|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 1, 2005 20:52:06 GMT -5
no offense, but I don't think any animal is worth as much as a human, especially in the world of human politics. An animal has no chance of being any use to anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by chica on May 1, 2005 20:53:24 GMT -5
what about a companion??? a dog or a cat they are just not animals they are friends and family! how can you say they are NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!  ? |
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 1, 2005 20:57:15 GMT -5
they ARE nothing. Nothing more than a companion or a test subject, and they will never be a doctor or a lawyer or an athelete or a president or anything else we value in society. Just a companion...
|
|
|
|
Post by chica on May 1, 2005 20:59:42 GMT -5
BUT YOU DON'T VALUE THAT? would you let your mom and dad or brother be a test subject cuz they are "just companions" ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 1, 2005 21:01:45 GMT -5
they aren't just companions. They contribute to society in other ways
|
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on May 2, 2005 15:29:05 GMT -5
yes, a dog or a cat is a living, breathing creature.
however, does it think? I mean, they go through emotions and instincts, like "ooh look, food" or "i need to pee"
but does a dog or cat ever sit down and ponder their own existence? do they think out math problems? can they do what we can?
also, we learn things that HELP us by studying animals. are animals capable of studying us?
|
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on May 2, 2005 15:30:02 GMT -5
yes, a dog or a cat is a living, breathing creature.
however, does it think? I mean, they go through emotions and instincts, like "ooh look, food" or "i need to pee"
but does a dog or cat ever sit down and ponder their own existence? do they think out math problems? can they do what we can?
also, we learn things that HELP us by studying animals. are animals capable of studying us?
|
|
|
|
Post by chica on May 2, 2005 16:41:27 GMT -5
well, if we actuall let them live and not destroy them then maybe we would learn even more or maybe they would evolve
|
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 2, 2005 16:49:06 GMT -5
we learn more about them by studying them then by observing them in the wild.
Also us catching them helps evolution, because the ones we don't catch are the smartest and best, so they breed and their babies will have smart genes
|
|
|
|
Post by chica on May 2, 2005 16:59:40 GMT -5
but we could still be wiping out hundred of monkeys. I mean they don't even get a chance to live. it's like killing an unborn baby
|
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 2, 2005 17:03:57 GMT -5
we are only wiping out the stupid monkeys that we catch. The smart monkeys live on to pass their smart DNA to the next generation.
Also an unborn human has potential to be of use to society, a monkey does not.
|
|
|
|
Post by chica on May 2, 2005 17:06:01 GMT -5
it has a use to itself and its family if it has one in the future are you willing to wipe out generations and generations just so we can only say there are 15 side effect instead of 50 on a bottle of asprin?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 2, 2005 17:10:36 GMT -5
no offense to bad-monkey intended, but we are about a billion times smarter than monkeys. A monkey will never invent a cure for cancer (at least not intentionally, and probably not by accident), but a human might. Any human might.
And we aren't wiping out generations, we are just testing on a few of them
|
|
|
|
Post by chica on May 2, 2005 17:11:50 GMT -5
yes but once those few are used up then we go on to others and more and more and THEN they all die
|
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 2, 2005 17:13:57 GMT -5
humans are careful enough not to test medicine on endangered animals.
|
|
