Um.....comedy? Not to me....or those cows I would bet. I hope someone goes out with a bobcat and makes a ramp for them or airlifts them out before they fall off that cliff. Poor guys.
Not exactly pets either, but there's no livestock tag.

@chingalara

Your logic is flawed and your words stink of poisonous vomit !

lets keep this fight going ! <--- as in that is all this turned into is one big pissy man boy match Edit - not even that, just one person in particular who was side tracking and making personal attacks in comments again, see how you can enjoy the double standard like everyone else choggie ? You' re here still after your little freak out in the sift talk, or the stuff you wrote above or the other day, you can enjoy it like everyone else, but you sure like to flip the coin and berate it at the same time, although we all have learned you lack logic and reasoning skills. But that is just my opinion,
I guess this is what comments this post are for hey ? pretty well the reason I am writing this now. write what you want time.

So to answer your only sensible question fuckinglittlethingoverthere - as you described it the first time I asked you what it meant. Baxter the bunny weights in at 2.76 pounds.. and just jumped on my lap. I have learned this is not for pets though, this is for treats. so I do not try and pet him because he just swats lightly very very quickly at my finger tips and actually kinda growls a little, which makes me laugh.

He is fully grown and if I were to cook him like a psycho would cook their pet, as you suggested he would be like eating a quarter of a small frying chicken ( NOte to self *do not put palm plant fronds near top of chair - rabbit climbs chair and eats palm leaf* )

Also I do not think video sift is what that orignal poster said it is.

Having owned a Jindo in my life I know how hard it is to train Asian Spitzes. Akida's, Jindo's and Shiba's are all descendants of Asiatic Spitzes, and they are more Wild dogs than domesticated pets. They are incredibly good at hunting and very energetic like the huskies. They are not apartment pets, meaning they need lots of free space to roam around. They are independent minded and get bored of trainings very easily.

For example, if you want to play fetch with them, they'll most likely get bored of the game after two fetches and start playing their own game, like you chasing after them to get the ball back. Same thing with the leash. Once they've escaped the leash they'll start playing 'catch-me-if-you-can' for as long as they want.

Having said all this, this guy in the video must have been one patient man, who gave the dog lots of love to earn its trust to be able to get this much training in. Respect!

Not just pets. Any living things like kids (baby goats too!)/children, ants, etc.

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve to be completely dependent on Him for everything. They relied upon God to make their decisions for them, and tell them what good and evil was. However, because He wanted His creatures to be free to love Him, ie just not just forced to obey Him, He gave them one command. That command was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He told them that in the day they ate of it they would surely die.

What lay in the fruit of that tree for Adam and Eve was their own autonomy. The fruit represented an independence from God to decide on their own what is good and evil. Rather than sitting at Gods feet and learning from Him, they would become a law onto themselves through their own judgment. What eating this fruit did was destroy their innocence forever. It ruined the perfect relationship and fellowship they had with God by turning them into rebels who would make choices apart from God.

So, rather than the law being given for the reasons you are saying, it was given to offer them a choice between obedience to God and personal autonomy. The consequences of breaking that law not only changed their nature but brought sin and death into the world. God draws the line at His standard for goodness, which is perfection. It is a zero tolerance policy for rebellion, not only for moral guidance, but to maintain order in His kingdom.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love. He regards us as His offspring, not His pets.

Act 17:22-31

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

No, because He laid all of our sin on His Son, who bore the punishment we deserve. It is not a compromise of His integrity so long as the sin has been paid for.

Romans 4:25

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Before the world began, God knew that He would need to send His Son.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Because being in the image of God isn't about what God looks like, it is about being imbued with His personal attributes. We resemble Him in our better nature, not our appearance.

What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

I understand what you're saying. You're not going to see the picture before you connect all of the dots. I'll keep supplying you the dots as I am able. I think I explained this particular question to you in more specific detail this time around, as to why the separation occurred.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

He knew before He created that His creation would rebel at some point, and He took the necessary steps to reconcile it back to Himself at the end of time. He didn't screw up, but He did create beings capable of screwing up. To allow for the real possibility of good, He also had to allow for the real possibility of evil.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

Or it's absolutely true.

The only consistent model is that God himself created sin and evil by creating the laws, because if he hadn't created the laws, there would be no sin or evil in the world. This understanding is consistent with your statement A and in spirit with C, if you understand C to mean, "We created evil by breaking his law".

