I just wanted to put out the Christian spin on it, so if you dont believe in Christianity or hate us or will jsut make fun of us, then jsut stop here for politeness sake...

Christians believe God put animals here for our use. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they did not need animals. they were nude and ate only fruit and animals were not needed. But after they ate of the forbidden fruit, and realized they wrere naked and were ashamed of their nudity, God took an anima, killed it, skinned it, and gave them the skin to wear. Animals were needed.

So I think animals are still needed for human use, and if you want to be vegaterian thats your choice if you really love animals or sumthing. I also believe that all animals go to heaven, not the same way as people do with believing in Jesus and everything, maybe because of their sacrifice (totally off the cuff and not straight from the Bible so don't kill me). So yeah, all dogs go to heaven!

Lots of love,
Lynne

to strangelove... i was wondering the same thing..

to darkangel.... yes many people feel very strongly about this issue, from both sides.. however many people simply use emotion and not the truth when deciding how they feel about this topic... the truth is that the amount of cruelty in this industry is very minimal compared to what many people would like for you to believe.. also many people would like you to think that animal testing has not and does not really help... which is VERY VERY untrue....

granted in a perfect world, there would be no need for animal testing, however this is not a perfect world.. and right now animal testing IS NEEDED and does help...

animal rights is a joke.. remember that.. animal welfare is the way to go.. it is funny, but most of the "VICTORIES" claimed by Animal rights groups, are animal welfare victories.. and animal welfare groups have done far more to help animals than ANY animal rights group...

also animal rights is based in lies and hypocrisies... which leads me to your vegetarian question...

if you are going vegetarian to help animals... don't.. you are not doing a thing.. if you are going vegetarian because it makes you feel better because you like animals then i say go veg!!

the truth is that if you go veg you will still be directly responsible for the deaths of animals for your diet... millions of animals die for a vegetarian diet as well, you just don't see them nor their end product...so it is truthfully only a false sense of higher morality..

if you are going veg, for personal heath reasons, consult a doctor before you do..going veg might be better or worse for you.. it can be VERY healthy being vegetarian just as it can be eating a balanced diet that includes meat.. find out which is best for you.. what i'm saying is don't believe the hype... there is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian.. it can be a very healthy way to live.. not the most healthy diet for everyone, or anyone but it can be very healthy... look at the reason you want to go veg and see if the reason is valid... heck post it here and we will help you with the facts..

good luck with your choice..

I can see a bunch of you feel very passionate about this topic and I never really realized how cruely these animals are treated. I'm acually considering becoming a vegetarian what do you guys think???

Ok now it's been a few weeks, and gemeni has made several other posts. I'm wondering why none have been made in here...

what... no witty retort?

to drstrangelove... no problem

and something i failed to respond to was the original post..

actually it is HIGHLY REGULATED.. sorry to burst your bubble... and there are more laws regarding experimentation on primates than any other group of animal(excluding humans).. also the overwhelming majority of testing is done on small rodents, not dogs, monkeys etc.. yes they are used but it is more the rats, mice, and other small rodents that are involved in testing...

personally i do not think there is a need anymore for ANY TYPE of cosmetic testing.. years ago, yes but now they have pretty much found out what ingredients can affect humans.. so it is unneeded...

"a lot of testing on animals is also done for medicines. i feel this is not only cruel, but pointless. only testing on humans can ensure that the medicine is safe for humans. besides, animals will in no way benefit from the medicines they are "helping" with. is it fair that they should suffer for humans?"

this entire statement is more or less untrue.. are you forgetting that many cures have come from animal testing? many people say that testing on animals does nothing and we should test on people.. well guess what...animal testing does many things and guess what again, we already do tsst on humans.. before a drug can be released not only does the drug have to be tested(in some cases) on animals in the beginning but they must have human trials as well!!! granted every pill you take has been lot tested on animals as well...

and many many animals beneifit from the drugs methods etc, tested on animals.. where do you think all those drugs the vet gives your pets came from? also surgical procedures used on animals came from animal tests... so once again i see the AR lying machine has been doing its job.. take it from me they are wrong....

