new JURASSIC PARK sequel

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[Cloud the Dinosaur King]

Unless you're speaking with a youtuber who responds to all their comments. They're always kind.

Yeah, but they´re kinda obligated to be nice, since they don´t want to lose any viewers.

I'm one of those Youtubers

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[Neosodon]

Thank you! I'm the sort of person who finds animals fascinating, but most of them are so alien in terms of behavior and perception that I find it hard to get emotionally attached. I also tend to look at the issue from the side that humans are just as much a part of nature as any other animal, so I'm all in favor of people eating meat should they choose to do so. (I'm also all in favor of veganism as long as the vegans in question don't shove their lifestyle down everyone's throat, but that's a different issue entirely.) I also see it from the perspective that eating a pig is no more or less acceptable than eating a dog. As long as the animal wasn't abused during its life, and in the case of hunting, that it's done legally, with concern for ecology and the environment, I'm not bothered by it. Death is a part of life, and will happen with or without us, so it's not something I'm offended by. In this case, I am definitely someone who likes animals more than I am an animal lover, though I think many people who have a vested interest in biology could say the same.

YES! All of this!

I for one would never be able to bring myself to eat a turtle, I've lived with them around me most of my life, but I'm not about to judge someone if they do want to, and so it bothers me to no end when people show such favoritism to dogs or cats. I've even heard people call for what essentially amounts to genocide because some cultures eat dogs.

As for the earlier point, I will admit I'm prone to a bit more shock when an animal dies in a movie, especially smaller animals like fish or birds. It's about how we perceive entertainment. I'm just one of those people who isn't bothered by gratuitous violence, but someone getting pricked by a fish hook will make me squirm. On a scale of life and death the animal dying is the fish hook, it feels more real, so it carries more weight in a work of fiction.

Allot of the fuss over animal rights is because people don't really understand them. The whole animals are innocent and people are evil couldn't be further from the truth. Animals have no sense of right or wrong. Some animals eat their own offspring or will kill the offspring of others to reduce competition. Animals don't care about others, they drive away the weak and take the food all for themselves. They will ignore sick and dyeing members of the group or sometimes even attack them. Animals only follow their instincts. They run from danger because they sense fear, they eat because they are hungry. So when people are more concerned about the lives of animals than people it bothers me.

This however, I can't agree with. Writing off all non-human species as mindless savages hits a little bit too close to the sort of closed-mindedness that has been used by those in power to abuse all, not just animals but more relevantly minorities or opposition. The whole "we're better than those different" attitude isn't a safe mindset, even in regards to animals. It's a gateway philosophy so to speak, and I don't want to go into the history of how governments of the past used science to promote racism, but it happened.

The concept of instinct is a dated one, because it's based partially on the highly religious assumption that humans are fundamentally different from all other animals. "Instinct" is just a term for seemingly unlearned behavior, and we do plenty of that ourselves (ever hit puberty? especially in the age of the internet?). Humans are not the only animals to posses a concept of right and wrong, we aren't the only ones who form complex social societies, or cultures, or even language. A great many animals will even punish those among themselves who commit cannibalism or sexual assault, perhaps most notably crows in the former and dolphins in the latter.

Am I saying all lives are equal? Or that animals lives are worth more than humans? No, and I don't think so, but I do think that's a personal decision everyone should be allowed to make for themselves. So long as someone doesn't promote inequality or injustice, and doesn't cause active harm to, or force their beliefs upon- others they should be allowed to believe whatever they wish.

As for invasive species, I think it's important to consider non-lethal removal methods whenever possible, especially for cases of animals that are in danger in their native ranges. It's also not worth wasting the resources targeting invasives that aren't dangerous to natives, like pigeons or green iguana in urban areas, they aren't posing a threat to anything, people only want them gone because of the negative stereotypes associated with them. I also feel it's important that rescues still treat invasives that get brought to them (without them releasing them, typically), after all the point is to prevent needless deaths whenever possible, conservation is best left to larger agencies.

It's worth noting the most harmful invasives aren't giant pythons or poisonous toads like everyone wants to think, but rather goats, cats, pigs, and dogs, and by a very large margin at that.

