Re: Texas : Master's degree in creationism
Charlie Bell wrote: Yes, and if some disaster were to befall every dog breed except Great Danes and Chihuahuas, that would be a speciation event. :-) Your point is valid, and shows how tricky defining species can be - there are whole groups of beetles of which the member species can only be told apart by the shapes of the male and female genitalia, which fit together like lock and key. So why are separate dog breeds not regarded as species? The main reason is because it would not be useful to do so - we know most breeds happily make mongrels, and we know that on the whole, crossbreeds are healthier than pure breeds (hybrid vigour vs inbreeding). So we know that all these dog varieties are maintained by the artificial breeding and eugenics programs of the Kennel Club, and if that were taken away, dog variability would naturally decrease in some ways. 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?) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Texas : Master's degree in creationism
On 28/12/2007, at 9:08 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: OTOH, Pitbulls should be called a different species; they are dogs in the same way that killer whales are whales :-/ That they've been bred for viciousness says more about the people doing the breeding than the dogs themselves. As for orcas, what's wrong with orcas? They're carnivores, they're top predators, they're smart. But they're no better or worse than lions for eating antelope or grizzly bears for eating caribou. (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? 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. 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. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Texas : Master's degree in creationism
Charlie Bell wrote: OTOH, Pitbulls should be called a different species; they are dogs in the same way that killer whales are whales :-/ That they've been bred for viciousness says more about the people doing the breeding than the dogs themselves. Yes - but they corrupt the good name of the dogs. As for orcas, what's wrong with orcas? They're carnivores, they're top predators, they're smart. But they're no better or worse than lions for eating antelope or grizzly bears for eating caribou. I used orcas just because of their (wrong) name, killer whales, since they are more dolphins than whales. (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. 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, but should be afraid of crocs or sharks. And pitbulls roam the streets 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. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Texas : Master's degree in creationism
On 28/12/2007, at 11:00 PM, Alberto Monteiro 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. I meant, what's wrong with killer whales? Why do orcas give whales (or toothed whales, or dolphins) a bad name? Why is their behaviour 'degenerate' or whatever? (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 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. but should be afraid of crocs or sharks. And pitbulls roam the streets disguised as dogs! They *are* 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? And it can't be genocide. That is specifically referring to the killing of people. Not dogs. So, anyway - why would eradication of a dangerous breed be wrong? Was the eradication of smallpox wrong? The attempted eradication of polio, malaria, mosquitoes? Is it wrong to attempt to eradicate cane toads from Australia? If no to these, why would it be wrong to eradicate the pit bull? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Texas : Master's degree in creationism
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
Re: Texas : Master's degree in creationism
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
Re: Texas : Master's degree in creationism
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
Yet another sort of problem with Wal-Mart
I have a friend who ordered a toy kitchen online and when she got it, too soon before Christmas to get it replaced if there was a problem, it turned out it had been a return and one piece was broken. So, no play kitchen for her girls for Christmas, which sucks. But not as bad as this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318711,00.html The MP3 video player a man bought for his 10-year-old daughter wasn't new, it was a return, and it was loaded with porn. He's getting a lawyer. Julia p.s. another one of our friends offered the play kitchen she was saving for a kid's birthday in late January, on the condition that it be replaced by then, so that worked out, no thanks to Wal-Mart. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Texas : Master's degree in creationism
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Alberto Monteiro wrote: 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]. Dolphins are a family of the suborder Odontoceti, or toothed whales. They are a kind of toothed whale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea#Taxonomic_listing Monkeys don't include chimps, because chimps are not monkeys, but both are primates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate#Extant_primate_families Charlie may be able to further clarify anything he thinks needs clarification. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Dog viciousness (was Re: Texas : Master's degree in creationism)
On Dec 28, 2007 3:31 AM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That they've been bred for viciousness says more about the people doing the breeding than the dogs themselves. As for orcas, what's wrong with orcas? They're carnivores, they're top predators, they're smart. But they're no better or worse than lions for eating antelope or grizzly bears for eating caribou. I have a hard time believing that pits are inherently vicious. We live a few blocks from the Santa Clara dog park and I take our dog there almost every morning and evening if it's open (one of the great things about working from home). Many times, half or more of the dogs there are pits or pit mixes. I've never seen a problem and I know of only one pit attack story from all of the dog owners I've met there. However, I do worry about two things. One is that pits have a reputation for giving no warnings, which is scary if it's true. Most dogs make it clear when they are becoming aggressive, giving the owners a chance to intervene. Second, if a pit does attack, the power of their jaws is scary -- they can do a lot of damage fast. But the latter is true of other breeds that we don't worry about much, such as Scotties and many other terriers. I relaxed a great deal about pits after reading an article citing statistics that made it clear that *owners* are far more responsible for their dogs' behavior than I had imagined before becoming a dog owner (despite growing up with dogs... and cats, birds, hamsters, gerbils, sheep, pony, rabbits, etc.). The article, which I'm thinking maybe we talked about here, showed that as a dog breed gains a reputation for viciousness, the bad owners start acquiring that breed of dog and the number of attacks rises. Over the years, the breed that attacks the most changes. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the pit bulls' reputation for unpredictability was entirely due to who acquires them, not genetics -- nurture, not nature. This topic is one where data is thin and it's very difficult to separate correlation from causation. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin:World Building Wiki