in a perfect world no animal tests would be needed, but this is not a perfect world, so we have to understand why these things happen and make them as bearable as possible for the animals.. you should read up on the laws that govern animal testing and compare them to the crap that AR groups spout off.. you would be amazed.. animal slaughter as well...

im not sure i take back what i said about that.

tigercats:

I am forever sorry for screwing up your gender, lol. Somewhere along the line i got the idea that you were female and never checked you profile to confirm it
What can i say other than- Whoops

damn I learned a lot today reading this board.

first off to drstrangelove.. thanks for backing me up except for one thing... i'm a guy.. LOL

now for gemini, you keep trying to avoided everything by saying i am attacking you, but i am simply attacking the load of BS you keep spreading over this topic.. you have yet to make many correct statements and it is much fun watching you backpedal and inadvertently catching your self in your own web of untruths...

let's see the adaptation argument has been covered not only by me but by other.. so no need to rehash something that we both know you were incorrect about..

"I'm sorry to hear that. I actually LOOKED UP what I wanted for verification. These are facts, and you're laughing at them? Try researching some things before you let your arrogant self get the best of you."

well if you actually read what you "looked up" you would have seen that i was correct.

"It's not just me; look it up yourself. I'll be happy to provide sources"

sorry i have been working with chimps for many years and it is a fact that YOU are the one lacking knowledge of them. and basically you could not dispute what i said about them.. also Jane Goodall in her new documentary shows on tape and discusses her findings that many times chimps would travel miles to simply ambush chimps and other monkeys from other colonies and brutally kill them "even though these other colonies posed NO THREAT to their group, the groups survival or their food sources... they simply wanted to go and attack the other animals... now are you going to be so absurd as to say that you know more than a woman that has studied chimps for decades and is considered one of if the most respected chimp expert on the planet? she goes on to state that the chimps would walk miles out of their territory and hide and wait for a SINGLE chimp then ambush it.. they were seen twisting limbs until they came off, tearing the fur and skin off of the victim while it was still alive and using sticks and rocks to beat the lone chimp to a bloody death, then scream with excitement and leave... ALL for no known reason, she also says and i quote, "it is like they just enjoyed it"

as far as cats try looking up work from behavior experts, that are very well respected such as Diana Guererro. they have done many studies on this topic.

"It was relevant since you claimed that dogs only love their owners because they're part of the pack"

making things up again? Nope i never claimed that...

"Once again, fully read my post before rambling on about what you don't know:"

it seems to me(and now others) that it is you and you only that is rambling on about things you don't know.. and by the way it seems that it is you and only you that can't seem to grasp what has been posted on this board.

"Hello? That was my point. We don't KNOW."

well that is my point to!! geez, let me speak slowly, you... are... not... arguing... fact!
you... are... arguing... "what ifs"!!!

"No, it's not. My argument is that people might not be the smartest animals in the world because there might be an improvement showing that animals with our level of intellect do exist. Your fast car analogy is irrelevant because you're basing it on completely different hypothetical situations."

how so? explain....

"But saying that humans are the smartest animals because no other animal is as advanced as us is bogus, which is why I'm forced to ask hypothetical scenarios. I don't believe that we're the smartest, because there COULD BE animals that are just as intelligent as us."

dear god.. are you really this obtuse?? you are arguing something that (A) is irrelevant and
(B)can not be argued.. if you can't grasp that by now you are a lost cause...

"You insinuate that the human mind has no limits.. yet other animals' minds do? Humans are animals, so that's a contradiction in terms. Understand?"

making more things up i see... please show me where i said this in any form..

"How much would you like to bet?"

i will bet anything you want to bet..

"I've GIVEN you fact, and I incorporate my PERSONAL opinion, hence the term debate. Asking theoretical questions is a part of science. You're acting so immature. Debate nicely or don't bother replying."

fist you have NOT given facts, you have ONLY GIVEN OPINION... true asking theoretical questions is part of science, but arguing them as FACT is not.. and that is what you like to do.. you like you argue things that can't be proven or disproved because you know that if you do this you can't lose.. therefore you use it as your safety rope..

"Yes. I'm an alien. Let me waste my debating about that."

i see you realized that that argument was just as silly as your "what if" facts.