Sorry, I should have clarified this a lot more. When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai. This law was given because of sin, and sin was already in the world at that time. This really goes back to the beginning with what I described earlier. What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice. It was given not to keep us from evil but to give us freedom to choose to obey Gods will. You can't freely obey someone if you don't have a choice not to do it. You can't love someone without the choice not to love. The law came into play after all of this, and that is a whole other discussion.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

@ant, the nature channel is not for pets. Channel description:

Relax and enjoy the peace and tranquility of Mother Nature, with this collection of videos that reflect the wonder and beauty of our animals, trees, rivers, lakes and mountains.

For domesticated animals, see the CatsAndDogs Channel; but videos of wild animals in human environments are included here -- such as urbanized animals, zoos, or animal rescues. And even the occasional goat, cow or sheep!

"Chuck Testa does not taxidermize pets" - Zinga....

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^ForgedReality:
I don't see any corners there. It's in the middle of a road. And it's a wild animal, not a pet.
It didn't look to me like they were tormenting it. They were just having a bit of fun. The fact that they delicately picked him up and lightly set him down in the weeds at the end came as a bit of a surprise to me. Good to see they didn't hurt it.

No need to be a smart alec, that poor creature was doing a last resort attempt to fight because it had exhausted the option of flight. You walk down a road and get mugged by 3 assailants - there are no corners on the road but the word 'cornered' is very applicable to the situation.
As for the gingerly scooping up and depositing in the grass at the end, they were too scared of being bitten to pick it up by that point. The video clearly shows their repeated attempts to pick up the creature without being bitten, behaviour by them that is only making the critter more anxious. I only dread to think how things would have gone if one of them had been able to pick it up.
No shit Sherlock about it being a wild animal - I almost mentioned in my first post that a possible reason for the aggressive behaviour might be if it was a mother with a litter of kits nearby - then I noticed the bollocks and a couple of classic bits of male rodent behaviour.
They hurt it alright, they scared the crap out of it and all you can say is "good to see they didn't hurt it"... WTF? Were you even watching the same video?! Emotional distress is more damaging to small creatures than physical inflictions because it induces a confusion that can completely interrupt their regular routine, and one day later there's a dead rodent in the bushes because it's been too dazed to feed and look after itself.


I don't see them trying to pick it up at all. They're being dicks, sure, but they're not TORMENTING it. They just thought it was funny how the animal chose to defend itself. Obviously it was defending something (a litter perhaps as I was suggesting and as you mentioned), but it had a choice to stay and fight or run into the safety of the weeds, so how was this a "last resort?" They weren't encircling it and preventing its escape, and at the end, they even made sure it got off the road and didn't get run over by a car or something.

PS - Calm down. There's medication you can take for that.

>> ^ForgedReality:
I don't see any corners there. It's in the middle of a road. And it's a wild animal, not a pet.
It didn't look to me like they were tormenting it. They were just having a bit of fun. The fact that they delicately picked him up and lightly set him down in the weeds at the end came as a bit of a surprise to me. Good to see they didn't hurt it.


No need to be a smart alec, that poor creature was doing a last resort attempt to fight because it had exhausted the option of flight. You walk down a road and get mugged by 3 assailants - there are no corners on the road but the word 'cornered' is very applicable to the situation.

As for the gingerly scooping up and depositing in the grass at the end, they were too scared of being bitten to pick it up by that point. The video clearly shows their repeated attempts to pick up the creature without being bitten, behaviour by them that is only making the critter more anxious. I only dread to think how things would have gone if one of them had been able to pick it up.

No shit Sherlock about it being a wild animal - I almost mentioned in my first post that a possible reason for the aggressive behaviour might be if it was a mother with a litter of kits nearby - then I noticed the bollocks and a couple of classic bits of male rodent behaviour.

They hurt it alright, they scared the crap out of it and all you can say is "good to see they didn't hurt it"... WTF? Were you even watching the same video?! Emotional distress is more damaging to small creatures than physical inflictions because it induces a confusion that can completely interrupt their regular routine, and one day later there's a dead rodent in the bushes because it's been too dazed to feed and look after itself.

>> ^Reefie:

What the bleep did they do to the poor thing to get it so wound up? Fair play to the wee fella for putting up a good fight but it's blatantly obvious they cornered and intimidated it beforehand.


I don't see any corners there. It's in the middle of a road. And it's a wild animal, not a pet.

