricultural production in the Soviet Union. But that doesn't mean he was a good person.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Consider that trees purify the air that we continuously pollute.[/quote]

So do HEPA filters. My street is full of trees, but it was the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze that significantly improved air quality in my house.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Think about all the products that come from trees - paper, chairs, doors, closets, bedframes, tables, books - if we don't take care in the amount of trees we cut down, we'll lose all of those items and our homes.[/quote]

Do you know how many new trees are grown in a year? Trees are a veryrenewable resource. That's whay paper, chairs, doors, etc., don't cost any more than they used to. On the other hand, if you look at a short-term nonrenewable resource like oil, the price of that is skyrocketing as the supply dwindles.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Millions of tribal and indiginous people live in the forest as well.[/quote]

And who cut down those trees to build chairs, doors, closets, bedframes, tables, books, homes, tourist traps, etc. Funny how people are alike.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]When deforestation reaches a critical point, when we end up with not enough air to breathe or trees to use for houses and shelter for future generations, when animals in the forest lose their treetop homes and food, we're going to suffer.[/quote]

That's not going to happen. The best way of gauging resource depletion is to see the prices you pay. If oil suddenly goes to $4/gallon, we can assume that the world's oil supply is running short. If the price of iron ore goes up, we can assume that there's less iron ore, etc. If the price of ivory is going up, we can assume that we're shooting too many elephants.

The price of wood products is not growing any faster than general inflation. There is no 'critical' deforestation. If anything, the price of paper is going down relative to other goods, because of how fast trees reproduce.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]I just realized how much I sound like a tree-hugging hippie. Oh well. I probably am.
I don't know, I was thinking more along the lines of teaching, not killing.
People who force animals to fight are usually gamblers. Gambling is as much of a sin as drinking.[/quote]

Neither are really 'sins'. If you gamble or drink so much that you lose contorl of yourself and start hurting others, then it can become sinful, but friends playing a game of Texas Hold 'Em over beers are hardly sinners.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]A mother tiger will be able to teach her young more survival skills than any man will, anyway. [/quote]

Survival skills that largely consist of killing other things.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]I highly doubt that any animal will be able to escape a zoo without being stopped. There are fences, guards, cages, and security for a reason. There is very little chance of an animal in a zoo being able to return to the wild without the zoo's consent. If they are released, there will be better methods to teach animals to live in the wild.

No, not like poaching or hunting.

[/quote]

But poaching and hunting are so fun!

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
Nope; it was only legal in six of the original thirteen (Georgia, the two Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware). It wasn't until the Dred Scott decision in the 1850s that slavery became "legal" in every state, but even then, states found ways of getting around it.[/quote]

The Civil War began after the Dred Scott case. So, as I said before, all 13 colonies legalized slavery before the Civil War.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
African-Americans are members of our species. Notice people say human rights. If a dog bites you, should the dog be held accountable the way a person would and be put through the same legal process? No, because it's not a member of the same species. Race is scientifically invalid; species is not.

Until animals start paying taxes and upholding the laws, they should not have rights.
[/quote]

Is that the way you view the world? When you see something, do you think, "What can that do for me?" and nothing else? Do you think, "because that cannot help me, it does not deserve to live"?

Do homeless people pay their taxes? Do people in deep states of poverty pay their taxes? If not, should we slaughter them? What about children? Children don't pay their taxes. If they should die before they reach the age of an adult, should they have not deserved to live? Robbers? Should we kill them immediately after they have stolen a television from a house because they have not upheld our laws? Tourists don't pay taxes to the US; they pay taxes to their own country. Let us not allow them in our country, then.


Dogs do not choose to live in the human's society; they choose to live in their own. We are the ones who take them in and buy them from stores as our companions. In their own societies or communities, relatives of the domestic dog (say wolves) treat each other by their own standards and their own rules. There is an alpha male. There is an alpha female. Pay the leader respect. Hunt in packs. If they stumble upon a human, do they have the right to kill that human for no reason whatsoever, merely because the human has not done anything for them and does not go by a wolf's standards?


Dogs help us in countless ways. They guide the blind. They are wonderful companions for little children, mature adults, and senior citizens alike. They'll cheer us up when we're down. They're nice pillows. (hah) They're loyal and supportive. There is a reason why they are called man's best friend.

You can point out millions of ways how dogs are terrible, but they were born on this earth the same way we were and we must have some amount of decency in us to not do whatever we want with all creatures that do not follow human standards.


Also, what do you mean by race and not species being scientifically invalid? Invalid in what?

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
What about sadists? It's possible to rob banks or kill families, but, while most people don't because they're humane, the law is also there to check the remaining people.

Taking away the right of people to have zoos might be considered inhumane, too. In fact, I say any restriction on voluntary individual acts that doesn't adversely affect other people is inhumane. So to 'humanely' treat animals, your proposed course of action would be 'inhumane' to people. And notice the root of the word humane.
[/quote]

[quote]
We have to look at both sides of everything.[/quote]

I spy hypocrisy.

If a guy decided to starve his cat and leave it to die in it's own feces, you could argue that not allowing that would be 'inhumane' for the guy, but

[quote]
we have to look at both sides of everything[/quote]

and consider the suffering of the cat, which is certainly not very humane. Most of us will agree that starving a creature in inappropriate living conditions is a harsher punishment than restricting a guy from his sadistic whims.

The root of the word humane comes from the latin root "hum", anyway, which means earth or ground. Human, humus, or exhume all have the same roots.


Like I have said, I support zoos that provide good living conditions for the animals.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
A mature Tokyo oxygen bar does that too, only the oxygen it lets out is fresher and provides for a lot more than 30 adult humans.
So do HEPA filters. My street is full of trees, but it was the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze that significantly improved air quality in my house.
[/quote]

How much time and money would it cost to build an oxygen bar in your backyard? How much for planting an oak tree seed?


Once again, we cannot view the world so cynically as to kill living things merely because they are unnecessary to us.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
21% of the atmosphere is Oxygen, and there are far more plants than humans. We are far from the point of environmental disaster.
That's not going to happen. The best way of gauging resource depletion is to see the prices you pay. If oil suddenly goes to $4/gallon, we can assume that the world's oil supply is running short. If the price of iron ore goes up, we can assume that there's less iron ore, etc. If the price of ivory is going up, we can assume that we're shooting too many elephants.
Do you know how many new trees are grown in a year? Trees are a veryrenewable resource. That's whay paper, chairs, doors, etc., don't cost any more than they used to. On the other hand, if you look at a short-term nonrenewable resource like oil, the price of that is skyrocketing as the supply dwindles.
The price of wood products is not growing any faster than general inflation. There is no 'critical' deforestation. If anything, the price of paper is going down relative to other goods, because of how fast trees reproduce.
[/quote]

I have never said that deforestation is a crime, nor have I said that we are anywhere near an apocalypse due to a lack of resources. I have said that we need to keep a limit on our deforestation and think for the future.


[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
Every species competes with every other species over the resources they need. It's not inhumane; it's a biological fact. Nothing in the natural world 'deserves' to live; it only lives if its genes are good enough to. That's why people exist in the first place. The rules of 'civil' society were created because people realized everyone was better off from not killing/enslaving/robbing each other. But cutting down trees? No.
[/quote]

Humans are no long completely part of the natural world. We have different standards from a lion, pigeon, or lizard. We do not eat our meat raw or sleep in caves, and they do not operate computers or earn wages. No other creature on earth can think, work, or interact with others of the same species the way we do.

In the human world, success is determined by things like discipline, intelligence, and skill. In the wild, success is determined by strength, agility, and other physical characteristics.

The standards of a human and a wild creature are not interchangable. We cannot destroy the environment with the excuse that it is "survival of the fittest" because we are not wild animals.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
For every creature we find that cures cancer; we'll find a hundred that cause it.