"I'm not making drastic claims. It's been proven that animals have high levels of intelligence and do have common sense. If you deny that, then I'd have to question your entire argument."

no you are making claims that CAN'T be proven, and i am arguing fact.. i have never once said that animals are not intelligent nor have common sense(so to speak) yet they are not as intelligent as humans.. that is my argument, why must you try and add and twist what has been said? maybe because you can't deny it?

"Will you READ my posts fully? I never claimed dogs could be smarter than humans. But they ARE smart animals, and have an advanced intellect. You're obviously mistaken if you deny that."

ok your right i will rephrase my statement.. it is not possible that dogs could be AS SMART as humans.. actually pigs are smarter than the average dog...

as far as vegan/vegetarian... even in your own PROOF to show that i was wrong it mentions that vegan diets need supplements.. also did you check out what the AMA has to say?

"Then explain to me in detail how horrible these animals are treated, as opposed to the cruel, unsanitary conditions in slaughter houses."

you do know animals are not kept at slaughterhouses for any length of time right?

let me ask you this, would you rather be killed by being run over by a machine with sharp spinning blades and be hacked to pieces and left to die a slow agonizing death or shot in the head and die instantly?

"How many animals are killed for vegetarian/vegan diets than for diets including meat?"

strangelove posted some sources supporting exactly what i have said.. (thanks strangelove)

"And 60-75% of all chickens sent to the slaughterhouses are still very young. Again, that's a fact. LOOK it up for yourself."

i was simply correcting your broad based statement that implied that all chickens for slaughter were sent at that age... which they are not.. many but not all

"Support your claims; until then, you destroy all possible credibility for your argument."

i have supported my claims, and now thay have been supported by other people and credible sources, your turn....

"I’ve worked in animal shelters, volunteered in animal aid, helped care for abused animals, and I take care of my own animals. That’s my experience. I’ve been around animals my entire life and I treat them as equals."

good for you.. seriously!!! but you still have yet to come anywhere near my first hand experience. not bragging but would you rather be told how to fix a car by some one who has worked on them for years and years or someone that just learned oil changes? that's my point.

"I wouldn’t be surprised if you bred chickens and slaughtered them yourself just for pleasure."

good one.. you are so witty..

"Ever since you were ten years of age, eh? Yes, and I'm sure you had a full career then and were up-to-date with all animal technology, and hey, you probably created some scientific theories on how humans are smarter, right? Yes, no more BS, please."

yep since ten.. my entire family has been involved with animals since i was born.. they did training rescue and wildlife rehab.. when i was ten it was my job to care for the healing and healed animals.. also to train and junior handle our dogs.. lets see i was caring for opossums, birds, raccoons, snakes, bobcats, cougars,foxes, ground hogs, beavers etc at ten.. what animals were you working with at ten? as far as scientific theories no i haven't created any yet and probaly wont.. and i was up on the technology at the time for caring and working with animals... well as much as i could be at that age... and the only BS here has come from you...

"Incorrect statements? No, they're fact."

call them what you want to, but here in the real world they would be called incorrect.

(peta)"They do, in fact, help more animals then hurt them."

don't know much about PETA either it seems.. they almost help NO animals first hand... as a matter of fact they have a higher rate of killing animals than most of the shelters in virginia.. try reading up on them as well..

"Haha, sorry. I couldn't help but laugh. If you did all of this and still do, I don't see how you could be so ignorant."

ignorant.. to funny.. i guess you have something against the truth well at least that's what it looks like...

"If you're being honest, then you've done much more than me.. "

i am being honest and yes i have... not a cut down just a fact..

"No, I don't. But your radical claims prove to me that you know nothing about them, which makes me question your entire "experience" repartee"

my "radical claims" are supported by the worlds leading experts on chimps.. yours are based on ?.. nuff said..

quote:

---

No. Learning is INCLUDED as a part of adaptation. An animal adapts to its environment by using thought process. If you introduce a foreign bird to an area, it adapts to the environment by learning how to avoid predators. It's called intelligence. It's a PART of adaptation.

