Dolphins deserve same rights as humans.

[Encyclopedia]

There's no difference between killing a sewer rat or a dog, they are both living creatures that can feel pain. And rats or spiders are often just going on about their business and humans kill them without remorse. Sure they can harm you but so can a dog, cat, or anything else for that matter.

If you say there is a difference all you are doing is trying to justify why something cute and cuddly like a dog is somehow worth more then something ugly like a rat.

We also do not know nearly enough about ever animal on the planet to know what they feel or their level of intelligence. There could be spiders that have a high level of intelligence, we just don't know.

Rats are cute. To me at least. Also, rats do cause a lot of harm but I get your point. Maybe it wasn't the best example. Let's use insects that ruin crops as an example instead. There is a very justifiable reason to get rid of them as they ruin food and cause a lot of trouble.

I don't judge after cuteness. Believe me. And I really agree with the last part of your post. Although spiders with high intelligence seems unlikely to me.

The only problem with that is pigs. They're really smart - way smarter than cats and dogs - but really tasty.

Yes. Although I've heard that they are less clever than they were, due to breeding.

Still I do think it's a problem and I do feel like a hypocrite as I love bacon.

 

[Grayfox]

What about when tourists come to Australia, ignore the Crocodile in river signs, get killed by a crocodile when they go into said river.

The crocodile gets killed because of it.

In my view that should end cause if you ignore warning signs of something that may kill you and you get killed because of it, I think you deserve what happens to you it is Darwin's law in practice.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Man-killers are usually put down not as a punishment (that would be stupid) but because once they taste our flesh, they seem to understand we're tastier then pigs. And probably easier to catch also, so they start to actively look for humans as prey.

 

[Joey D]

Rats are cute. To me at least. Also, rats do cause a lot of harm but I get your point. Maybe it wasn't the best example. Let's use insects that ruin crops as an example instead. There is a very justifiable reason to get rid of them as they ruin food and cause a lot of trouble.

I don't judge after cuteness. Believe me. And I really agree with the last part of your post. Although spiders with high intelligence seems unlikely to me.

The insects that invade crops are doing so because that's what they do. They use the crops as food, shelter or a nest. It is the result of something humans did in the first place, if we had not planted crops we would have no reason to kill the bugs (I'm not suggesting for an instant we stop farming). So those insects are just there, innocently living their life, they have no malicious intent and we kill them. How is that any different then killing a dog? Dogs can cause a lot of trouble too from allergies, to rabies, to bites. They also can carry ticks, fleas and other nasty parasites that could latch on to a human.

 

[TheCracker]

The only problem with that is pigs. They're really smart - way smarter than cats and dogs - but really tasty.

Obviously never been to a decent Korean restaurant

 

[Exorcet]

The insects that invade crops are doing so because that's what they do. They use the crops as food, shelter or a nest. It is the result of something humans did in the first place, if we had not planted crops we would have no reason to kill the bugs (I'm not suggesting for an instant we stop farming). So those insects are just there, innocently living their life, they have no malicious intent and we kill them. How is that any different then killing a dog? Dogs can cause a lot of trouble too from allergies, to rabies, to bites. They also can carry ticks, fleas and other nasty parasites that could latch on to a human.

Dogs are usually kept under control because they are domesticated. Insects aren't and mass swarms of them can't be. The insects are not morally at fault, that is true, but they are still causing harm. Asking them to stop is futile, so it only leaves one option.

 

[Danoff]

There are many killings of innocent people, including infants and children. An infant has never been able to make a choice, but when one is killed it gets a 2 minute blurb on the news and that's that. If someone is hurting and killing dogs, they do an in depth investigative report and turn it into a 10 minute segment. It makes no sense.

Well that's not exactly parallel is it? A serial infant torturer and killer would get national media far bigger than a serial dog killer and torturer. If one infant dies it gets a blurb. If one dog dies there is no news reporting. This is the balance you want right?

