Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't Say *** BillFollow

#327 Apr 27 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,454 posts
Joph broke the system. You could rate him up or down to your hearts content and it would be like a teeny tiny drop of water amongst a raging ocean.
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.


#328Almalieque, Posted: Apr 27 2011 at 5:21 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm not sure what you're attempting to disprove. Unless two animals are completely the same, you can not assume one thing naturally occurring in one animal is also natural occurring in the other animal.
#329 Apr 27 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Actually the only thing I ignored was you banging on about blind animals like it was relevant to the discussion.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#330 Apr 27 2011 at 5:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Unless two animals are completely the same, you can not assume one thing naturally occurring in one animal is also natural occurring in the other animal.

Well, that's where you're wrong. Take it up with the ethologists, I guess.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#331Almalieque, Posted: Apr 27 2011 at 5:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No need to. If EVERYTHING were the same, then they would be the same animal. You don't need to be an ethologist to know that. Obviously there are some difference. Just like in my example, a house cat can not run as fast a cheetah. A gold fish can not be as vicious as sharks. There are distinct differences between a wolf and a dog. Likewise, there are distinct differences between apes and humans. If there weren't, then how could we have "evolved" from apes if nothing evolved?
#332 Apr 27 2011 at 5:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's deep, man.

Of course I said you would explore the chance that this was a shared behavior for that family, not that everything was a carbon copy. But go on with your bad self :D
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#333 Apr 27 2011 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:

Well, that's where you're wrong. Take it up with the ethologists, I guess.


No need to. If EVERYTHING were the same, then they would be the same animal. You don't need to be an ethologist to know that. Obviously there are some difference. Just like in my example, a house cat can not run as fast a cheetah. A gold fish can not be as vicious as sharks. There are distinct differences between a wolf and a dog. Likewise, there are distinct differences between apes and humans. If there weren't, then how could we have "evolved" from apes if nothing evolved?


You not grasping simple **** like this is why people insist you are an idiot. No, I will not try to help explain the point, because two people have done so succinctly and you still haven't gotten it. You are hopeless.
#334Almalieque, Posted: Apr 27 2011 at 5:54 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I don't deny that traits and behaviors are shared. That's probably why animals are grouped in families in the first place, based on their shared behaviors. My point is, you just can't pick and choose traits to simply support your argument. Therefore, it is a horrible argument to say "Well, it naturally occurs in nature, so it's natural in humans". I'm not denying that it IS natural in humans, but not because apes do it. We are two different forms of life.
#335Almalieque, Posted: Apr 27 2011 at 5:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Then why bother posting? You know I'm going to respond. Unless you can show me how two animals are the exact same thing, you can't pick and choose which traits are natural for humans and which ones aren't based solely off the animal and not the human. It simply doesn't work that way and if you can't grasp that concept, then you my friend are the oblivious idiot, not I.
#336 Apr 27 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Actually you practically ignored an entire post. The blindness point is not only irrelevant but the entire argument. You either a) know that so you avoided it or b) afraid of saying something that might contradict yourself because you're not sure where I'm going with it.
Yeah because I got to your little gem about apes being human. It seemed pointless to continue with that back and forth considering you clearly thought you were being clever there by turning it around. You changed the factually true statement of "Humans are apes" to "Apes are humans", which doesn't really make sense.

Almalieque wrote:
There are distinct differences between a wolf and a dog.
Actually some domesticated dogs and wolves diverged recently enough that they can still interbreed. Huskies and Malamutes for example. Very little difference aside from temperament.


Almalieque wrote:
Likewise, there are distinct differences between apes and humans.
Humans are apes. Maybe you're getting confused whenever I say apes. Are you thinking of Gorillas? Y'know, another species of Ape.

Almalieque wrote:
If there weren't, then how could we have "evolved" from apes if nothing evolved?
Not evolved from, common ancestor with. We are apes, we share a common ancestor with other modern apes. Why don't you get this?

