first to veganqueen.. yes but millions of animals die for your vegan diet as well and in more painful and brutal ways.. sorry that is a fact everything from shrews, mice, voles, birds, small mammals, deer,snakes, lizards,etc die in crop harvests.. and they are simply thrown aside.. they are not killed in a humane fashion.. so i stand by my statement..

as for gemini wannabe.. your questions simply back up my statement that AR people know little if anything about animals... i almost don't even want to dignify your childish arguments with answers...

"So you're already discrediting your argument before I even start debating? Smart"

ok you post your experience and i will post mine fair enough?

" I live on Earth. It's quite nice here.. you should try visiting after you're knocked off of your stepping stool. And give me a credible source supporting your BS assumption that animals kill because it's fun for them."

this entire statments screams"i know NOTHING about animals..

first maybe you could read up on chimp behavior.. and how they often hunt down and kill other animals, usually smaller monk

Tiger, all you're commenting on is how childish I am, but you fail to provide proof of your points. You say there have been various studies on certain things, so why can't you simply give me the information?

I'll fully respond to your full post later. I'm too annoyed right now.

first to veganqueen.. yes but millions of animals die for your vegan diet as well and in more painful and brutal ways.. sorry that is a fact everything from shrews, mice, voles, birds, small mammals, deer,snakes, lizards,etc die in crop harvests.. and they are simply thrown aside.. they are not killed in a humane fashion.. so i stand by my statement..

as for gemini wannabe.. your questions simply back up my statement that AR people know little if anything about animals... i almost don't even want to dignify your childish arguments with answers...

"So you're already discrediting your argument before I even start debating? Smart"

ok you post your experience and i will post mine fair enough?

" I live on Earth. It's quite nice here.. you should try visiting after you're knocked off of your stepping stool. And give me a credible source supporting your BS assumption that animals kill because it's fun for them."

this entire statments screams"i know NOTHING about animals..

first maybe you could read up on chimp behavior.. and how they often hunt down and kill other animals, usually smaller monkeys, for no other reason than something to do... true sometimes they actually eat their prey but many times they do it for NO other reason than "fun".. also have you ever watched anything about cats? even your basic domestic cat kills and tortures animals,even when it has nothing to do with survival, practice etc... just to name a few...

"So you base everything on the limited amount of sources you employ? Hum.."

let's see.. hmmm, limited... well if you consider every major AR group, ever person i have met or dealt with that was AR(we are talking hundreds here) pretty much EVERY pamphlet from AR groups i have read.. many debates with AR people etc.. it would hardly be considered limited..

"That's the point of the topic: why should Humans test on animals? Because they put themselves first. It's natural instinct.. Survival of the fittest, if you will."

great so if you know that then why even post here?

"How do you know how the dog perceives his master/owner? Many animals feel a sense of loyalty to their caretakers. Again, PROVE this profoundly assumptuous statement."

this statement proves once again you need to keep up.. there have been countless studies done on canine behavior... (do a simple search and you will find many) showing that they view their human families as their "pack".. also many other animals, view their human caretakers as part of their group(herd, pack, pride etc..)true some simply "love" their owner/master but in the majority of cases it boils down to both affection and mostly instinct.

"Not a big difference: every being adapts to its environment; humans included. To adequately adapt, you need a certain amount of intellect. The question is whether humans are the smartest species. We really don't know; so try proving that while you're on your ego-trip."

once again your lack of knowledge shines through... actually in most cases NO intelligence is needed to adapt..question: do you think that say, a camels intelligence has anything to do with its adaptations for living in its environment? do you think it figured out a way to make its eyelashes grow the way they do? or maybe they learned how to manipulate their own genes to makes their nostrils work and grow the way they do? or maybe they bound their feet so they would grow into the shape they are so they could walk on sand better? short answer: NO!!! this is just one example..adaptation is different than learning to cope with ones surroundings...however they can sometimes go hand in hand(adaptation and intelligence) but there is a BIG difference between the two... and as far as humans being the smartest, once again it has BEEN PROVEN, through studies of animal's brains, learning abilities etc.. you are really showing your lack of basic knowledge here...