---

Ever think that this was just the bird applying it's pre-existing instinct to a new environment? Evading predators is a universal neccessity. Since we've been spending half our time demanding sources, provide some to back your scenerio up.

quote:

---

I'm sorry to hear that. I actually LOOKED UP what I wanted for verification. These are facts, and you're laughing at them? Try researching some things before you let your arrogant self get the best of you.

---

And you've failed to show us this "verification" for what reason?

quote:

---

Hey Einstein, I looked this up, and three different sources verified my claim. They don't kill animals for FUN. It's their instinct. Give me a source verifying that cats kill other small animals just for the hell of it. I mean, if it's common knowledge, you won't find any trouble finding me a justifiable source, eh?

---

So since you have stated before that animals are more compassionate:
"Not necessarily. Animals are fully capable of harming other animals or people because they desire to, but choose not to because they're more compassionate and selfless, at least in my eyes, heh."
Your now contradicting yourself and saying that they are slaves to thier instincts and have no choice in the matter? Yes, animals are controled by thier instincts, so you can't blame the cat. But humans are animals too, as you've stated, and as no one has disputed. But humans are different in that we have learned to control them and surpress most of them. We are still affected by them, but not to the point where we feel the need to go out and kill prey when we're in a perfectly stable social environment that provides for us. So how again is the cat equal to the human?

quote:

---

It was relevant since you claimed that dogs only love their owners because they're part of the pack and their affection is merely instinct. So prove to me how human love is just instinct. It's completely relevant. Try following the conversation next time.

---

Human love is heavily influenced by instict, it's not pure instinct because romantic love is subject to all kinds of pressures from society and the very idea of "romantic love" itself. But the attraction between humans is heavily dependent on pheromones. Source Also then, you have phyiscal atrributes that seem to make sense in long term evolutionary terms. Women have wider hips and swollen breasts for child bearing, thus the traditionally desirable hourglass figure comes about. Men are more muscular and agressive for acting as the hunter/protector, and this is usually seen as desirable. Human attractuion is heavily influenced by instinct. But romantic love as one thinks of it is heavily influenced by the culture, and you can see the huge number of differeneces in opinon of love across the world.

quote:

---

No, it's not. My argument is that people might not be the smartest animals in the world because there might be an improvement showing that animals with our level of intellect do exist. Your fast car analogy is irrelevant because you're basing it on completely different hypothetical situations.

---

Wait, so explain to my how "because there might be an improvement showing that animals with our level of intellect do exist." Isn't hypothetical?

quote:

---

But saying that humans are the smartest animals because no other animal is as advanced as us is bogus, which is why I'm forced to ask hypothetical scenarios. I don't believe that we're the smartest, because there COULD BE animals that are just as intelligent as us.

---

But A.) they don't exist or B.) we haven't found or intereacted with them yet. Therefore, why the hell should we care whether they could exist or not? It's all hypothetical babble. You can't base everything on pure "what if". We've proved ourselves to be the most advanced species, so far the one with the most demonstrated intelligence and ability to adapt to and change our environment. We've seen no evidence otherwise, so why should we beleive different?
And why we're on the subject of demonstrated intelligence...
You've said several times that human acheivement should not be used as a measure of animal intelligence. But really haven't provided any logic behind that. So i'll provide some logic behind my statement.
Human achievement CAN be used as a gauge simply because all higher animals have very similar needs. Shelter, food, both herbivore and carnivore, water, etc. So, Humans have demonstrated our ability to use our intelligence to mold our environment and help to provide for those basic needs. We used skins for cloths and built shelters out of driftwood, we built tools to help kill and collect food. We formed language to become more effecient.We even have an example of another speices doing this: Neanderthalls. So, i'm not saying an animal intelligence equivilent to humans would develop exactly the same, but we would see some basic similarities as the animal would attempt to use it's intelligence to trancend it's given traits and instincts, and organize members of it's species to increase thier chances. Animals aren't that forgien from us that you would see completely alien methods being developed. At least not in the simple, early stages of development.

quote:

---

You insinuate that the human mind has no limits.. yet other animals' minds do? Humans are animals, so that's a contradiction in terms. Understand?