Medical science is mostly the story of manmade chemicals triumphing over natural diseases, not vice versa.
[/quote]

Cancer isn't contagious, and the main causes of cancer1 have nothing to do with animals.


[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
...which can't be blamed on human activity, seeing as whale flatulence lets off more CO2 than all human industry in the world combined.
[/quote]

First of all, if you want to blame animals for a change in the climate, cows are actually the greatest producers of CO2 on earth. This is NOT the problem and was never a problem. Any animal's (including humans) releasing of CO2 is part of a cycle between the plants and animals. Cows convert plant matter into CO2, and plants convert the CO2 into oxygen via photosynthesis.

However, when humans take out carbon sources from the ground and burn it into CO2, which is released into the atmosphere, the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased, and the cycle is disrupted. Whatever you choose to believe, you cannot deny that the releasure of flatunence is no more than a necessary part of an environmental cycle. It does not add CO2 to the atmosphere. What is an issue is whether additional CO2 emissions from human industries will tip the balance and absorb enough sunlight to cause a significant change in the temperature.

We're already experiencing a few bad side-effects from this, anyway-yay for melting icecaps in the northern hemisphere.

Oh, and there's another reason to plant more trees and plants. Get rid of all the CO2 we're making. Woohoo. Yeah, I know, it's not as simple as that...although not chopping down so many forests would help.


So, yes, it can be and is blamed on all the human industries in the world combined.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
Could this be attributed to overfarming because people are living in poverty, because in third world countries, they aren't utilizing the environment enough? I think it could.[/quote]

Third world countries cannot afford to use things like soil enrichening fertilizer or lime. Soil erosion is attributed to overfarming due to growing populations in poor countries, but it isn't because they aren't utilizing the environment enough. In fact, overfarming leads to deforestation.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
Which isn't nearly as devastating as it used to be. Ever since Holland started putting up dykes in the 17th century, flooding has ceased to become a threat in the western world. The Allegheny flooded last year. I think a cat might've drowned. Maybe.
[/quote]

About 5 million people live in flood risk areas in England and Wales. We can always do better.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
The atmosphere's a big place, created over almost five billion years. The chemical makeup of the atmosphere has not changed significantly over the last 100 years. It's the same mix of nitrogen, oxygen, and trace elements that it's always been.
[/quote]

And of course global warming was caused by a divine force from above.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
So do 50% of the diseases that those medicines are supposed to cure. Smallpox and malaria, two of the biggest killers of humans in history, both originated from rainforest environments. Much of Africa is totally unusable because of the Tsetse flies that lurk in the jungles.

We have to look at both sides of everything. I can say that Stalin tripled agricultural production in the Soviet Union. But that doesn't mean he was a good person.
[/quote]

Even if we did destroy the rainforest, malaria flies would find a way to adapt. Destroying half the creatures that live on the earth isn't worth it.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
And who cut down those trees to build chairs, doors, closets, bedframes, tables, books, homes, tourist traps, etc. Funny how people are alike.
[/quote]

They have to utilize what they have, don't they? What do you expect them to do, live in caves and eat rocks? There's a difference between a village chopping logs to build cabins and a large industry cutting down forests by the acre.

Once again, just to clarify, I know deforestation is necessary, but we need to manage the speed and damage.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
Neither are really 'sins'. If you gamble or drink so much that you lose contorl of yourself and start hurting others, then it can become sinful, but friends playing a game of Texas Hold 'Em over beers are hardly sinners.
[/quote]

"...will not allow me to condone alchohol in zoos."

Gambling is as much of a sin as drinking.



[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
Survival skills that largely consist of killing other things.[/quote]

Many factors of the hunt and kill are missing in cagefights-sneaking up on prey, for example. When a mother lion teaches her young, the worst that can happen will be that the cub won't be able to catch his/her prey. The worst that can happen in a cagefight is a bloody, painful death which equals one less animal to release to the wild.

[quote=ComradeRed,Jul 29 2005, 8:19 AM]
But poaching and hunting are so fun!
[/quote]

If people don't have enough morals or intellect to not do only what entertains them, we're in trouble.



[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 28 2005, 10:47 PM]Should differing opinions of books and people stop us from interacting or learning from them? No person will ever base his entire opinion on one source.[/quote]

You forgot to reply.


1 Insufficient good quality protien or fat, excessive amounts of transfats from hydrogenated fat or refined oils, excessive amounts of poor quality protein from overcooking and processing of foods, lack of digestive enzymes, poisoned water or air, excessive ingestion of drugs, vitamin deficiencies, hormone imbalance, low thyroid, adrenal insufficiency, high estrogen, and a weak immune system from viruses or bacteria.

I see where your coming from. Many would think that zoo's are a cruel way to have an animal live. But your not seeing the large part of the issue. They do not keep these animals in cages in the sake of the entertainment business. Most or all of the animals in these exhibits are close to extinction. These animals are given a chance to live in these exhibits. Or other wise called SSP animals. SSP= Species Survival Plan. These animals are bred in captivity giving the species a chance of living. If they were thrown back into the wild, what chance do they have against the poachers. Elephants for example are a major target for poachers. There is a great amount of elephants that have been un-fairly killed just for their tusks. This is where the zoo comes in. They take these animals into their arms and give them the chance to live. Sure they are allowing us to look at them. But thats not why they are there. They are there saving their lives giving them a chance to survive.

Think about this, Say you were a animal perhaps a TIGER. Tigers are close to extinction. Tigers are taken into custody by poachers. They are skinned.USED as circus or battle animals against each other. Now think, would you rather stay in the wild because you THINK you would be more happy.. Or go into a zoo that treats you well. Communicates with you, teaches with you, and gives you a comfortable habitat to live in and help your species thrive? I think many would prefer the Zoo towards being killed for fur or to be thrown on to the ground as a throw rug.

Now tell me.. Do u still think that the zoo is wrong for trying to save the animals.

to know how animals really feel about being caged up all day having people stare at you. their should be a day where humans get caged up in public and peopel come and pay to watch them ahahahha.

"all thirteen colonies before the civil war"

you know there were more than 13 colonies before the civil war, right?

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]
The Civil War began after the Dred Scott case. So, as I said before, all 13 colonies legalized slavery before the Civil War.[/quote]

They didn't legalize slavery; the Federal government nullified their laws against slavery.

It's like medical marijuana. California didn't abolish it; the Federal government is preventing California from giving perscriptions.

In reality, the States managed to get around the Court decision by passing laws that made life so hard for a slave owner that no one dared to even try.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Is that the way you view the world? When you see something, do you think, "What can that do for me?" and nothing else? Do you think, "because that cannot help me, it does not deserve to live"?[/quote]

That's how everyone thinks. If you give money to a charity, you gain benefit from feeling better about yourself and the world--that's worth more than the money, so you do it.

There is nothing wrong with self-interest, or what I like to call "reason". Everyone acts to fulfill his preferences--these preferences may involve other people or just himself, but the fact remains that they are only his preferences.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Do homeless people pay their taxes?[/quote]

They would be legally bound to pay taxes on any money they earn.

If a blind person pays a homeless person to escort him somewhere, then the homeless person would pay taxes on that.

If a blind person pays a dog to do that, the dog would not pay taxes on it.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Do people in deep states of poverty pay their taxes? If not, should we slaughter them?[/quote]

Yes they do. They pay taxes on the money they earn; they pay taxes on things they buy -- we just give them back more than they pay in.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]What about children? Children don't pay their taxes.[/quote]

Have you ever heard of sales taxes?

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]If they should die before they reach the age of an adult, should they have not deserved to live? Robbers? Should we kill them immediately after they have stolen a television from a house because they have not upheld our laws?[/quote]

No, we punish them in accordance with our legal system. If they don't uphold a law, they are given a trial, and then have the obligation to serve the sentence in the trial.