"You're only measuring animals' intelligence by the certain achievement that humans have made; try looking up how animals have evolved, their methods of communication, their emotions, etc. instead of labeling them as unintelligent because they can't drive vehicles, or have a career, etc."

first i never labeled them as unintelligent... so don't try and make up things here... and no i am not comparing the to only certain human achievements.. it is a fact that we have a more developed brain.. therefore we have more intelligence.. as far as the other stuff you spouted off, that has nothing to do with anything...
evolution.. yes they have evolved and so have we.. and we are still on top... their are many amazing things that animals can do or have the ability to do, but that in no way judges their intelligence compared to humans...all animals are limited to their brain functions...

"I'm the person who opted to donate myself in place of an animal, and I stand by that statement."

ok then put your money where your mouth is.. don't talk about it, do it...

"As far as I can see, you entire argument is unsupported BS."

actually everything i mentioned is supported with fact, yet you have yet to show or prove anything beyond your personal assumptions..

"Vegan diets can be healthier for people, depending on the individual."

correction: vegan diets with supplements can be very healthy..

"Vegan diets don't kill animals as opposed to carnivorous diets."

VERY UNTRUE! do you think all your lovely veggies are picked by hand to ensure that no animals are killed? lets see, milions of animals die, during harvests, piosoning and trapping to protect the fields and storage facilities, prepping the fields for planting etc... and all of these deaths are far more painful and brutal that the humane slaughter of meat animals...sorry it is the truth.. so tell me again how no animals are killed for your diet? need more proof, go to a farm, and watch a harvest...ask a farmer, or a biologist or anyone with a clue...

"The same applies to your narrow-minded, computer-based argument. I live in the real world, yet you seem to live in your own world"

i would say you don't even know where the real world is judging by your comments.. lets see computers well make of the plastics and polymers used in computers have animal by product in them or they are used in the process of making them... sorry it is a fact, same goes with cars.. you really need to do a little research...and just so you know this is not...umm "narrow minded" here is a quote strainght from vegsource:

" Animal-derived substances are used in a wide range of products and processes that most people would never suspect. From the clarification of alcoholic beverages to cane sugar filtration, from home insulation materials to rubber tires, from perfumes and colognes to soaps and shampoos, from pill capsules to frozen desserts, animal products are used in thousands of standard commodities, making it nearly impossible totally eradicate them from modern life.

Photographic and movie film contain several layers of gelatin, which is an integral part of the film's chemistry. Gelatin is the protein derived from the bones, cartilage, tendons, skin, and other tissue of steer, calves, or pigs. Film is not the only communication medium that uses animal products. For instance, glue is manufactured from collagenous materials made from animal hides or bones. Therefore, the vast majority of books are not vegan. Even plastics contain animal products, so computers, televisions, and telephones are not vegan either.



"See above. And you don't know how long I've been around/caring for animals, and I seriously doubt you know more about them than me. Be that as it may, make your prophetic claims. They're amusing"

your right i don't know how long you have been caring for animals, but judging by your comments either you haven't for very long or i pity the animals in your care because your knowledge on them is very limited if that... like i said list your experience and i will do the same...

I've been bogged down with paperwork lately, but i thought some of you might be interested in this

Anyway, i will be back as soon as possible.

the idea behind veganism is to participate in the least amount of cruelty possible. Surely, no human being can be free of killing an animal involuntarily. When we breathe, we often swallow gnats, or fleas from our dog. We even sometimes step on ants. However, 28 billion animals are slaughtered in america each year for food.

quote:

---

ha ha ha too funny... um i'm guessing you didn't point out what i was wrong about because you know i am right

---

Actually, it's 3:40am here and I didn't have the energy to waste time being so analytical.. but since your ego seems to be devouring you, I suppose I can spend an a few minutes elaborating on my previous thoughts.

quote:

---

and i have probably forgotten more about animals and working with animals than you will ever learn

---

So you're already discrediting your argument before I even start debating? Smart

quote:

---

BTW what did you want me to explain?

