Lol. Dogs and cats are pretty much capable of the same things compared to a human, that doesn’t dogs cats and cats dogs.

...Huh? I read that like five times and I still can't understand what you're trying to say here.

Did I ever say we didn't? In fact, I made it clear that we did.

The Indians even modified the environment and went against the natural orders of things, taming horses and things like that, though not nearly to the extent that we have.

Yeah, and they keep coming back to get more if no one stops them because they get the idea in their heads that that's OK. It's like when you feed a stray dog and it'll keep coming back and bugging you for more food because it knows you'll give it some. It's all about instinct.

What part of "it's their source of income" do you not understand?

So you're saying everyone should just be homeless if wolves are attacking their livestock and taking away all their money. Yeah, that's reasonable.

No, I'm not doing the same thing to you at all. My examples are extreme and make sense based on your logic. Yours, however, are extreme and don't make sense based on my logic.

I'll repeat it again. I never said it made sense. I was asking you a hypothetical question.

Addressed this already. I'm not saying that. It's called a hypothetical question, for the tenth time.

Point out something I've ignored, please?

That wouldn't help them much in the whole species survival thing, would it? That doesn't mean it's love, that's instinct again.

And again, what will that farmer do all their source of income is taken away? Oh yeah, be homeless and live on the street, because at least then they don't have to kill an innocent wolf that was trying to steal their food.

I don't see how this example makes sense in context, no matter how I look at it.

It is on topic, because pollution isn't the natural order of things.

...I can't believe you're actually suggesting that instead of just killing the bugs, they should be homeless. That's ridiculous. I'd like to see you try it if you ever owned a farm.

Yeah, except your example was irrelevant because none of my examples were just for the hell of it.

I don't recall any unfair arguments from either of us.

I know that, but now it sounds like you're saying we shouldn't try to give them equal opportunity if they were born into the wrong conditions.

I'm really, really sorry about that; I misread it the first time, and I went back and edited as soon as I realized. I thought I'd gotten to it soon enough that no one had noticed. I apologize; I was tired and trying to quickly get done before my internet went down. >.>

{Last few paragraphs taken out because it's all redundant anyway.}

OK. Sorry this had to get so heated.

And you keep giving the same response. All you do is call me a liar and provide inadequately explored information and opinions as to why I’m fabricating.
Animals as you said are driven by instinct, put food somewhere and they’ll attempt to get it. And it’s either out in the wild or I find dead mice left all over the house from my cats. I don’t know about you but I don’t think finding carcasses in my bed is all that amusing.
Think about it logically. 18 mice out of the 200 or more that are normally in a goup? Yeah they adapted or I would have caught them all. Common sense.

You have no proof. You provided the story, now the burden of proof is on you. And the mice will adapt after a few disappear - it doesn't take 18 for them to realize something is wrong.

A. You obviously only read the first sentence.
B. I answered the last paragraph of your anecdotal tale. Now, while I'm at it, why don't I make up a story? A lioness once went on a killing spree, killing scores of gazelles, and just left the bodies there to rot while cackling evilly. Proof that animals are evil.

I am referring to the fact that you are talking about an autistic kid feeding a fish peanut-butter sandwiches when an autistic kid would probably be smart enough not to feed a fish peanut-butter sandwiches. And the link provided the reasons that cats bring people corpses.

When discussing the existence of something, the burden of proof is on the person that says it exists.

I claim to be able to perform cold nuclear fusion. Now prove that I can't, even though I have no evidence that I can.

The false example "proves" it's not ingrained in your mind.

And we're immoral and animals aren't? Isn't everything on the planet that is not a plant equally decadent by your logic?

No, they survive because of instinct. Are you saying that bacterium survive because they're aware of their existence? No, they survive due to constant mutations and because their DNA provides the instruction they need to produce the proteins that allow for their survival. You'll never see an animal question the point of life. You know how we know this? Because many humans that question the point of life commit suicide, and an animal that thought like a human would also be likely to commit suicide, especially if it was in constant torment. The few cases of animal suicide involve specific locations (such as that one strange location where dogs seem to like jumping off of a bridge).

You're evading the question. What makes your belief that everything is equal better?

Dogs can steal balls and toys belonging to other dogs and humans. Not exactly survival there, is it? And of course we can still tell the human is a human, because we have a tool known as a brain and we know that people can recover from comas. As for animals being put down in shelters, nobody can pay to keep the animal in this case, while someone is willing to pay to keep a human alive. I would prefer to know that resources are going towards keeping humans alive and well rather than keeping an insentient animal that has a lifespan of a few years alive.