If a robber robs me, I can sue him. I can't sue a dog that bites me.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Tourists don't pay taxes to the US; they pay taxes to their own country. Let us not allow them in our country, then.[/quotes]

Sales taxes? Hotel taxes? The Federal gas tax? Visa fees? Imposts? Duties? Tariffs?

There are more taxes than income taxes.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Dogs do not choose to live in the human's society; they choose to live in their own.[/quote]

Exactly; they aren't apart of human society, so human rules of conduct don't apply.

It's good etiquette for a man to pay for a date in China, but in Holland, the rule is that both pay for themselves. Thus, because the Dutch do not live in Chinese society, the Chinese are not bound by the rule of "guy pays" when they deal with Dutch people.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]We are the ones who take them in and buy them from stores as our companions. In their own societies or communities, relatives of the domestic dog (say wolves) treat each other by their own standards and their own rules. There is an alpha male. There is an alpha female. Pay the leader respect. Hunt in packs. If they stumble upon a human, do they have the right to kill that human for no reason whatsoever, merely because the human has not done anything for them and does not go by a wolf's standards?[/quote]

Of course; they do that all the time. Wolves were a major threat to farmers in ancient societies, because the wolves would attack their farms and their sheep.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Dogs help us in countless ways. They guide the blind. They are wonderful companions for little children, mature adults, and senior citizens alike. They'll cheer us up when we're down. They're nice pillows. (hah) They're loyal and supportive. There is a reason why they are called man's best friend.[/quote]

They're tasty. (j/k, but that was in line with your pillow comment)

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]You can point out millions of ways how dogs are terrible, but they were born on this earth the same way we were and we must have some amount of decency in us to not do whatever we want with all creatures that do not follow human standards.
Also, what do you mean by race and not species being scientifically invalid? Invalid in what?
I spy hypocrisy.[/quote]

Invalid in the fact that there's no scientific definition of a 'race', but a scientific definition of a species is clear--if two entites produce viable offspring, they're a species.

White and black people are the same species, for example, because they can mate and give birth to a viable offspring. People and dogs are not the same species, because they can't.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]If a guy decided to starve his cat and leave it to die in it's own feces, you could argue that not allowing that would be 'inhumane' for the guy, but
and consider the suffering of the cat, which is certainly not very humane. Most of us will agree that starving a creature in inappropriate living conditions is a harsher punishment than restricting a guy from his sadistic whims.[/quote]

Do you eat meat? Should the government ban you from eating meat? Certainly, if animals have rights, the right to life must exceed some guy's desire for more protein.

And while we're at it, why don't we ban vegetables too. Plant rights all the way.

And antibiotics--they kill living things by the billions.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]The root of the word humane comes from the latin root "hum", anyway, which means earth or ground. Human, humus, or exhume all have the same roots.
Like I have said, I support zoos that provide good living conditions for the animals.
How much time and money would it cost to build an oxygen bar in your backyard? How much for planting an oak tree seed?[/quote]

A small oxygen bar could fit in my house. A large oak tree could not.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Once again, we cannot view the world so cynically as to kill living things merely because they are unnecessary to us.[/quote]

Listerine?

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]I have never said that deforestation is a crime, nor have I said that we are anywhere near an apocalypse due to a lack of resources. I have said that we need to keep a limit on our deforestation and think for the future.[/quote]

We already have a limit--it's called price.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Humans are no long completely part of the natural world. We have different standards from a lion, pigeon, or lizard. We do not eat our meat raw or sleep in caves,[/quote]

But I love sushi!

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]and they do not operate computers or earn wages. No other creature on earth can think, work, or interact with others of the same species the way we do.[/quote]

A cheetah can run a lot faster than even the fastest humans. Should they be thus held accountable for it? Every species is different--people build computers and earn wages now because that's what we're good at. Cheetahs run because that's what they're good at.

It's a supreme act of arrogance to say that humans are somehow different from all other animals. Each species has its own method of survival, that may be better or worse suited for a particular environment. Evolution is about adaptation, not about 'progress'.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]In the human world, success is determined by things like discipline, intelligence, and skill. In the wild, success is determined by strength, agility, and other physical characteristics.[/quote]

In the wild, a discplined tiger that intelligently and skillfully lies in wait and stalks his prey has a better chance of surviving then a stronger and more agile one that bites everything in its path.

The traits needed for survival in people and animals are a lot more similar than you think.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]The standards of a human and a wild creature are not interchangable. We cannot destroy the environment with the excuse that it is "survival of the fittest" because we are not wild animals.[/quote]

We're still genetically animals. We have to be; we're not plants, or fungi, or protists, or bacteria, right?

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Cancer isn't contagious, and the main causes of cancer1 have nothing to do with animals.[/quote]

Cancer isn't contagious, but it can be caused by certain chemicals, which may be found in natural settings, can it not?

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]First of all, if you want to blame animals for a change in the climate, cows are actually the greatest producers of CO2 on earth. This is NOT the problem and was never a problem. Any animal's (including humans) releasing of CO2 is part of a cycle between the plants and animals. Cows convert plant matter into CO2, and plants convert the CO2 into oxygen via photosynthesis.

However, when humans take out carbon sources from the ground and burn it into CO2, which is released into the atmosphere, the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased, and the cycle is disrupted. Whatever you choose to believe, you cannot deny that the releasure of flatunence is no more than a necessary part of an environmental cycle. It does not add CO2 to the atmosphere. What is an issue is whether additional CO2 emissions from human industries will tip the balance and absorb enough sunlight to cause a significant change in the temperature.[/quote]

Once again, double standard. A cow's activities are considered 'natural', but somehow a human's aren't?

If you're saying that human industry tips the scale for CO2, I can make an equally good argument that cow flatulence tips the scale and we should wipe out all the cows.

In fact, my argument would be better, because you admit that there is more cow flatulence than industrial CO2. CO2 is CO2 no matter which way you cut it.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]We're already experiencing a few bad side-effects from this, anyway-yay for melting icecaps in the northern hemisphere.[/quote]

Too bad 99.7% of the world's total ice is in Antartica, very far away from the northern hemisphere.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Oh, and there's another reason to plant more trees and plants. Get rid of all the CO2 we're making. Woohoo. Yeah, I know, it's not as simple as that...although not chopping down so many forests would help.
So, yes, it can be and is blamed on all the human industries in the world combined.
Third world countries cannot afford to use things like soil enrichening fertilizer or lime. Soil erosion is attributed to overfarming due to growing populations in poor countries, but it isn't because they aren't utilizing the environment enough. In fact, overfarming leads to deforestation.[/quote]

Yes, and we can see the devastating effects of overfarming in Pennsylvania, which has higher food exports per capita than any country in the world.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]About 5 million people live in flood risk areas in England and Wales. We can always do better.[/quote]

About 2 million people live in flood risk areas in Western Pennsylvania. No one here has died form a flood in over a hundred and fifty years. There's a difference between a 'flood risk' and a 'flood death risk'.

Moreover, flood risks result from rivers. Floods have existed since the beginning of the world. Our argument is like saying "5 million people live near rivers. We can always do better."

The threat of global warming applies mainly to coastal flooding. River flooding is the result of usually too much rainfall or natural flux.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]And of course global warming was caused by a divine force from above.[/quote]

Yes; we like to call it "Thermodynamics".

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Even if we did destroy the rainforest, malaria flies would find a way to adapt. Destroying half the creatures that live on the earth isn't worth it.[/quote]

I'm not saying we should; my point is, far more people have been killed by rainforest diseases than have been saved by rainfoest medicines.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]They have to utilize what they have, don't they? What do you expect them to do, live in caves and eat rocks? There's a difference between a village chopping logs to build cabins and a large industry cutting down forests by the acre.[/quote]

Both involve improving your quality of life. I don't see what's wrong with that.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Once again, just to clarify, I know deforestation is necessary, but we need to manage the speed and damage.[/quote]

We already do that through the price market.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]"...will not allow me to condone alchohol in zoos."

