puff_cake wrote: Every message you post is an indication of your childlike stubborness to have the last word. Therefore, a reply to this will indeed be a rise on your part.
Nope. You're free to try interpet it that way, if you like, but your post was just a silly attempt at ensuring you had the last word, as if that is somehow important. You might also want to delete the annoying duplicate posts you made.
Actually, you heard neither and read both. I'm glad you laughed, just be glad I can't actually be bothered with you. As for the elephants, I am unsure what you find amusing unless you've developed a sense of humour about the fact you are so often wrong. Seems unlikely though.
You're wrong about the elephants and you're wrong about court too. I wouldn't be humiliated and I wouldn't be the one who wound up poorer, either. Not familiar with court are you? Res assured I'd have no trouble winning the case if I took it and I'd get costs awarded probably with token damages. However, you're not actually important enough as I said and it would be nothing more than malice to prosecute you, so I shan't bother. I can be vindictive but only when it's really warranted, you aren't actually that important.
Jamie_Gumb write: I think taking care of your own problems is a good thing. Perhaps not to that extent. But if you use your imagination there are situations of that extream a nature were informing the police wont help, we have many people who get off after doing horrible things. Some people take the law into there own hands. And for some spicific crimes i applaud that. If two people have a disagreement is normal to step outside and scrap it out. take care of your own problems was my point.
One of the reasons why law isn't as effective as it could be is due to the non-reporting of crime.
Good relations with the police is a good thing and should be strived for, else a climate of fear passes on and relations break down and nothing can be done.
Adopting some macho ideology of non-reporting does not help this situation, and does not aid the general happiness.
Jamie_Gumb write: i cant speak for other places but people take care of there own problems here. I know in places like quebec theres an aweful lot of wildreness and alot of unmarked graves there too, same can be said for places like texas.
You seem to have a poor grasp of the meaning of the word b!tch, however, leaving that aside. Whatever you think may or may not go on in Qu/ebec is irrelevant. You were still wrong with your assertion. As for the misuse of the image, the fact he thought it funny doesn't alter the nature of the offence. Also given that someone else was 'warned' about something similar that they genuinely did do as an "April Fool" means he already knew it was inappropriate, so no dice there. If you bothered to read my post you'd know I already pointed out why I probably won't bother taking him to court; precisely the fact that he is insignifcant in terms of defamation and that no commerical motive is present. I suppose the long words confused you, eh? ;-)
It won't make any difference to how the site deals with it though, as it's a serious offence in itself as well as clear breach of their usage agreement. Now run along and stop talking out of your arse, eh?
Aye, almost all legal systems hold you to be an accessory to the crime if you fail to report a crime you witnessed. There are some 'cop outs' in as much as, if you did not realize it was a crime being committed or you were threatened into silence. In general though, aye. His statement is total nonsense anyway as the USA and Canada both have a much higher report rate than the UK where it is common for crimes to go unreported out of apathy rather than fear or ignorance.
Jamie_Gumb wrote: ROTFLMFAOUIPMPAP (Roll On The Floor Laughing My Fucking Azz Off Until I Pee My Pants And Passout). I cant fucking believe it. Gaidheal if your serious then your truly fucked right in the head. lol, you ratted that guy out and were contemplating legal action. lmfao, what a little b1tch. You gonna tattle tail on my for calling you a b1tch now?.
Grow up, child. If you don't understand that it is illegal to use an image that doesn't belong to you without permission, especially if it is the likeness of another then that is your problem. Now fuck off and stop parading your sour grapes at being made to look like the moron you are in the thread on Canada.
Elephants kill their young. They would indeed do so if food is short and have been seen to do so. They don't eat the carcass because they couldn't digest it, not because it is socially unacceptable. They are not especially intelligent though certainly more so than a lot of other mammals, which of course is not saying much. Dolphins also kill young, by the way. They do a few other interesting things too, like pair for life, though affairs have been known and apparently spend a period grieving the loss of 'loved' ones. Quite a developed society, in many ways. They have also been known to have homosexual relationships.
