No, a police dog is a dog. A tazer is a tool. (I could have made a terrible joke there, but will refrain)
I understand that humans being more 'valuable' than 'animals' (as if we aren't animals) is the normal way of thinking, but you make the knee jerk assumption/implication that they are the only options, either let a dog attack a dangerous armed person that WILL hurt/kill the dog or do it manually and be hurt yourself. There are MANY other options always available that don't involve releasing the unsuspecting dog into harms way. Most don't even involve deadly force. It would NEVER be proper to let the dog attack a known armed threatening person instead of using one's brain to deal with the danger in a safer manner, but that is what you've said you would do.
As a society, we have partially reversed the thinking that 'humans are more important than animals'. That is shown by the creation of many 'preserves' that stop people from farming/hunting on land to save animals, and that ends up killing some people (through starvation, malnutrition, etc). So while your statement is usually correct, people do usually consider humans more valuable than animals, as an absolutist statement it is wrong. That kind of thinking has put us in a position where the food chains are being broken because we only thought about humans (and not very thoroughly).

I'm sorry to hear about your cat, it's a terrible thing to have to help them go, but often the right thing for them. :-(

Your comments were "a dog is a tool" and "If I were tasked with taking a person with a machete into custody, I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." Both show a complete lack of concern for the dog, or even thought for it as a living, thinking, feeling being. The latter also shows a propensity to put the unsuspecting dog in far greater danger rather than accept a manageable danger themselves. In your scenario, you could easily disarm 'Machette' with your Taser, firearm, car, other officers, etc. with minimal or no danger to the officers, only more time taken, but you say you would send in the dog to get sliced. I find that terrible and not the words of someone that truly cares for the animal.
EDIT: " I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." really translates to 'I would be happy to have a dog risk their life over a person taking a chance.'...and I and others find that thinking uncaring and irresponsible towards the living, feeling being (your tool) who's care and welfare you took responsibility for.
You are quite correct, I could never be a cop. I don't have the mentality to constantly tell others what to do (and insist they follow my directions), or to deal with the drudgery of writing people tickets, paperwork, etc. I could not dehumanize people I think are criminals daily and treat them like the inhuman scum they 'are'. I would have too hard a time enforcing laws I disagreed with, and I would fear that dealing with people at their worst would make me think the worst of all people, and so cause me to treat them all like the awful criminals they are (in my mind), making me a douchebag with authoratah. I don't want to be that in any way.
I feel like being a cop is a truly hard job that screws with one's mind. Again, why I think therapy on the job should be mandatory.
Honest discussion is never a waste of time.

Well, I'm a biologist and a medical doctor. Am I qualified to answer?

The difference is NdT is perceived by millions as "the science guy" aka the ultimate authority on everything scientific. Which he isn't. His opinion on this topic is as good as yours or mine.
In my opinion this isn't a scientific question, but more the question of whether we want to give companies like Monsanto (http://videosift.com/video/The-World-According-to-Monsanto-A-documentary) more money and power.

If you reject GM food as "unnatural" ...

I never said that.

I would also like an honest answer for the question, "Which is worse, world starvation or effects of GM food?"

Do you still beat your wife?
Sorry that's a BS question. Who says, we don't have enough food to feed seven billions? I'd rather make the point that distribution is the problem.

Well, I'm a biologist and a medical doctor. Am I qualified to answer?

The fact is, we use WAY more adulterated substances in medicine all the time. From antibiotics all the way up to chemotherapy and radiopharmaceuticals. If you reject GM food as "unnatural" then you should never go see a doctor and certainly never take a prescription medication. I guess you could go suck on a Willow tree if you had a headache, but I doubt it would be as good as manufactured aspirin.

I would also like an honest answer for the question, "Which is worse, world starvation or effects of GM food?"

I think it's noble to do whatever little you can to oppose the brutal half-century long occupation, humiliation, starvation and assassination of your people, yes.

Israel is an illegal occupying power in international law, that's a fact. It constantly violates practically every obligation that occupation incurs in international law; it engages in collective punishment, it regularly seizes and destroys private property, it laughingly fails to provide for the safety and welfare of the population under its control, it settles occupied territory with its civilians, it forcibly relocates Palestinian civilians, it routinely ignores the UN's attempts to restrain these and other illegal behaviours, these are facts.