Gambling is as much of a sin as drinking. [/quote]

No, no, compulsive gambling is as much of a sin as drunkeness. Drinking isn't a sin; people drink at weddings; and they even drink at liturgies. There's a difference between drinking and drunkenness, the same way there's a difference between playing Texas Hold 'Em (or betting on a cagefight every now and then) with good friends and using your and your spouses' welfare check to buy lottery tickets. (Although I'd rather them buy lottery tickets than say, crack)

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]Many factors of the hunt and kill are missing in cagefights-sneaking up on prey, for example.[/quote]

But that would involve discipline and intelligence. As you say yourself, those are human characteristics, and nature rewards just strength and agility--two things that can be tested in a cagefight very well.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]When a mother lion teaches her young, the worst that can happen will be that the cub won't be able to catch his/her prey.[/quote]

Hey, and guess what happens if you aren't able to catch your prey in the wild? You starve to death!

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]The worst that can happen in a cagefight is a bloody, painful death which equals one less animal to release to the wild.[/quote]

Starving to death is pretty painful IMHO...

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]If people don't have enough morals or intellect to not do only what entertains them, we're in trouble.
You forgot to reply.[/quote]

When did I say they shouldn't? Having cagefights and improving society are not mutually exclusive. I am perfectly capable of watching a cagefight on Sunday, and then going off to my doctoring/lawyering/businessing/engineering on Monday.

I think most people are.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]1 [size=1]Insufficient good quality protien or fat, excessive amounts of transfats from hydrogenated fat or refined oils, excessive amounts of poor quality protein from overcooking and processing of foods, lack of digestive enzymes, poisoned water or air,[/quote]

...result from living in the middle of the rainforest or other areas without Supermarkets.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]excessive ingestion of drugs, vitamin deficiencies,[/quote]

Good contradiction there.

It's a lot easier to get vitamins today then it has ever been in history. If you want to argue vitamin imbalance, that's fine, but with the advent of Centrum, vitamin deficiency is rare to nonexistent in developed countries.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]hormone imbalance,[/quote]

That contradicts with the drugs again. Not everyone is mentally well-balanced to begin with. Most hormone imbalances you can live with. If you really want to treat them go use some drugs.

But that's nothing new. People have been using drugs to treat depression for centuries.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]low thyroid,[/quote]

Ouch. It would have to depend on how low the thyroid is. Like, is it just a little bit low? Or does it crush the base of your neck? Or is it as far down as the top of your lungs? I've never heard of someone with a "low thyroid" before. They should really consider surgery for that kind of thing.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]adrenal insufficiency, high estrogen,[/quote]

Guys are whipped, and there are too many feminists. What else is new?

Although I severely doubt adrenal insufficiency--it seems we have too much adrenaline, because of all the stress and steroids of modern society.

[quote=ApocalypseAelis,Jul 30 2005, 10:43 AM]and a weak immune system from viruses or bacteria.[/quote]

And living closer to nature, where there are even more viruses and bacteria, will cure that... how?

Some parts of the debate were leaning away from the subject of zoos and abusing plant/animal life, so I'm going to try to push them back...



They didn't legalize slavery; the Federal government nullified their laws against slavery.

It's like medical marijuana. California didn't abolish it; the Federal government is preventing California from giving perscriptions.

In reality, the States managed to get around the Court decision by passing laws that made life so hard for a slave owner that no one dared to even try.


It doesn't matter what happened or didn't happen after the court decision. My point is, the laws we make are not always perfect or right. The court decision was against slavery, and that obviously was biased and wrong.

If there are not any laws that prevent animal abuse, there should be, and if there are any, they should be upheld.


That's how everyone thinks. If you give money to a charity, you gain benefit from feeling better about yourself and the world--that's worth more than the money, so you do it.

There is nothing wrong with self-interest, or what I like to call "reason". Everyone acts to fulfill his preferences--these preferences may involve other people or just himself, but the fact remains that they are only his preferences.arn.


You are overlooking the
"because that cannot help me, it does not deserve to live"
part.

Of course every should put themselves above the interests of others. But should everyone destroy and manipulate all living things that serve no use to them?


They would be legally bound to pay taxes on any money they earn.

If a blind person pays a homeless person to escort him somewhere, then the homeless person would pay taxes on that.

If a blind person pays a dog to do that, the dog would not pay taxes on it.


A blind person wouldn't pay a dog in the first place.

I find it ridiculous that it would be necessary for dogs and other animals to go by all our laws or pay taxes to be treated as living things.

Animals don't earn wages, have any use of money, understand anything about spending money, or need money. It is their owner's decision to keep them and pay for their food and shelter. They don't barge into our homes and demand to be taken care of. It doesn't add up to make animals pay taxes when we take them to live with us.


Dogs help us in little ways, differently than humans do. I have already mentioned this -

"Dogs help us in countless ways. They guide the blind. They are wonderful companions for little children, mature adults, and senior citizens alike. They'll cheer us up when we're down. They're nice pillows. (hah) They're loyal and supportive. There is a reason why they are called man's best friend.

You can point out millions of ways how dogs are terrible, but they were born on this earth the same way we were and we must have some amount of decency in us to not do whatever we want with all creatures that do not follow human standards."

Which you haven't responded to yet.


Yes they do. They pay taxes on the money they earn; they pay taxes on things they buy -- we just give them back more than they pay in.
Have you ever heard of sales taxes?


Exactly - homeless people are taking money from the government. So should we kill them?

And who pays the sales taxes for children? Their guardians. Who pays the sales taxes for animals? Their guardians.


No, we punish them in accordance with our legal system. If they don't uphold a law, they are given a trial, and then have the obligation to serve the sentence in the trial.
If a robber robs me, I can sue him. I can't sue a dog that bites me.


No; however, you can sue the dog's owner. If a child grows up spoiled and violent, whose fault is it? The parents'. If a zoo animal escapes from its cage and causes injury to the public, it will be the zoo's reputation that is hurt. It is the zookeeper's responsibility to see that the animals are taken care of.


Exactly; they aren't apart of human society, so human rules of conduct don't apply.

It's good etiquette for a man to pay for a date in China, but in Holland, the rule is that both pay for themselves. Thus, because the Dutch do not live in Chinese society, the Chinese are not bound by the rule of "guy pays" when they deal with Dutch people.
Of course; they do that all the time. Wolves were a major threat to farmers in ancient societies, because the wolves would attack their farms and their sheep.


Currently editing and responding to...


They're tasty. (j/k, but that was in line with your pillow comment)


That reminds me of when my mom complained to me about her mom eating the family dog. Blaargh. D:


Do you eat meat? Should the government ban you from eating meat? Certainly, if animals have rights, the right to life must exceed some guy's desire for more protein.

And while we're at it, why don't we ban vegetables too. Plant rights all the way.

And antibiotics--they kill living things by the billions.

Listerine?


You mean the right to life must exceed someone's right to food.

How long do you think you will last without eating? Two weeks? Maybe three? All creatures have to kill others to feed themselves-it's a natural process. If they don't, overpopulation occurs and the thriving species suffers in the end anyway.

If we all have the right to life, then surely we must have the right to eat.

Antibiotics are made to kill virulent microorganisms that thrive in our bodies. How many microogranisms are there living inside us? Millions and millions. Antibiotics kill off the microorganisms that harm us, and thereby save the rest of the microorganisms that live in our organs. Why do you think people fight wars if wars kill so many people? Because the good outweighs the bad in the end. (well, unless you lost the war, but antibiotics usually work.)

Same goes for the germ-killing Listerine.