Trent... cool looking game... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin:World Building Wiki
These are the features that I'm thinking of as part of a fairly Luddite cannon. --Only STL travel is possible. No FTL, no worm holes. --No reactionless drives. --No antigravity. --The main means of travel is by beam riding ships weighing a few grams and made of computronium. --Most forms of sophonce do not rely on quantum states --Therefore, mental states can be non-destructively copied. --The galaxy is entirely colonized. --Therefore we are millions of years in the future. --Therefore humans are extinct. --Therefore economic ecology is very post-singularity. --Fermi was right. All life is Terragenetic. --Sapient beings who are any distance up the eco-econ trophic levels live a LONG time. --Interstellar correspondence is reasonable, even at light speed or slower. --There are many unimaginably smart sapients --The island nature of each star means that an eco-econ tends to involution. --Stellar habitats tend to convert matter into huge Dyson swarms. --Dyson swarms use as much solar energy as possible. --Solar systems look like big, cold spheres from the outside. --Eco-econs suffer from relative scarcity. this may be a dumb question but why does it take millions of years to fill the galaxy with sentient life, especially if humans are extinct and are the only sentients, and have greatly extended life spans. wouldn't population increase exponentially? jon - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin:World Building Wiki
Yes. They threw me off the Orion's Arm discussion list for being a worm hole skeptic. On Thursday 2007-12-27 20:57, Max Battcher wrote: Did you look at Orion's Arm? It has a couple of the things you mention: http://www.orionsarm.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Texas : Master's degree in creationism
Charlie, thanks for the essay and the links; good stuff. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dog viciousness (was Re: Texas : Master's degree in creationism)
On 29/12/2007, at 3:02 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: I relaxed a great deal about pits after reading an article citing statistics that made it clear that *owners* are far more responsible for their dogs' behavior than I had imagined before becoming a dog owner Nick, if you can remember where you read that, there's someone at my work who might be very grateful. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin:World Building Wiki
On 29/12/2007, at 9:25 AM, Trent Shipley wrote: Yes. They threw me off the Orion's Arm discussion list for being a worm hole skeptic. Skeptic or Denialist? *poke* ;-) Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Texas : Master's degree in creationism
On 29/12/2007, at 9:46 AM, Doug wrote: Charlie, thanks for the essay and the links; good stuff. *takes a bow* My pleasure. It should be obvious it's one of my favourite topics (well, I did sit through 4 years of it at university...), and I'm always happy to talk zoology or evolutionary biology. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Dog viciousness (was Re: Texas : Master's degree in creationism)
Nick Arnett said, I have a hard time believing that pits are inherently vicious. They aren't when you are a friend of the little old lady that owns one. (I knew the `little old lady' when she was young, but then, I was young at the same time ...) ... *owners* are far more responsible for their dogs' behavior than I had imagined ... That is very true. Dogs do what the leader of their pack wants. That entitity is often the person who feeds them, who is often their owner. I am sure that pitbulls are bred to have strong jaws and to use them. Many humans call this action `vicious'. I suspect they are also loyal to the pack leader who feeds them. The pack leader does not have to be the same species; the pack leader does not have to be a dog. In other words, the pack leader could be a human. I suspect modern dogs in the US are mostly bored since they don't work as dogs once did for humans. Generally speaking, dogs can endure even more boredom than those humans who endure a lot, but the amount can be too much ... -- Robert J. Chassell GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dog viciousness (was Re: Texas : Master's degree in creationism)
Nick wrote I relaxed a great deal about pits after reading an article citing statistics that made it clear that *owners* are far more responsible for their dogs' behavior than I had imagined before becoming a dog owner Nick, if you can remember where you read that, there's someone at my work who might be very grateful. Charlie. Hey Charlie, These sites may not answer all your questions, but hanging out with some folks doing obedience with AmStaffs (aka- pit bulls), they told me that they were bred to be protectors for children of wealthy, so the dog would change allegiance from the trainer to the children it spent time with and always be protective of them. (not sure that was the primary reason based on these sites). _http://www.akc.org/breeds/american_staffordshire_terrier/history.cfm_ (http://www.akc.org/breeds/american_staffordshire_terrier/history.cfm) _http://www.akc.org/breeds/american_staffordshire_terrier/did_you_know.cfm_ (http://www.akc.org/breeds/american_staffordshire_terrier/did_you_know.cfm) One of the articles I used to have the reference for, (but I can't find it now) was one that noted percentage wise there are most frequent bites per dog in toy dogs, most numerous bites in shepards/goldens/labs because of sheer numbers and fewest/most news in the big dogs. 10 years ago when I was more active, the Akita/Ridgeback folks were really tightening up on dog owners and monitoring breeding. I don't watch that much of the dog whisperer, but one common theme that permeates most responsible dog ownership is the concept of owners being the alpha dog in all cases. Glad I had puppy class and obedience training for my rotties since I certainly didn't learn alpha dog stuff from our childhood pomapoo. It was work through my male's adolescence :-) Dee **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