At the same time not all dogs are innocent. I've been through dog attacks where I wasn't doing anything and I was bitten.

That dog is still innocent. He was likely left in the care of morons who conditioned him to be mean. But even if he wasn't, let's say you were attacked by a wild dog, would you call a wild mountain lion a murderer if it attacked you? It's doing the only thing it knows to do, find food. There is no evil intent here.

I felt no remorse beating the dog till he stopped and I know I seriously injured him. I was more worried about my well being and whether or not I might have contracted rabies.

That's as it should be. I didn't say you should feel bad about defending yourself. I'd shoot a mountain lion that was coming after my family too, but I'd still describe it as innocent.

There's no difference between killing a sewer rat or a dog,

That is one of the worst things I've ever read from you.

they are both living creatures that can feel pain.

It's the size of the brain that differentiates them.

If you say there is a difference all you are doing is trying to justify why something cute and cuddly like a dog is somehow worth more then something ugly like a rat.

Human Brain: 1400 grams
Dog brain: 72 grams
Rat brain: 2 grams

We also do not know nearly enough about ever animal on the planet to know what they feel or their level of intelligence. There could be spiders that have a high level of intelligence, we just don't know.

Spider brain: milligrams

You need a few neurons to rub together before you can process enough information to be intelligent. There's not enough room in a spider's entire body for that.

The only problem with that is pigs. They're really smart - way smarter than cats and dogs - but really tasty.

Pig brain: 180 grams

Yea definitely. Pigs are a problem for sure. I'm not necessarily against eating dogs either, I just think that once the brain reaches a certain capacity you ought to be careful how you treat them. Dogs and pigs both need to be put down with care rather than just brutally slaughtered with no regard for the trauma they experience. That said, I'm sure a lot of the pig slaughtering that goes on is barbaric.

Edit:

For reference, dolphin brains are slightly larger than humans, and the dolphin body is roughly human sized.

Neat Video:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/how-smart-dolphins.html

 

[Encyclopedia]

The insects that invade crops are doing so because that's what they do. They use the crops as food, shelter or a nest. It is the result of something humans did in the first place, if we had not planted crops we would have no reason to kill the bugs (I'm not suggesting for an instant we stop farming). So those insects are just there, innocently living their life, they have no malicious intent and we kill them. How is that any different then killing a dog? Dogs can cause a lot of trouble too from allergies, to rabies, to bites. They also can carry ticks, fleas and other nasty parasites that could latch on to a human.

Exorcet's answer pretty much sums it up. There's just no other option.

On the subject of brains. I saw a documentary that intelligence had a lot to do with the size of the brain compared to the body. Like the bigger the body, the more brain was required just to control it and less left for other things.

 

[Hun200kmh]

On the subject of brains. I saw a documentary that intelligence had a lot to do with the size of the brain compared to the body. Like the bigger the body, the more brain was required just to control it and less left for other things.

I remember something very similar but it was the size of the brain vs. the size (number of cells?) of the spinal cord. Useless ratio in invertebrates though (no spinal cord)

 

[Joey D]

Danoff, you are one of the people I would least expect to challenge my point given that like to perceive things logically.

Animals are going to still be animals regardless of their brain size and they are still going to be able to feel pain and suffering. A dog and a rat are both innocent creatures that do not deserve to die, yet humans kill both of them. When we do kill, people make a huge deal over the dog but do not care about the rat, which makes no sense. Either you are for animal rights or you aren't. If killing one species offends you, than the killing of any species should offend you as well since they are all innocent creatures.

That is one of the worst things I've ever read from you.

But I guess when you have to play the man instead of the ball, the debate is pretty much useless.

 

[Grayfox]

Dog brain: 72 grams

What breed?

A toy sized dog or a giant sized dog.