---

Actually I beleive she was insinuating the opposite.

quote:

---

I'm not making drastic claims. It's been proven that animals have high levels of intelligence and do have common sense.

---

However, if something was as smart or smarter than humans, for all intents and purposes we would see some kind of indication of this in the wild. They would have had this type of intelligence for thousands of years now, giving them plenty of time to develop something similar to humans acheivements.

And on the impact of a vegan diet:
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

ummm....I don't want to be involved, but chimps will attack eachother as well over simple territory. They will kill eachother, eat eachothers young and hunt and kill members of their clan who have been outcasted.

monkies are viscious little monsters!

quote:

---

well once again gemini has shown the lack of knowledge concerning the subject at hand.. however i am glad they do agree with the computer FACT i posted... as usual you are basing things on your FEELINGS not facts..at least for the most part..

---

Once again you fail to specifically address my questions by insulting me. And I'm basing my argument on facts and opinions, which is obvious enough. If you don't like it, respond to it and "correct" me, thus resulting in a debate; not an all-out battle. Understand?

quote:

---

no they are childish because they fall into the childish category..

---

That's a bit vague. Try focusing on the questions instead of avoiding them and rebuffing my intelligence. The entire method in which you seem to convey your arguement is, "You AR people are so dumb.. I work with animals.. you don't know anything." I consider that to be childish. Now move on and get back on topic.

quote:

---

actually i have provided answers, you just simply can't accept facts

---

I accept facts that you can support, rather than things you deem one way or another because of unspecified reasons.

quote:

---

once again you are confusing actual adaptation with learning and or coping with ones surroundings... if an animal avoids a predator it has nothing to do with actual adaptation

---

No. Learning is INCLUDED as a part of adaptation. An animal adapts to its environment by using thought process. If you introduce a foreign bird to an area, it adapts to the environment by learning how to avoid predators. It's called intelligence. It's a PART of adaptation.

quote:

---

this entire paragraph is so far from correct that it actually made me laugh out loud

---

I'm sorry to hear that. I actually LOOKED UP what I wanted for verification. These are facts, and you're laughing at them? Try researching some things before you let your arrogant self get the best of you.

quote:

---

first you obviously know very little about chimps or their behavior

---

It's not just me; look it up yourself. I'll be happy to provide sources.

quote:

---

you are aware that chimps actively hunt other animals right..??

---

Wow, you think? Re-reed what you quoted me on:

quote:

---

you'd see that chimpanzees don't kill other animals for fun, rather for protection (i.e. if one animal poses as a threat to them, they attack it), and/or they feel that the animal is threatening their food source. Humans do the SAME thing

---

Answer your question?

quote:

---

chimps will actually form hunting parties and work as a team to track hunt and kill other animals, usually small monkeys.. in many of these "hunts" they do not eat or use the animals.. they get excited and then leave the dead animal where it is after (in some cases) playing with the body of the animal

---

...

quote:

---

They kill those that threaten their well-being

---

When did I say they ate the animals that they killed? I'm beginning to think you don't even read what I bother to type.

quote:

---

and once again with cats they do actually catch animals for fun...try reading up on these things before posting next time.. or wait do you deny what i have said here?

---

Hey Einstein, I looked this up, and three different sources verified my claim. They don't kill animals for FUN. It's their instinct. Give me a source verifying that cats kill other small animals just for the hell of it. I mean, if it's common knowledge, you won't find any trouble finding me a justifiable source, eh?

quote:

---

actually this statement is irrelevant to what was being discussed

---

It was relevant since you claimed that dogs only love their owners because they're part of the pack and their affection is merely instinct. So prove to me how human love is just instinct. It's completely relevant. Try following the conversation next time.

quote:

---

once again more babble..humans have more intelligence than any other animal that we know today.. it is a fact.. do you deny this? i hate to cut this short but it has been proven by science.. nuff said..

---

Once again, fully read my post before rambling on about what you don't know:

quote:

---

And I don't deny that humans may know more AT THIS TIME, but they're not the smartest

---

You're insulting my comments when you don't even know how to fully comprehend what you read?

quote:

---

maybe we will find some super intelligent animal living in a cave somewhere but guess what??? it hasn't happened yet!!

