Are we required by law to give the animals under our care a quality life?

anarchist100

I don't know much about the law regarding it, but science has proven at this point that animals, (with the exception of the brainless ones), have the ability to feel suffering, so as such, it is only moral to avoid unnecessary suffering to animals. The suffering caused by factory farming outweighs any of the benefits, it should be banned entirely. This is just one example.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Some animals are barely different than us like other great apes.

The differences between chimps and us is minimal.

just_sayin

The laws regarding what is required differ between the animal and sometimes state/locality.  How someone treats chickens or livestock for commercial food use will be different than how you can treat cockroaches.  

Swolliw

@jack We should have respect for all life whether human or other animal types. As for me, I'm rather fond of animals....especially with sauce.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: No, I diagree we shouldn't have respect for all life especially pathogens like malaria.

@Swolliw

Malaria is a living single celled organism. I have no respect for malaria.

Mosquitoes are also animals. That's why I get nervous when I hear about vegans talking about animal rights. Seriously, mosquito rights? Ticks, fleas, and mites oh my. Tapeworm and other parasites.

That's why I am against animal rights. Dog and cats yes, but general rights for animals is way too inclusive. Then, we would have the animal right zealots coming after us for giving flea and tick prevention.

The second flaw of your argument of having respect for all life is what is alive? Are viruses alive or prions? Is SARS-CoV-2 alive?

I am sorry if I come off as hypercritical. Ever since I watch a Star Trek Deep space nine where the main character Sisko said humans value life above all or something to that extent I've been really annoyed by vacuous statements like all life is sacred or as you put it we should have respect for all life. No, we should not. Live and let die.

Phite

Dreamer said:

@Swolliw

That's why I am against animal rights. Dog and cats yes . . .

Explain your irrational and emotional reaction to the idea of eating cats and dogs, but not pigs.  Sounds like you apply morality to only what you're familiar with. 

Double standard!!

anarchist100

Dreamer said:

@Swolliw

Malaria is a living single celled organism. I have no respect for malaria.

Mosquitoes are also animals. That's why I get nervous when I hear about vegans talking about animal rights. Seriously, mosquito rights? Ticks, fleas, and mites oh my. Tapeworm and other parasites.

That's why I am against animal rights. Dog and cats yes, but general rights for animals is way too inclusive. Then, we would have the animal right zealots coming after us for giving flea and tick prevention.

The second flaw of your argument of having respect for all life is what is alive? Are viruses alive or prions? Is SARS-CoV-2 alive?

I am sorry if I come off as hypercritical. Ever since I watch a Star Trek Deep space nine where the main character Sisko said humans value life above all or something to that extent I've been really annoyed by vacuous statements like all life is sacred or as you put it we should have respect for all life. No, we should not. Live and let die.

Ticks fleas and viruses and not intelligent as a cow or a bat is, so there's a difference, they may be incapable of true suffering, however if they could suffer, would it not be rational to prevent their suffering? Just because something is so commonplace doesn't mean it's moral, this is hypothetical of course.

Let us say that, all animals enjoy the right to avoid unnecessary suffering, and the ability to live a tolerable life, and nature has already decided that the flea, the tick, and the virus shall not suffer, nor should they live what you would call a life. We are not able to control this, of what concern is it to eliminate these animals?

I do often wonder however if this is truly the case, ticks and flea, perhaps, on some level are sentient, what does this matter? If they really do suffer than we should try to avoid their suffering, and is permanently ending their existence immoral? All theoretical.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Animals testing saves human lives.

@Phite

Take gelatin for example. "Gelatin is made from the bones, hides, and other parts of animals, including horses." Snopes

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gelatin-source/

Animal testing saves human lives.

Phite

@Dreamer

My point is that, based on what you've said, you practice a double standard due to your arbitrary assignment of value to life, which is based on your familiarity with particular lifeforms.  You are biased from the start . . .

If you have a dog or cat, would you mind sacrificing its right to not be harmed and killed as a lab rat in the interest of saving a life?  Of course you would mind. 

 

Swolliw

@Dreamer @Phite ;Seriously, mosquito rights?