Germs are a lower life form than humans, animals, or plants. They thrive in the millions; destroying some in our mouths won't affect their survival one bit. We treat different forms of life in different ways. The way we'll treat a cat should be different from the way we'll treat germs floating in a drop of water.


A small oxygen bar could fit in my house. A large oak tree could not.



Oak trees aren't the only plants that give off fresh oxygen. Roses, dandelions, grass, shrubs, and small trees will fit into a yard.

Oxygen bars usually cost about 60 dollars for an hour of service. Helping a plant grow costs way less. There's a significant difference between growing a garden and enjoying the free benefits and paying to sit in a chair with oxygen being pumped into you through a tube in your nose.

But I love sushi!

California rolls are the best. But I meant the chase a deer and chomp down on the leg you ripped off sort of raw meat.


A cheetah can run a lot faster than even the fastest humans. Should they be thus held accountable for it? Every species is different--people build computers and earn wages now because that's what we're good at. Cheetahs run because that's what they're good at.
In the wild, a discplined tiger that intelligently and skillfully lies in wait and stalks his prey has a better chance of surviving then a stronger and more agile one that bites everything in its path.

The traits needed for survival in people and animals are a lot more similar than you think.
We're still genetically animals. We have to be; we're not plants, or fungi, or protists, or bacteria, right?


Most animals with legs can run. Cheetahs are just faster.

Even if the traits needed for survival in people and animals were completely the same, they would still be utilized in completely different ways.

We are animals, but our species is more advanced than others.


It's a supreme act of arrogance to say that humans are somehow different from all other animals. Each species has its own method of survival, that may be better or worse suited for a particular environment. Evolution is about adaptation, not about 'progress'.


And yet it isn't a supreme act of arrogance to say that only humans should be treated with respect and kindness?

It isn't arrogant to say that humans are somehow different from all other animals. It's a plain, undisputed fact.

Our intelligence surpasses by far that of any other creature on earth. We have culture, we live in houses of brick and steel, our lives are ruled by a carefully built government, we have personalities, we have consciousness.


We cannot expect any other animal to act like us or understand our laws. This does not mean we shouldn't treat their lives with respect.


Once again, double standard. A cow's activities are considered 'natural', but somehow a human's aren't?

If you're saying that human industry tips the scale for CO2, I can make an equally good argument that cow flatulence tips the scale and we should wipe out all the cows.

In fact, my argument would be better, because you admit that there is more cow flatulence than industrial CO2. CO2 is CO2 no matter which way you cut it.
Too bad 99.7% of the world's total ice is in Antartica, very far away from the northern hemisphere.


and we can wipe out all animal life and hold in our gas until our fossil fuels run out. Then we're just going to have to hope our flatulence will be enough to balance the atmosphere, and the chances of that happening are less than Nader's were of winning the election.

Whether some human actions are 'natural' or not is a subject for another debate; let's not discuss it now.

Yes; we like to call it "Thermodynamics".

Thermodynamics explain relations of heat. What is the explaination of global warming? Increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.


Hey, and guess what happens if you aren't able to catch your prey in the wild? You starve to death!
Starving to death is pretty painful IMHO...


And yet, animals have somehow still not died out...guess a mother lion's pretty good at teacher her cubs.


When did I say they shouldn't? Having cagefights and improving society are not mutually exclusive. I am perfectly capable of watching a cagefight on Sunday, and then going off to my doctoring/lawyering/businessing/engineering on Monday.

I think most people are.

No, no, compulsive gambling is as much of a sin as drunkeness. Drinking isn't a sin; people drink at weddings; and they even drink at liturgies. There's a difference between drinking and drunkenness, the same way there's a difference between playing Texas Hold 'Em (or betting on a cagefight every now and then) with good friends and using your and your spouses' welfare check to buy lottery tickets. (Although I'd rather them buy lottery tickets than say, crack)


It is not right to treat an animal like a human. Humans are a higher life-form than a horse or dove. However, it is right to treat all life with respect. If we abuse and display cruelty towards animals, it will eventually become a human's nature to be violent and unkind towards each other. There's a reason why animal lovers are viewed by people as kindhearted people.


Texas Hold'em doesn't involve bloodshed.

I did not say that gambling was a sin! Nor have I said drinking was a sin! I myself have gambled before!

Gambling is as much of a sin as drinking.
Touching the ceiling is as much of a sin as touching the floor.
Eating chocolate cake is as much of a sin as drinking water.

You get it.


Guys are whipped, and there are too many feminists. What else is new?

Although I severely doubt adrenal insufficiency--it seems we have too much adrenaline, because of all the stress and steroids of modern society.
And living closer to nature, where there are even more viruses and bacteria, will cure that... how?

...result from living in the middle of the rainforest or other areas without Supermarkets.
Good contradiction there.

It's a lot easier to get vitamins today then it has ever been in history. If you want to argue vitamin imbalance, that's fine, but with the advent of Centrum, vitamin deficiency is rare to nonexistent in developed countries.
That contradicts with the drugs again. Not everyone is mentally well-balanced to begin with. Most hormone imbalances you can live with. If you really want to treat them go use some drugs.

But that's nothing new. People have been using drugs to treat depression for centuries.

Ouch. It would have to depend on how low the thyroid is. Like, is it just a little bit low? Or does it crush the base of your neck? Or is it as far down as the top of your lungs? I've never heard of someone with a "low thyroid" before. They should really consider surgery for that kind of thing.


I'm sorry; I was doing research on the causes of cancer and I came up with this website. It seemed to know what it was talking about, so I used it. Since a low thyroid isn't possible, the rest of the cancer information must be wrong too...

Cancer isn't contagious, but it can be caused by certain chemicals, which may be found in natural settings, can it not?

Natural settings? I thought you said before that anything natural was the result of animal or human activity. You're contradicting yourself.

Lung cancer from cigarettes and tobacco isn't you call natural.

Steering back to the topic at hand - the discussion on cancer came from benefits and injuries of the rainforest, which came from your suggestion of abortions in zoos.

Abortions in zoos aren't necessary. Animals aren't distressed or confused from growing up in an artificial home; zoos replicate their habitats very well. To abort all animals in zoos and just take more from the wild will destroy the whole point of zoos protecting endangered species. It'll just make animal populations suffer more.

Also, I'm still waiting for your response to

"Should differing opinions of books and people stop us from interacting or learning from them? No person will ever base his entire opinion on one source."



I do believe that was the longest post I've ever made in my entire life.

they are fed well, taken care of and interact with other animals. its like the wild. Sure its a smaller space, but usually it is no smaller then their territory in the wild.

It doesn't matter what happened or didn't happen after the court decision. My point is, the laws we make are not always perfect or right. The court decision was against slavery, and that obviously was biased and wrong.

Yes, it matters a lot. If someone makes you give them your money at gun point, it's THEIR fault that you gave them your money, not yours.

Similarly, if someone forces you to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, then slavery was THEIR fault, not yours. The Supreme Court undemocratically ruled slavery legal, whereas the majority of people in a majority of States thought that they did not want slavery in their state. Therefore, it wasn't a law that "we" (we implies democratic) made. At least not in the North.

If there are not any laws that prevent animal abuse, there should be, and if there are any, they should be upheld.

No there shouldn't. It's proven that animal rights and human rights go against each other. If you look at states with strict animal protection laws, like Maryland and Virginia, you'll also see that they have high taxes, use of the death penalty, less due process in their court systems, more crime, fewer guns, etc. Whereas states like New Hampshire with very little animal protection also tend to be "free states", where people's rights are best protected.

You are overlooking the
"because that cannot help me, it does not deserve to live"
part.

Of course every should put themselves above the interests of others. But should everyone destroy and manipulate all living things that serve no use to them?

That depends on the benefit they get from it.

A blind person wouldn't pay a dog in the first place.

