Humane Society of the United States

[powerfulcheese04]

1: False. HSUS is actually a political lobbying organization with an agenda that is remarkably similar to that of PETA (including that we should all be vegan, pet ownership is exploitation of animals, etc.)

This actually surprised me. I thought they were one of the "sane" PETA-alternates like the ASPCA (er, they're not PETA-y, right?). That is, one of those organizations that actually is what many people think PETA is (before you find out that PETA is, well, in my opinion, 'crazy').

And at least according to wikipedia, HSUS is against making "exotic" or "wild" animals pets; they apparently support pets bred to be pets. Or something?

That's what HSUS says until you look at the legislation they introduce and support. They label it things like "puppy mill" legislation, which is great! Until you look at their definition of puppy mills including well reputed breeders.

[CezeN]

I hate animals, that includes humans to a lesser degree, so I know nothing about them...

1.False
2.False
3.False
4.False

[human.]

I hate animals, that includes humans to a lesser degree, so I know nothing about them...

Good luck getting a girlfriend with that attitude..

[Gravity Defier]

Shouldn't the ALF be in favour of the use of cats as food?

As Vh1 once said, I love the 80s.

[Wil]

ALF was AWESOME. <3 Alf.

[CezeN]

I hate animals, that includes humans to a lesser degree, so I know nothing about them...

Good luck getting a girlfriend with that attitude..

What if I said I already had a girlfriend, (I don't) how would you reply?

...And how exactly would that hinder me?

[human.]

"Hey girl! I think you're beautiful, but you should know I hate your species. Oh! But not as much as I hate animals!"

Just seems weird to me. I'm just trying to sarcastically suggest you not say you hate humans.

[Gravity Defier]

"Hey girl! I think you're beautiful, but you should know I hate your species. Oh! But not as much as I hate animals!"

No, Kelsey, what he'd actually say is: "Hey baby, you make me so hot. I'm trying not to masturbate just thinking about you...but then it hits me, you're human and I don't want to anymore."

[CezeN]

^^^Does that count as a Dobie?

I was kinda being less serious on the whole human thing.

When I said "to a lesser degree", I pretty much meant I only hate some humans(which is like a handfull), not all.

I pretty much hate animals in general.

EDIT: And if I really just hated the human species, I probably wouldn't say it... ya know...

[neo-dragon]

I actually don't think that being a misanthrope would necessarily turn all girls off to you. Nor would not being an animal lover. Believe it or not there are no doubt girls out there who can relate.

[Satya]

...And you don't have to like humans to try and get something from them.

[Syphon the Sun]

Good luck getting a girlfriend with that attitude..

Treat a girl and her animals like dirt, she'll stick to you like mud.

[Gravity Defier]

Good luck getting a girlfriend with that attitude..

Treat a girl and her animals like dirt, she'll stick to you like mud.

Only if you get her wet.



And no, CezeN, I didn't Dobie you; I merely quoted you.

[neo-dragon]

Good luck getting a girlfriend with that attitude..

Treat a girl and her animals like dirt, she'll stick to you like mud.

Only if you get her wet.

[Game Room Wannabe]

True False True True

[CezeN]

Good luck getting a girlfriend with that attitude..

Treat a girl and her animals like dirt, she'll stick to you like mud.

Quote of the day man

[locke]

Good luck getting a girlfriend with that attitude..

Treat a girl and her animals like dirt, she'll stick to you like mud.

Only if you get her wet.

Lol, I want to agree with both Syphon and GD.

and that reminds me of an advert I saw on a less than savory site that said something like, "the secret of how any guy can get away with ANYTHING and be the worst sort of jerk and women will still stay with them is being GREAT in bed for her, buy our product and find out how to make her addicted to you!"

[Eaquae Legit]

Kim, would you mind elaborating slightly on the antibiotics issue? It's something that interests me quite a bit.

[powerfulcheese04]

Kim, would you mind elaborating slightly on the antibiotics issue? It's something that interests me quite a bit.

Everyone acknowledges that there's a growing problem with resistance to antibiotics. However, there are a number of organizations with various stances on the topic. One of those factions has gotten legislation put before Congress that would ban the use of antibiotics in food producing animals except in very few instances.

The problem with this is that the people writing this legislation don't understand how antibiotics in food producing animals are actually used (and I'm sure there are some people who aren't using them right, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater). It isn't cost effective to just toss antibiotics around. They carefully weigh the cost of the antibiotics versus the gain in animal health (which causes a net gain in productivity.) For example, producers put things like monensin in feed to control intestinal single cell parasites. While these parasites produce no overt signs of disease, they limit the animal's growth by causing sub-clinical disease.

Additionally, there's no scientific evidence that reducing antibiotic use in animals will reduce antibiotic resistance in humans. There's some anecdotal evidence ("The Denmark Experiment"), but all the actual, controlled trials have been inconclusive at best.

Here's an AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) explaination of the issue: http://www.keepourfoodsafe.org/keep_our ... pamta.html

My personal opinion is that every time I go to the doctor with the sniffles, they hand me a bottle of antibiotics. And I know I'm responsible with finishing my course, but I know practically everyone else I know doesn't finish them. (I have brow beaten my immediate family and boyfriend into finishing theirs.) So... medical doctors and associates, please clean your own house before you bitch about my dusting.

[v-girl]

I'm sure there are some people who aren't using them right, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

So... medical doctors and associates, please clean your own house before you bitch about my dusting.

Kim, I have to say I've gotten a little frustrated with how you talk about MDs and antibiotics. I don't claim to understand how vets treat animals, so until you go to medical school maybe you should hold off making these blanket judgments. I'm sure there are physicians that don't use antibiotics effectively, but that is not the way we are taught. We use evidence based medicine for our treatments too.

