On 29/12/2007, at 12:04 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > 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".
Yes they are. They're toothed whales. Baleen whales (humpbacks, blues, rights, minkes etc) and toothed whales (including killer whales, pilot whales, belugas, narwhals, and dolphins) are a clade, they're monophyletic. They have a common ancestor that was an early whale, and they're all in Order Cetacea. "Killer whale" may be a crap name, but it's not wrong on the grounds that orcas aren't whales, 'cause they are. > 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. You said that pitbulls are to "dogs" as killer whales are to "whales". I really don't understand what you mean, unless you mean pitbulls aren't really dogs. > > >> Why do orcas give whales (or >> toothed whales, or dolphins) a bad name? Why is their behaviour >> 'degenerate' or whatever? >> > Your words, not mine. No, you made an equivalence between pitbulls to dogs, and orcas to whales, and said the former was degenerate. So I'm asking, why the equivalence? Is it the degeneracy? Is it that you don't think pitbulls should be classified as dogs (in the same way you don't think orcas are whales...)? Please explain what you mean by all this: "OTOH, Pitbulls should be called a different species; they are "dogs" in the same way that killer whales are "whales" :-/ "(BTW: is it morally right to condemn a race of dogs, even one so degenerate that it kills children, to extinction?)" So, do you mean that the way orcas behave means they shouldn't be considered whales? Help me out here, I think something is getting lost in translation. >> >> 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. Still not evil. Bred that way, but not evil. >> They *are* dogs. >> > No, they aren't. They are evil things disguised as dogs. They're dogs with a peculiar trait. > > >>>> 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. But the dog doesn't have free will if it has been bred and trained to behave a particular way. > > >> 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. Smallpox ain't a bacteria. Bugbear of mine, mainly due to misuse of antibiotics (especially in Cyprus where they're available over the counter). It's been eradicated in the wild, anyway. > > >> The attempted eradication of polio, malaria, mosquitoes? >> > Polio - ok > Malaria - ok > Mosquitoes - not ok (who knows what role they play in the ecosystem) Who knows what role the malaria organism (a protozoan of genus _Plasmodium_) plays in the ecosystem? Or, indeed, the polio virus. All mosquitoes seem to do is suck blood and act as disease vectors. > > >> Is it wrong to attempt to eradicate >> cane toads from Australia? >> > No information... Google them. Interesting story. > > >> 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. As you say, they're evil... (I don't think they're evil, but I do think they're too dangerous to be allowed to breed). Charlie. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