---

I'll just break this thread down, quotation by quotation..

quote:

---

what planet do you live on? animals kill for many other reasons including fun

---

I live on Earth. It's quite nice here.. you should try visiting after you're knocked off of your stepping stool. And give me a credible source supporting your BS assumption that animals kill because it's fun for them.

quote:

---

the overwhelming majority of AR i have met, talked to or read statements from seem to know very little if anything about animals

---

So you base everything on the limited amount of sources you employ? Hum..

quote:

---

ALL animals put their own species'survival ahead of other species

---

That's the point of the topic: why should Humans test on animals? Because they put themselves first. It's natural instinct.. Survival of the fittest, if you will.

quote:

---

please don't try the dog saving its master crap because the dog sees its master as part of its pack, so that example really doesn't count...

---

How do you know how the dog perceives his master/owner? Many animals feel a sense of loyalty to their caretakers. Again, PROVE this profoundly assumptuous statement.

quote:

---

and that person was talking about adaptation not intelligence.. big difference

---

Not a big difference: every being adapts to its environment; humans included. To adequately adapt, you need a certain amount of intellect. The question is whether humans are the smartest species. We really don't know; so try proving that while you're on your ego-trip.

quote:

---

human could learn to live in all those conditions but the animals could not learn to do all the things that humans can do...

---

You're only measuring animals' intelligence by the certain achievement that humans have made; try looking up how animals have evolved, their methods of communication, their emotions, etc. instead of labeling them as unintelligent because they can't drive vehicles, or have a career, etc.

quote:

---

and as for the person that said they would gladly donate themselves for science.. well i call BS... go do it... you are a hypocrite... you are using a computer that has animal by-products in it.. your vegan diet accounts for millions upon millions of animal deaths per year, you probably drive or ride in a car that was built with animal by products etc... so step of your pseudo moral high ground and live in the real world..

---

I'm the person who opted to donate myself in place of an animal, and I stand by that statement. As far as I can see, you entire argument is unsupported BS. Vegan diets can be healthier for people, depending on the individual. Vegan diets don't kill animals as opposed to carnivorous diets. Again, give me PROOF to support your accusations. The same applies to your narrow-minded, computer-based argument. I live in the real world, yet you seem to live in your own world.

quote:

---

also please explain how my post in any way makes it seem that i know very little.... i have probably been raising, training, rescueing,caring for,etc.. animals longer than you have even owned one.. though i could be wrong...maybe you owned "ONE" for almost as long....

---

See above. And you don't know how long I've been around/caring for animals, and I seriously doubt you know more about them than me. Be that as it may, make your prophetic claims. They're amusing.

ha ha ha too funny... um i'm guessing you didn't point out what i was wrong about because you know i am right... and i have probably forgotten more about animals and working with animals than you will ever learn.....

BTW what did you want me to explain?

the overwhelming majority of AR i have met, talked to or read statements from seem to know very little if anything about animals...

lets see

the computer statement = true (feel free to look it up...)

the diet statement = true(do you deny it?)

the car statement = true (tires, wiring, seats etc.. feel free to look that up too)

animals killing for many other reasons than survival = true (do you deny this as well?)

species survival = true

difference between adaptation and intelligence = true

so what exactly was i wrong about?

also please explain how my post in any way makes it seem that i know very little.... i have probably been raising, training, rescueing,caring for,etc.. animals longer than you have even owned one.. though i could be wrong...maybe you owned "ONE" for almost as long....
please inform me....

Speaking of hypocrisy.. you claim that animal-right activists know nothing of animals, yet you give a biased speech which fails to explain what they don't know, but you seem to know very little, as well. Hmmm. And you're wrong about many of your points, and seen extremely uninformed.