Yes, seriously, they have rights. So do crocodiles, sharks, snakes, spiders and any number of deadly or nuisance creatures. 

And, to put things into perspective, humans are the most deadly, nuisance creatures on earth; we have gratuitously slaughtered creatures (including our own) far more than any other species.

So, I'm sure there is a mosquito out there somewhere making the observation that there should be no such thing as human rights and that mosquito would be one hell of a lot more justified for his view than some human arbitrarily stating that mosquitos should not have rights.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Xenotransplantation of pig hearts may save lives someday.

@Phite

There are organ shortages and pigs may be the answer.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00111-9

As for a companion animal of a cat/dog humans view them as human. The emotional attachment is strong leading to emotional distress when a pet dies.

Maybe in the future we will all be an artificial life form like holograms that can live on solar panels for energy and mined materials for more circuit boards. Yet, at this time we are limited by our biology and can ultimately only do so much to prevent harm to animals.

https://theconversation.com/looking-forward-to-a-future-without-factory-farming-141918

Considering we still have factory farming that could both lead to the next pandemic and contributes to global warming as well as animal suffering only a weak case can be made against animal testing. The perfect is the enemy of good. The best we can do for lab rats is find ways to make them more comfortable and avoid unnecessary testing.

"Torturing rats in the name of acupuncture pseudoscience"

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/kings-of-quackademia-georgetown/

For example, acupuncture on rats? Where is the outrage from animal rights activists?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I'd focus on factory farming. Factory farming could be an existential threat if it causes a pandemic.

Factory farming could cause a pandemic that wipes out 1 in 2 people.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200602/Could-the-next-pandemic-be-100-times-worse-than-COVID-19.aspx

Phite

Dreamer said:

@Phite

As for a companion animal of a cat/dog humans view them as human. The emotional attachment is strong leading to emotional distress when a pet dies.

I'm still trying to decide whether you're deliberately missing my point or not.  So, I'll try again.

Would you mind if I volunteer your dog or cat to sacrifice itself for the betterment of sick humans everywhere?

Also, owing to your assignment of value to lifeforms, you would have no problem should a higher lifeform decide to breed humans for the purpose of acquiring a particular hormone from them because it makes them feel more well.  Correct?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Yes, I would mind and false analogy.

@Phite

"
Would you mind if I volunteer your dog or cat to sacrifice itself for the betterment of sick humans everywhere?"

Yes, I would mind.

"
Also, owing to your assignment of value to lifeforms, you would have no problem should a higher lifeform decide to breed humans for the purpose of acquiring a particular hormone from them because it makes them feel more well.  Correct?" Phite

False analogy, the problem is humans have higher sentience and intelligence meaning we have a much greater ability to suffering particular in the emotion dread. Take the example of fruit flies used in laboratory settings, since they only live what 50 days or so their maximum suffering is limited.

Going even further experimenting on malaria in order to make it less dangerous. I don't think single cell organisms can feel any pain at all.

In the opposite direction higher lifeforms may already being breeding us for a particular hormone. Yet, they have done so in such away that human are obvious.

Swolliw

@Dreamer ; Factory farming could be an existential threat if it causes a pandemic.

Indeed, and the sky could fall down as well.

I would rather focus on the evidence and what we know and can logically predict. Poultry farming has caused diseases and has been largely contained. Of course, scientists and officials already keep a close look on poultry processing and there are very strict rules in place but how can we avoid it? We just love consuming chicken.

Phite

@Dreamer

Why would you mind your dog being sacrificed in the name of saving a life if, according to you, he can't feel enough pain to cause you concern anyway?  

In most cases, a person's dog will fight to the death defending them.  From that, did you draw the conclusion that they would be just as willing to give their life for the purpose of protecting strangers from things like lung cancer . . . likely brought on by years of self-abuse?  That would be a self-serving falsehood at best, wouldn't it?

Animals will scream and try to run when you go to work on them in a lab (assuming their vocal cords haven't been cut). You would downplay that pain because you believe that, unless the animal is intelligent enough to express its pain in a language you can understand (English), it's not important . . . unless it's your dog.