Bob is evading the question proposed by Alice ("How would you get all three of the things across the river?") by making up an alternate solution instead of finding the POSSIBLE solution. You're evading the question by saying "I'd die and pick both" instead of choosing your dog or your brother.

I don't have time for a point-by-point response for now, but I'll respond to this first.

Okay, first of all, where is this gerbil story I supposedly gave you?

Second of all, you gave the expected response. Now, I'll give you my response - do you know why vermin are vermin? Because they're hard to get rid of. Do you know one of the reasons they're hard to get rid of? Because they ADAPT. A group of animals will only fall for the same trap a few times before they realize their comrades disappear whenever they enter one of the traps in question, and will start to avoid it, even if it is baited. That's why several methods are often used to combat the problem of a mouse invasion. The fact that 18 mice managed to fall for that one fact shows me that either A. Your story is false, B. The mice in your house were really, REALLY stupid, or C. You were effectively living in a mouse hole. A seems the most logical answer.

And even if you were telling the truth, catching HOUSE mice, spoon-feeding them food and water, and then throwing them out in the wild will make them easy prey for anything that happens to eat mice.

And you keep giving the same response. All you do is call me a liar and provide inadequately explored information and opinions as to why I’m fabricating.
Animals as you said are driven by instinct, put food somewhere and they’ll attempt to get it. And it’s either out in the wild or I find dead mice left all over the house from my cats. I don’t know about you but I don’t think finding carcasses in my bed is all that amusing.
Think about it logically. 18 mice out of the 200 or more that are normally in a goup? Yeah they adapted or I would have caught them all. Common sense.

Mental retardation just means that someone has ceased to grow or cannot grow any further than a specific point in terms of intellect. Retardation means something has ceased to grow mental and/or otherwise.
As for the link I never would have guessed that a cat isn’t a human… And as far as evolution goes we come from a long line of hunters as well.
You are completely missing the point. Refer to my last paragraph.

And you can’t prove that they can’t any more than I can prove that they can.

Then explain my example. It’s the same principle.

Funny that’s exactly what I said. Just like humans. It’s all in the name of survival.

So why not better institutions for animals. They don't kill the people in mental institutions when they become overfilled. You contradicted yourself.

Sentient means you are aware of your existence.  If animals weren’t aware of their existence they wouldn’t even try to survive.

I can understand your point, that makes sense. But again this argument really isn’t about food. It’s about respect and humans believing that just because they are smarter they are superior and should be able to do whatever they want to animals whenever.  Yes there are certain laws set in place but they’re not nearly as enforced as they should be.

Animals never steal for anything other than survival and all they can think about is they need as much as they can get to survive. People will steal just because they want something they don't have.
But it’s the same thing. Animals can be taught certain things. Just because a human is temporarily incapable of proving that they are human doesn’t make them worth anything less for that period of time. And yes people pull the plugs on humans in those situations but they aren’t nearly as common as animals being put down just because theres no room for them in a shelter. We don’t’ go exterminating people who live on the street.

Again not my argument they are examples. And I never said I know better I said humans know better. Pay attention.  Refer to my last statement at the bottom.

I really don’t see how this has anything to do with anything.

Lol. Dogs and cats are pretty much capable of the same things compared to a human, that doesn’t dogs cats and cats dogs.

Listen to yourself. WE modified THEIR environment. It was theirs and we just took it. That’s just wrong. We don’t even compromise. Once upon a time black people were considered animals and so were the Indians, just because they didn’t speak the same language and do the same things as the Anglo Saxons. Any of this ringing a bell?
Just let it take the livestock at the time. The worst they can do is take 1 or 2. Big deal in a herd of 10 – 2o and it’s not like the farmer doesn’t have chickens or a wal*mart 5 miles away to fall back on.

People don’t need money to survive. Otherwise there wouldn’t be homeless people, they’d all have died instantly from a lack of income. It’s just harder to survive without money and people like you wouldn’t understand. 

You’re doing the exact same thing to me. It was an example. I wasn’t saying that’s how you are. Seriously. How in any way does it make sense for a goldfish or hamster to be able to save anyone? That’s just ridiculous. Hypocritical much?

