181–190 of 212 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or your statement is a myth and you're one of the sources.
And maybe the moon is made of cheese :) That aside, if you would stop spreading the myth, that would be better for everybody.
Also being quite rude and dismissive as well. No thanks.
The real problem is that nearly all seafood is unsustainable. Even when using euphemisms like 'farms' make us thing it's somewhat contained to one place and we just throw them some food pellets manufactured from vegetables in another factory. The reality of salmon farms for instance is that for every 1kg of farmed Salmon it takes 20kg of wild fish to feed them to maturity.
There's a lot of shit ton of algaes blooming due to climate change. Wonder if that can be sourced as protein / feed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And maybe the moon is made of cheese :) That aside, if you would stop spreading the myth, that would be better for everybody.
Well no you're the one spreading the myth. Stop. Thanks. Also being quite rude and dismissive as well. No thanks.
Sigh. No.
Pigs are not more intelligent than dogs. That's flat out misinformation, and you are propagating misinformation, i.e. spreading a myth every time you repeat that false information.
I don't think I'm being rude, although I don't have a lot of patient for people that willfully spread misinformation.
Maybe, just maybe, do some more research other than believing what the first link in your Google search results brings up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well no you're the one spreading the myth. Stop. Thanks. Also being quite rude and dismissive as well. No thanks.
> Well no you're the one spreading the myth Sigh. No. Pigs are not more intelligent than dogs. That's flat out misinformation, and you are propagating misinformation, i.e. spreading a myth every time you repeat that false information. I don't think I'm being rude, although I don't have a lot of patient for people that willfully spread misinformation. Maybe, just maybe, do some more research other than believing what…
It's (IMO) somewhat rude to demand compliance without supporting your position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well no you're the one spreading the myth Sigh. No. Pigs are not more intelligent than dogs. That's flat out misinformation, and you are propagating misinformation, i.e. spreading a myth every time you repeat that false information. I don't think I'm being rude, although I don't have a lot of patient for people that willfully spread misinformation. Maybe, just maybe, do some more research other than believing what…
One source has been posted thus far, and it contradicts what you've said. In fact, the entire first page of Google's search results for "pigs vs dogs intelligence" brings up nothing to support your point. (Low-quality sources, but again, it's currently low-quality vs no-quality.) It's (IMO) somewhat rude to demand compliance without supporting your position.
That source is hardly credible now, is it? As far as I'm concerned I'm treating it with the respect it warrants.
> Low-quality sources, but again, it's currently low-quality vs no-quality.
The key is, as you say, low quality sources. It's a bunch of corporate blog posts trying to get clicks perpetuating a myth, just as corethree is so proud of doing.
> It's (IMO) somewhat rude to demand compliance without supporting your position.
I can see that. But, if we agree that an onus is on those who make a claim to support it, I don't think we should consider copying and pasting whatever link comes up first from a google search as supporting it.
The real issue here is that it doesn't particularly make sense to directly compare pigs and dogs like this at all. They have different kinds of intelligence, both of which are still being studying, and both stronger in areas where the other might be weaker or not have a showing at all.
That's why I'm not just providing a single source - because there isn't one, not that wouldn't be as low quality as what corethree provided making me a hypocrite. It's a complex issue that requires explanation and citations from multiple papers, and I didn't see corethree's post as being worthy of the effort that would be required in such a reply.
I will make the final notes that as far as I know we don't have evidence of pigs being self-aware while we do with dogs [0] and no pig has ever accomplished anything even close to what some of the world's smartest dogs have been able to [1][2].
I'm open to the possibility that pigs might be smarter than dogs, but I've seen no compelling evidence to support that claim at all. Just gullible people perpetuating the first thing they read.
[0] https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/news/dogs-habit-of-sniffin...
[1] https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/news/remembering-chaser-th...
The whole too smart thing seems so arbitrary to me. Like this animal can solve a puzzle thus it can't be farmed. The other animal can't. But if we scare/hurt them they both react in fear/pain. IQs are we talking here? Suduko? Puzzle? Open a door? Use a tool? Care for its youngs? Stand under roof when it rains? I can wrap my head around both stances (eat animals freely or full veg only)...bit this arbirary line in san…
Then why not eat humans too? There needs to be a line somewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One source has been posted thus far, and it contradicts what you've said. In fact, the entire first page of Google's search results for "pigs vs dogs intelligence" brings up nothing to support your point. (Low-quality sources, but again, it's currently low-quality vs no-quality.) It's (IMO) somewhat rude to demand compliance without supporting your position.
> One source has been posted thus far, and it contradicts what you've said. That source is hardly credible now, is it? As far as I'm concerned I'm treating it with the respect it warrants. > Low-quality sources, but again, it's currently low-quality vs no-quality. The key is, as you say, low quality sources. It's a bunch of corporate blog posts trying to get clicks perpetuating a myth, just as corethree is so proud o…
Unfortunately I don't like your attitude nor do I care about this topic enough to follow through. No offense.
As a result I will not be following your sources and I will be ending this conversation. Thanks again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One source has been posted thus far, and it contradicts what you've said. That source is hardly credible now, is it? As far as I'm concerned I'm treating it with the respect it warrants. > Low-quality sources, but again, it's currently low-quality vs no-quality. The key is, as you say, low quality sources. It's a bunch of corporate blog posts trying to get clicks perpetuating a myth, just as corethree is so proud o…
Thank you for posting sources, you should have done this in the beginning. Unfortunately I don't like your attitude nor do I care about this topic enough to follow through. No offense. As a result I will not be following your sources and I will be ending this conversation. Thanks again.
It wasn't for you. Instead of saying I should have done that in the beginning, really, you should have done so since you made the claim, and you should have done the bare minimum research to realize your claim was bullshit and not perpetuate it.
> Unfortunately I don't like your attitude nor do I care about this topic enough to follow through. No offense.
> As a result I will not be following your sources and I will be ending this conversation. Thanks again.
That's fine. I don't really care about any of that. Instead I will just ask that you try to do better in the future and not perpetuate misinformation due to laziness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for posting sources, you should have done this in the beginning. Unfortunately I don't like your attitude nor do I care about this topic enough to follow through. No offense. As a result I will not be following your sources and I will be ending this conversation. Thanks again.
> Thank you for posting sources, you should have done this in the beginning. It wasn't for you. Instead of saying I should have done that in the beginning, really, you should have done so since you made the claim, and you should have done the bare minimum research to realize your claim was bullshit and not perpetuate it. > Unfortunately I don't like your attitude nor do I care about this topic enough to follow throug…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Thank you for posting sources, you should have done this in the beginning. It wasn't for you. Instead of saying I should have done that in the beginning, really, you should have done so since you made the claim, and you should have done the bare minimum research to realize your claim was bullshit and not perpetuate it. > Unfortunately I don't like your attitude nor do I care about this topic enough to follow throug…
Please don't respond to my thread nor impolitely reference me or accuse me of things if you're going to post things that aren't for me. I already stated this conversation is over. Walk away now. Do not respond me.
It's not your thread, I replied to someone else and the effort put into that reply was for them.
> I already stated this conversation is over.
I don't really care what you state. Stating something doesn't simply make it true. If you feel the conversation is over, don't respond further.
> Walk away now. Do not respond me.
Don't give people orders that you have no authority or right to enforce.
If you feel the conversation is over, don't respond further.