John_C_87

@Dreamer

That's why I am against animal rights. Dog and cats yes, but general rights for animals is way too inclusive. Then, we would have the animal right zealots coming after us for giving flea and tick prevention. The misunderstanding is the rights that might appear as being established towards animal or animals are in fact United States Constitutional rights that are connected to humans as a state of their union. The principle which is at risk here is united states of truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth which are supposed to be what comprises states of the union in American Constitution or Amendments to American Constitution’s fact of the matter in whole truth is a animal you hold at liberty is a possible violation of the peoples American Constitutional Right animals have no constitutional rights, animals do not have Human Rights. The fact of truth also is that the reason behind animals having neither right is different and not dependent the state of a union between the two principles of established right.

John_C_87

@Phite
In most cases, a person's dog will fight to the death defending them.

I am not convinced this is true as a dog will fight to defend what it considers to be a meal ticket. Why the animals which attack and kill people as food will also attack and eat dogs. A dog is a pack animal and expects the pack it is part of to join them in the fight. This includes when dogs are attacking humans with other dogs left to fend for themselves. The other noted issue to mention is that there are many dogs who are responsible for deaths of people and children due to diseases which a dog has no knowledge of caring for or concern for transferring them.

In our city the law describes a person who feeds what is seen as a domestic animal is otherwise the legal owner. Making that person responsible for ownership requirements set by law. This may give a potential for a house pet or family pet a state of the union with the 2nd Amendment as the animal might be considered an Arm brought to bear by its owner.

Phite

@John_C_87

It sounds like you've determined that a dog's defense of the person that feeds it is a calculated measure on the part of the dog to ensure continued meals.  But the same dog will defend even the children of the person who feeds it.  You brought up instances of dogs attacking others as a way to detract from their loyalty.   Consider that humans do the same, and with less excuse.

When your child tells you that they love you, how can you be sure that it's not a calculated measure on their part to ensure a continuous flow of food and clothing?

John_C_87

@Phite

What I am saying is a dog is a pack animal, it expects to be fed by the pack leader and often by just instanced fights to defend the pack in an understanding the pack will join in. I am simply not convinced after owning several dogs during my life as a group the dog would sacrifice itself without natural instincts which are expected though not always reciprocated. For all intent many birds are known to become over attached to a single person much in the same way and climb on their owners to show domination over the person. People often mistake natural instincts for forms of affection and respect.

Realistically we are talking about the importance of seeking out good veterinarians that can assist us in pet choices for us and choices that also best serve the pets who best fit with us. The veterinarian is not just about keeping shots and general grooming in check, it’s about matchmaking people with pets in a way. If that makes sense, it is not even unwise to seek the advice of a veterinarian much like a person seeks medical advice on certain matters of importance as advice before a choice is even made on a pet.

Phite

When a man's spouse is being threatened, he will defend her, but only because of base instinct and his understanding of the potential loss of services she provides the pack/family.  And any alleged feelings of love between spouses boils down to the emotion-influencing properties of hormones.
 

But back on topic, we shouldn't rape other lifeforms.  When we do that, we also need to convince ourselves that the suffering of a dog or pig is inconsequential when we actually know better.   

MineSubCraftStarved

@jack
Why should an animal's life be treated in equal magnitude to that of a human's life in the context of the law? We are a civilization of humans, animals are property, that is all. They do not deserve any more protections under the law any more than your computer or hairdryer should. If I stomp on an ant, I should not be charged with murder. Even if that was from an ant colony I made, and thus was under my care.

anarchist100

MineSubCraftStarved said:

@jack
Why should an animal's life be treated in equal magnitude to that of a human's life in the context of the law? We are a civilization of humans, animals are property, that is all. They do not deserve any more protections under the law any more than your computer or hairdryer should. If I stomp on an ant, I should not be charged with murder. Even if that was from an ant colony I made, and thus was under my care.

Animals have no rights because there is no such thing as rights. Do we as humans have the right to do as we please with out civilization? Maybe we do, maybe we don't, there's no objective answer.
The fact is that they suffer, and if we feel compassion then we want to avoid suffering, it's quite simple, no need to mention such concepts of rights.

jack

MineSubCraftStarved said:

@jack

Why should an animal's life be treated in equal magnitude to that of a human's life in the context of the law?

