What is the difference between humans and animals?

I had a long-haired Jack Russell that was extremely smart, and was always happy to see you. He never had anything negative to say either, so they do have some advantages over humans.

My neighbor didn't obey the leash law, and his great dane killed my dog. I wanted to kill'em'all /sad story.

 

Bear in mind that my dog is not polluting the planet, not murdering thousands of Iraqis, not pronouncing that its religion is best, not creating weapons of mass destruction, not killing whales for "scientific purposes" played out of the plates of Japanese whale meat connoisseurs, not flying planes into tall buildings, and so on.

 

I am selectively eugenic.

For starters, I don't like penguins.

Anything called a bird should be able to fly.

 

So you are into torture instead of painless death.

That is hard to applaud.

 

Excelent point! I just wish people in the cities would find a way to co exist with their dogs, with all the traffic, and other dogs, etc...

 

I'm sorry, OK? I can't help it. Besides, something has to live in Antarctica besides snow. Plus what animal are environmentalists supposed to get their panties in a wad about when ever news on the ozone hole pops up? Surely not polar bears?!?

 

You are clearly not of hippopotami persuasion.

 

I prefer my women monochrome and pudgy.


AWWWW YEAH

 

Yeah well I still say give it a bath.

 

I think that there should be punishments for doing things like that. Killing a pet on purpose (dog or cat or other large animal not used for food) should warrant some sort of monetary fine or even possible jail time if it's really morbid. Not like 20 years in the slammer, but say a week tops in the county jail.

 

That's curious. Many people who have pets value them more than the humans they have to interact with.

Yet you are saying there should be lesser penalties for murdering a pet than there are for killing a human who is less relevant and/or useful and more psychopathic?

On any utilitarian measure, that does not make sense.

 

The more people I meet, the more I love my dog.

 

As a pet owner you have property rights. No more.

If someone kills it, they will get a fine.

If someone kills your obnoxious and extremely irritating wife, for some reason, that amounts to something more.

I guess it's a law necessary to protect irritating wives.

 

I'll recognize the intelligence of humans when they stop saying stupid sh!t like that.

Considering that most humans do not have Internet, this is a dubious argument.

Ergo, they are smarter than us.

No, you didn't. You made an extremely vague and confusing statement about "two-legged animals", which I found especially strange considering that squid actually have eight legs.

To be honest, most humans lack this ability.

Being lowered into boiling water while still alive is neither quick nor painless.

To be fair, neither are any humans now that Saddam is out of the picture.

No form of torture is too extreme a punishment for the killing of a cat.

 

"We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth."

...Henry Beston

 

Why not?

On a scale of usefulness, your pet is probably worth far more than any wife you have or have had to divorce to relieve yourself of an irritant and bottomless drain on your bank account.

 

Animals are delicious but I've never tasted human and don't plan on it.

Although, they are probably also delicious.

 

Probably not a good idea.

MacDonalds fed protein is bound to be toxic.

 

What animal has two legs and is protected by human rights? No wonder you believe in Fox News

 

How about this! It's why I support ice cold coca-colas in my avatar.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/07/15/company-using-aborted-fetal-cells-in-flavors-shields-partners/
Company Using Aborted Fetal Cells in Flavors Shields Partners
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 7/15/11 10:13 AM

The company that was found to be testing their food additives using fetal cells from abortions is now working to hide the names of the corporations it contracts with as a pro-life boycott continues.

LifeNews.com reported on the controversy in March when information came to light showing biotech company Senomyx was found to be testing their food additives using fetal cells from a line based on cells from a baby victimized by abortion. Senomyx ignored a letter from the pro-life group Children of God for Life, which complained about its practices.

Now, the pro-life group informs Lifenews.com that Senomyx is attempting to hide the names of their corporate partners by removing them from their website.

“Public backlash has apparently caused much consternation for the biomedical firm that has ignored consumer complaints and continues to use HEK-293 (human embryonic kidney) cells in the research and development of artificial flavor enhancers,” says Debi Vinnedge, executive director of CGL.

The move by Senomyx comes after PepsiCo, one of the biggest corporate partners, ignored pro-life criticism in a canned recent response to customer letters, saying, “With respect to the flavor discovery research with Senomyx, we utilize techniques that have been the gold standard for several decades.”

 

So humans are useful in the production of fizzy drinks.

Such is progress.