Charlie Bell wrote: > >> I used "orcas" just because of their (wrong) name, "killer whales", >> since they are more dolphins than whales. > > I didn't mean, what's wrong with the name "killer whale". > It's wrong, because they are not "whales". Ok, a seahorse is not a horse, a sea anemona is not a flower, but you get the idea.
> I meant, what's wrong with killer whales? > Nothing - I never said nothing wrong about them. > Why do orcas give whales (or > toothed whales, or dolphins) a bad name? Why is their behaviour > 'degenerate' or whatever? > Your words, not mine. >>>> (BTW: is it morally right to condemn a race of dogs, even >>>> one so degenerate that it kills children, to extinction?) >>> >>> Again - why is the breed "degenerate"? >>> >> Because they are Evil. > > No, that's circular. They're evil, because they're evil. Not an > argument. > > Surely "evil" implies free will? They're vicious, aggresive, strong > and dangerous. But evil? > They are evil because they don't follow the dog rules of civilized warfare. A dog that submits to another dog gains the right to live. Pitbulls don't respect that, they don't accept surrender, and kill the prisioners. >>> They were breed to fight and >>> kill. Yes it's a tragedy when a child is hurt or killed, but no more >>> or less than if a child is taken by a croc or a shark. The dog is >>> simply doing what dogs that are bred that way do. >>> >> The difference is that children should _not_ be afraid of dogs, > > Yes they should. Well, maybe not afraid, but wary. Too many kids > think dogs are toys. They're not, they're pack animals that > sometimes challenge other junior members of the pack, and kids need > to understand that dogs, even the most good-natured ones, will > occasionally get upset when they've been poked and prodded and > tugged too much. > Yes, but this is not what happens with pitbull attacks. >> but should be afraid of crocs or sharks. And pitbulls roam the >> streets disguised as dogs! > > They *are* dogs. > No, they aren't. They are evil things disguised as dogs. >>> However, your question is a good one. My view is this: we created >>> them, we should reverse that. Humanely, of course. They should be >>> sterilised. 10 years, the problem is gone, and we haven't been cruel. >> >> This is genocide, IMHO. > > But you've said they're Evil. So surely Evil should be eradicated? > I don't know. Eradicating Evil is eradicating free will, which is Evil. > And it can't be genocide. That is specifically referring to the > killing of people. Not dogs. > Ah, ok. > So, anyway - why would eradication of a dangerous breed be wrong? > I don't know - I think it's a complex question. > Was the eradication of smallpox wrong? > Except that it was not eradicated. There are secret labs with smallpox pathogens, ready to be used in a global bacteriological war. > The attempted eradication of polio, malaria, mosquitoes? > Polio - ok Malaria - ok Mosquitoes - not ok (who knows what role they play in the ecosystem) > Is it wrong to attempt to eradicate > cane toads from Australia? > No information... > If no to these, why would it be wrong to > eradicate the pit bull? > Because diversity is a good thing. But I don't know about the eradication of the pit bull. Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