Hello M:

I'm not sure we should.  I killed a bee in my house this morning.  I sprayed that sucker with Raid.  The poor guy flailed around with all 6 legs wiggling in the air.  Did I feel sorry for him?  I did.  Should I have let him have his way with me?  No. 

Does meat or eggs taste better when raised humanly?  Recent studies say no. Still, try as I might, I just can't equate the bug I just stepped on with my dog Rover.  I don't have the answer.

excon

Phite

MineSubCraftStarved said:

@jack
Why should an animal's life be treated in equal magnitude to that of a human's life in the context of the law?

The law does not require you to do much beyond supplying shelter, water, and food within the bounds of a length of chain.  However, in answer to your question, an animal should be treated as equal to a human when it comes to the question of inflicting undue suffering on them.  

MineSubCraftStarved

@anarchist100

Animals have no rights because there is no such thing as rights.

Yes, there most certainly are. Rights are defined as one's ability to do something as long as it doesn't physically affect another person without their consent.

Do we as humans have the right to do as we please with out civilization?

Humans have always had the ability to do as we please with or without civilization.

The fact is that they suffer, and if we feel compassion then we want to avoid suffering, it's quite simple

But I don't want to alleviate the suffering of animals at the expense of humans. I care little for compassion towards flies, even though they can suffer. What's quite simple is that I am human, and I am a human nationalist, meaning I place all humans far and above all the lives of animals. And such a belief has managed to create actual functioning civilization. And thus I support it.

MineSubCraftStarved

@jack

Did I feel sorry for him?  I did.  Should I have let him have his way with me?  No. 

Well, should you have been obligated to care for the bee? I'm not denying it may be sad, but it is not wrong nor should it be illegal.

Still, try as I might, I just can't equate the bug I just stepped on with my dog Rover.

So then you are creating a hierarchy of value among animals. Then what is wrong with me claiming that humans, as the highest tier of such a hierarchy, deserve more rights, care, and protection, than all other animals, even at their expense?

MineSubCraftStarved

@Phite

an animal should be treated as equal to a human when it comes to the question of inflicting undue suffering on them.  

Then I suppose we all have to be charged with murder since we have all killed another animal(we have all most likely squashed a fly, or stepped on an ant) in our lifetime. If your logic is consistent, then you must agree to this point.

Phite

@MineSubCraftStarved

Sometimes, people believe that they can deflect, or otherwise defend against, any criticism of their selective application of morality concerning animals by suggesting that anyone opposed to the mass slaughter of pigs is a hypocrite by virtue of their willingness to slap a mosquito or step on a bug. 

Is that where you're coming from?

anarchist100

MineSubCraftStarved said:

@anarchist100

Animals have no rights because there is no such thing as rights.

Yes, there most certainly are. Rights are defined as one's ability to do something as long as it doesn't physically affect another person without their consent.

Then animals have many rights, because animals can do many things without harming you.

Do we as humans have the right to do as we please with out civilization?

Humans have always had the ability to do as we please with or without civilization.

Yes, that doesn't that we should or that we shouldn't.

The fact is that they suffer, and if we feel compassion then we want to avoid suffering, it's quite simple

But I don't want to alleviate the suffering of animals at the expense of humans. I care little for compassion towards flies, even though they can suffer. What's quite simple is that I am human, and I am a human nationalist, meaning I place all humans far and above all the lives of animals. And such a belief has managed to create actual functioning civilization. And thus I support it.

And that's your opinions, there is no objective right or wrong when it comes to how much you personally regard someone. It's all a matter of personal opinion.

MineSubCraftStarved

@Phite

Sometimes, people believe that they can deflect, or otherwise defend against, any criticism of their selective application of morality concerning animals by suggesting that anyone opposed to the mass slaughter of pigs is a hypocrite by virtue of their willingness to slap a mosquito or step on a bug. 

How is it deflection? If you oppose universal equality of treatment between animals, then what would be the difference between a fly, a pig and a human under the context of the law? Meanwhile, if you do believe that an insect should not be treated as a human, then you do support selective application of morality concerning animals. Therefore, it would not be illogical to suggest humans are somehow more valuable than all other lifeforms on the planet.
I fail to see what is so controversial about this issue.