---

Hello? That was my point. We don't KNOW.

quote:

---

you argument is like arguing is like saying the fastest car in the world is not actually the fastest because sometime in the future a faster one MIGHT BE developed

---

No, it's not. My argument is that people might not be the smartest animals in the world because there might be an improvement showing that animals with our level of intellect do exist. Your fast car analogy is irrelevant because you're basing it on completely different hypothetical situations.

quote:

---

um NO, you are arguing "what ifs" which is irrelevant!!! it is like saying the elephant is not the largest land animals because "what if" there is a bigger animal living somewhere in a cave and we haven't found it yet...

---

Why get so defensive? I never said that humans aren't the smartest. Do you understand that? Or must I spell each-word-with-separation-asterisks?
But saying that humans are the smartest animals because no other animal is as advanced as us is bogus, which is why I'm forced to ask hypothetical scenarios. I don't believe that we're the smartest, because there COULD BE animals that are just as intelligent as us.

quote:

---

yeah and your point? did i say all animals except humans are limited to their brain function?

---

You insinuate that the human mind has no limits.. yet other animals' minds do? Humans are animals, so that's a contradiction in terms. Understand?

quote:

---

and i would be willing to bet that when you turn 18 you will find some other reason you "can't"

---

How much would you like to bet?

quote:

---

first i never said that nothing could ever be smarter than humans but you seem to like to argue "what ifs" and not current fact... so here is my new argument to you and guess what you can't prove me wrong..

---

I've GIVEN you fact, and I incorporate my PERSONAL opinion, hence the term debate. Asking theoretical questions is a part of science. You're acting so immature. Debate nicely or don't bother replying.

quote:

---

ok prove me wrong... i'm waiting????

---

Yes. I'm an alien. Let me waste my debating about that.

quote:

---

this is no different than your arguement that maybe in a thousand years we might actually discover that the bumble bee is actually 10,000 times smarter than any other life form...

---

I'm not making drastic claims. It's been proven that animals have high levels of intelligence and do have common sense. If you deny that, then I'd have to question your entire argument.

quote:

---

and no it is not possible that dogs could be smarter than humans because we have studied the canine brain and we know exactly what it is capable of

---

Will you READ my posts fully? I never claimed dogs could be smarter than humans. But they ARE smart animals, and have an advanced intellect. You're obviously mistaken if you deny that.

quote:

---

therefore for a vegan diet to be completely healthy it must include supplements.. and vegans are not generally more healthy, simply ask the AMA... a vegan diet can be very healthy if done correctly but it is in no way the most "healthy" diet...

---

Vegan/Vegetarian

quote:

---

nothing you mentioned is as cruel as the way an animal dies for crops... they are shredded, crushed, chopped up,left to die slowly, die in agony due to poisons,etc.. all of which is a worse way to die than the methods used at slaughter houses... and not all chickens are sent to slaughter at the age you mentioned...

---

Then explain to me in detail how horrible these animals are treated, as opposed to the cruel, unsanitary conditions in slaughter houses. How many animals are killed for vegetarian/vegan diets than for diets including meat? And yes, not all chickens are sent to slaughterhouses. If they were, we wouldn't have eggs. Chickens are mainly bred for consuming purposes. And 60-75% of all chickens sent to the slaughterhouses are still very young. Again, that's a fact. LOOK it up for yourself.

quote:

---

ok it is more humane.. read up and get back to me when you have a clue..

---

Support your claims; until then, you destroy all possible credibility for your argument.

quote:

---

first, i see you wont post your animal experience

---

I’ve worked in animal shelters, volunteered in animal aid, helped care for abused animals, and I take care of my own animals. That’s my experience. I’ve been around animals my entire life and I treat them as equals. I wouldn’t be surprised if you bred chickens and slaughtered them yourself just for pleasure.

quote:

---

also i have helped and cared for more animals and for more years than you have been alive... that is a fact

---

Ever since you were ten years of age, eh? Yes, and I'm sure you had a full career then and were up-to-date with all animal technology, and hey, you probably created some scientific theories on how humans are smarter, right? Yes, no more BS, please.

quote:

---

so don't try the BS peta approach with me... people like me?? too funny, maybe one day you will care for and help 1/4 of the animals i already have, but i doubt it.. and YOU HAVE NOT SUPPORTED ANYTHING!!!!!!!