Instincts is a pretty interesting topic. I'm not saying that all animals are incapable of any thought at all. But the amount of thinking that animals can do is so limited they have to rely mostly on their instincts to survive. And I'm not saying that people don't have instincts ether. When you get hungry that is your instincts telling you to eat. But humans have weaker instincts than all other animals and make up for it with intelligence. If you dropped the average person off alone in the middle of no were they would die because they don't know how to survive. But animals can hatch out of an egg and instantly know how to survive in their environment because all that information is stored in their brains as instincts. A person can see a cookie and while their instincts may tell them to eat it they can choose not to because they don't want the calories. But put enough grain into a horse pasture and the horses will eat themselves to death because they don't have the instincts to tell them to stop eating since they are grazing animals. Thought over instincts is what makes humans the most unique species but it is also why humans are the only animals that display irrational behavior. So our biggest strength is also our biggest weakness.

[The Atroxious]

I'm going to continue on the villianization part. It's become so bad I'm afraid to mention to anyone that I'm pro animal rights and eat meat.Let's talk about a subject that I mentioned earlier: Radical feminism


Sexism is bad. It's worse than racism mathematically. Is it worse to offend a fraction of the population or nearly half of it? And this just makes generalizations even more unlikely, yet sexism towards men seems to be this kind of ongoing gag. Like, "oh yeah men are horrible they're all stupid and hate women and drink beer all the time." It sound stupid what I'm saying, yes, but you've got to realize that extreme hypocrisy happens. "Well I wasn't given the choice to be American." "But all men are automatically evil because they're men." It just drives me crazy that so much idiotic thinking is going on in the world. And the thing is that people are like "All women are so much better than men!" "Well, what about Stacy?" "Stacy's a fake loser." UUUUUUUGH. And I know some of you might be annoyed I didn't handle female sexism, but that's because it's the only form of sexism actually cared about. I wanted to talk about the underviewed side.


Not sure if I'll get in trouble for this.

This whole issue bothers me in general, though to be honest, while I have seen radical feminists who act like men continually have to repent for their sex, the opposite side seems to be much, much more common, and just as bad. Any time someone online so much as mentions a common prejudice women face, they'll have swarms of angry, radical anti-feminists jumping down their throat denying any of this, claiming that women are too priceless as it is, and viciously insulting the original poster. I've experienced this firsthand, back when the anti-feminist movement began. This is why I hate the term "feminist" in general. Whenever it's mentioned, I know that some really bad stuff is about to go down. I wholeheartedly support the concept of feminism, but to be honest, if you were posting anywhere else other than the Dino Toy Forum, I'd be out of here faster than you could blink. I had a few bad experiences back when the anti-feminist movement began, since I was raised to be a feminist, I thought I could reason with these people about how feminism wasn't a bad thing. Bad idea. Now I just avoid the topic as much as possible. Unfortunately, most of the internet seems to be populated with outspoken hard left-wingers or hard right-wingers, with nary a moderate in sight, so I eschew defining my socio-political ideals with a label in favor of explaining exactly what my ideals are, lest the label I used be treated as an excuse to attack me and ignore the points I made.

I hope you will come to reconsider your position. A joke about men being incompetent (see Simpson, Homer) is a comment on the fact that it is easier for a man to achieve success with fewer qualifications and skills, relative to women. There aren't many people who genuinely think that all men are stupid, and I think claiming that there are is a straw man.

Interesting point. I'm not a fan of sitcoms, and only watch them very occasionally, usually when I'm bored but too tired to do anything I like better, so I'm familiar with the tropes, but was never really exposed to them enough to give them much thought, but your analysis makes perfect sense. My preferred genre is speculative fiction, which seems to tackle the issue differently most of the time. Maybe the ideas are inspired by The Simpsons, but oh my god, does it start to get a bit grating when the men are all goofy and the women are all generically alluring. Appropriately, I was recently messing around with the game Trine, and while both male protagonists were comedic, yet complex characters, the female character was not at all comedic, but rather seemed to belong in a different game entirely. She was like a Catwoman expy with her sultry voice and graceful demeanor. She doesn't have the quirks or the funny lines that the male characters do, and because of it, she seems very flat. I kind of wanted to tell the developers that women can, in fact, be funny, have flaws, and still be appealing.