That was the least I could say without giving an extended harangue on the topic.

it seems like there are a lot of people debating animals, that don't seem to know much about animals in the first place....

animals CHOOSE not to kill unless it is for food and survival??

what planet do you live on? animals kill for many other reasons including fun...

also it is survival of your species, ALL animals put their own species'survival ahead of other species... please don't try the dog saving its master crap because the dog sees its master as part of its pack, so that example really doesn't count...

and that person was talking about adaptation not intelligence.. big difference.. see the human could learn to live in all those conditions but the animals could not learn to do all the things that humans can do...

and as for the person that said they would gladly donate themselves for science.. well i call BS... go do it... you are a hypocrite... you are using a computer that has animal by-products in it.. your vegan diet accounts for millions upon millions of animal deaths per year, you probably drive or ride in a car that was built with animal by products etc... so step of your pseudo moral high ground and live in the real world..

as someone that actually works with animals daily, i have come to the conclusion that most animal rights people know almost nothing about animals to begin with...

Ok ppl I think we are getting off topic here.. I think you all should stop fighting and keep to the point! THis is a very difficult subject to debate about.. You might think that animals can't defend themselves and Its wrong to take advantage of that and just do all those mean tests on them.. Now i think this.. But also then some other people think WHO REALLY CARES!! THEY DONT CARE! They have a short life span anyway! But thats not how it goes! That would be like saying Oh Im 80 years old Its ok if I jump off the sears tower cuz im probably gonna die anyway. We can make decisions not to do tests on ourslelves and stuff. Animals cant.. BUt ahh are we realy sure they cant?? WHat if animals realy do think AHH I DONT WANNA BE TESTED ON!! THey have no way of telling us.. Maybe they attack us or somethign. BUT they cant go to court and trial and stuff to protect themselves.. ITs just they were here first, we put up our houses and buildings and took their planet so we could live here and pretty much toook over.. ANd we just treat them like regular things.. BUT they're animals and they are alive, they have emotions and they can feel things that we feel.. People just dont care about that, and care more about themselves. All in all I think its all wrong to do tests on animals.. But then again WHAT Would we test iton? SO therefore I conclude this is a VERY Difficult subject to debate....WOW this was long lol
~NIK~

drstrange, you are looking at this "intelligence" debate from the wrong angle. you conclude that animals are not as intelligent as humans because they have not learned to write or start fires. but has it ever occured to you that you are measuring intelligence only by what we humans have done? this is faulty because you are using your argument to back up your point, rather than backing up your argument with a point.

think about this: could you survive in the mountains with nothing but your own self, and no one growing food for you or telling you how to survive? or could you survive in the desert, or in the ocean (provided breathing is taken care of?) well, asking a mouse to operate a computer, or a cat to drive a car is just as absurd. but these animals are incredibly intelligent if you learn to see their intelligence instead of only noticing it if it's like yours.

you said at some point that animals are not intelligent because they have not learned to communicate with us.

first, that's absurd. you make it sound as though they were just dying to talk with us and would do anything to figure it out. i hate to burst your little egotistic bubble, but other species are not nearly as interested in humans as humans are.

secondly, if you would learn how to listen, you would find that animals communicate with us all the time, though maybe not in the way you woud expect. you have to watch, especially the ears, the eyes, and the entire body, rather than depending on your ears.

~silver spirit

quote:

---

First, repsond again to the original question without assigning personal connections to the dog or child. In other words, some anonymous child, and some anonymous dog... Second, it's my opinion that the "stigma" is based on valid reasons, which we are discussing.

---

It would be the same either way. I applied a hypothetical situation to the subject in order to express my thoughts without confusion. But if some anonymous dog was hit by a car, and some anonymous child was hit by a car, the crime would still be EQUALLY as wrong in my eyes. And that "stigma" is what keeps you at a limited vantage point (e.g. "Humans are smarter and are more vital to society, so they're "better" than animals"). Try backing up specific reasons as to why the loss of any given animals life is less of a loss than a human death. You cannot measure each being's importance by their species. For instance, a police dog who was killed by a car would hurt society more than a criminal being shot by police.

quote:

---

Now that's just being stupid about it, you have no way to back that up. Reason? Animals lack the social organization or mental ability to communicate with us.

---

I do have reasons to back up my statements, DrS. If you would have asked, I would have given you reasons concerning the topic at hand. Let's disect what I said, shall we?

"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..."