I’m not twisting your words. You were making a point that animals are worth less because a fish and a hamster aren’t able to save a human from a burning house. It’s just as impossible as a deaf dumb and blind person it’s exactly the same argument. And I never said that was the only reason animals could love. You’re picking out random things that I’ve said and ignoring the rest of my statements so you can twist my words. Wild animals care for themselves and their families, just like humans and so do insects. Otherwise they’d all just run of a cliff like lemmings and eat their children regardless of mental stability.

That’s a good question. How would we eat? Seeing as one dead farmers cow means every other cow in the world will die as well. There are hundreds and thousands of farmers and they’re not all going to be attacked at once just because one did.  We don’t deserve to interrupt the natural order, and just because we did doesn’t mean we’re justified. That’s like going into your neighbors family and forcing them to do everything you want them to do just because you don’t think they’re as smart as you. 
This isn’t about pollution. Stay on topic this isn’t even about going back to the caveman days you’re completely missing my point. I will get to that at the end of my post.

They can go down to the store or the salvation army or a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter. They wouldn’t starve, that’s just ridiculous.

It’s an example, chill out. Humans do kill animals for any reason they can think of. It’s just a fact. I was going out of context to prove a point. And it’s not like you and  A Guy haven’t given me unfair arguments.

They’re not equal in intellect but they have just as much right to be here as we do. Whether you believe creation or evolution either God created them just like he created us or We came from them and if it weren’t for them we wouldn’t even be here. Have some respect.

If it did there wouldn’t be poor and homeless people. Believe it or not a person born in the ghetto does not get all the same choices as someone in Beverly Hills. Contrary to popular belief.

It’s not a flame so stop abusing your administrative powers to win an argument. I didn’t call him a mental retard. I have been using the mentally handicapped as an example throughout this whole argument you know that. I simply responded in the same manner he commented. I don’t appreciate this. I would expect better out of a moderator.

Excuse me for being gang banged by 3 different individuals and getting a little confused. If anyone is being picked on it’s me.

This is not about pollution, it’s not about money, this isn't about animals being humans and it’s not about technology. Yes we’re here the way we are yes we are all very comfortable with the lives we lead now and that’s not going to change and no one wants it to change.
My point is that we should have more respect for animals and treat them as someone rather than something we can just use and abuse. We took their land. Just like we took the Indians land, just like we took and enslaved African Americans but now we have accommodations for them. We take and enslave animals we take their land we take their food. Yes that’s what we do because we’re smarter and feel entitled. Yes we accidentally kill animals with our technology but that's not even close to the same thing and is an irrelevant argument. We have little to no respect for animals whatsoever and that is my argument. We should be a little more appreciative of the creatures that are keeping us alive and that have given us everything we have today. They don’t complain, they don’t even plot to kill us because we took everything they had. They just want to live and survive just like we do. Is that really so wrong?

I’m finished with this confrontation. It’s purely based on opinion, the only defining factor is that the majority believes one thing and I was raised to believe something that’s socially abstract in this time period. I can’t change your minds and you can’t change mine. Lets just agree to disagree. I’m sure we all have better things to do than bang our heads on a brick wall all day.

Humans are the superiour species, the most inteligent, beautiful, genius, best ,most awesome thing to have ever happened to the universe

True.

Wrong. Thanks for twisting our words around.

OK, we get it! Humans are the superiour species, the most inteligent, beautiful, genius,  best ,most awesome thing to have ever happened to the universe  everything else sucks and is inferious to us and we should EX-TER-MIN-ATE!!! every life-form ever because it isn't as perfect as us ho mo awesomepiens.

Can this thred die now please?

Can’t don’t know any better, just like the autistic child that kills the family fish by feeding it peanut butter sandwiches. They just thought it would be fun to see the fish eat people food.

You do know that autism =/= retardation, right? Just for the record, it's an annoying stereotype. By the way, here's another link I found: http://www.articlealley.com/article_460709_54.html

I never said those stories don't exist. That doesn't prove that animals can care like humans can.

Yes, it does mean that. If something is ingrained in your mind, you can't root it out.

Oh, and did you know that the primary concerns of animals are either themselves, those it associates with its well-being, or their species? The amount an animal is concerned with each varies from animal to animal (bees, for example, are concerned more with the species as a whole than with themselves).

We have institutions for them that allow them to live somewhat happy lives.

Read previous post. And no, it doesn't make beavers more likable than humans, as you can't talk with a beaver. Imagine what life would be like if you had nothing to strive for other than basic survival. That's what animals strive for. And it's not because beavers are nice, it's because they CAN'T feel these emotions because they are not sentient.