Unless you're speaking with a youtuber who responds to all their comments. They're always kind.

I take it you've never spoken with TheArchfiend. That was not one of the smarter decisions I've ever made.

Yes it mirrored Grant's arc, but as I've said before Grant's story arc was already a subversion of this societal trope. Claire's arc
Personally I'm often nervous at the mention of feminism. It's not like I have anything against the cause, I just generally prefer to avoid it if possible because I've been personally targeted (in person) by radical feminists in the past. Some of them hate lesbians as much as they hate men, and I don't appreciate being referred to as a brainwashed slave. I definitely don't consider myself as a feminist, I watch my share of lewd animus, as I see it so long as men and women are treated equally that's equality, women don't need to be treated like men were back in the 1950's in order for something not to be sexism.

For what it's worth, watching something lewd doesn't exempt you from being feminist. Not saying you personally have to identify as one, but it wouldn't automatically disqualify someone. In general, I am against any of the myriad prejudices that revolve around the idea that your body or spiritual beliefs alone define what worth you have as a person (sexism, racism, Islamophobia, et cetera) but I've still voluntarily watched things that came from a perspective of prejudice. I don't think that revokes my egalitarian card. If anything, those stories often remind me why I denounce these views in the first place.

Instincts is a pretty interesting topic. I'm not saying that all animals are incapable of any thought at all. But the amount of thinking that animals can do is so limited they have to rely mostly on their instincts to survive. And I'm not saying that people don't have instincts ether. When you get hungry that is your instincts telling you to eat. But humans have weaker instincts than all other animals and make up for it with intelligence. If you dropped the average person off alone in the middle of no were they would die because they don't know how to survive. But animals can hatch out of an egg and instantly know how to survive in their environment because all that information is stored in their brains as instincts. A person can see a cookie and while their instincts may tell them to eat it they can choose not to because they don't want the calories. But put enough grain into a horse pasture and the horses will eat themselves to death because they don't have the instincts to tell them to stop eating since they are grazing animals. Thought over instincts is what makes humans the most unique species but it is also why humans are the only animals that display irrational behavior. So our biggest strength is also our biggest weakness.

I'm not so sure about other animals have limited thinking, or humans having weaker instincts. Here's an anecdote: I have two cats. Got the first one, a feral tom, when I was 16 and my dad found him huddling outside the house, suffering from hypothermia one January. For a long time, he was my only cat, and once he got over his fear of my family and I, he was the most affectionate little thing you can imagine. When I was 22 or 23 another cat started hanging around where I lived, and my little former feral didn't take kindly to this, and would try to chase the other day away any chance he got. The other cat didn't seem skittish like most cats, however, so one day I crouched down, holding out some food, and he came to me. I noticed he had been neutered and declawed, so I figured someone owned him, yet he was hanging around at all hours of the day and night. Unfortunately, when I investigated further, no one came to claim him, so after a few weeks I took him in. Obviously the former feral was very upset with this, and kept growling at the room I was temporarily keeping the new cat. One day, as I was going into that room, the former feral snuck in, and looked like he was going to jump the other cat, at which point I ran in, picked up the new cat, and held him. The former feral stopped growling, and calmed down a bit, but still seemed tense. Seeing an opportunity, I held the new cat on my lap, letting the former feral approach, but not get too close. What fascinated me was that the former feral still seemed aggressive, but his body language was no longer projecting violence. I let the two cats sniff each other, and neither seemed happy about the other's presence, but they were not fighting. In this case I could practically see the former feral acting not out of instinct, but out of some sort of understanding that I had accepted this new cat, and that he was going to try too, even though it went against his natural behavior.

Regarding humans being unable to survive in the wild, this requires two answers. The first is that as much as the media presents us as still being the tribal people we were thousands of years ago, most of us in industrialized society come from generation after generation of living in cities and towns, and what little that's left of the hunter gatherer training is so diluted as to be unrecognizable. There are still tribal people and nomads in the world today who live off the land and fight for survival, even hunting in locations that no sane industrialized person would think of because they have been learning these skills their entire lives. They learn to survive the same way we know how to write tens of thousands of words. If it's something you are exposed to on a daily basis, if it's something that you need to learn in order to function, you will absorb it and retain it. Survival skills are no different.

