?

and i mean as in being Truly colour blind in that they only see in back , white and greys.

dogs are not colour blind

"To put it in very basic terms, the canine color field consists mostly of yellows, blues, and violets. "Human" reds, greens, and oranges are not distinguishable to dogs and instead appear somewhere on their yellow to blue spectrum."

Our one short legged jack russell, the female, is insane about bathing, as every single night when i jump in the bath she insists on jumping in the bath with me. and if i try to keep her out she cries and performs until i am done. often she will jump in and play around for a few minutes before she goes and lies by my feet with just her head above the water resting on my leg.

Now this is not separation anxiety since she has no problem being away from me normally. and dont worry as i do not wash her with soap nor do i use any bubble bath or soap on myself until i have taken her out the bath, but it is a bit strange as every single other dog i have had has not enjoyed bathing in the slightest, while she seems to enjoy nothing better than lying and relaxing in a hot bath for 20 min

Since bite inhibition is likely the single most important lesson a dog will ever learn.Now bite inhibition is defined as a dog’s ability to control the pressure of his mouth when biting, to cause little or no damage to the subject of the bite. We know that all dogs have the potential to bite, given the wrong set of circumstances. Some dogs readily bite with little apparent provocation, but even the most saintly dog, in pain, or under great stress, can be induced to bite. And when a bite happens, whether frequently , rarely or even once , bite inhibition is what makes the difference between a moment of stunned silence, or likely a trip to the nearest emergency room for the victim , a trip to the euthanasia room for the dog and a law suite.

over teaching them proper bite inhibition. Since bite inhibition is likely the single most important lesson a dog will ever learn.Now bite inhibition is defined as a dog’s ability to control the pressure of his mouth when biting, to cause little or no damage to the subject of the bite. We know that all dogs have the potential to bite, given the wrong set of circumstances. Some dogs readily bite with little apparent provocation, but even the most saintly dog, in pain, or under great stress, can be induced to bite. And when a bite happens, whether frequently , rarely or even once , bite inhibition is what makes the difference between a moment of stunned silence, or likely a trip to the nearest emergency room for the victim , a trip to the euthanasia room for the dog and a law suite.

(why was this question just deleted as it is not rude, was perfectly valid and is backed by scientific research and in no way violates the TOS or community guide lines. Or are moderators just deleting questions now that they do not agree with?)

Most especially at a very young age, When the fact of the matter is that there is various pros and cons on whether to do it and at what age to do it. most of the scientific research shows that health wise it is usually worse to have male dogs neutered than not and for female dogs the issue is very complex. and in both cases it is usually worse to have the dog done before reaching sexual maturity( unless done for specific behavioral/medical problems) and in both cases this is even further complicated by the size and breed of the dog. And yet i see alot of you making the erroneous and sweeping claims that you must get every dog done at 6 months old or earlier for health reasons. Do you not think that responsible pet owners should at least be able to make an informed decision on the matter?

This 12 page report by Laura J. Sanborn M.S.(masters of science degree) addresses the issue and is compiled from over 50 scientific and peer reviewed papers. And it clearly shows it is not such a black and white decision as most of you like to parade it as

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermH%E2%80%A6

This is the precis to it

"At some point, most of us with an interest in dogs will have to consider whether or not to spay / neuter our pet. Tradition holds that the benefits of doing so at an early age outweigh the risks. Often, tradition holds sway in the decision-making process even after countervailing evidence has accumulated. Ms Sanborn has reviewed the veterinary medical literature in an exhaustive and scholarly treatise, attempting to unravel the complexities of the subject. More than 50 peer-reviewed papers were examined to assess the health impacts of spay / neuter in female and male dogs, respectively. One cannot ignore the findings of increased risk from osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, hypothyroidism, and other less frequently occurring diseases associated with neutering male dogs. It would be irresponsible of the veterinary profession and the pet owning community to fail to weigh the relative costs and benefits of neutering on the animal’s health and well-being. The decision for females may be more complex, further emphasizing the need for individualized veterinary medical decisions, not standard operating procedures for all patients.No sweeping generalizations are implied in this review. Rather, the author asks us to consider all the health and disease information available as individual animals are evaluated. Then, the best decisions should be made accounting for gender, age, breed, and even the specific conditions under which the long-term care,housing and training of the animal will occur.This important review will help veterinary medical care providers as well as pet owners make informed decisions. Who could ask for more?

Larry S. Katz, PhD

Associate Professor and Chair

Animal Sciences

Rutgers University"

Category

I am having an argument with someone over how death runes worked in wotlk. so my question is this. lets say you had the reaping talent from the unholy tree and had converted both your blood runes into death runes with blood strike. then you usedthose death runes for 2 blood strikes . would those death runes stay death runes or convert back into blood runes?

You know virgin birth, water into wine, walking on water, demon possession etc. its just like harry potter except it inspires wars and genocide. anyone agree?

sons of a criminals friends to death ,for the criminals crimes, be a just and righteous judge?

(even if that the judge had told the criminal before that that unless he changed his act he would kill the firstborn sons of his friends.)

And how islam brought rights to woman they had never had before. But the funny thing here is your own holy books show what a lie this is. Before islam a woman could have all the same rights as a man. consider how your prophet once worked for and took orders from a woman boss. now that would be unthinkable in an islamic country. even in the uk there is nearly always conflict when a muslim man is expected to work for a female boss.

When you get down to it they are one of the only christian denominations which take the bible to be completely true and follow the biblical god. the god of the bible is a jealous and vengefully god who doesn't put up with what he doesn't approve of. he is not the sort of god who says to leave witches be. he says kill them where you find them

The funny thing is that 500 years ago they would have been considered bleeding heart liberals by most of christianity. Do you think the biggest problem is that most christians actually have no understanding of the history of their own religion?

