Charlie Bell wrote: > >> 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. > So the standard definition of "whales" include dolphins? I thought that whales didn't include dolphins, like monkeys don't include chimps [in Portuguese, BTW, there's a generic word for all non-human primates: macaco]. >> 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. > I was talking about the terminology.
> No, you made an equivalence between pitbulls to dogs, and orcas to > whales, and said the former was degenerate. > I was criticizing the use of killer whale for orcas, and suggested that, since killer whales aren't whales, then pitbulls could be called killer dogs, and they would not be dogs. > 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?)" > Ok, I see no criticism of orcas in these two paragraphs. See above. > 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. > That's because, IMHO, whales and dolphinids [or whatever the name] were disjoint sets. It seems that, since dolphinidis are a subset of the whales, "killer whale" is an appropriate name. >> 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. > Bred to _be_ evil. >>> 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. > I am not so sure that dogs don't have free will. >>> 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). > That's why I am not sure if they should eradicated or just isolated. Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