The second part of my answer is that humans are altricial animals, which means that they are helpless at birth. Some animals are precocial, meaning that they are fully capable of functioning at birth. Not all nonhumans are precocial. If you've seen enough nature documentaries, you'll see that when scientists and rehabbers are intending to release an orphaned baby animal into the wild, they often won't allow it to have human contact while they care for it. Human contact at an early age can make it harder for these altricial animals to bond to their own kind. Instead, they'll be more prone to relying on humans for food, which will lower their survival chances significantly. The end result is not so far different from getting an industrialized human stranded in the wilderness. When it comes to altricial animals, survival is just as much nurture as it is nature, if not more.

On the subject of food, that really is a case by case basis. I can leave food out all day for my cats, and they won't overeat. My uncle's dog hates food a lot of the time, and is the pickiest eater of any species I've ever encountered. Getting the dog to eat requires a lot of trickery some days. When I was a kid, my dad had two dogs. One was like my cats: he ate until he was satisfied, then would walk away. The other would eat and eat and eat regardless of whether he had just been fed, which became a problem when neighbors would give him treats constantly. In all honesty, humans are the same. Some people eat very small amounts because food doesn't appeal to them, while others deal with issues of binge eating, and if they're not eating, they're thinking  about eating. Some humans have eaten themselves to death too. This is less a difference in instincts between humans an other animals than it is a difference between the sensory perception and psychology of any given individual.

...Can you guys tell I really enjoy debating these issues?

[CrypticPrism]

Interesting point. I'm not a fan of sitcoms, and only watch them very occasionally, usually when I'm bored but too tired to do anything I like better, so I'm familiar with the tropes, but was never really exposed to them enough to give them much thought, but your analysis makes perfect sense. My preferred genre is speculative fiction, which seems to tackle the issue differently most of the time. Maybe the ideas are inspired by The Simpsons, but oh my god, does it start to get a bit grating when the men are all goofy and the women are all generically alluring. Appropriately, I was recently messing around with the game Trine, and while both male protagonists were comedic, yet complex characters, the female character was not at all comedic, but rather seemed to belong in a different game entirely. She was like a Catwoman expy with her sultry voice and graceful demeanor. She doesn't have the quirks or the funny lines that the male characters do, and because of it, she seems very flat. I kind of wanted to tell the developers that women can, in fact, be funny, have flaws, and still be appealing.

This.

Unless you're speaking with a youtuber who responds to all their comments. They're always kind.

I take it you've never spoken with TheArchfiend. That was not one of the smarter decisions I've ever made.
[/quote]

Never have.

...Can you guys tell I really enjoy debating these issues?

Yeah.


I think a better solution is egalitarian. It goes for the rights of everyone(I know feminism does but just hold on)and to me, it's less of a trigger word than feminism.

Also, you guys know I was talking about radical feminism?

[CrypticPrism]

I've looked up TheArchFiend, and there's no way I'd ever talk to him in comments. He seems to be this kind of metajock sports nut, which is the type of person I've never had a good experience with.

[Neosodon]

Atroxious, cats displaying unnatural behavior is not because they are overcoming their instincts with their thoughts. It is because their instincts have been altered by many years of breeding and domestication to create more mellow personalities. Cats are fairly intelligent animals so I assume their was some thought partially influencing the decision but the decision for them to get along was created by an instinctive urge to avoid injury in a fight overcoming the instinctive urge to protect ones territory.

Human tribal's today or even thousands of years ago still had just as poor instincts. Babies will shove just about anything in their mouths that they can get their hands on. A person does not know how to hunt or find water on instincts. Everything tribal's do was passed on to them from their ancestors or they learned how to do it themselves. Instincts did not make people learn to create fire or hunt with weapons. Human survival is almost entirely based off of thought.

[The Atroxious]

I've looked up TheArchFiend, and there's no way I'd ever talk to him in comments. He seems to be this kind of metajock sports nut, which is the type of person I've never had a good experience with.