Exactly. And where there is conflict that can't be settled by diplomacy, that conflict is settled by force. Whoever can apply more wins. And a gun can apply a great deal of lethal force quickly. It's that simple. It works that way with animals - the stronger, dominant lions get the lion's share of the meat from a kill.

I never mentioned the motive of the robbery, did I? People often rob because they cannot see another way to survive. Many still often die of bullet wounds.

And a human in a coma can still recover. I think what you're thinking of is a brain-dead human - and there have been many cases of the plug being pulled on brain-dead humans because life support was a waste.

It's funny how all of your arguments are saying that humans should just be pushovers and let animals have their way because it's the "natural order" and it's "moral", even though that's not what happens among animals.

And define "know any better". What makes your way of thinking better?

You are dodging the question.

Alice: "There's a chicken, a bag of grain, and fox. You can carry one of each in your boat with you. You want to get them all to the other side of the river. The fox eats the chicken when left unattended, and the chicken eats the grain when left unattended. What do you do?"
Bob: "Take all three in my boat and drown."

Animals get injured and sick just like we do.

I was thinking of it in the context of building hospitals for humans, so I guess I misunderstood this.

However, like I said, if they were really capable of and willing to doing such things (which they are neither), they wouldn't be animals. They'd be humans in animal bodies.

Animals are already becoming overpopulated. That's why they're coming into human-inhabited areas and killing livestock. That's why there are government-approved and regulated hunting seasons - to keep people safe and the animal population in check. We've modified their environments to the extent that we can't just let them do whatever they want anymore.

You also didn't answer how they would move if they don't have the money (it's impossible to move anywhere if you don't have the money. Not everyone has unlimited disposable income to just get up and leave when bugs are attacking their crops or wolves are killing their livestock), or what you would do if the animal was attacking the livestock at that second and there was no other way to stop it but shoot.

This is very, very idealistic as people actually need money and food to survive. Human life, I agree with you, but not a dog's life or an insect's life, as your philosophy of equal value  would suggest.

You don't need high speed internet to survive, so this is a terrible example. Please stop horribly misinterpreting my words, or at least give fair examples and stop trying to make me seem like a Nazi. =/ It greatly decreases your credibility.

I never said people weren't worth anything if they can't save other people, nor will you ever hear me say that. You're twisting my words and misinterpretting my arguments again. I'm just asking for your opinion about this. Obviously it's an impossible situation for a hamster or a fish to save a human, but it brings up a good point that they can't. You say it's proof that animals can love because they can save people, but not all animals can. Do you think this means they don't have emotions? What about wild animals that don't have owners and don't care a thing about humans? Again, what about insects?

Then how would we all eat?
As I said, we've already interrupted the "natural order" by creating buildings, roads, cars, and other things. Now that we've done this, we can't just let nature take its course because it's not natural - everything would be in chaos and people would be dying everywhere. Farmers would lose all their money and starve because they couldn't defend their main sources of income from predators.

Or are you suggesting we all go back to the caveman days, getting rid of all our houses, roads, and cars, so we can all be the way nature intended? This argument makes you a hypocrite, as you are on a computer using electricity which pollutes the air to type your messages.

Bugs actually can completely destroy crops, leaving nothing. What then?

As for the ones that don't completely destroy them, no one wants to buy food that's been half-eaten by bugs, and any farmers who did this would make no money and again, starve. You're being idealistic again; the world does not work this way.

OK, but the other situations I mentioned weren't "for the hell of it" either. They're very necessary. Unfair argument.

That's not the point. The point was that you said "all lives," implying that bacteria, bugs, etc are equal to humans.

You were saying they're created equally. Doesn't that warrant equal opportunity?

There's a burning building, and inside are your little brother and a pet ant. You only have time to save one of them, or you will be killed. By your logic that all lives are worth exactly the same, you would have to take the time to get both your brother and the ant out safely, killing yourself in the process, because the ant's life is worth the same as yours. Is this correct?

-------

(The gerbil story was mine, by the way, not A Guy's; please read more carefully. If you want to pick on anyone for that, pick on me.)

Just because something is ingrained in my mind doesn’t mean I can’t believe differently. Thinking and acting are two completely different things. People know abuse is wrong yet when they see it happening in a public area they stand by and do nothing. That doesn't mean they think it's okay.