---

Excuse me? I listed PETA as a site that people could go to who wanted to use non-animal products. It wasn't for you, *******. Don't flatter yourself. And you don't know how many animals I've cared for, but this isn't a contest. Stop glorifying yourself and get back on the topic.

quote:

---

you keep making incorrect statements, and coming to conclusions based on mere emotion rather than fact..

---

Incorrect statements? No, they're fact. I can back my facts up with sources, yet you have failed to provide any for me. And I apologize for having emotions.. I'll work on that in the future.

quote:

---

you list PETA as a source? the same group that has lied about damn near everything they have ever said? the group that does nothing to help animals hurt by oil spills because their fake fur alternatives rely on OIL! give me a break.. PETA... well there is another debate all together..

---

PAY ATTENTION. I said that PETA was radical, re-read what I posted. They do, in fact, help more animals then hurt them. Their approaches are extreme, but it gets the point across. And the link wasn't for you, geezus.

quote:

---

over 20 years working with animals:
wildlife rehab, catch and release programs, behavior studies of many different animals,zoo keeper,exotic animal trainer(behaviors enrichment, etc), rescue, live study(wild and captivity), endangered species study and breeding programs,exotic and domestic rescue and rehab,domestic animals behavior studies and training, canine training(showing, obedience, protection, SAR, tracking, K-9 (state and local police and highway patrol) ok there is a start, your turn.. did i mention i went to college in an EATM program.... BTW i have worked and still do work with chimps in real life.... have you?

---

Haha, sorry. I couldn't help but laugh. If you did all of this and still do, I don't see how you could be so ignorant. If you're being honest, then you've done much more than me.. but you're almost twice my age. And do I work with chimps in real life? No, I don't. But your radical claims prove to me that you know nothing about them, which makes me question your entire "experience" repartee.

well once again gemini has shown the lack of knowledge concerning the subject at hand.. however i am glad they do agree with the computer FACT i posted... as usual you are basing things on your FEELINGS not facts..at least for the most part..

"but because I don't think humans are better than animals, my arguments are childish?"

no they are childish because they fall into the childish category..

"And it's not YOUR job to give me answers because you obviously cannot provide them."

actually i have provided answers, you just simply can't accept facts.. once again you are confusing actual adaptation with learning and or coping with ones surroundings... if an animal avoids a predator it has nothing to do with actual adaptation.. you are talking about simple behavior modifications ie learning. many people confuse the two in the true sense of the words.

"You're simply focusing on the physicalaspects of adaption"

no i am focusing on what is known as true adaptation in the science community.

"Actually, if you'd do some research, you'd see that chimpanzees don't kill other animals for fun, rather for protection (i.e. if one animal poses as a threat to them, they attack it), and/or they feel that the animal is threatening their food source. Humans do the SAME thing. They kill those that threaten their well-being, or wait.. you're going to deny that people form armies and militias and kill fellow humans, right? And in the wild, cats have to hunt their own food. They are not given cat food in a bowl everyday. When cats kill mice and birds they are just hunting and using their instincts like they would in the wild."

this entire paragraph is so far from correct that it actually made me laugh out loud.. first you obviously know very little about chimps or their behavior.. you are aware that chimps actively hunt other animals right..?? we will start there..
chimps will actually form hunting parties and work as a team to track hunt and kill other animals, usually small monkeys.. in many of these "hunts" they do not eat or use the animals.. they get excited and then leave the dead animal where it is after (in some cases) playing with the body of the animal... and once again with cats they do actually catch animals for fun...try reading up on these things before posting next time.. or wait do you deny what i have said here?

"I have opinions, and this is a debate. THAT'S why I'm posting here, thank you."

ok i can go along with that...

"Then prove to me that humans love one another because of instinct."

actually this statement is irrelevant to what was being discussed..