Is he? His content is different than when I spoke to him, then. He used to be this really antisocial guy who railed against anything mainstream on principal. He blamed all of society's ills on religion, and seemed to constantly congratulate himself on how much he hated humans. I once got into an argument with him because he insisted that middle school and high school kids are all brainless morons and should be sheltered and isolated from the media because none of them can think for themselves and will just blindly follow what the media says for the rest of their lives. I said that I and basically everyone I know grew up fine, and that believing the wrong things is an inevitable part of growing up, sheltered or not, making it pointless to shelter them in the first place. This guy got really angry at that, started insulting me, telling me I didn't know what I was talking about, and that I'm partially to blame for teens acting stupid. Needless to say, I've been avoiding this guy ever since.

Atroxious, cats displaying unnatural behavior is not because they are overcoming their instincts with their thoughts. It is because their instincts have been altered by many years of breeding and domestication to create more mellow personalities. Cats are fairly intelligent animals so I assume their was some thought partially influencing the decision but the decision for them to get along was created by an instinctive urge to avoid injury in a fight overcoming the instinctive urge to protect ones territory.

In this case, explain why the former feral was willing to fight the stray every time he saw him until I picked up the stray and held him. My cat had jumped the stray a couple of times before I brought the stray in the house, which indicates that his decision had nothing to do with worrying about getting injured in a fight. He has never before or since backed down from any other cat, so that wouldn't explain why he would suddenly back down from a scared, malnourished stray.

Regarding the mellowed personality of domestic cats, it is true that they have been bred to be more tolerant...of humans. We never bred them to be more tolerant of each other, we simply kept the ones that were less skittish around us. The instinctual fear wild cats have of humans is heavily diluted, but they still react aggressively toward other cats the way their wild relatives do.

Human tribal's today or even thousands of years ago still had just as poor instincts. Babies will shove just about anything in their mouths that they can get their hands on. A person does not know how to hunt or find water on instincts. Everything tribal's do was passed on to them from their ancestors or they learned how to do it themselves. Instincts did not make people learn to create fire or hunt with weapons. Human survival is almost entirely based off of thought.

Wolf pups will chew on things in an exploratory way, the same as human babies. There's a reason you have to pet proof your house, even for nondomesticated animals such as parrots. Young altricial animals have to be taught what to eat and what not to, and if they're not, they'll be chewing on any number of things that are dangerous to their health. Wolf pups don't know how to hunt or find water on instinct either. I saw a documentary about lions who were driven from their price before they had properly learned to hunt, and after several failed attempts, they found a buffalo stuck in the mud, only they didn't know how to kill the buffalo, so they just wound up eating it while it was still alive. Many cases of predators eating their prey alive are the result of young animals that haven't yet learned to kill efficiently. Observing the other lions in the price had only taught them so much,  but it was clear that hunting is not an instinct as much as it is a learned skill.

[CrypticPrism]

Haha, what an idiot. I'm only 13 and have more common sensethan him. Also, on that topic, I was able to think legibly at 1. So that guy's definitely stirring a croplolite storm.

Now he does sports stuff.

[Neosodon]

Since the cat didn't attack after you held the stray it must have taken your actions as acceptance and therefore the new cat was no longer a threat. But if you hadn't intervened I don't think your cat would of excepted the new comer. Cat's are fairly smart animals that can understand the situation around them. When it realized that you had accepted the cat it simply lost it's instinctive reaction to chase off invaders.

Dogs and other animals chew up stuff to strengthen their jaws and I think some will even do it to sharpen their teeth. Scavenging animals may enjoy chewing because their scavenging lifestyle makes chewing on carcasses part of there daily life style so they will chew on random stuff to fulfill those instincts. And yes there are some animals that are rather incompetent at birth because instincts develop over time. But humans are probably the worst. My sister couldn't go to the beach when she was little because my parents couldn't stop her from eating sand. If you put sand before a kitten or puppy I doubt they would try eating it.

Advanced predatory animals like lions are probably the best at thinking but most of their life is still controlled by instincts. They raise cubs instinctively, they instinctively participate in packs, they instinctively protect their territory. Only when their faced with a situation that is to complex for them to follow there usual instincts will they think some and try to figure out how to survive like when they have lost their pack or are learning how to hunt. But even when lions are learning to hunt they are still following their instincts because their instincts are telling them to learn how to hunt.