I find it funny how you use your violent gerbil story for argument sake, but I’m not allowed to use my mouse story.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 … AA280_.jpg Ever see one of those? It’s a live trap. And I hardly find catching and relocating 18 mice an amazing tale. I never said I caught 200. I said I caught as many as I could.
Insults are not necessary.

I don't have time for a point-by-point response for now, but I'll respond to this first.

Okay, first of all, where is this gerbil story I supposedly gave you?

Second of all, you gave the expected response. Now, I'll give you my response - do you know why vermin are vermin? Because they're hard to get rid of. Do you know one of the reasons they're hard to get rid of? Because they ADAPT. A group of animals will only fall for the same trap a few times before they realize their comrades disappear whenever they enter one of the traps in question, and will start to avoid it, even if it is baited. That's why several methods are often used to combat the problem of a mouse invasion. The fact that 18 mice managed to fall for that one fact shows me that either A. Your story is false, B. The mice in your house were really, REALLY stupid, or C. You were effectively living in a mouse hole. A seems the most logical answer.

And even if you were telling the truth, catching HOUSE mice, spoon-feeding them food and water, and then throwing them out in the wild will make them easy prey for anything that happens to eat mice.

Not just wolves, All animals. Pay attention. Wolves just started the argument. And you still haven't said what makes humans more important in the first place.
And how is it looking out for our well-being to kill an animal because they did damage to our property or took some of our food?
You can't accuse me of seeing the situation wrongly if you're doing exactly the same thing but on the opposite end of the confrontation.
I say animals are just as important you say humans are more important.
What's the difference?

I'm getting left behind.

Sorry about wolves. They seem to be the crux of idiotic anti-human philosophy, and thus my mortal enemies.

What makes a human more important to me is that they are simply my species. Thus, I have a greater responsibility to care for them than other species. Given the choice between a dog and any decent human, expanding on what Stormy said, I'd always choose the human. And don't think that animals would do any different.

You interpret this "worth" as a universally translatable property that we all have, possibly in different amounts, but that's an idealistic and downright silly idea. Since worth does not actually exist, it is a subjective property. Thus, you may attribute different values of worth to values I attribute.

Now, as people, we have a sort-of, layered circle of responsibility (this bit's going to get a little weird). First of all, we are to keep ourselves alive, that's our number one priority, when we want to live at least. Then, close family, spouses, children and good friends. Then less close family and friends. Your third cousin from Australia, or whatever. People who live near you. And finally humans as a species. Then maybe primates, if you take this really seriously.

This may sound a little callous, but think of it like this. My hypothetical children are cared for by me. I feed them, clothe them, provide new technological innovatios for them, but I don't do this for other people's children. That is because I have a responsibility towards my own children that is greater than the responsibility I hold to other children. And don't think I wouldn't try to save, say, my sister if there was a 0.1% chance of death. Eventual action in such situations involve "worth", probabilities, and quantity.

So, worth is not objective, but subjective. We have a greater responsibility to our own people. Reply.

But would they if they were capable? Probably not. It wouldn't help them in any way, so it's not important to them.
Animals get injured and sick just like we do.
And if the animal is attacking the livestock at that moment and the only way to get them to stop is to shoot? If there's no place to relocate it because they're becoming overpopulated?

If the humans don't have the money to relocate or it would be too much of a hassle or inconvenience?
If there ever comes a day when there are no places left to relocate an animal on Earth then we will already have inhabited another planet. That wont happen for a long time. And again, Money should never be more important than a life. You may as well sell a family member to pay for your high speed internet. 

Refer to my reply to A Guy further down.

You don’t have to believe it it’s out of context anyway.
So ask yourself, could a deaf blind and mute person do this? Your suggesting fantastical measures and exaggerating to the obviously impossible proves nothing.

I already said this isn’t an argument of the natural order. So all food related comments are irrelevant.
But if you want to get so pickey, then yes. 
We shouldn't defend our livestock and homes from attacking animals because we might kill them. It interrupts the natural order.
We shouldn't eat wheat or crops because farmers use pesticides to kill the bugs that eat their produce. We shouldn’t be using pesticides at all. We should just eat the bug, that’s what there here for, nourishment, just like all living things.
We shouldn't manufacture wheat because some innocent mice and insects might die from the machines. It’s one thing to kill something accidentally; it’s another completely to kill for the hell of it.
We shouldn't use soap because it kills bacteria. If it weren’t for antibacterial precautions we would have evolved beyond the bacteria it’s meant to kill in the first place like Mexicans and drinking their water.