We did not drift from your point, we buried your attempted argument about abortion by correcting your false assertion regarding elephants. I shall be polite and gloss over your stupidity in claiming to know where I have lived and not lived when a simple search of either my profile or previous threads would have told you I have lived in India anyway. Suffice it to say you're looking very stupid right now, especially as I've reported the misuse of my image by you, as well. It's a breach of the user agreement and illegal, so I am considering whether you're worth my time pursuing. I suspect I won't because I think it'd be purely out of 'malice' since you're too insignificant in terms of any defamation or commercial interest. I personally favour terminating your account, but this incident alone might not be sufficient grounds and the decision is in the hands on the admins. I expect they'll tell me the decision tomorrow.
puff_cake write: No you are completely wrong. It is to do with higher intelligence, as with dolphins (i won't use chimps cos we all know what bast-ards they are!) and the fact that elephants are not cannibals is nothing to do with them being herbivorous.
Oh, I'm convinced, Puff-cake told me I was wrong and used an exclamation mark.
Despite the fact that intellegence is irrelevent, animals do what makes evolutionary sense, and that often includes infanticide, even in elephants.
Gaidheal write: Wight - you're right about the general principle; usually it is far too much protein to waste, especially with small mammals. Elephants, being herbivores and not omnivores, don't eat the carcass though.
Ahh, well, that's fair enough, the point stands anyway as they still kill thier young, whether or not they eat them is a little irrelevent. :o)
No doubt an decreased occurance of infanticide in Elephants is not due to increased intellegence or morality but being herbovores then.
puff_cake write: But this is straying too much from the topic. My point was, although outsider bulls may trample calves, elephants are generally known for their devotion toward their young and it would be inconceivable for them to kill them off simply because there was a food shortage or what not. Many animals sacrifice their own lives to ensure the continuation of their babies. Not only this, but if a calf were to die, they often stand for hours, even days at the corpse, showing a high degree of parental concern and mourning. Abortion (ie - the destruction of a baby before it is born) is unatural and has only been made possible due to technology, therefore unheard of in the animal kingdom. I'm not saying that we do not have the right to utilise this technology, but i think there was to be more awareness, particularly with young girls who fall pregnant, about the ethics involved ...
But that's clearly true, even if we accept the Elephant example there are hundreds of species of animals, many of them quite devoloped mentally, that do kill thier young through infanticide, and it's seen in all 'natural'/primitive human societies.
This rule against infanticide (and by extension abortion) is a new and unnatural thing, as is the value we place on life generally.
jadestarr write: yes tht is so very sad tht peeps don't wnt those who have even the slightest defects,but i can say tht my boss's daughter is from a 3rd world country and was in terrible shape but it did not matter to thm he opened his heart to this child way before she was his. as for adoption part ur wrong on tht cause there are actaul agencies tht do tht sort of thing kids are adopted before thy are even born and the expecting folks tht adopt the child help w/ expenses and all as does the agencies. heck thy even get things ready for those unexpected things like early birth. i know been through this also,twice w/ myself and a very good friend. as for the childern tht have defects through the agencies thy find the right folks to adopt and care for these wonderful children.these wonderful people are out there it just the matter getting the correct angency. it maybe different there but here thy are out there.
It's good that there are good people out there that will adopt and agencies out there to help the process, but that doesn't change that there is a surplus of babies and not enough people wanting to adopt, as well as the plain fact that disabled children are very unlikely to be adopted.
Wight is quite right about rights. I liked that oun ;-)
As for elephants, I said they don't eat them, at least in my experience. They do kill their young on occasion though, especially if a calf is badly injured. Also, other elephants often have no qualms about killing a claf that is not theirs, particularly bulls. This is why the mothers in a herd (where there is a herd) will very often band together and protect all the young, not simply from predators but from potentially violent, often jealous young bulls.
As for where I lived, do you think I give a flying fuck what you believe? You're just a child, your opinion is of very little concern and mostly I get a kick out of shooting down your stupidity rather than reading it for any other reason. I don't imagine too many others take you seriously either.
Wight - you're right about the general principle; usually it is far too much protein to waste, especially with small mammals. Elephants, being herbivores and not omnivores, don't eat the carcass though.
But what about a baby's right to live? Doesn't life begin at the egg? Is it then murder?
Notably these questions have been discussed here at some depth, the conversation diverted a lot from the notion of 'rights' as they're not part of my morality and thus I tended to shoot down the concept every time I saw it
(I'm reminded of Jeremy Bentham's words on rights, to paraphrase 'Rights as a concept are Nonsense, Human Rights nonsense on stilts', quite honestly, not many philosophers put much stock in the notion)
The conversations here may not always have been the most high-brow, but you might find the debates that have been carried on somewhat entertaining if you should choose to flick thorugh them.