You never hear of a lion giving up on hunting and becoming a vegetarian. Humans are the only animals that defy instincts and do things that don't align with any sort of survivalist behavior. Like why are we collecting model dinosaurs and talking on this forum. We're not doing anything to help our survival by being here. And that is why humans are so different from just any other animal.

[BlueKrono]

Personally this forum kind of keeps me in good repair mentally.  Dealing with some seriously heavy stuff right now, and focusing on a diversion like collecting keeps life from getting unbearable. Think of dinosaur collecting as my own version of whale breaching.

[Gwangi]

Like why are we collecting model dinosaurs and talking on this forum. We're not doing anything to help our survival by being here. And that is why humans are so different from just any other animal.

I'm sure there is a biological answer to this, probably involving the release of chemicals in the brain, like dopamine. We collect and participate here because we enjoy it, it makes us happy, and reduces stress (well, not always). But yeah, I get the bigger picture of what you're saying here.

[CrypticPrism]

I have depression, and can confidently say it relieves stress. Also, animals have feelings. Apparently my dog doesen't love me when she's trying to make me pet her and give her affection, nope, not at all. Nope, it's not like we have any proof of animals taking care of each other, not like lions sometimes raise baby antelope, and it's DEFINITELY not feelings of sadness or loneliness when a carnivore takes an animal it would eat under its wing. Not like there have been any articles written on it http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150714-animal-dog-thinking-feelings-brain-science/

Yeah, animals are soulless, instinct-driven beasts with no compassion. Might as well go the full way and say that raptors were giant, scaly, had zombie hands and skulls like footballs.

[BlueKrono]

I have depression, and can confidently say it relieves stress. Also, animals have feelings. Apparently my dog doesen't love me when she's trying to make me pet her and give her affection, nope, not at all. Nope, it's not like we have any proof of animals taking care of each other, not like lions sometimes raise baby antelope, and it's DEFINITELY not feelings of sadness or loneliness when a carnivore takes an animal it would eat under its wing. Not like there have been any articles written on it http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150714-animal-dog-thinking-feelings-brain-science/

Yeah, animals are soulless, instinct-driven beasts with no compassion. Might as well go the full way and say that raptors were giant, scaly, had zombie hands and skulls like footballs.

"More like a six foot turkey."

[CrypticPrism]

"Cluck cluck losers" Velociratpor then proceeds to beat people with its wings like a swan and biting them and pinning them down, while JW velociraptor curls up in ball due to broken wrists.

[BlueKrono]

Hey, just trying to bring it full circle back to Jurassic Park.

[The Atroxious]

Since the cat didn't attack after you held the stray it must have taken your actions as acceptance and therefore the new cat was no longer a threat. But if you hadn't intervened I don't think your cat would of excepted the new comer. Cat's are fairly smart animals that can understand the situation around them. When it realized that you had accepted the cat it simply lost it's instinctive reaction to chase off invaders.

Dogs and other animals chew up stuff to strengthen their jaws and I think some will even do it to sharpen their teeth. Scavenging animals may enjoy chewing because their scavenging lifestyle makes chewing on carcasses part of there daily life style so they will chew on random stuff to fulfill those instincts. And yes there are some animals that are rather incompetent at birth because instincts develop over time. But humans are probably the worst. My sister couldn't go to the beach when she was little because my parents couldn't stop her from eating sand. If you put sand before a kitten or puppy I doubt they would try eating it.

Tooth sharpening doesn't work like that unless we're talking about rodents and lagomorphs. It would be disadvantageous for most animals to try to sharpen their teeth, since that would wear away the enamel, causing permanent damage. Also keep in mind that humans are primates, and other primates will put all manner of inedibles in their mouths as well, so it could just as easily be seen as a common behavior among the group.

You'd be surprised what puppies will eat. I doubt most puppies would eat sand since the only way they'd be able to is if they stuck their faces into the ground, while humans have hands to grasp the sand with, but that dog my dad owned when I was a kid would try to eat cigarette butts. I've had friends whose dogs ate paper and pens, and have even seen a documentary in which a dog had to be taken to the vet for an intestinal blockage due to eating rocks.

http://www.natgeotv.com/za/my-dog-ate-what

Advanced predatory animals like lions are probably the best at thinking but most of their life is still controlled by instincts. They raise cubs instinctively, they instinctively participate in packs, they instinctively protect their territory. Only when their faced with a situation that is to complex for them to follow there usual instincts will they think some and try to figure out how to survive like when they have lost their pack or are learning how to hunt. But even when lions are learning to hunt they are still following their instincts because their instincts are telling them to learn how to hunt.