That whole charade was pointless. I am not saying animals shouldn’t die. I’m saying we should have respect for them in the fact that we’re created equally but not with equal opportunity.

Can’t don’t know any better, just like the autistic child that kills the family fish by feeding it peanut butter sandwiches. They just thought it would be fun to see the fish eat people food.

This was more to rebut that fact that she said you never hear heroic stories with anything but dogs.

Just because something is ingrained in my mind doesn’t mean I can’t believe differently. Thinking and acting are two completely different things. People know abuse is wrong yet when they see it happening in a public area they stand by and do nothing. That doesn't mean they think it's okay.

I find it funny how you use your violent gerbil story for argument sake, but I’m not allowed to use my mouse story.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 … AA280_.jpg Ever see one of those? It’s a live trap. And I hardly find catching and relocating 18 mice an amazing tale. I never said I caught 200. I said I caught as many as I could.
Insults are  not necessary.

Did I mention mental retards?

Did I mention the mentally insane killing because they don’t know better? And wouldn't that make beavers more like-able than humans? No one likes a jerk. Imagine how nice this world would be if people didn't argue over such petty garbage.

Order of nature. Your argument is invalid. Humans are meant to eat animals and animals are meant to eat animals.

But you would be robbing someone out of greed in that case. Animals rob for survival. And if it defines worth to any degree then a human in a coma is no longer a human and families are foolish for crying over stillborn children that never had any knowledge to begin with.

If they do it’s because they don’t know any better. It’s interesting how all your arguments are all those saying intellect is the defining characteristic of worthy beings in some way or another. I feel like a broken record.

With that sort of logic yes, I should save the dog. But to be completely honest I’d rather die trying to save them both than having to choose. But that’s purely opinionated. Just like the notion that humans are superior to animals. The only difference is the vast majority believes one thing while a sparse few believe the other.
No one has proof either way.

Yes, OUT OF NECESSITY! Not for fun. For the millionth time now.
And I missed one of your points so don’t tell me I’m ignoring you when you conveniently disregard multiples of mine. When your gerbil killed the other gerbil the only thing on his mind was ensuring that his genes continued (Continuing the species) When Humans kill or *bleep* they do it for the thrill of the hunt and the joy of watching someone helplessly squirm under them.

Cats toy with mice before they kill them. Seems rather sadistic, don't you think? And I don't know about the whole gerbil thing... But I found a nice link for you. http://www.our-happy-cat.com/cat-hunting.html

For your previous questions, no, I haven't. As for the link, parrots are birds of imitation - it definitely did not learn how to say "Mama, Baby!" on its own. There was a tale of how a parrot allegedly said "Robber! Robber!" when a store (or was it a bar, or a restaurant? I can't remember) was being robbed, but it turned out the parrot was actually saying "Robert!", the name of the robber, who was a frequent customer - that's how the police caught him. The parrot most likely just said "Mama! Baby!" in response to something the baby normally does when people say that.

You see, so you say that these things are ingrained in your mind because you are HUMAN? Despite the fact that you are arguing to the opposite? The very fact that you argue this shows that these thigns are not ingrained in your mind. Argument busted.

And how did you catch so many mice without damaging or harming them? Barehanded? The fact that you have such an amazing tale to tell for this argument reeks of falsification - unless you can prove your story to me, I won't buy it. As Stormy has said before, though not in these exact words, a good argument does not live off of anecdotal evidence.

Yes, you have. Stormy says "You make it sound like all humans are cruel and evil, but you are one." You reply with "We are, it’s the bottom line."

And did I mention cats before?

No, it's because an animal is incapable of pride in the sense that a human is. Beavers, for example, won't find another beaver community and argue about who has a better dam. And did I mention that link? http://www.our-happy-cat.com/cat-hunting.html And this link: http://www.articlealley.com/article_460709_54.html

Yes, the money and the livestock which then becomes food are more important. And you do know that the longer you let a wolf live, the more things die, right? Right? So if you value animal lives more, you would actually have to starve every single carnivorous creature on the planet.

Yes, intelligence defines how capable someone or something is performing, so it does define worth to a degree. And I would not be tolerant of being shot, but if I was robbing someone, I would have it coming to me.

Animals do not take more than what they need usually because it's easier to get just what they need. It's like a kid that gets grades just good enough to get him into an okay college. However, if they have the opportunity to glut themselves with little effort, they will.

