Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Anyone who loves their dog knows this. But I've kept chickens, ducks, sheep and goats. I ate them all. You just can't get attached in the same way.
Dogs are gregarious, big-brained and have pack loyalty. Chickens run around like they don't know they've lost their heads.
Foghorn Loghorn is not an accurate model for chicken behaviour.
It's stupid to compare them. Just because dogs happen to be the animal you know the best doesn't make others any less sensitive. Chickens can make lovely pets. Actually all those listed can. I've never been able to understand reptiles as pets though. Perhaps reptile-owners know something I don't.
You are talking rubbish.
First you say it is stupid to compare them, then you act stupid and compare them.
Sadly your comparison leaves much to be desired. It's not that I know dogs better than chickens at all. Chickens a stupid animals.
You can snatch a chicken from the flock, and chop it's head off in front of the others, and in 15 seconds they'll go back to pecking the ground.
They'll even continue to follow you around if you drop seed.
Chickens make crap pets. they shit indiscriminately, and have no capacity for affection.
Chickens are reptiles with feathers.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Anyone who loves their dog knows this. But I've kept chickens, ducks, sheep and goats. I ate them all. You just can't get attached in the same way.
Dogs are gregarious, big-brained and have pack loyalty. Chickens run around like they don't know they've lost their heads.
Foghorn Loghorn is not an accurate model for chicken behaviour.
It's stupid to compare them. Just because dogs happen to be the animal you know the best doesn't make others any less sensitive. Chickens can make lovely pets. Actually all those listed can. I've never been able to understand reptiles as pets though. Perhaps reptile-owners know something I don't.
You are talking rubbish.
First you say it is stupid to compare them, then you act stupid and compare them.
Sadly your comparison leaves much to be desired. It's not that I know dogs better than chickens at all. Chickens a stupid animals.
You can snatch a chicken from the flock, and chop it's head off in front of the others, and in 15 seconds they'll go back to pecking the ground.
They'll even continue to follow you around if you drop seed.
Chickens make crap pets. they shit indiscriminately, and have no capacity for affection.
Chickens are reptiles with feathers.
I wasn't comparing, I simply said they are all sensitive. Chickens are not stupid at all. You sound like a typical arrogant dog owner. WE created dogs specifically to serve and obey us. They are our own creation. Of course we are going to relate to them more readily than to a chicken or a goat.
Empathy. Empathy is trait that can be recognized, honed, and practiced by human beings.
It's a rough world we live in. And that is true for all living beings. I don't know if empathy is ultimately good or bad but when intelligently practiced the sequence seems to be good.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
It's stupid to compare them. Just because dogs happen to be the animal you know the best doesn't make others any less sensitive. Chickens can make lovely pets. Actually all those listed can. I've never been able to understand reptiles as pets though. Perhaps reptile-owners know something I don't.
You are talking rubbish.
First you say it is stupid to compare them, then you act stupid and compare them.
Sadly your comparison leaves much to be desired. It's not that I know dogs better than chickens at all. Chickens a stupid animals.
You can snatch a chicken from the flock, and chop it's head off in front of the others, and in 15 seconds they'll go back to pecking the ground.
They'll even continue to follow you around if you drop seed.
Chickens make crap pets. they shit indiscriminately, and have no capacity for affection.
Chickens are reptiles with feathers.
I wasn't comparing, I simply said they are all sensitive. Chickens are not stupid at all. You sound like a typical arrogant dog owner. WE created dogs specifically to serve and obey us. They are our own creation. Of course we are going to relate to them more readily than to a chicken or a goat.
Compared to a dog a chicken is stupid.
We did not just "create" dogs - though that is a term I'd not use. We also "created" all domesticants, including chickens, and sheep (also quite stupid). And we do not relate to them as we do dogs, so your CONTINUED comparisons are self defeating.
Bottle-fed lambs (those that for whatever reason lost their mothers) can be lured to a human carrying an axe as long as he carries a bucket with some "cake" in it. For generations, these Judas lambs have been used to control flocks so they can be taken for slaughter easily. In the thousands of generations of selective breeding; wandering sheep and sheep that take fear have been weeded out.
Such varieties are so vulnerable to predation that they are utterly dependant on human husbandry and the hunting of potential predators. Stupidness goes with the breed.
Chickens that stay around the yard, rather than wander off have been selected, and thus are now unrecognisable as wild chickens. Stupidness has benefitted them where human care is available.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Compared to a dog a chicken is stupid.