[locke]

I think Kim was referring to patients who don't complete their antibiotics, but stop taking it after they begin to feel better, leaving half the medicine in the jar and keep the jar for a year or two before flushing it down the toilet or throwing it in the trash.

I don't think she was saying doctors over prescribe, I think she was saying not enough people finish their antibiotics and perhaps there needs to be a bigger push to get people to finish taking their medicine.

[Luet]

Locke, if that's all she was referring to, then what did this line mean?

So... medical doctors and associates, please clean your own house before you bitch about my dusting.

[starlooker]

Well, the crucial difference, perhaps, is that vets don't seem to be trying to get Congress to pass sweeping laws that would change how they use antibiotics on people.

[powerfulcheese04]

Adam and Kirsten have it.

There are injudicious use problems in human and veterinary medicine. However, nobody is trying to take away all MDs ability to prescribe antibiotics because of a few people. (Despite there being better evidence that human injudicious uses are the major culprit in human antibacterial resistance.)

So, human health advocates should be addressing the human issues leading to antibiotic resistance before attacking a minor component in vet med.

[Luet]

Yes, and while I am not well-educated on this topic I know there are two sides to every controversy. Like this:

For example, producers put things like monensin in feed to control intestinal single cell parasites. While these parasites produce no overt signs of disease, they limit the animal's growth by causing sub-clinical disease.

Some people who don't want extra antibiotics in their food source for many reasons (other than antibiotic resistance), would say that the extra growth is not worth using the antibiotics. The meatier turkey breast or beefier cow chock full of hormones and/or antibiotics doesn't seem like the best trade off. That's why many of us try to buy locally grown meat that has been raised humanely and without the hormones and antibiotics. Reading Omnivore's Dilemma and Slaughterhouse, and watching Food, Inc. really affected my viewpoint on the food industry.

[powerfulcheese04]

There are withdrawal periods such that antibiotics and hormones are not found at levels above very low tolerances in meat sold for consumption. With respect to hormones, you get much much more estrogen from a glass of soy milk than if you ate an entire cow that had a growth implant.

As far as local/organics, there are some great ones and some really bad ones.

In general, I've found a lot of the pop literature on the food industry only present a very specific emotionally charged agenda, and often have very little experience at any level of food production- stocking, sale, slaughter, food safety, any of it.

But, sort of like the vaccine and autism article, one person publishes a super shady study and it becomes the common opinion, regardless of it's scientific supportability or relationship with fact.

[buckshot]

It's sad most folks have no idea what gets into comercial animal feed. Over the years i have met a lot of other feed mill owners and managers and I'm often disgusted by what they consider wholesome and lawfull regarding safe processing and ingredient inclusion.

Read past the label! Me

[locke]

In general, I've found a lot of the pop literature on the food industry only present a very specific emotionally charged agenda, and often have very little experience at any level of food production- stocking, sale, slaughter, food safety, any of it.

But, sort of like the vaccine and autism article, one person publishes a super shady study and it becomes the common opinion, regardless of it's scientific supportability or relationship with fact.

Oh I agree, completely, or as Scott Bakker said:

Because of our native tendency to anthropomorphize our environments, to interpret complex phenomena in psychological and social terms, our interpretative strategies are thoroughly skewed. This is simply a fact, though it rarely sees the light of day because we are pathologically jealous of our beliefs–to the point of killing one another if need be. (No matter how much lip service we pay to "critical thinking," the sad fact is that we really want no part of it–which is why we teach our children absolutely nothing about all the ways they’re doomed to dupe themselves). In the meantime, we see conspiracies everywhere we look–ghosts, gods, spies, corporations, governments... Pick your poison. No matter what our culture, we posit hidden agencies that have something planned for us, good or ill.

Humans are born drama queens. It’s always all about us.

There being a vaccine/autism conspiracy, or a nefarious cabal of meat slaughterers duping the american public is just our brain wanting to make something the world that is basically meaningless (incidence of autism) have a purpose (caused by an external agency). If there's something to blame there's something to understand. If autism is just one of those unavoidable random accidents of nature the brain is a lot less happy. Our brains are hyperactive at inferring agency where there is no agency to be had, it's why there's no difference between a rain dance connection or a vaccine autism connection. The dance caused the rain, the vaccine caused the autism. Clearly its truth because I read it on the internet!

The scientific worldview requires training, it doesn't come naturally to humans at all. viewing the world objectively is really damned difficult because our brains our evolved to view the world intentionally (meaning your actions were intended for me, ie we're drama queens everyone who's thought a random confessions post or dear you post was directed to them, raise your hands, thank you for proving my point). in fact bad science is often a result of humans inferring intent and completely missing the objective answer.

Here's a good example, a study was published saying that democratic districts got an unfair proportion of the stimulus funds. well it turns out most of the money went to districts containing state capitals and the state government dispersed the money fairly throughout the state. state capital districts tend to be urban and democratic, thus skewing the results. But the author, thinking there was something foul afoot immediately leaped to the conclusion that this was intentionally nefarious corruption and conspiracy unmasked by looking at the data. she just didn't make the objective connection that the money primarily went to state capitals for dispersal because her brain (as all human brains are) was primed to see intent and agency rather than objectivity.

[jotabe]

I often see, when it comes to experiments with lab mice, that they kind of correlate the amount of tries the mouse needs to experience to memorize (to learn) a causal link, like "green button, food; red button, electric discharge". In this case, it's obvious humans are the most intelligent, because we can stablish causal links with a single observation!

Our brain plays tricks on us, always trying to lie to us, always trying to reach the assumption that requires less energy (variational principle ftw!). Don't trust your brain whenever it seems too happy to reach a conclusion. Data won't lie to you, but you will lie to yourself!