 

[Danoff]

Animals are going to still be animals regardless of their brain size and they are still going to be able to feel pain and suffering. A dog and a rat are both innocent creatures that do not deserve to die, yet humans kill both of them. When we do kill, people make a huge deal over the dog but do not care about the rat, which makes no sense. Either you are for animal rights or you aren't. If killing one species offends you, than the killing of any species should offend you as well since they are all innocent creatures.

There's really no need to lump them all into one category of "animals". They have a vastly different degree of perception due to their brains. Otherwise you should apply everything you wrote to humans too. Why do you care any more that a person is killed than a dog or rat? By your reasoning above, none of it should matter any more than the rest. Humans feel pain and suffering just like a rat does. Why shouldn't killing people and rats be equivalent?

The reason is the size of the brain. (Perhaps more specifically, the capacity for perception)

But I guess when you have to play the man instead of the ball, the debate is pretty much useless.

Actually that comment really only pertains to what you wrote (the ball) and not to you (the man).

What breed?

A toy sized dog or a giant sized dog.

Beagle.

 

[Exorcet]

Danoff, you are one of the people I would least expect to challenge my point given that like to perceive things logically.

Animals are going to still be animals regardless of their brain size and they are still going to be able to feel pain and suffering. A dog and a rat are both innocent creatures that do not deserve to die, yet humans kill both of them. When we do kill, people make a huge deal over the dog but do not care about the rat, which makes no sense. Either you are for animal rights or you aren't. If killing one species offends you, than the killing of any species should offend you as well since they are all innocent creatures.

Danoff is being logical, he's already provided an objective way to differentiate animals. You ignored it. You're also wrong about people not making a big deal about rats vs dogs. It's situational

Killing a dog that is doing nothing is like killing a person that is doing nothing. Killing swarms of bugs or rats that are destroying your crops (depleting your food supply) is like shooting terrorists trying to burn your food supply. This is usually the case. However, someone taking a rat and skinning it alive is pretty sickening. There's no reason to put that animal through pain like that. Impaling a wild dog with a sharp object as a form of self defense is of course justified.

Humans are animals, and yes animals are animals. But humans are not dogs who are not rats. And dogs who are abused and beaten to death are not dogs who were killed because they attacked an innocent human.

 

[arora]

Just a fyi, pbs has been airing some really good shows on whales dolphins etc., I usually watch the 'world' sub channel. It must be a week long campaign as they often do.

Have not really read up on all the thread so I'll just put this in the mix; emotion seems to be a measure of intelligence, and they got it. One fun thing I saw was a team relationship of sorts between dolphins and humans fishing together. Looks like the dolphins alert men with nets when they are rounding up fish near the shoreline, the men net them and the ones that escape the dolphins eat.

 

[Bram Turismo]

What about when tourists come to Australia, ignore the Crocodile in river signs, get killed by a crocodile when they go into said river.

The crocodile gets killed because of it.

In my view that should end cause if you ignore warning signs of something that may kill you and you get killed because of it, I think you deserve what happens to you it is Darwin's law in practice.

Animals don't kill because they are aggressive. Either an animal attacks because they're after a prey, or because they're being threatened.

A polar bear won't attack a human because it's a potential prey because it's not aware the human is a potential prey. This is the reason why animals, like lions, bears and polar bears, are being shot when they attack a human. It's purely out of protection.

There's a reason why people in Africa run around with tiny bells tied to their trousers; it's to make animals aware of their presence. I dare bet 90% of the cases were humans were being attacked by animals is because the animal was completely surprised by the human's presence, felt endangered by something unknown and defended itself. A lion just doesn't hunt for humans. They're unaware of the human being a prey because they don't hunt for humans. A lion killing a human and realizing it's a prey might make that lion start hunting for humans. Which is a risk that can't be taken.

It's what happens here in Svalbard. People are advised to make a lot of noise when they're outside of villages to make polar bears aware of their presence. A polar bear doesn't kill a human. A polar bear caught off-guard and threatened will.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Before this thread gets too out of hand with these brain size dictates intelligence ideas...that is simply not the case. It is the organization and activity at the chemical and molecular levels, specifically the synapses, that most significantly determines an organisms intelligence. NOT the size of the brain (even in comparison to the individual organisms weight). At an elementary level this correlation may be efficient for a general understanding but it is simply incorrect.