Israel is engaged in terrorism in Gaza and elsewhere, and has been for decades - fact.

@lantern53

http://www.buzzfeed.com/joeflood/how-the-redskins-debate-goes-over-on-an-actual-indian-reserv

This says it better.

Quote:
People, Native American people in particular, in my limited experience, have the ability to ignore all manner of historical insults — like the Medals of Honor still on record for the soldiers who perpetrated the Wounded Knee Massacre, or the faces of U.S. presidents carved into a site the U.S. government took through warfare, forced starvation, and treaty violations. That resiliency, though, seems a pretty poor excuse for heaping on much smaller insults — like “Redskins” — and justifying them with “See? They’re cool with it.”

But, Africa isn't able to feed itself. Regional instability being an overwhelming part of that. When farmer and family spend a year growing a crop and raising animals for food, only to have men with guns come and take it at the end of the year, your production next year goes down. It doesn't take more than a single generation to go from prosperous ag to mass starvation, and for a multitude of reasons Africa has been facing that problem for multiple generations.

If we can agree the reasons for it are many fold and complicated, can I get agreement that there DO exist circumstances where foreign intervention absolutely is in the interest of the local people? It seems undeniable if you look at Rwanda that all of Central Africa would've been better served by action than the inaction our world collectively provided.

I like Bill Nye. But this whole argument treats 'Africa' (as only one example of a region of the underdeveloped and exploited world) as the nebulous hell-region where bad things happen. He cites examples of these bad things, but then, in a characteristically bourgeois fashion, he focuses on the consumptive problems (not enough aid, not enough to eat, no enough medicine, etc). And who is responsible for this? The first-world, capitalist zones of power (the US, Europe, 'civilization', etc).

Why don't we actually look at the production-side of things. Why can't Africa produce its own resources? It once was able to, very efficiently and without problems. That is, until imperialism happened. We are taking about a continent that was broken up into artificial nations, where agriculture was transformed into cash crops, where millions were shipped off as slave labor. We are talking about a continent that has tried for hundreds of years to fight for liberation for itself, only to have these imperialist countries keep their stranglehold on its neck.

(go wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%ADlcar_Cabral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara

My point here is that the whole discussion of more or less foreign aid presupposes an Africa that cannot feed itself. The solution is not to continue a dependent relationship. The solution is a sustainable and liberated Africa, who has economic control over her resources, and political freedom for her own people. the solution is self-determination, not should the US try to feed more of the kids? (whose starvation is rooted in the US's wealth. )

/end rant

I hate to get on Bill Nye, and I agree with the need for more foreign aid even. I must protest non the less about war being a minor factor in poverty and related deaths. Blaming the millions that die of starvation and malnutrition in Africa on that alone is little different than saying that the millions who starved under Stalin and Mao could have been saved by foreign aid.

Even when there isn't active warfare in the most poverty ridden places of the world, there are warlords and criminals ruling the region through starvation and actively redirecting what little foreign aid there is to themselves and away from those that do not support them. Simply sending more food and money to places like Somalia or North Korea does nothing to help the people there, and if the aid is naively sent blind to whomever holds power it actually makes things WORSE by strengthening the very monsters responsible for the suffering. I'd like to believe our apathy here is the biggest problem as much as the next guy, but the reality is that there are also people local to the problem involved first hand in perpetuating and profiting from human suffering. If we refuse to admit that there are instances were 'aid' necessarily takes the form of shooting the bad guys then we are doomed to watching as the next genocide plays out, as we did for the Rwandan Tutsis, Iraqi Kurds and Shias and countless others.

And if they were less cute and provided decent nutrition, we'd eat them, so what?

Fighting starvation is not a great indicator of anything, you might eat another human or yourself if you were in a situation that warranted it. I don't think I need to defend against the circle of life, we're the very last species that can frown on another animal for eating something smaller than it.

Enjoying and giving affection is not an exclusive condition, you don't have to *always* and *only* love your one owner constantly. That'd just be annoying.

