[PrimeMcFly]

> 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 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...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelligence

[corethree]

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.

[PrimeMcFly]

> 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 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.