If thats difficult to understand then consider this: Einstein's brain weighed no more than the average humans.

 

[Grayfox]

Indeed. And the quoted post reminded me this. A different perspective on what Christmas is really all about!

[YOUTUBEHD]oKXV-XQzUrY[/YOUTUBEHD]

I had that as my sig during Xmas.

Animals don't kill because they are aggressive. Either an animal attacks because they're after a prey, or because they're being threatened.

A polar bear won't attack a human because it's a potential prey because it's not aware the human is a potential prey. This is the reason why animals, like lions, bears and polar bears, are being shot when they attack a human. It's purely out of protection.

There's a reason why people in Africa run around with tiny bells tied to their trousers; it's to make animals aware of their presence. I dare bet 90% of the cases were humans were being attacked by animals is because the animal was completely surprised by the human's presence, felt endangered by something unknown and defended itself. A lion just doesn't hunt for humans. They're unaware of the human being a prey because they don't hunt for humans. A lion killing a human and realizing it's a prey might make that lion start hunting for humans. Which is a risk that can't be taken.

It's what happens here in Svalbard. People are advised to make a lot of noise when they're outside of villages to make polar bears aware of their presence. A polar bear doesn't kill a human. A polar bear caught off-guard and threatened will.

I never said/implied that.

Just saying when tourists come here some get killed by a croc when the go swimming in a croc infested river, even when their are signs saying "NO SWIMMING CROCS IN RIVER"

We also have signs like this so even if you can't understand english it is a picture that you can read, just like no smoking can be understood in all parts of the world.

 

[Grayfox]

Double post.

 

[PeterJB]

Just saying when tourists come here some get killed by a croc when the go swimming in a croc infested river, even when their are signs saying "NO SWIMMING CROCS IN RIVER"

I hope the signs are phrased a little better than that as there are two clear interpretations of that sentence!

 

[Dennisch]

There are no swimming crocs in the river.

 

[Danoff]

Before this thread gets too out of hand with these brain size dictates intelligence ideas...that is simply not the case. It is the orginization and activity at the chemical and molecular levels, specifically the synapses, that most significantly determines an organisms intelligence. NOT the size of the brain (even in comparison to the individual organisms weight). At an elementary level this correlation may be efficient for a general understanding but it is simply incorrect.

If thats difficult to understand then consider this: Einstein's brain weighed no more than the average humans.

From the perspective we're talking about, Einstein was no more intelligent than anyone else. In order to be intelligent your brain needs to be able to process large amounts of information. To do that you need a lot of brain cells. No, you can't determine that an Elephant is smarter than a Human just because it has a much larger brain, but you can determine that an Elephant has potential for intelligence that other animals do not.

An "elementary level" is pretty much all we have when it comes to this. It's not a well developed area of study. Correct me with science if you know otherwise.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

From the perspective we're talking about, Einstein was no more intelligent than anyone else. In order to be intelligent your brain needs to be able to process large amounts of information. To do that you need a lot of brain cells. No, you can't determine that an Elephant is smarter than a Human just because it has a much larger brain, but you can determine that an Elephant has potential for intelligence that other animals do not.

An "elementary level" is pretty much all we have when it comes to this. It's not a well developed area of study. Correct me with science if you know otherwise.

Since I cannot link scholarly articles (you have to have an account and password to read research articles on university archives) this article pretty much sums everything up at a very basic level.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/brain-size-and-intelligence/

Again, brain size (or what others in this thread have referred to as brain weight) is not the significant factor when assessing an organisms intelligence. It is the organization of the brain.

Is that "sciency" enough for you or do I really need to pull out all of my text books and start citing books from biology courses?