Say the building is burning, debris is collapsing, and you have time to only save one. You would save your brother, wouldn't you? Why not your dog? Your brother is, after all, an evil, abominable human, the worst possible vision of all the world's horrors.

I’m not completely ignoring that humans can do good or I wouldn’t have rephrased myself to say that we simply have the capacity. Also you’re thinking of animals as humans when you say there are more humans that do good. That simply doesn’t work. They’re animals, they can’t build hospitals or put out fires, they’re simply incapable.

But would they if they were capable? Probably not. It wouldn't help them in any way, so it's not important to them.

But if they were capable, they would basically be humans with different bodies, and I would be agreeing with everything you've been saying.

Well, I've already made it clear what I think about this, but excluding that...

I agree with this.

And if the animal is attacking the livestock at that moment and the only way to get them to stop is to shoot? If there's no place to relocate it because they're becoming overpopulated? If the humans don't have the money to relocate or it would be too much of a hassle or inconvenience?

Because it's a hypothetical situation I used to make a point. In this hypothetical situation, only one can be saved for one reason or another.

Alright, I'm not sure if I believe the animals-raising-humans thing without any proof, but whatever. I know of many fictional stories with sentient animals where this has happened, however.

And as for the fire rescue thing, that's fine, but there's still the question of hamsters, fish, and other household pets that would otherwise be incapable of doing this.

I see. So we shouldn't defend our livestock and homes from attacking animals because we might kill them. We shouldn't eat wheat or crops because farmers use pesticides to kill the bugs that eat their produce. We shouldn't manufacture wheat because some innocent mice and insects might die from the machines. We shouldn't eat salad because it kills plants. We shouldn't step outside in the grass because we might squish an innocent bug. We we shouldn't use soap because it kills bacteria.

I fail to see how you live in a modern society with this outlook.

And I'm saying I don't because there's really no proof that they feel anything more than happiness at being fed and taken care of.

There’s also no proof that they don’t.

I’m not completely ignoring that humans can do good or I wouldn’t have rephrased myself to say that we simply have the capacity. Also you’re thinking of animals as humans when you say there are more humans that do good. That simply doesn’t work. They’re animals, they can’t build hospitals or put out fires, they’re simply incapable. They are less intelligent than us, but that shouldn’t mean that they’re beneath us. That just means we should be caring for them as we would a child or a mentally ill person. And yes many murderers, rapists and thieves are mentally ill, that’s true, but the ONLY animals to step out of their survival instincts and do something malicious and out of the ordinary are those that are mentally ill. Hitler honestly only wanted the best for his people. He was a brilliant man who just didn’t like Jewish people. That doesn’t mean what he did was okay or that he was even mentally ill.

I actually did respond to these but I’ll repost my answers.

Trainer Spyro wrote:
Yes it is. No one ever said we couldn’t defend ourselves, but to eliminate something because it annoys you is not self defense. There’s no way an animal could cause enough damage to your food supply for it to be necessary for you to have to worry about your own well-being. Not in this day and age. If the animal is physically attacking you and is actually a threat (I’m not talking about a cat biting you because you stepped on its tail) that’s another story. Humans will do that to other humans as well.

Stormy:
Think about people in rural areas who raise livestock. Surely you're not saying they should just let wolves keep coming and killing off their sources of income and food.

Trainer_Spyro:
Of course I’m not saying farmers should just let animals have free pickin on their livestock.
Relocate them or relocate yourself.

Stormy wrote:
I've also noticed that you've also avoided my point about whether you'd save your dog or your brother. That's important for me to understand where you're coming from.

Trainer_Spyro:
And you ask me to choose between my dog and my brother, I say why not aim to save both?

Stormy wrote:
Also, I'd like to add, I think it's only dogs that [save humans from fires]. I've never heard of a pet hamster or a fish or a bird doing that, or showing the slightest sign of emotion for that matter, so what does that mean for them?

I think the main thing here is where you draw the line. So you think killing a dog is equivalent to killing a human. Is it the same for, say, a squirrel? A butterfly? A centipede? A single-celled organism?

Trainer_Spyro:
As far as the instance of animals raising human children I don’t have any examples. I just recently learned this myself in a sociology class and was equally surprised.  And the fire rescue thing has also been recorded with cats and birds.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne … kfast.html

All things have an equal right to live. ALL things.