We did not just "create" dogs - though that is a term I'd not use. We also "created" all domesticants, including chickens, and sheep (also quite stupid). And we do not relate to them as we do dogs, so your CONTINUED comparisons are self defeating.
Bottle-fed lambs (those that for whatever reason lost their mothers) can be lured to a human carrying an axe as long as he carries a bucket with some "cake" in it. For generations, these Judas lambs have been used to control flocks so they can be taken for slaughter easily. In the thousands of generations of selective breeding; wandering sheep and sheep that take fear have been weeded out.
Such varieties are so vulnerable to predation that they are utterly dependant on human husbandry and the hunting of potential predators. Stupidness goes with the breed.
Chickens that stay around the yard, rather than wander off have been selected, and thus are now unrecognisable as wild chickens. Stupidness has benefitted them where human care is available.
You are the one comparing, moron. A chihuahua doesn't look much like a wolf the last time I looked. I have no further interest in anything you have to say. Keep beheading those chickens in front of their kin and feel good about yourself. What do you expect them to do? Hold a funeral? 'Different' does not mean the same thing as 'stupider'.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
You are the one comparing, moron. A chihuahua doesn't look much like a wolf the last time I looked.
I believe that a chihuahua can still interbreed with any other dog and possibly with a wolf even though the wolf is more likely to eat it. Looks don't mean everything.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
You are the one comparing, moron. A chihuahua doesn't look much like a wolf the last time I looked.
I believe that a chihuahua can still interbreed with any other dog and possibly with a wolf even though the wolf is more likely to eat it. Looks don't mean everything.
What does that have to do with it? What is wrong with people's reading comprehension around here????
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
You are the one comparing, moron. A chihuahua doesn't look much like a wolf the last time I looked.
I believe that a chihuahua can still interbreed with any other dog and possibly with a wolf even though the wolf is more likely to eat it. Looks don't mean everything.
What does that have to do with it? What is wrong with people's reading comprehension around here????
You are the one who said that a chihuahua doesn't look like a wolf, and I pointed out that they could possibly interbreed, meaning that they were still the same species, and looks aren't everything.
It's really tiresome when you have to explain everything to those with no understanding.
thedoc wrote:
It's really tiresome when you have to explain everything to those with no understanding.
I didn't say they can't breed, idiot! It had nothing to do with what we were talking about, and there was no reason for you to butt in with your stupid trolling comment.
thedoc wrote:
It's really tiresome when you have to explain everything to those with no understanding.
I didn't say they can't breed, idiot! It had nothing to do with what we were talking about, and there was no reason for you to butt in with your stupid trolling comment.
That was the implication from your comment. You really should do something about your anger and hostility.
thedoc wrote:
It's really tiresome when you have to explain everything to those with no understanding.
I didn't say they can't breed, idiot! It had nothing to do with what we were talking about, and there was no reason for you to butt in with your stupid trolling comment.
That was the implication from your comment. You really should do something about your anger and hostility.
No, that was NOT the implication from my comment. No one mentioned breeding. And you should do something about your annoying baiting and passive-aggressive nit-picking.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
I didn't say they can't breed, idiot! It had nothing to do with what we were talking about, and there was no reason for you to butt in with your stupid trolling comment.
That was the implication from your comment. You really should do something about your anger and hostility.
No, that was NOT the implication from my comment. No one mentioned breeding. And you should do something about your annoying baiting and passive-aggressive nit-picking.
I mentioned it, and I inferred it from your comment. So now I'm annoying? can I add that to my resume?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I don't think they are consenting to be 'nourishment' for fat, useless humans. They might be aware of it, but it fills them with terror and revulsion. Imagine how we must look to them.
I honestly couldn't tell you what goes on in a non-human brain, or how an animal views its condition, though I sympathize, and stand by what i said regarding imposition.
As for the discussion with thedoc, it's based on a fictional animal from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which has been anthropomorphized, and thus has little bearing on what real animals go through. It's just a mental exercise.
'Anthropomorphism' is another misused word. Attributing emotions to other animals isn't anthropomorphism. It's pretty obvious they share the same emotions we do, and often on a much deeper level.
This one speaks English. That is definitely anthropomorphism.
[quote="thedoc"][/quote]
I was merely pointing out that chicken's are not 'stupid' which is what had been asserted.He was the one 'stupid' enough to compare them to dogs. Chinese don't see anything wrong with eating dogs either, but that's another argument.