I find it ridiculous that it would be necessary for dogs and other animals to go by all our laws or pay taxes to be treated as living things.

You don't want them to just be treated as living things, you want them to have equal rights under civil law. If you want equal rights under civil law, you should have equal responsibilities, correct?

To be treated as a "living thing" means the law of the jungle--survival of the fittest.

Animals don't earn wages, have any use of money, understand anything about spending money, or need money. It is their owner's decision to keep them and pay for their food and shelter. They don't barge into our homes and demand to be taken care of. It doesn't add up to make animals pay taxes when we take them to live with us.

A human can't claim a dog as a dependent for tax reasons. Remember the widow in England who left all her property to her cat? The cat can't pay inheritance taxes.

The fact is, animals do not have the same responsibilities under civil law; so if you want to give them civil protection, they have to have civil responsiblities. Like, if a dog bites me, I can sue it and put it in jail/force it to pay me compensation.

I know it's ridiculous, but that's the natural conclusion of your argument.

Dogs help us in little ways, differently than humans do. I have already mentioned this -

"Dogs help us in countless ways. They guide the blind. They are wonderful companions for little children, mature adults, and senior citizens alike. They'll cheer us up when we're down. They're nice pillows. (hah) They're loyal and supportive. There is a reason why they are called man's best friend.

You can point out millions of ways how dogs are terrible, but they were born on this earth the same way we were and we must have some amount of decency in us to not do whatever we want with all creatures that do not follow human standards."

Which you haven't responded to yet.

Yes I have. If they do not respond to human standards, they should not be treated as humans. Simple. The law of the jungle is survival of the fittest--this applies to everyone. The law of civil society depends on the society, and applies to the members of that society--who agree to follow its rules in exchange for its protections.

Exactly - homeless people are taking money from the government. So should we kill them?

The government is giving it to them. They aren't taking it away (taking implies using force--I don't see an army of homeless converging on DC). Through a democratic process, homeless people agree to be bound by our laws, and recieve our protections.

And who pays the sales taxes for children? Their guardians. Who pays the sales taxes for animals? Their guardians.

No, if an 8-year-old goes into a store to buy some candy, he pays sales tax on his own. If the guardian buys something FOR an 8-year-old, then they pay sales tax--but the thing they buy is technically their property.

No; however, you can sue the dog's owner. If a child grows up spoiled and violent, whose fault is it? The parents'.

Nope. We have a juvenile justice system alongside our normal one. Children don't have all the rights of adults (can't vote, can't bring a lawsuit, etc.), thus they dont have all the responsibilities. However, they still have SOME responsibilities (children are still expected to abide by laws like don't drink, can still get citations, and can still be thrown in jail or sued).

A dog, however, has NO responsibilites under civil law, and thus should have NO rights.

If a zoo animal escapes from its cage and causes injury to the public, it will be the zoo's reputation that is hurt. It is the zookeeper's responsibility to see that the animals are taken care of.

Then people won't go to that zoo anymore and the zoo will be out of business. So?

You mean the right to life must exceed someone's right to food.

You don't HAVE to eat meat to survive. And you don't HAVE to use Listerine--the right to life certainly overrides the right to be free from bad breath, does it not?

How long do you think you will last without eating? Two weeks? Maybe three? All creatures have to kill others to feed themselves-it's a natural process. If they don't, overpopulation occurs and the thriving species suffers in the end anyway.

Exactly--the law of the jungle, which is the natural state of life.

Antibiotics are made to kill virulent microorganisms that thrive in our bodies. How many microogranisms are there living inside us? Millions and millions. Antibiotics kill off the microorganisms that harm us, and thereby save the rest of the microorganisms that live in our organs. Why do you think people fight wars if wars kill so many people? Because the good outweighs the bad in the end. (well, unless you lost the war, but antibiotics usually work.)

Same goes for the germ-killing Listerine.

Most germs that Listerine kill cause nothing more than bad breath.

And most antibiotics kill ALL bacteria, not just the bad ones. That's why, when you take a strong antibiotic, you also have to take a probiotic, such as certain kinds of yogurt, that replenish the good bacteria with new ones from outside.

Germs are a lower life form than humans, animals, or plants.

So what makes animals equal to humans?

They thrive in the millions;

So do ants. And most animals, as a matter of fact.

destroying some in our mouths won't affect their survival one bit.

Collectively, no, but individually, yes. The individual is more important than the collective--the Nazis didn't come close to wiping out the Jewish people, but we still remember them as evil people because they killed so many individual Jews.

We treat different forms of life in different ways. The way we'll treat a cat should be different from the way we'll treat germs floating in a drop of water.

And the way we treat a cat should be different from the way we treat a human, should it not?

Oak trees aren't the only plants that give off fresh oxygen. Roses, dandelions, grass, shrubs, and small trees will fit into a yard.

And cause allergies.

Oxygen bars usually cost about 60 dollars for an hour of service. Helping a plant grow costs way less. There's a significant difference between growing a garden and enjoying the free benefits and paying to sit in a chair with oxygen being pumped into you through a tube in your nose.

Well, by the time you pay for all the allergy drugs you're going to need because of the small plants, they won't.

California rolls are the best. But I meant the chase a deer and chomp down on the leg you ripped off sort of raw meat.

Some people eat their steaks rare. And how do you think people lived before the advent of Denny's?

Most animals with legs can run. Cheetahs are just faster.

And we've taught really smart chimpanzees to type. All animals with fingers can type--humans are just better at it.

Even if the traits needed for survival in people and animals were completely the same, they would still be utilized in completely different ways.

We are animals, but our species is more advanced than others.

What makes it more advanced? Evolution is adaptation, not progress. If we were stuck in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and so was a blue whale, guess who would have the better chance of surviving?

And yet it isn't a supreme act of arrogance to say that only humans should be treated with respect and kindness?

I'm saying only humans should be treated with respect and kindness by other humans because it's an agreement within humans. I'm not saying that other species are not free to make the same civil agreement within themselves. Like prides of lions and packs of chimpanzees treat other members of their prides/packs with respect and kindness--because they have entered into a civil society, of sorts, where each member agrees to act a certain way to others in exchange that others act a certain way towards him.

We do NOT have that same social contract with animals.

It isn't arrogant to say that humans are somehow different from all other animals. It's a plain, undisputed fact.

And Chimpanzees are different from all other animals. And Zebras. And Horses. And Cats. And Ants. And Snakes. And the list goes on and on...

Of course we're different, I'm not saying we aren't, but you can't also say that we're somehow objectively more "advanced". Every animal is different in some way from every other animal. We've just adapted better to a technological society.

Our intelligence surpasses by far that of any other creature on earth. We have culture, we live in houses of brick and steel,

We're smarter. So what? The African Swift's flying speed vastly surpasses any other creature on Earth. The blue whale's size vastly surpasses any other creature on Earth. So what? It just means they've adapted better to their surroundings, not that they're more advanced.

A debater is better at debating than a basketball player, who is better at basketball. Who is more advanced? Neither--the debater is just better adapted to a debate, and the basketball player better adapted to a basketball game.

The same applies, on a much greater scale, for all species.

our lives are ruled by a carefully built government,

Most of the world would disagree.

we have personalities, we have consciousness.

So if animals don't have personalities or consciousnesses, why does it matter how they are treated? They can't think or feel or know how they are being treated.

We cannot expect any other animal to act like us or understand our laws. This does not mean we shouldn't treat their lives with respect.

If they aren't going to abide by our laws that say respect each other, then they cannot enjoy the protection of said laws. Simple. A pride of tigers might very well attack and eat a human being, even though they wouldn't attack and eat each other, because a human doesn't belong to their society, isn't bound by its [informal] laws, and thus isn't protected by them.

and we can wipe out all animal life and hold in our gas until our fossil fuels run out. Then we're just going to have to hope our flatulence will be enough to balance the atmosphere, and the chances of that happening are less than Nader's were of winning the election.

