Jamie_Gumb write: Blah, blah, blah, me, me, me. Actully the only thing you accomplished in that thread was showing yourself to be ignorant and probably racist. Here in north america ratting on people makes you the b1tch. lol, and ratting on a guy for making a little joke, then carrying it to the point were your considering legal action, well that makes you a little spolied b1tch. lol but whatever right.
prime example of typing alot and saying nothing intelligent.
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.
prophecies_in_blood write: I am not sorry to say that whomever got pregnant....unless they are some sort of F***ing wh*ore...its the persons decision and should not be made to feel like garbage for having a brain in their own head and using it...as long as they make the decision that is correct for them.....I was adopted and honestly...i wish i had never been born...i cannot stand so much that goes on around me...but some things are meant to be.Theres many kids that dont make it in the adoption place....way too many are put there.....ive seen some and it bothers me to no end how much some of those kids are in torment and pain....always wondering why the blood parents never wanted them...and they have to deal with that the rest of their life....it hurts really....and sometimes i wonder what happened to the ones who were my blood family...
ahhh see my agency tht i went through for my son tht i gave up for so many reasons tht i wont go through here, but i can tell u tht the agency tht i went through thy set up a program tht whn the child is 18 and wishes to know all the answers to those questions can contact the blood family i know i'm in this program and to tell ya the truth i wrote a letter for him later on plus pics are being saved for him in the future as each year goes by i have one put up just for this book i'm making for him, as for his father tht is another question. we couldn't find him till after the adoption was final and whn i told him tht i was pregnant his reply was there is a test for tht! funny thing is my ex-husband was unable to have kids anymore and the father of the child was the last guy i was w/ and living w/ for over 6 months! guess he and his folks didn't like a woman tht can support herself and thier little boy! believe me it took some thinking to come to the discion tht i came up w/ but it was for the best of my son, i had loads of problems w/ the pregnacy and lost my job (several months of the pregnan...
jadestarr write: dah!!! but i'm thinking of those tht can't have children and would do anything to have a child. personally i know quite a few. heck my boss just adopted a wonderful, adorable little girl! whom he adores!
There's a surplus of children needing adoption so there's no need to create more. The main problems being that everyone insists that thier children must be the fruit of thier own loins, to the point of going to expensive and extravagant lengths to create children in thier labs, rather than adopt, and when they do adopt, only the babies with no 'defects' or difficulties get taken and any one that grows long enough to become a child doesn't have a hope in hell of being adopted.
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.
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.
puff_cake write: But alas, we have digressed. The point was, you were talking about animals discarding their sickly babies, but women abort perfectly healthy foetuses. There's a difference.
No, for instance, hamsters will eat thier young if thier nest is disturbed. No doubt the reaction is caused because if a nest is duturbed and it's no longer considered safe it's best to cut your losses, eat the children, and move on.
The point is that if it's often in the benifet of passing one's own genes on to kill children and try again later. This is evolutionary fact.
If we're solely concerned with reproduction in human society, then there are still occasions where it's best to abort children. We all know children are best raised in certain circumstances, a lady that gets pregant before she's ready and who is concerned with only the survival of her genes would do well to abort the baby, and work to getting that more comfortable enviroment and then trying again.
And this misses the point that most people's motives in life are not evolutionary, mine aren't. I'm concerned with happiness, not the surivival of my genes, and thus may well not ever reproduce. In this case it is often in the mother's own interests to abort, and it may well not be against thier moral values, just as it isn't against mine.
puff_cake write: None of the three species of elephant eats their young ok - Jesus!
But that's just plainly incorrect now isn't it? Gaidheal has lived around elephants, seen it for himself.
So what we have is Gaidheal, whose seen it, you who denies it, and my general knowledge that animals do in fact do it, and the fact that it makes evolutionary sense to do it. This leads me to think that it's you whose incorrect, as to believe you would make Gaidheal a lier, all my general knowledge about the animal kingdom incorrect, and it would stand as a refutation of evolutionary theory.
puff_cake write: Yes but the books don't lie, and i extensively study animals first hand both in the wild and captivity.
You're 19 you have not extensively even lived, much less studied anything. Quite what you think Sri Lanka has to do with anything, I don't know, either. Though I have indeed been there, albeit briefly. I lived in southern India, not Sri Lanka.
puff_cake write: Now i know you're lying. heh heh BTW - go back and read the post properly, i was using them as an example, not basing it completely on them. I was also referring to African elephants. And no - they would never intentionally kill their own offspring unless they did so in a panic after giving birth, due to stress.
I find it hard to believe that one line of Elephants would eat thier young and the others wouldn't.
Fact is, eating young is standard, I don't believe that even the one breed of elephant you selected doesn't, you will have to do better if you want to have a good basis for your argument.
puff_cake write: I read Hobbes and didn't much care for his sovereign sucking attitude to be honest. I'm not deluding myself, i watch lots of wildlife documentaries and read enough zoology books to know that the majority of higher mammals do not carelessly abandon sickly babies.
I was referring to his talks on the state of nature, not his precise decription of the state to replace it.
You are deluding yourself, even among Homo Sapiens the way has always been until recently to abandon young that can't fend for themselves, particularly the disabled.
Notably, documentaries have often been very false anyway, it's only recently that they've started showing the homosexuality in animals of which they've always been aware, they have a tendancy to hide the stuff that people don't want to see, and thus bend reality to the will of soft minds.
puff_cake write: yeah, elephants love eating their babies - pmsl - that is the animal i was using as an example
Your argument is based on a single animal? Not a problem, by the way. Elephants just kill them and the local scavengers eat the carcass. Did we forget I've actually lived in a country where elephants are native and commonly used as beast of burden, puffter_boy? LOL Seen it firsthand, or rather the aftermath. Not pretty.