I offered an explanation as to why animals don't go off on selfish, murderous sprees. Accept what you wish, but you cannot dispute facts.

quote:

---

And also humans apply reason and conscious desicion to thier emotions in an attempt to control them

---

Animals can go through complicated thought-processing just like humans, and have proven to have just as complex emotions, like I previously mentioned. You haven’t dissected an animal’s mind to see exactly what they feel and how they control their emotions, have you?

quote:

---

Find me some evidence of that in the animal world and show it to me

---

Animal Intelligence

quote:

---

Do animals feel love, hate, passion, all of the stronger emotions that lead to murder and war and civil movements and missions to the moon?

---

Why wouldn’t they feel complex emotions? Simply because they haven’t organized an constructed the society that we have today? That doesn’t imply much.

quote:

---

As far as I've seen, animals have emotion, but they do not have anything near a human level of complexity or variety of them.

---

Click above link.

quote:

---

All unintelligent humans are smarter than some animals, it's not ignorant, it's fact.

---

Two words: prove it. You cannot generalize all humans and animals like you are, because there are differing levels of convolution.

quote:

---

Some intelligent primates after years of conditioning or training may act intelligent than a dumb human who has also underone years of the same conditioning. However, it's the humans who developed the conditioning processes in the first place, so i don't give much credit to the primate.

---

Yet the primate would still be more intelligent than that human, correct? If so, then the primate would fully be capable of learning complex information, processing it, and applying it, therefore animals can surpass the intelligence of some humans.

quote:

---

And once again, your attacking me for something i havent said. I don't refuse to believe it, i'm simply saying that I havent seen any evidence of it. And the extreme diversity of animal kingdom mostly includes insects, rodents, arachnids, and many other small creatures who have low-to moderate intelligence. The only creatures ho have even come close to demonstrating anything like human behavior or intelligence are some sea mammals, other primates and possibly elephants or one or two others. However, these creatures don't show any sign of having a higher level of consciousness. Some primates maybe, which is why i'm sketchy on their treatment.

---

I’m not attacking you; I’m address statements that you insinuated. And just because you haven’t seen evidence of something doesn’t mean that evidence doesn’t exist. And I never said that animals are –smarter- than humans; I simply stated that animals are capable of the intelligence that we have, and we’re no better than them; thus, bringing us back to the original issue of animal testing being wrong.

quote:

---

Because this would mean ideas would gradually become more complex over time as the generations passed them on, and each member could analyze and learn concepts and develop upon them

---

How are you aware of each individualized animal society 1,000+ years ago? Animals could have developed immensely, and we wouldn’t know. Animals are certainly capable of complex thought processes and they develop in their own specialized way.

quote:

---

You'd see tool making, writing, fire building, things like that. Also, we have isolated groups of similar animals on different continents who act almost exactly the same. If there were seperate or unique societies, i'd expect to see signifigant differences in behavior not associated with genetics.

---

Why would animals need to make tools, write, etc. to be intelligent? I suppose that’s your personal opinion, but I have to disagree. There are different levels of aptitude in different species of animals. And there are isolated groups of similar people in different locations that act the same and have no distinguished differentiations between them because they rely on instinct and the simplicity they need to survive. Obviously most people are not like this because we live in such diverse environments. Animals adapt to the environments in which they live and develop communities that suit their needs.

quote:

---

Well maybe i'm a bit of a sociopath then, but you haven't given a reason why humans shouldn't put themself first without usuing vague emotions or witty little quips about human narcissism. Give me some hard ideas do consider other than the usual "animals are better than us and we should show compassion" deal.

---

I NEVER said that animals are -better- than humans. You misunderstand. I said we’re equal. Humans shouldn’t put themselves first because a) they’re animals, too; b) nothing gives us the right to determine what animals should be killed; c) we develop as other animals, but in contrasting ways, and d) animals are just as vital to society as humans.

quote:

---

It depends on the individual. If one of my animals were killed by the same person who accidentally ran over some foreign human child, I would feel that the person should be charged equally for both crimes. But the law will always be swayed on our side because of the stigma our society holds with its belief that human murdering is less humane than animal murdering.