I didn't say that was a good idea; I just brought it up to show how ridiculous your argument that people were responsible for "tipping the scale" was.

Thermodynamics explain relations of heat. What is the explaination of global warming? Increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Thermodynamics can also explain natural climate flux coming from things like the sun burning its energy at a slightly faster rate because there's less energy left, etc.

The ONLY human-caused heating occurs in large cities, which is called the "urban heat island effect", due to the large population density. One of the reasons our measurements are so exaggerated is because most measuring stations are within these heat islands. Measuring Manhattan between 1700 and 2000 will show an increase in heat, but measuring a field in Iowa will not. The fact that most weather stations are in or near big cities throw off the averages, and make the statistics uncredible.

And yet, animals have somehow still not died out...guess a mother lion's pretty good at teacher her cubs.

Or she just has so many of them that it doesn't matter that most of them die. There are different evolutionary survival methods. Turtles, for example, might lay dozens or hundreds of eggs, so even though most die off, a few survive.

It is not right to treat an animal like a human.

Is this not what I have been saying?

Humans are a higher life-form than a horse or dove. However, it is right to treat all life with respect.

Yet you support Listerine, which kills trillions of harmless bacteria, just so we can impress girls more.

If we abuse and display cruelty towards animals, it will eventually become a human's nature to be violent and unkind towards each other.

No it's not. The vast majority of people who torture animals as a kid grow up to be well-adjusted people.

There's a reason why animal lovers are viewed by people as kindhearted people.

Actually, most people view "animal lover" organizations like PETA as paramilitary thugs. If you don't believe me, check this out. Would a "kindhearted person" write that?

Texas Hold'em doesn't involve bloodshed.

Billy the Kid would disagree.

I'm sorry; I was doing research on the causes of cancer and I came up with this website. It seemed to know what it was talking about, so I used it. Since a low thyroid isn't possible, the rest of the cancer information must be wrong too...

Well, I've proved that those causes of cancer are mostly results from living too close to nature, so you just torpedoed your own argument there.

(Also I think they meant low Thyroxin, the hormone secreted by teh Thyroid; but low Thyroxin would just give you a lower metabolism, I don't see the connection to cancer. Whatever.)

Natural settings? I thought you said before that anything natural was the result of animal or human activity. You're contradicting yourself.

Natural setting sans humans. Just a slip.

Lung cancer from cigarettes and tobacco isn't you call natural.

Tobacco comes out of the Earth. It was entirely possible to get chewing tobacco a million years ago.

Now, if you want to argue asbestos or something, that's different. But the amount of cancer recieved from asbestos is tiny compared to the amount gotten from non-human made sources.

Steering back to the topic at hand - the discussion on cancer came from benefits and injuries of the rainforest, which came from your suggestion of abortions in zoos.

Abortions in zoos aren't necessary. Animals aren't distressed or confused from growing up in an artificial home; zoos replicate their habitats very well. To abort all animals in zoos and just take more from the wild will destroy the whole point of zoos protecting endangered species. It'll just make animal populations suffer more.

Okay then zoos are good. Good.

"Should differing opinions of books and people stop us from interacting or learning from them? No person will ever base his entire opinion on one source."

No, beacuse I didn't see what relevance that had. We can 'interact with' and 'learn from' animals all the time--as we are doing in zoos, and as we would do from watching them cagefight.

Yes, it matters a lot. If someone makes you give them your money at gun point, it's THEIR fault that you gave them your money, not yours.

Similarly, if someone forces you to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, then slavery was THEIR fault, not yours. The Supreme Court undemocratically ruled slavery legal, whereas the majority of people in a majority of States thought that they did not want slavery in their state. Therefore, it wasn't a law that "we" (we implies democratic) made. At least not in the North.


It does not matter. The Supreme Court made a wrong decision, which goes with my point of the law making mistakes at times. It does not matter whose fault it is, it matters on what the result of the actions are.


No there shouldn't. It's proven that animal rights and human rights go against each other. If you look at states with strict animal protection laws, like Maryland and Virginia, you'll also see that they have high taxes, less due process in their court systems, more crime, fewer guns, etc. Whereas states like New Hampshire with very little animal protection also tend to be "free states", where people's rights are best protected.


Ever heard of something called correlation without causality? Today, I opened my window, and someone else opened their window! Wow, I must have some special power that influences other people to open their windows when I open mine.

Please, enlighten us on how exactly human rights are harmed by animal rights.

I'm guessing you'll say that if we give animals more rights, the rights for humans will go down.

Well, I could say that the rights of other people bring down the value and meaning of my rights. Does this mean they shouldn't have rights?


That depends on the benefit they get from it.


I do not benefit from the homeless bum that sometimes passes by my house. I guess that means I should randomly strangle him while getting the mail.

You don't want them to just be treated as living things, you want them to have equal rights under civil law. If you want equal rights under civil law, you should have equal responsibilities, correct?


No, it would not be right for them to have equal rights. I never said that.

The right to a good life isn't limited to only humans, you know.


A human can't claim a dog as a dependent for tax reasons. Remember the widow in England who left all her property to her cat? The cat can't pay inheritance taxes.

The fact is, animals do not have the same responsibilities under civil law; so if you want to give them civil protection, they have to have civil responsiblities. Like, if a dog bites me, I can sue it and put it in jail/force it to pay me compensation.

I know it's ridiculous, but that's the natural conclusion of your argument.

No, it isn't, because my argument isn't about giving them the same rights as any human has. My argument is that they should be protected at least to the point that people give them suitable living conditions. (i.e. shelter, enough food and water, a large enough living space) YOUR argument is that we should have the right to use animals in whatever way we like because they aren't humans.


Yes I have. If they do not respond to human standards, they should not be treated as humans. Simple.

Please point out exactly where I have said that dogs should be treated as humans.


The law of the jungle is survival of the fittest--this applies to everyone. The law of civil society depends on the society, and applies to the members of that society--who agree to follow its rules in exchange for its protections.

No, it does not apply to everyone. Humans do not abide by the "law of the jungle", we abide by our own laws of our civil society-like you said. The "law of the jungle" has nothing to do with human traits and behaviorisms.


The government is giving it to them. They aren't taking it away (taking implies using force--I don't see an army of homeless converging on DC). Through a democratic process, homeless people agree to be bound by our laws, and recieve our protections.

Dogs require less money and rights from the government than homeless people. If we can accept laws protecting the homeless, we can accept laws protecting animals.


No, if an 8-year-old goes into a store to buy some candy, he pays sales tax on his own.

Actually, 8-year-olds are incapable of earning their own money. An eight-year-old cannot pay the sales tax from the cash in his own pocket. He depends on his human family to support him, the same way a dog does. If you're talking about the child's ability to go to the store, well, some dogs can be trained to do that too.

If the guardian buys something FOR an 8-year-old, then they pay sales tax--but the thing they buy is technically their property.

If the guardian buys something FOR a dog, then they pay sales tax--but the thing they buy is technically their property.


Nope. We have a juvenile justice system alongside our normal one. Children don't have all the rights of adults (can't vote, can't bring a lawsuit, etc.), thus they dont have all the responsibilities. However, they still have SOME responsibilities (children are still expected to abide by laws like don't drink, can still get citations, and can still be thrown in jail or sued).

A dog, however, has NO responsibilites under civil law, and thus should have NO rights.


Under civil law.

Since when was kindness and reason part of only civil law?

If an animal attacks you, it will be euthanized. This has happened many times before. If it is not fit to live among humans, humans can and will kill it or get rid of it somehow.

Then people won't go to that zoo anymore and the zoo will be out of business. So?


You pointed out a way dogs do not adhere to the laws of our society. I pointed out that a dog owner would be responsible for his pet's actions. The zoo was an example.