A list of modern day Great Ape genera (so you may understand what I'm talking about):

Homonoid - Humans
Pan - Chimpanzee
Gorilla - Gorilla
Pongo - Orang-Utan

These are our closest living cousins. Common ancestry. These are the most recent divergences. Humans still display behaviours which are exhibited by all three of these genera. Including homosexuality.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#337 Apr 27 2011 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I don't deny that traits and behaviors are shared. That's probably why animals are grouped in families in the first place, based on their shared behaviors. My point is, you just can't pick and choose traits to simply support your argument.

When learn something, come back kk
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#338 Apr 27 2011 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:

Well, that's where you're wrong. Take it up with the ethologists, I guess.


No need to. If EVERYTHING were the same, then they would be the same animal. You don't need to be an ethologist to know that. Obviously there are some difference. Just like in my example, a house cat can not run as fast a cheetah. A gold fish can not be as vicious as sharks. There are distinct differences between a wolf and a dog. Likewise, there are distinct differences between apes and humans. If there weren't, then how could we have "evolved" from apes if nothing evolved?


You not grasping simple sh*t like this is why people insist you are an idiot. No, I will not try to help explain the point, because two people have done so succinctly and you still haven't gotten it. You are hopeless.


Then why bother posting? You know I'm going to respond. Unless you can show me how two animals are the exact same thing, you can't pick and choose which traits are natural for humans and which ones aren't based solely off the animal and not the human. It simply doesn't work that way and if you can't grasp that concept, then you my friend are the oblivious idiot, not I.


But you're wrong, and everyone else is right. That's why you have to respond every time.
#339 Apr 27 2011 at 6:12 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I don't deny that traits and behaviors are shared. That's probably why animals are grouped in families in the first place, based on their shared behaviors. My point is, you just can't pick and choose traits to simply support your argument.

I always thought the groupings were based on genetics...learn something new everyday.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#340 Apr 27 2011 at 6:12 PM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
Nilatai wrote:


A list of modern day Great Ape genera (so you may understand what I'm talking about):

Homonoid - Humans
Pan - Chimpanzee
Gorilla - Gorilla
Pongo - Orang-Utan

These are our closest living cousins. Common ancestry. These are the most recent divergences. Humans still display behaviours which are exhibited by all three of these genera. Including homosexuality.

Aren't you forgetting Bonobos, which I believe are our closest cousins.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#341Almalieque, Posted: Apr 27 2011 at 6:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So by "everyone" do you mean yourself, Nilatai and Ugly? You sure are talking for a lot of people. I'm sure that there are at least 3 lurkers who agree that while humans may share the same traits as certain animals, you can not claim that a certain trait IS natural in humans because it's natural in that animal. The trait being natural in humans revolves around it being natural with humans. The fact that it may be natural with some other random animal is just a nice tidbit fact to know. I'm not denying that there may be a connection, but that connection doesn't justify it being natural.
#342 Apr 27 2011 at 6:20 PM Rating: Good
******
49,732 posts
Coccyx are natural in all primates, including humans.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#343 Apr 27 2011 at 6:26 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Nilatai wrote:


A list of modern day Great Ape genera (so you may understand what I'm talking about):

Homonoid - Humans
Pan - Chimpanzee
Gorilla - Gorilla
Pongo - Orang-Utan

These are our closest living cousins. Common ancestry. These are the most recent divergences. Humans still display behaviours which are exhibited by all three of these genera. Including homosexuality.

Aren't you forgetting Bonobos, which I believe are our closest cousins.
Sorry, I was just listing the main families. Bonobos are a species of Chimpanzee, their species name is Pan paniscus, which puts them in the "Pan" genus.

Apologies for any confusion.





Now, Alma, I'm not sure exactly what you think your question implies. If I follow your logical pathway, you're saying that just because other species, including our closest cousins, exhibit homosexual behaviour this does not mean it is natural in humans. Is that what you're saying?

Anyway, back to your brilliant blindness question.

I wrote:
You seem to have this notion that Humans are the only animals which display homosexuality. Or are the only animals who exhibit sexual intercourse for reasons other than breeding.