It didn't look to me like they were tormenting it. They were just having a bit of fun. The fact that they delicately picked him up and lightly set him down in the weeds at the end came as a bit of a surprise to me. Good to see they didn't hurt it.

Two things:

- I hope that's not a pet

- My god, it's the uncanny valley.

>> ^Sagemind:

Red foxes are predators that instinctively hunt birds, small game and animals as large as sheep. goats and small calves. It is doubtful it could be trusted around small children and definitely not other pets.


You could say this about -every- dog in the entire world. I wouldn't trust my Jack Russles alone with my cats or my young nephews even though the dogs are good natured, they are still animals. Think we should mass kill every single dog? Extreame, but a damn good point. This fox was obviously rescued as a pup and the owner has shown it such love. I applaud. Foxes have a horrible stereotype, remember that we made foxes what they are by extending our towns and cities further and further into the countryside, making a huge mess as we go. Theres bound to be urbanised foxes, because lets face it, routing through bins is going to be easier than catching your dinner.

And foxes don't go for fully grown healthy sheep it's too much effort and a waste of time. They're cunning, remember, they'll only go for the easies. The sick and the old and the newborn. Yeah it's a pain, but it's an occupational hazard for anyone keeping lifestock.

Happy Fox is Happy...
Cute fox is cute...
Happy sounds sound Happy...

But
A wild animal is a wild animal.
By treating this fox like a pet, they are ensuring that it will never be able to be released back into the wild. An animal with that kind of affection for humans is bound to get itself into trouble (and ultimately killed).

So what now, does it have to spend the rest of its life in the cage. Could it be tame enough to live as a pet in a home. Red foxes are predators that instinctively hunt birds, small game and animals as large as sheep. goats and small calves. It is doubtful it could be trusted around small children and definitely not other pets.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Fox

"In recent years, an escalating interest in exotic pets has drawn attention to the red fox. While the fox is a beautiful animal, people should remember that they are wild animals. Due to the fox's excitable and nervous nature, a fox makes a very unruly pet. If this knowledge is not enough to discourage attempts to make pets of foxes, people should also know that foxes have a very strong odor to their bodies and their waste, much like that of a skunk." - http://www3.northern.edu/natsource/MAMMALS/Redfox1.htm

>> ^gwiz665:
The illusion of intelligence does not confirm it.
People tend to anthropomorphize their pets, but that does not make them "people".



Your ability to type about intelligence do not confirm you have any. Yourhydra never states that animals are "people" nor that they are equal in their behaviors, and emotions. You even invoke religion which has nothing to do with this subject, and is not a very good analogy since religious fundamentalists are usually the people most opposed to the idea of animals having emotions. And unlike religious fantasy gods and stories, animals DO exist and interact with people. Observations can be made, and scientific method used in studies of the subject.

We are nothing but animals, we have emotions. If we all die another species may evolve and take over the Earth. But I guess they might not have emotions since that is a 'humans only' thing. I roll my eyes.

I've had two cats, and two dogs. I'm not a pet psycho/living with a million animals, nor I am one of those pet owners who attributes human like motives behind their pets everyday actions. I view house pets as wonderful less evolved additions to a family that can help warm up a house, offer company, and provide a creature to love. I don't view them as people replacements. But I think anyone who argues that animals cannot have emotions of any kind, not even less evolved basic emotional reactions, are arrogant, extremist, buffoons. Their emotional reactions and ability to understand their situations may not be as advanced as ours, but they exist.

Recent studies have shown that basic morality exist in some animals. Animals feeling unjustly treated, behaving angrily when other animals in a group receive treats and they do not. WTF would it do that for if it was biological robot? Since that is what people who argue against emotions are essentially saying animals are in the end. Why would it get 'angry' or create an illusion for the outside world to see so they can perceive it as 'angry'? Our morals and emotions most likely started out this way as well. Basic and simple.

No one can prove that others humans aside from themselves truly have sentience, but they'd be a damned idiot if you seriously tried to. This is the same thing in my mind.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5733638.ece

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=1

http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/NewsCentre/67668.htm

More likely than not, house pets are begging for treats. This animal is in the wild and taught itself (probably) how to do this as a hunting aid. I'll bet it helps her a lot too.

If a house cat did this where there were no treats involved...say...trying to see over a shrubbery (ni!) then I'd say you've got a point.