---

First, repsond again to the original question without assigning personal connections to the dog or child. In other words, some anonymous child, and some anonymous dog.
Second, it's my opinion that the "stigma" is based on valid reasons, which we are discussing.

quote:

---

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.

---

Now that's just being stupid about it, you have no way to back that up. Reason? Animals lack the social organization or mental ability to communicate with us.

quote:

---

Animals do not lack complex feelings; they have emotions, such as feeling lonely, sad, depressed, anxious, excited, etc. Humans simply convey then in different manners.

---

And also humans apply reason and conscious desicion to thier emotions in an attempt to control them. Find me some evidence of that in the animal world and show it to me (not a challenge, but a request. Being civil here )
Do animals feel love, hate, passion, all of the stronger emotions that lead to murder and war and civil movements and missions to the moon?
As far as I've seen, animals have emotion, but they do not have anything near a human level of complexity or variety of them.

quote:

---

all unintelligent humans are still smarter than some animals is ignorant.

---

All unintelligent humans are smarter than some animals, it's not ignorant, it's fact. Aside from he brain dead or comatose anyway. Note the use of the key word "some" Some intelligent primates after years of conditioning or training may act intelligent than a dumb human who has also underone years of the same conditioning. However, it's the humans who developed the conditioning processes in the first place, so i don't give much credit to the primate.

quote:

---

How can anyone answer that? Are you fully aware of how many diverse species of animals there are? I'm sure you do. Neither you nor I can possibly know the extremities of any given animal. You can label a canine "stupid" without knowing much about the species because you refuse to believe that some animals may be on the same tropic level as humans.

---

And once again, your attacking me for something i havent said. I don't refuse to believe it, i'm simply saying that I havent seen any evidence of it. And the extreme diversity of animal kingdom mostly includes insects, rodents, arachnids, and many other small creatures who have low-to moderate intelligence. The only creatures ho have even come close to demonstrating anything like human behavior or intelligence are some sea mammals, other primates and possibly elephants or one or two others. However, these creatures don't show any sign of having a higher level of consciousness. Some primates maybe, which is why i'm sketchy on their treatment.

quote:

---

And how are you so sure that other animals are unable to think, change, learn, etc. in their own societies?

---

Because this would mean ideas would gradually become more complex over time as the generations passed them on, and each member could analyze and learn concepts and develop upon them. You'd see tool making, writing, fire building, things like that. Also, we have isolated groups of similar animals on different continents who act almost exactly the same. If there were seperate or unique societies, i'd expect to see signifigant differences in behavior not associated with genetics.

quote:

---

It's not the relevance of the impact it has on society; it's the fact that you're killing another being for science. And you justify it by saying that humans should basically put themselves first, thus justifying their egotism, which is the crest of stupidity.

---

Well maybe i'm a bit of a sociopath then, but you haven't given a reason why humans shouldn't put themself first without usuing vague emotions or witty little quips about human narcissism. Give me some hard ideas do consider other than the usual "animals are better than us and we should show compassion" deal.

quote:

---

But if you accidently run over someones dog in the street and kill it, and accidently run over someones kid and kill them, can you honestly say that those two deserve the same punishment?

---

It depends on the individual. If one of my animals were killed by the same person who accidentally ran over some foreign human child, I would feel that the person should be charged equally for both crimes. But the law will always be swayed on our side because of the stigma our society holds with its belief that human murdering is less humane than animal murdering.

quote:

---

One: This demostrates the child has more mental potential, it doesn't matter whether it is good or bad.

---

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.

quote:

---

Two: The animals harm one another only when nessecary because they lack the complex feelings that would create malicous intent

---

Animals do not lack complex feelings; they have emotions, such as feeling lonely, sad, depressed, anxious, excited, etc. Humans simply convey then in different manners.

quote:

---

And when you say unintelligent, realize that it is only so when compared to other humans. We are also still slave to some of our instincts and impulses, which are the root cause of many "unintelligent" actions.