"The two are counter-parts. And I don't deny that humans may know more at this time, but they're not the smartest. Animals are people are EQUAL. It has nothing to do with basic knowledge; this is strictly opinionated because we haven't discovered another animal that has advanced as much as we have, and no human has lived long enough to observe the adaptations in both humans and animals. So you justifiably tell me that humans are smarter because they haven't been able to figure out if another species is as advanced."

once again more babble..humans have more intelligence than any other animal that we know today.. it is a fact.. do you deny this? i hate to cut this short but it has been proven by science.. nuff said..

"There might be a similar animal with a highly-advanced intellect as people, we just haven't discovered it."

um then you are admitting that humans are the smartest animal as we know it..maybe if aliens land then maybe we won't be the smartest any more.. or maybe we will find some super intelligent animal living in a cave somewhere but guess what??? it hasn't happened yet!! therefore we are the smartest animal of all known animals.. you argument is like arguing is like saying the fastest car in the world is not actually the fastest because sometime in the future a faster one MIGHT BE developed..

" And yes, you ARE measuring intelligence by humans have accomplished which is completely bogus. And everything else I mentioned was relevant.. could it be that you can't find an answer/intelligent comment for them, eh?"

um NO, you are arguing "what ifs" which is irrelevant!!! it is like saying the elephant is not the largest land animals because "what if" there is a bigger animal living somewhere in a cave and we haven't found it yet...

"Humans ARE animals."

yeah and your point? did i say all animals except humans are limited to their brain function?

"I'm not of legal age, therefore I'm unable to."

and i would be willing to bet that when you turn 18 you will find some other reason you "can't"

"Your argument is centering about how smart humans are, and that no animal could possibly be smarter, but you CANNOT back that up. Humans are animals; mammals to be exact. So it's possible that dogs could be just as smart as us, but you're basing all intelligence on what humans have done."

once again this is both incorrect and childish!!!
first i never said that nothing could ever be smarter than humans but you seem to like to argue "what ifs" and not current fact... so here is my new argument to you and guess what you can't prove me wrong.. here goes:

you are not human, you are from another planet and you were implanted into your mother and made to be just like a human so you could study us..

ok prove me wrong... i'm waiting????

this is no different than your arguement that maybe in a thousand years we might actually discover that the bumble bee is actually 10,000 times smarter than any other life form...

and no it is not possible that dogs could be smarter than humans because we have studied the canine brain and we know exactly what it is capable of..

"Some people CAN'T have meat in their diets, therefore a vegan approach is only reasonable and healthy. I'm not a vegetarian, so I obviously eat meat. And I never said meat-eating is wrong, mind you. But vegans are generally more healthy than humans. That's fact."

no not a fact!! and once again untrue.. you do know there is a difference between vegetarian and vegan right? a vegan diet does NOT provide all the vitamins and other nutrients that the human body needs.. sorry that is a medical fact.. therefore for a vegan diet to be completely healthy it must include supplements.. and vegans are not generally more healthy, simply ask the AMA... a vegan diet can be very healthy if done correctly but it is in no way the most "healthy" diet...

"Do you KNOW the conditions animals are put through in slaughter houses?"

yes.. do you? have you been to many?

"Take chickens, for instance. They are crammed by the tens of thousands into gigantic warehouses that reek of ammonia from the piles of waste; they are piled on top of eachother in open trucks are sometimes fall off the truck and die along the road or are run-over; their wings and legs are often snapped by the men who grab them and shove them into tiny crates to be loaded onto trucks to the slaughter house. Birds are sent to be slaughtered when they're only six to seven weeks old (still babies)."

first you did not mention one time in this paragraph, anything about a slaughter house.. think about that... true, chickens are probably the most abused of all food animals, nothing you mentioned is as cruel as the way an animal dies for crops... they are shredded, crushed, chopped up,left to die slowly, die in agony due to poisons,etc.. all of which is a worse way to die than the methods used at slaughter houses... and not all chickens are sent to slaughter at the age you mentioned...

"Yes, try and tell me that this is more humane than not eating them and putting them through those horrible conditions"

ok it is more humane.. read up and get back to me when you have a clue..

"My animals are well-taken care of. I'm sorry for the animals in YOUR care, since you seem to justify the harsh treatments