And before you christians start saying stuff about how the ot doesn't apply. consider that jesus said he came not to change the ot laws of the prophet. and until heaven and earth expire every law of the old prophets will hold true.

I may be an atheist but have read the whole bible. and from what i have read it seems the WBC is the most true to what the bible says

I always see christians posting on here that people who believe X ,or people who do Z are not true christians. so have you ever considered that you might be the one who is not a true christian? and before you just answer no you should think about the fact that every person who thinks they are christian(even if nearly every other christian doesn't) would say the are a true christian.

How do you know you can trust anything written in the bible? maybe it is all just a lie to test us?

And i point to the story of abraham and isaac where god lied to abraham. and no matter hot you try to spin it god spoke untruly when he told abraham he wanted him to sacrifice his son. yes it may have been a test but still god lied to him originally

Why cant christians see the complete amorality in their beliefs ?

(amorality as defined by the dictionary

Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.)

This was an answer to a question asking whether being a good and moral person can get you into heaven without belief in jesus.

"Being good does not save because we are all sinners.

Faith alone in Jesus alone = salvation :)

To be saved all you have to do is believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins, and accept him into your life. All saved believers are still sinners but when you believe and accept you are forgiven and allowed into the kingdom of God.

Being good, and works do not save, only Jesus saves."

so i asked christians whether they agreed with this sentiment and received almost complete agreement.Though some qualified it with "faith alone is not enough"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?%E2%80%A6

So then i asked whether the most evil person imaginable could get into heaven ,if he truly repented 10 min before his death. and here the answer was completely yes

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?%E2%80%A6

This showed that the qualifier to the first question was completely null and void, and that faith alone is all that is required in the end

Now this is a belief that we are cursed from birth to be evil because of the disobedience of some extremely distant ancestors, that to be evil or not isn't even a choice and no matter how hard we try we will still die sinners, but this is all ok since we nailed some jew/demigod/god to a cross 2000 years ago to die (something i could have never condoned and would been completely horrified by)and that his death will somehow clean our ancestors original taint from us when we die ( like blood has ever cleaned anything away) as long as we accept and love him, so he can then save us from our sins we are powerless to prevent.

Now i could not even call this doctrine immoral as immorality has some bearing and relationship to morality. this is pure amorality as it teaches that trying to be moral is worthless when all is said and done and faith alone is all that matters.

Now my question is why cant christians see the complete amorality of their beliefs and the pure hypocrisy they display when they say its impossible to be moral without their god ,When morality has no true bearing on their religion in the slightest?

Lets say you have this person who has been a completely evil sinner his whole life,he often committed some of the worst things imaginable like murder ,rape, pedophilia and waking innocent atheists up extremely early every weekend to preach to them(sorry for the 4th example. I just couldn't help myself, but you get my drift) and lets say he has been sentenced to death for his horrible deeds. now 10 min before his execution, contemplating his imminent demise , he truly and sincerely turns to god for repentance and lets jesus into his heart and what not. i mean 100%. will this man go to heaven when he dies?

This answer to a question seems to be quite common amongst christians . So would you consider this a fairly accurate statement

"Being good does not save because we are all sinners.

Faith alone in Jesus alone = salvation :)

To be saved all you have to do is believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins, and accept him into your life. All saved believers are still sinners but when you believe and accept you are forgiven and allowed into the kingdom of God.

Being good, and works do not save, only Jesus saves.

Ephesians 2:8-10

John 3:16

Romans 4:2-5"

A man is taking a walk in Central park in New York. Suddenly he sees a little girl being attacked by a pit bull dog . He runs over and starts fighting with the dog. He succeeds in killing the dog and saving the girl's life. A policeman who was watching the scene walks over and says: "You are a hero, tomorrow you can read it in all the newspapers: "Brave New Yorker saves the life of little girl" The man says: - "But I am not a New Yorker!" "Oh ,then it will say in newspapers in the morning: 'Brave American saves life of little girl'" – the policeman answers. "But I am not an American!" – says the man. "Oh, what are you then? " The man says: - "I am a Saudi !" The next day the newspapers says: "Islamic extremist kills innocent American dog.

how can you sanction someone who had sex with a little girl as holy.

i have been doing alot of reading about this recently and alot of the evidence points to the fact he had sex with a 9 year old when he was over 50. i have seen some muslim apologists argue this but they have to do mental contortions to try say it is different. i know most the Evidence comes from the hadiths but even in the quran it states she was still playing with dolls around the time he consummated the marriage. something only little girls do in the muslim religion. so don't you guys find it repulsive that a 50 year old had sex with a little girl?

"Where is my faith? Even deep down ... there is nothing but emptiness and darkness ... If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul ... How painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith. Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal, ... What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true"

i mean he creates this universe and all these animals. then makes it so the only way a large portion of these animals can survive is to eat each other. and not done there , he then creates parasites and viruses that can only survive by finding a host and harming it, often ending up killing it in horrific ways. he then creates a fruit that we must not eat and then puts it in the middle of the garden in easy reach. then gets angry because it was eaten that is like blaming your child for drinking from a bottle of paraffin that you left open in the middle of his play room, saying that it is not your fault as you told him not to drink from it. then a bit later he drowns the whole world because man has wickedness in his heart. then afterwords promises to not drown the world again because man has wickedness in his heart.

these are just a few of the hundreds of examples that show gods sense of humour, i think he and charles manson would probably get on great and have a wicked laugh at the world

just for worshiping a false god and he was a holy and moral man who had god speak directly to . so how many people are you willing to murder for your god? i know that you are not as moral or holy as him so 3000 is a bit much, but i think 30 should be acceptable for you? maybe 300 if you are a preacher and 1000 if you are the pope