MineSubCraftStarved

@anarchist100

Then animals have many rights, because animals can do many things without harming you. 

Right, but the privilege's of a human are more important than the rights of any animal.

It's all a matter of personal opinion.

And it's my opinion that humans are more important than all other animals. While yours is of a contradictory opinion that all or some lifeforms(including humans) are equal to each other.
We are both arguing based on personal opinions, this is a political debate after all.

Barnardot

@MineSubCraftStarved ;And it's my opinion that humans are more important than all other animals.

And I reckon also that to many humans think they are more important than all other humans and every thing else in the world and that the hole world evolves a round them.

Your got to bear in mind that animals are just as important than humans because we deepend on them. For example chickens are important because what would it be like if you couldn't get a bucket of KFC on the way to the stock cars. It wouldn't be much fun if your girl friend pulled out a tofu sandwich would it. And what happens if your blind your seeing eye dog would be the most important thing in the world for you because it would stop you from walking into trucks and dog doodoos wouldn't it. And if you look at evolution where do you think humans came from rocks or something. No humans came from other animals so those animals were even more important in that case.

Phite

@MineSubCraftStarved

Taking another creature and conducting experiments on it to compensate for an inability to understand what makes you healthy and what makes you ill is the selfish act of a desperate person.  Grabbing an innocent being and holding them in front of you so as to avoid the repercussions of your own actions or inactions concerning health speaks for itself.

When someone asks you what it is that gives you the right to torture others for your own lack of awareness, you respond to them by pointing out that, just yesterday, you saw them slapping a mosquito . . .   

Barnardot

@Phite ;Taking another creature and conducting experiments on it to compensate for an inability 

I dont reckon that the scientists torture animals at all. Just because they do experiments on them is that torture. Have you seen any of these people torture animals at all because I bet you haven't so I reckon your just making that up without thinking about it at all because your one of these animal activators trying to stir up trouble when theres none any way.

Phite

@Barnardot

So, in your world, animals being used to test the toxicity of products don't feel pain.  What on earth do you think is going on in labs? They ingest, inhale, and absorb toxic crap.  You would know that had you not already made up your mind that no major suffering is going on.

Would you like me to find a video of animals being tormented in a lab setting?  I would do that for you.  Of course, I'll have to find one that hasn't been removed due to the horrible images.

Start with this:  Toxicity testing on animals at Vivotecnia, Spain | Cruelty Free International

Phite

I'm afraid you have friends in low places here who don't wish to see you put on the spot. I've had two posts here removed for reasons that make sense to only the censor.   Apparently, they're engaging in the same denial as you, with the exception that they can make inconvenient and uncomfortable points go away like they did.  It's called censorship.

So I guess I won't be showing you videos of what goes on in labs around the world because if my words are being erased immediately, what are the odds that a video proving my point won't be removed?  I can't deal with mods who don't know how to be impartial.

MayCaesar

Animal cruelty is harshly penalized in many legal systems. As with any other type of laws, animal cruelty is highly contextual and strongly depends on the culture in question and its historical heritage: for instance, slaughtering pigs on farm, hunting deer for sport, or training a dog to obey commands are not viewed as examples of animal cruelty in any legal system I am familiar with - however, starving your dog to death, shooting a stray cat with a bow, or setting an annoying goose on fire, would be in all Western systems.

Your question is harder to answer, however, since it is not clear what exactly is considered a "quality life". It certainly makes no sense to expect a human to provide his dog with the same quality of life as he has since the dog has a completely different biology and needs. I assume that by "quality life" you mean the conditions in which the dog is guaranteed physical safety and security, proper nutrition, regular walks and so on - everything a dog needs for its body and mind to function at close to the optimal capacity. If so, then that varies strongly from country to country: in the US, for instance, nobody will prosecute you for forgetting to feed your dog once or for a couple of essential minerals missing in its diet - however, if your dog constantly starves and looks like a skeleton, then your neighbor may report you, and, depending on the state, the police may either take away your dog, or/and penalize you in some way.

