Have you ever been bitten by a window? Have you ever been protected from the wind by a dog? Can you look through a dog to check the weather outside, or used two with a space between to help keep your house warm? Your point makes no sense. I used a window as an easy to use example. My point was that animals are in fact property, and as such are not entitled to any rights other than that afforded to any other piece of property. Do you own your dog? If yes, then it is your property. If not, then you either stole it or found it wild, but you still have possession of it. I am not saying that dogs are windows, I am saying that they are property.Also, you are bringing emotion and personal bias into your argument. Bring up a non-emotional reason as to why dogs deserve more rights and I will give you a fair response. Also, windows can open and close themselves now. That is a pretty cool trick.

That would be damage to property. He should have to pay you a portion of your investment into the dog. Those aren't animal rights, those are property rights. Also, your point hinges on it being owned. If I shoot out your window and you catch me, I need to pay to repair your window. If I shoot your dog, I have to pay reparations to compensate you for the loss of your property.

Despite what many people will tell you, Global Warming has been proven to be a scam. Yes a third of the ice on earth is shrinking, but another third is growing, and another third is doing absolutely nothing. Do we need to be careful not to destroy the planet? Sure. Are we doing any real damage with non-eco cars and the like? Nope. If you want to talk CO2 production, termites and cows have us beat. Less than 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from humans, and guess what, that isn't going to change any time soon. The economy needs fixed first, because that will affect more people more rapidly.

The threat isn't so much in the thing, so much as it is in what it can cause. There can be no legal limit to marijuana because it cannot be quantified like alcohol via a test. It would be very dangerous, simply because someone could get higher than the empire state building and then decide to go for an evening drive. That would be similar to getting drunk and deciding the same thing. Also, just an interesting fact, Colorado's crime rat is up 7% since it legalized marijuana. Interesting facts galore as to why it might be a bad idea to decriminalize marijuana.

Your viewpoint both bothered and intrigued me. "...morals are relative to that of an individual, therefore, whatever you believe is morally right cannot be argued against..." So, if someone were raised in a culture where rape and murder were common and not thought of as wrong, would you be capable of saying to them, "I think that is wrong, for me personally, but since you believe that those things are okay, I cannot argue against them."? That is a very slippery slope, isn't it?

My point was that you can look anywhere and find evidence to support your position, for or against any topic. I personally do not see very many games with a bias against women. I play a fair amount of video games and have never really seen any obvious bias outside of what is accurate to the real world. In Assassin's Creed, yes, there are courtesans, but their leader is an Assassin, and a strong female role. In Borderlands, Moxxi is obviously sexualized, but she is also one of the most business-savvy people on the planet. And in the more recent final fantasy games, were Serah and Lightning's outfits a little revealing? Sure, but they were also some of the strongest female roles I had seen for a while. It all depends on perspective. Maybe I just don't play the games with an obvious bias against women, but it seems to me that people are looking for arguments when the only real problem is that people are trying to make it a problem. That was what I was trying to convey.

Why don't we endanger our own species to test things that may end up harming the user? We test on animals because it would be dangerous for humans. Every other life form on this planet is willing to use and abuse the other lifeforms for their gain, and, as the most advanced, we have the power to do so. Unless you think we do not have the same capabilities as an animal, there is nothing wrong with animal testing. Also, where did a mouse get any rights? Last I checked governments do not give animals rights. Animals aren't human, they should not be treated as such. If there are alternatives outside of human testing, by all means, use them. But if animal testing will allow medicines to be made, or weapons that can help my country survive whatever anyone throws at them, then I say test away on the animals. Also, Humans aren't beneficial to Earth in any way? Really? Can you not name one beneficial thing humans have done for the planet, ever? What about making barren lands habitable, irrigating areas and allowing things to grow, medicines that can help bot animals and humans? Were none of those things beneficial?

In my opinion, there are probably a lot of games that do treat women badly, but there are, if not equally as many, than quite a few that put women in a good light. One of the games given, WatchDogs, was portrayed poorly in this video. you have the option to save every person who is under attack, and it is men and women who are attacked during the game. There are plenty of games which give both good and bad portrayals of both men and women, for example, the Borderlands games. They give us a variety of female and male roles, from Lilith to Moxxi to Tina and from Mordecai to Marcus to Jack. Each character has a full character that displays a variety of facets. if we are discussing the video, the only time they brought up a point that could actually lean in their favor, besides death threats from idiots and radicals, was the GTA franchise, and , if I am not mistaken, the example they gave was an optional thing, and you can kill just about anyone in the GTA games, prostitute or not. If the complaint was that there are female prostitutes in the game, the real problem is that there are real female prostitutes and that a game represented this in their game. The real problem here is not the treatment of women in video games, but the treatment of humans in video games. I can play WatchDogs and go kill any civilian or criminal I chose. If I kill only men, it is my choice, and if I kill only women, once again, it is my choice to do so. Games themselves aren't sexist, and those that think they are are most likely using only data that confirms their own suspicions. If we are using games made on the internet, sure, there are insulting games that insult women, but do you know what else is out there? Games that insult just about everything else. This argument is, in my opinion, not are women treated poorly in video games, but 'If I point out enough terrible things, can I make men feel bad about how they treat women?' using video games as the tool to do so.

Animals are not humans. They should have no rights. They do not need rights, since they have no form of morals or conscience thought. Why would we give animals rights in the first place?

In my opinion, we overvalue animals to the point of treating them as humans. Yes, a dog is cute and invokes emotions when we see them injured or hurt, but they are not humans. Would I rather them not be injured? Sure. Do I prioritize them over safety of humans? No. The main divider in my opinion is what the testing is for. If it is some hair care product or some other non-useful item, mainly intended for vanity, no, don't use animals. If it is for something useful, like medicine or weapons, sure, by all means, use animals to test them so that it can help humans who need it. Now, people will say that that is irresponsible, or that animals are equal to humans. I disagree on both counts. Animals can be bred at astounding rates if we really wanted to, and animals are not equal to humans. Animals won't build civilizations that will span the globe and allow instantaneous communication, nor will they build weapons to allow them an even footing against humans. No matter what you believe or don't, animals are not our equals. Should we hinder ourselves to protect something that does not help us? When was the last time a mouse preformed surgery to save a life or took down a criminal without human intervention. If testing on animals makes humanity safer, test away.