You don't HAVE to eat meat to survive. And you don't HAVE to use Listerine--the right to life certainly overrides the right to be free from bad breath, does it not?


I have said before, the way we treat germs should be different from the way we treat animals, the same way how we treat animals should be different from the way we treat each other.


Exactly--the law of the jungle, which is the natural state of life.


We’re not talking about the “law of the jungle” right now. We’re talking about the behavior of the human society.


Most germs that Listerine kill cause nothing more than bad breath.

And most antibiotics kill ALL bacteria, not just the bad ones. That's why, when you take a strong antibiotic, you also have to take a probiotic, such as certain kinds of yogurt, that replenish the good bacteria with new ones from outside.


“I have said before, the way we treat germs should be different from the way we treat animals, the same way how we treat animals should be different from the way we treat each other.”


So what makes animals equal to humans?
And the way we treat a cat should be different from the way we treat a human, should it not?


When did I say that they were equal to humans, or that we should treat them exactly the same way?


So do ants.

And most animals, as a matter of fact.

The same goes for humans. But that doesn't mean our lives are worth less than a sparrow's life. We don't base the value of life on only the population of that creature.

Collectively, no, but individually, yes. The individual is more important than the collective--the Nazis didn't come close to wiping out the Jewish people, but we still remember them as evil people because they killed so many individual Jews.

A Jewish person is more important than a germ floating on a taste bud. You can't compare washing your mouth to a mass genocide. A germ's life is to be treated differently from a human's.

And cause allergies.

Cats cause allergies, too. And yet there are 60 million of them living in the US as pets.

Well, by the time you pay for all the allergy drugs you're going to need because of the small plants, they won't.

If someone has allergies, then the obvious solution would be to buy an air purifier. I didn't say it should be necessary for all people to grow a garden. Only about a tenth of all Americans have pollen allergies, and nobody's going to die because their neighbor has a rose in their living room.

And we've taught really smart chimpanzees to type. All animals with fingers can type--humans are just better at it.

Okay, say I agree with you that animals are equal to humans. So I guess they must be entitled to equal rights. Great job with that major contradiction.

Can a smart chimpanzee identify all the words he is typing? Can he type a formal letter to his friends and have conversations on this forum? You can also teach a bear to wear a tutu and dance with a parasol, but it doesn't make it equivalent to a human performer.



What makes it more advanced? Evolution is adaptation, not progress. If we were stuck in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and so was a blue whale, guess who would have the better chance of surviving?

In case you've forgotten, adaptation=progress.


I'm saying only humans should be treated with respect and kindness by other humans because it's an agreement within humans. I'm not saying that other species are not free to make the same civil agreement within themselves. Like prides of lions and packs of chimpanzees treat other members of their prides/packs with respect and kindness--because they have entered into a civil society, of sorts, where each member agrees to act a certain way to others in exchange that others act a certain way towards him.

We do NOT have that same social contract with animals.


By "respect and kindness" I don't mean the kind where if you see a lion, you greet it nicely and make room for it to eat and pat it on the back. By "respect and kindness" I mean not killing a lion for sport or capturing it and torturing it, but leaving it alone. In that sense, then yes, we do have a sort of social contract with animals. Except it's not a social contract, it's common sense. A lion's not going to spot a human and purposely scratch it to death to ensure pain. A lion will spot food, hunt it down, and eat it, the same way some tribes in Africa might hunt down some animal to cook for dinner. It doesn't have anything to do with respect and kindness if an animal eats another animal.


And Chimpanzees are different from all other animals. And Zebras. And Horses. And Cats. And Ants. And Snakes. And the list goes on and on...

Of course we're different, I'm not saying we aren't, but you can't also say that we're somehow objectively more "advanced". Every animal is different in some way from every other animal. We've just adapted better to a technological society.


Okay, so now you're saying we are equal to animals, yet we should still have the right to abuse and torture them. Hm. Something doesn't add up here.

Most of the world would disagree.

This has nothing to do with the topic of the way we treat animals!

So if animals don't have personalities or consciousnesses, why does it matter how they are treated? They can't think or feel or know how they are being treated.

Correction-they don't know WHY they are being treated that way. However, they do have a nervous system that allows them to feel pain. They do have organs that can be damaged. They do have a life.

Although their consciousness/personalities are less complex than ours, they will respond differently to a person who treats them with love and kindness and to a person who brutally beats and starves them. Trust me, any animal would run straight away from someone like you.


If they aren't going to abide by our laws that say respect each other, then they cannot enjoy the protection of said laws. Simple. A pride of tigers might very well attack and eat a human being, even though they wouldn't attack and eat each other, because a human doesn't belong to their society, isn't bound by its [informal] laws, and thus isn't protected by them.

Murderers are ruthless, evil things that cause much more harm than the common house cat. Yet we still give them rights and we still give them a court case for them to speak for themselves. Why? Because we are a civil society. We have progressed from the time of the Aztecs, where almost every crime resulted in bodily mutilation, instant death, or severe corporal punishment. We know how to seperate the right from the wrong.

I didn't say that was a good idea; I just brought it up to show how ridiculous your argument that people were responsible for "tipping the scale" was.

It's not ridiculous at all; I just typed out why a cycle with animal flatulence and plants would work and not a cycle with CO2 factory emissions wouldn't. People are responsible, anyway. Animals release the right amount of CO2 into the atmosphere; when we put in factory emissions several million years later, we can't say it's not OUR fault for disrupting a natural cycle in which the CO2 emissions has already been taken care of.

Animals cause problems, that's a given. Bears can attack people and dogs can have aggression issues. We can deal with these problems. If an animal can't survive with our society, we will solve it with no difficulty. But we need to maintain our humanity. We can't senselessly slaughter living things with no reason.


Or she just has so many of them that it doesn't matter that most of them die. There are different evolutionary survival methods. Turtles, for example, might lay dozens or hundreds of eggs, so even though most die off, a few survive.


And all of those different evolutionary survival methods work better than cagefights.

Is this not what I have been saying?

You have been saying that it is right for us to abuse animals.

Animals should not have the laws and rights we have. Their lives should, however, be respected.


Yet you support Listerine, which kills trillions of harmless bacteria, just so we can impress girls more.


I have already said this at least three times before.

Different forms of life should be treated with varying levels of respect.

No it's not. The vast majority of people who torture animals as a kid grow up to be well-adjusted people.

If these well adjusted people still view killing living things as amusing and acceptable, they're not really that well-adjusted.


Actually, most people view "animal lover" organizations like PETA as paramilitary thugs. If you don't believe me, check this out. Would a "kindhearted person" write that?

I don't view PETA as a exemplary animal rights organization. Although their intentions may be good, they're way too extreme, and are wrong on many subjects. Even though the link you provided doesn't work for me, I'm pretty sure it leads to a very biased article.

If you want to see better organization with clearer heads, try the WWF.

Billy the Kid would disagree.

Billy the Kid also shot people.

...remind me what this has to do with animal rights again…


Well, I've proved that those causes of cancer are mostly results from living too close to nature, so you just torpedoed your own argument there.

(Also I think they meant low Thyroxin, the hormone secreted by teh Thyroid; but low Thyroxin would just give you a lower metabolism, I don't see the connection to cancer. Whatever.)

How did I just kill my own argument? We just agreed the information was unreliable.

No, beacuse I didn't see what relevance that had. We can 'interact with' and 'learn from' animals all the time--as we are doing in zoos, and as we would do from watching them cagefight.

If you read back a few posts, you'll see that I already agreed with you on that and the point I was making has nothing to do with interaction with zoos.

You also have to look at why the animals are there. Some animals are there for protection...or have been saved from things that would have killed them. Also, if we can get our hands on an endangered species and try to breed them out of endangeredness, is that not also helpful in anyway??