In my view, it makes no sense to assume existence of rights for a non-sentient being (and by "sentient" I mean a being capable of intelligent reasoning and introspection, not just a breathing living creature) - instead, I would prefer if such things were enforced by the public opinion. You are free to buy kittens and torture them in a dungeon, but others then are free (and I hope that they will exercise this freedom as much as possible) to not associate with you, to call you a monster, to deny you all private platforms and so on. And - most of all - to refuse to sell kittens to you, and to boycott those individuals and companies that do so.
I firmly believe that, at most, the government should only enforce the most essential and immediate individual human rights. Everything else should be enforced by the means of the voluntary association and non-association. Someone who does something that does not directly infringe on other individuals' rights cannot be prosecuted by the government for doing so, but if his actions are widely viewed as vile and unethical, then he will bear severe social costs and have a strongly limited set of opportunities available. Someone who kills dogs for fun and posts videos of such acts is not going to be celebrated on prime TV, and his life outside of his sick hobby is going to be lonely and miserable.

Phite

MayCaesar said:

In my view, it makes no sense to assume existence of rights for a non-sentient being

Is a dog sentient?

Also, if I know that my neighbor is torturing kittens in his dungeon, I would call the police, and they will investigate, and if my claim is found to be true, then they will be arrested and prosecuted according to the law. 

The idea of shunning them as a solution to the problem is too passive; the person has already demonstrated that they are indifferent to the feelings, sensibilities, and opinion of others.  And if you want to discriminate against them by not hiring them, there are laws against that . . .   

Barnardot

@Phite ;So I guess I won't be showing you videos of what goes on in labs around the world because

No you wont because there a load of made up baloney made up by extreme activists like you. No video will prove your point because there is no such video that isn't made up because no such thing goes on. Just like you cant under stand why your comments get banned you cant under stand why people dont believe your total extreme dog mess about conspiracies and companies and governments. And then your also going to wonder why you are about to be banned from this site. Im going to give it about 1 weak which is about how long most lying dum headed duffises last here any way. If you want to go sprouting out your extreme lies and baloney why dont you go to a loony farm because all the loonys will believe you there and they might even make you stay there.

Phite

You're way too angry to discuss this.  Thread's not about me.  Focus on what you're being asked.

Yes, there are videos.  You don't want to know, and so you don't look.  That's called denial. 

The truth is that If the videos were fake, you would be able to show them to be so.  I get that, and so do you.

All you've done so far is add actual videos to your list of things that exist despite you not wanting to acknowledge them.

Now, is a dog sentient?

Concerning your other "point," I did not spread any misinformation on this site.  I provided links to the CDC, FDA, and fauci that supported what I've posted.  You do understand that I did not misquote them, right?  If you believe I've forged or otherwise changed their own words from their own site, let me know and we can clear that up real fast!

Barnardot

@Phite ;Yes, there are videos.  You don't want to know, and so you don't look.

There are videos all right and they are all fake and made up every one of them. I know this because I have thoroughly researched the subject and I reckon that you haven't except for going on extreme websites and talking to extreme liars and air heads. And you might want to use what little part of a brain that you might have and tell me and every one here how on earth any one is supposed to prove the non existence of some thing.. Or are you not able to rap your half a spazed out cell that you have for a brain a round that concept. By my reckoning you have about 2 more days be for you get kicked off this site any way because no body here likes extremist liars who live in Lala Land.

Phite

Barnardot said:

@Phite ;Yes, there are videos.  You don't want to know, and so you don't look.

. . . how on earth any one is supposed to prove the non existence of some thing..

You're still angry.  That's why you forgot to answer the question . . . again.

Is a dog sentient?  Focus!

If you ever decide to engage in a debate on this topic, you might start by explaining how it is that you've researched the hell out those videos that do exist, and you've judged them to be fake. 

So, tell me what tipped you off.  Was it bad editing?  If so, provide the video you believe is fake.  If you can't do even that, you've already failed.  Provide a video which you can prove is fake.  You said you can.  So do it or stop making the claim. 