I believe in research, it suggests cats are quite affectionate to their owners, it is simply not displayed in ways that humans typically understand. Experiments done by people who actually want to understand cat behaviour and not just contrast it to that of a dog, find that cat expression is rather complicated and subtle. It requires long and repeated observation, cats are not suited to these 10minute experiments.

It's an ongoing study, some if it is really quite new, you can look it up or you can continue not caring, I'm not particularly fussed. Thankfully I don't need validation to enjoy the relationship I have with my cat, I don't think it wants only me and I don't have a problem with that, I do think she feels we're rather good friends. That's something I'm happy with.

Your video, Dying of starvation and abuse Rescued pit bull pays it back, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This seems dumb. Not just the clearly scripted video but the apparent shock at what happens when you're a prisoner threatening to commit suicide (by starvation). Of course force-feeding is unpleasant. That's what happens when you're a prisoner and you refuse to eat. Don't want to be force-fed? Then eat. Don't want to be a prisoner? Then don't join groups that are internationally recognized as terrorists. And no, I seriously doubt that the majority of prisoners in Gitmo are innocent.

Mister Dagmar;

Be (oh do be) mine ally disheartened nor dismayed in the face of these ramparts yet un-breached-Time and punishment shall render a favorable outcome deemed wholly satisfactorily suited to your own (ego not allowed) particular skill-set and lesson-afforded, for another round at consciousness albeit in another dimension hitherto elucidated or otherwise ~ Comprendes Mendez?-

Teach yer kids two valuable lessons if you do anything for them besides putting musical instruments in their hands whilst screaming, "SssssuuUUHUT UUUUUUP!!"

Teach them mandarin and/or Cantonese

and.....and (kinna forgot the other importunate thing 'cause on account-a I stepped off to water the plants'n pee'n what not..) OH!....

Impress upon 'em that sprouted grains will hold'em over till starvation sets in and right up near until the time the edible fruits of the same seed begin to show themselves worthy of a dinner plate to accompany the frog and kangaroo meat they're pullin' at yer pants legs for after the grocery trucks stop running, because you got the BBQ mojo down like nobody's business on accounta you originally hail from........................drum roll...................(here's yer cue, insert home state

⛡HERE ⛡)

The tension between steward and subdue...

Well, let's put it this way, in 50 years time when the sea comes and subdues most of the coastal land, when we run out of oil and our air is choked and toxic, when we face the real possibility of eating bugs instead of beef (insects have a much higher protein ratio for investment then cattle do) or pan-global starvation, you might want to think about which of the two is more important if you can pull your head out of your self righteous ass...

The bible talks about the sins of the father, well the lack of environmental concern these days is a sin and it will be visited upon our children.

I appreciate your tone. I really do. I just wanted to leave you with some suggested google scholar searches. If you haven't already, check out the recent research in gametic or transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. It'll be really jargony and difficult to understand. One take home is that the gametic accessibility of genetic material for transcription has been shown to have reliable effects on the phenotype of progeny in animal models. Further, human studies have shown transgenerational effects on the adult weight of offspring in response to the diet of the mother during pregnancy and even in response starvation events dating back further generations (although the mechanism is not necessarily known).

Anyway, nice chat.

@CaptainPlanet I'm drawing the connection so people could relate to why it is wrong to be prejudiced against the overweight. Yes, they could act straight, but they would be miserable. Just like some fat people could maintain weight loss, but be miserable. I'm saying both behavior sets are psycho/neurological in origin, and thus are difficult to really describe as a "choice." The data on +30 BMIs, and in fact using BMI as a health metric more generally has been largely discredited. They often didn't do things like control for smoking, or diet, or exercise. People that eat healthily, exercise, and otherwise make healthy life choices can still be fat, but be healthy. I know this from personal experience. The fact is with prolonged caloric restriction your body can become uncomfortable with the weight loss. It will instead go into "starvation mode" and convert the few calories you provide it into fat to replace the stores. Meanwhile, it deprives your nervous system of needed energy and you become depressed. Thus, you make yourself miserable, and don't lose any weight, and there is nothing you can do about it but become comfortable with who you are. Don't worry. It gets better.

I don't know what I said that deserved your reaction, but frankly your kind of acting like a dick about it.