You never hear of a lion giving up on hunting and becoming a vegetarian. Humans are the only animals that defy instincts and do things that don't align with any sort of survivalist behavior. Like why are we collecting model dinosaurs and talking on this forum. We're not doing anything to help our survival by being here. And that is why humans are so different from just any other animal.

It's not just advanced predators that think this way, it's any social animal that can learn from others. The animals we consider the most intelligent all have that in common. They're all highly social, and they're all attuned to the behavior of other animals. Parrots and elephants certainly aren't predatory, and corvids are only partially predatory, yet they're considered some of the most intelligent animals on earth. I'm pretty sure dolphins are the only truly predatory animals with extraordinary intelligence. Keep in mind that humans also instinctively raise their children, engage in social activity, and defend their property.

The reason you don't hear of a lion going vegetarian is because they can't. Lions as cats are obligate carnivores. Their bodies process protein very efficiently, but they can't properly digest plant matter. They are physically unable to be vegetarians without getting very sick and starving to death. Beyond that, keep in mind that vegetarianism is a societal construct, not a natural state. People are vegetarians for religious or moral reasons. In other words, vegetarianism is a direct effect of cultural norms at any given time. I'm not an anthropologist, but as far as I'm aware, vegetarianism didn't exist until after agriculture appeared. Humans were not as picky about their food until they found a way to reliably produce it in significant quantities. Before agriculture, we were like any other omnivorous animal, eating what we could find when we could find it because it wasn't abundant enough to afford us the luxury of turning down whole categories of food.

For what it's worth, I've heard stories of dogs that hoard certain items (similar to the way we collect dinosaur toys) and I know that rodents have a hoarding instinct, albeit for food. The only things that seem to definitively separate us from other animals are a complex language involving syntax, and advanced technology. Possibly also the ability to hold more variables in our heads than other animals, allowing for better problem solving, but I'm not quite well versed enough on the respective learning processes of humans and other animals to say for certain.

I have depression, and can confidently say it relieves stress. Also, animals have feelings. Apparently my dog doesen't love me when she's trying to make me pet her and give her affection, nope, not at all. Nope, it's not like we have any proof of animals taking care of each other, not like lions sometimes raise baby antelope, and it's DEFINITELY not feelings of sadness or loneliness when a carnivore takes an animal it would eat under its wing. Not like there have been any articles written on it http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150714-animal-dog-thinking-feelings-brain-science/

Yeah, animals are soulless, instinct-driven beasts with no compassion. Might as well go the full way and say that raptors were giant, scaly, had zombie hands and skulls like footballs.

Hah, you saw the story about the lion raising the antelope too? Yeah, the fact that the lion refused to kill any other antelope while she was raising the baby couldn't have been anything but instinct. It had to be instinct when she was practically starving herself to avoid killing antelope.

"Cluck cluck losers" Velociratpor then proceeds to beat people with its wings like a swan and biting them and pinning them down, while JW velociraptor curls up in ball due to broken wrists.

I mean, swans are not animals to be toyed with, but my bet would be on the JP "raptors" in this fight because of their size and pack mentality. Utahraptors on the other hand I suspect would absolutely destroy the JP "raptors".

[CrypticPrism]

The closest thing my puppy eats to sand is roots. He eats most material things. And that's because he's teething.



I feel like most maniraptorans would be monogamous.


Wait, are you being sarcastic about the antelope thing?



Yeah, but the JP raptors probably have mental diseases alongside their horrible deformities and inbreeding.

Utahraptor would probably walk in and start kicking the pulp out of everything like a cassowary. And that's why feathered dinosaurs are intimidating.

Also, @bluekrono, sorry, I meant it as a joke.

[Silvanusaurus]

I'm looking at this thread for the first time...

The closest thing my puppy eats to sand is roots.

What is even happening?