To which you replied:
You wrote:
Nope. Not at all, nor does it change anything. Animals can be blind as well. Does that change your opinion on blindness?


No, it doesn't. You're right, animals can be blind as well as humans can. This...proves that...there's a natural explanation for blindness?

Nah you've completely lost me, sorry.

____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#344 Apr 27 2011 at 6:34 PM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Nilatai wrote:


A list of modern day Great Ape genera (so you may understand what I'm talking about):

Homonoid - Humans
Pan - Chimpanzee
Gorilla - Gorilla
Pongo - Orang-Utan

These are our closest living cousins. Common ancestry. These are the most recent divergences. Humans still display behaviours which are exhibited by all three of these genera. Including homosexuality.

Aren't you forgetting Bonobos, which I believe are our closest cousins.
Sorry, I was just listing the main families. Bonobos are a species of Chimpanzee, their species name is Pan paniscus, which puts them in the "Pan" genus.

Apologies for any confusion.

I actually went and read about them right after I posted that. I had read a little about Bonobos before, and at that time were unaware that they weren't their own species. Percentage-wise they fall in line with common chimpanzees with less than a .4 % variance.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#345 Apr 27 2011 at 6:41 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Nilatai wrote:


A list of modern day Great Ape genera (so you may understand what I'm talking about):

Homonoid - Humans
Pan - Chimpanzee
Gorilla - Gorilla
Pongo - Orang-Utan

These are our closest living cousins. Common ancestry. These are the most recent divergences. Humans still display behaviours which are exhibited by all three of these genera. Including homosexuality.

Aren't you forgetting Bonobos, which I believe are our closest cousins.
Sorry, I was just listing the main families. Bonobos are a species of Chimpanzee, their species name is Pan paniscus, which puts them in the "Pan" genus.

Apologies for any confusion.

I actually went and read about them right after I posted that. I had read a little about Bonobos before, and at that time were unaware that they weren't their own species. Percentage-wise they fall in line with common chimpanzees with less than a .4 % variance.
Isn't zoology fun? (:
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#346 Apr 27 2011 at 6:44 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,732 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Isn't zoology fun? (:
As fun as Sunday School.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#347 Apr 27 2011 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Isn't zoology fun? (:
As fun as Sunday School.
It's why I prefer Physics.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#348 Apr 27 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,373 posts
Thanks Alma. That entire response to me was an excellent example of how you're an idiot.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#349 Apr 27 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Now, Alma, I'm not sure exactly what you think your question implies. If I follow your logical pathway, you're saying that just because other species, including our closest cousins, exhibit homosexual behaviour this does not mean it is natural in humans. Is that what you're saying?


That wasn't the point of my blindness question, but that was CLOSE to the point I was making. My point in your statement was in reference to ANY natural trait. A human natural trait is defined by humans and humans only. It doesn't matter if that same trait is or isn't natural in animals.

Nilatai wrote:
No, it doesn't. You're right, animals can be blind as well as humans can. This...proves that...there's a natural explanation for blindness?

Nah you've completely lost me, sorry.


If your opinion of blindness didn't change after you realized (at one point of time) that it happened in animals and is completely natural, then why does it even matter if it's natural or not? You provided the fact of homosexuality occurring in nature as if it makes a difference. Rape occurs in nature too, does that change your opinion of rape?

The point I was trying to make to you that was that whether something naturally happens does not and/or should not change your opinion on anything. I'm sure MOST things(to include diseases, handicaps, etc.) happen naturally. The fact that homosexuality may occur naturally should not have any effect on your opinion on homosexuality just like it shouldn't with blindness, rape, incest,etc. AND NO, I'M NOT COMPARING THEM TO HOMOSEXUALITY AS BEING THE SAME THING.

#350Almalieque, Posted: Apr 27 2011 at 7:55 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So did you find out what continent Central America is part of yet?
#351 Apr 27 2011 at 8:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
You people just can't stop, can you?
Reply To Thread
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.">

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 89 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (89)