---

No, when -I- say unintelligent, I'm making a comparison between all creatures. There are animals with minds more highly developed than certain humans. Granted there are varying factors, but declaring that all unintelligent humans are still smarter than some animals is ignorant.

quote:

---

Where in the animal world do you see these extremes? This is what i mean by potential. We're better at both ends of the spectrum.

---

How can anyone answer that? Are you fully aware of how many diverse species of animals there are? I'm sure you do. Neither you nor I can possibly know the extremities of any given animal. You can label a canine "stupid" without knowing much about the species because you refuse to believe that some animals may be on the same tropic level as humans.

quote:

---

The potential to think, change, learn, innovate, pass on, and ultimately make the leap past instinct and onto the unique cultures and individual free will we see today.

---

And how are you so sure that other animals are unable to think, change, learn, etc. in their own societies?

quote:

---

That include vivisections?

---

Heh. First of all, vivisections are the most unacceptable practices in the field of animal experimentations. They're mainly done for pathological observance. I would gladly replace myself for most -other- experimentations that most PEOPLE would deem humane.

quote:

---

Aside from the whole risk factor, and the problem that the death of a human has a much greater impact on society than say, a lab rat

---

It's not the relevance of the impact it has on society; it's the fact that you're killing another being for science. And you justify it by saying that humans should basically put themselves first, thus justifying their egotism, which is the crest of stupidity.

quote:

---

-the lion kills the antelope because otherwise she is going to starve to death.

---

But in the situation I described, The lion would end up killing much more than it needed. Why, because it can and will, it's in it's nature, animals are only part of the balanced ecology because they don't have higher intelligence and conscious descion making. Otherwise they would foul everything up, like we do.

quote:

---

yes, one must focus on her own preservation before others, but when there are more compassionate roads, why should humans take the cruel path? if you believe we are more advanced and have superior intelligence and levels of awareness, then shouldn't we use that for good rather than evil? shouldn't we use that to improve all life, not just our own?

---

Well, we are in many ways, but we put a priority on ourselves because self-preservation comes before the very idealistic "for the good of all" concept.

quote:

---

and you are wrong when you say that other species have not developed their own societies. many species have very highly developed societies.

---

So where is the ape version of Shakespeare, or the wolf version of Confucious? The point is that animals have instictual hierarchies as opposed to socieities with laws, customs, and individual/unique traits to different groups.

quote:

---

oh, and it might surprise you to learn that other animals are not quite "lower" than humans. in the branching off of different primates, humans branched off before chimpanzees and bonobos. so technically, aren't they "higher" than we are?

---

Well for one, humans have been evolving all that time too, so no. And secondly, humans are higher simply because we are much more successful and mentally complex than other primates. Yes, they show some resemblance, but once again, they cannot match our ability to adapt or innovate.

quote:

---

i don't understand you, drstrange. first you say that animals cannot form societies, and then you give one of the best examples of animal society. just how much do you know about the wolf, the ancestor of the dog?

---

Again, this is nothing compared to a human society. I already touched on this before so i won't repeat myself.

quote:

---

Because that's how I feel. Domesticated animals, for instance, cannot adequately care for themselves with human assistance. The same applies to children. If you hurt an animal, it's equivalent to hurting a child. Is that so difficult to understand?

---

For malicous intent, yes this may be true, i've never disputed that. (check some of my older posts in other threads) But if you accidently run over someones dog in the street and kill it, and accidently run over someones kid and kill them, can you honestly say that those two deserve the same punishment?

quote:

---

A child has the capability of harming another being for pleasure, entertainment, etc.; animals harm one another for defense or food in order to survive. Hum.

---

One: This demostrates the child has more mental potential, it doesn't matter whether it is good or bad.
Two: The animals harm one another only when nessecary because they lack the complex feelings that would create malicous intent.

quote:

---

And a human can be much more uncompassionate, selfish, malicious, and often times extremely unintelligent.

---

Again, this demonstrates that we have vastly more advanced emotions and potential. And when you say unintelligent, realize that it is only so when compared to other humans. We are also still slave to some of our instincts and impulses, which are the root cause of many "unintelligent" actions.

quote:

---

Neither are people, yet you seem to pick and choose the nicer qualities of mankind and disrega