Oh, and contrary to what you're thinking, the poster who gets banned would be the one who uses insults as a substitute for argument.

Barnardot

@Phite ;you've researched the hell out those videos that do exist, and you've judged them to be fake. 

You try all the dishonest and diverting tactics you like and the point has been made that you dont have 1 piece of evidence at all in the world to back up your extreme claims. You wrote I've had two posts here removed for reasons that make sense to only the censor.   Apparently, they're engaging in the same denial as you, with the exception that they can make inconvenient and uncomfortable points go away like they did.  It's called censorship.

And all your talk is extreme and activist. It talks for it self. It is dishonest it is liars and you are going to get banned.And you still dont get what people are trying to telling you. The site has censorship all right because it has to to stop dum brain less nut heads like you who make things up and put there dog spew out there because no body with half a brain just couldnt care about that baloney. We debate here about serious issues not about your dum made up dog mess.

Phite

Okay, you've been asked to prove your case that actual videos of animals being abused in labs were fake.  You became belligerent instead, hoping no one would notice your failure to do so.  You've also been asked whether or not you believe that a dog is sentient.  Again, you became belligerent. 

You're not here to discuss anything.  You're here to express your anger at having to admit that you have no proof of what you've claimed.  You can take your failure out on me with your name-calling if you wish, but readers understand that your answer to the question of whether or not a dog is sentient is something you'd rather not make public.  But that won't stop them from wondering why you're afraid to answer.  

Don't you think readers understand what to make of a poster who wants another poster banned for asking him to answer a question; specifically, the question of whether or not a dog is sentient.

You could just answer it, but . . . we'll see.

Barnardot

@Phite ;Okay, you've been asked to prove your case that actual videos of animals being abused in labs were fake. 

And youve being told that any one with half a brain cannot be expected to prove nothing. I said you do not have any evidence and that there are no videos of your dum abuse alligations and I dont have to prove that there is nothing. Your the one who said that there are videos and you failed to produce them. And I said no wonder because they dont exist in the first place. So how am I going to prove that they dont exist. Put up a post and put nothing in it. Not only do you have less than half the brain of an ameba on the spectrum but you dont know how to use it. And of course dogs are sentiment because if I kick my dog in the but he gets real angry and attacks me and if I pat him and say good boy he liks my face and if Im not home he gets lonely and teers up the room.

Phite

Barnardot said:

@Phite ;Okay, you've been asked to prove your case that actual videos of animals being abused in labs were fake. 

Your the one who said that there are videos and you failed to produce them. And I said no wonder because they dont exist in the first place. 

Put up a post and put nothing in it.

Now you're trying to give the impression that I've posted no video for you to see.  I did, but it was removed.  So, though they do indeed exist, someone would rather you didn't have to deal with them.  You can claim that there are no videos that prove animal abuse in labs, but only if you refuse to acknowledge them.  Or, in this case, if someone hides them from you. 

You claim the videos are fake.  However, the videos exist.  You only have to show that they've been edited--or whatever you believe invalidates them.  But apparently, you know better than to go that far into your delusion.

Anyway, since dogs are sentient, is it okay to abuse them as if they weren't? 

Barnardot

@Phite ; I've posted no video for you to see.  I did, but it was removed. 

That says it all. No reel videos exist.

Since humans are sentiment is it okay to abuse them as if they weren't. What sort of non crap are you trying to stir up. Just made up baloney thats what.

Phite

@Barnardot

We can settle this right now.

To the moderator:  If I post videos of animals being abused in labs, will you refrain from removing them from Barnardot's sight?  That would be great since he's definitely asking to see them; says he can prove they're fake.  Give him a fair chance to disprove them.  

I have the videos.  Will you allow him to take a crack at them, or should we just take him at his word that he can do it?  But that wouldn't be very scientific, would it?  Nope, not scientific at all!

This is Debate Island.  Let the debate happen!

Barnardot

@Phite ;I have the videos.

And the videos are fake and totally made up. No reel videos like that exist and the reason they were banned is because there fake and made up and your trying to push made up lies and baloney. If you dont get that then youll always believe in false baloney about animals and institutions and goernments and authorities which is why every one will call you a total spazo.