[boka]Dear stupid
1) boka sets up an analogy of kittens going for alpha males for
sex(omg kittens, think of the children!)[deathbait]
[boka]Kittens/cat like any other animals in the wild will go for
the alpha males.
2) I argue that Kittens certainly do no such thing. There's no
social ladder in domestic cats[deathbait]
[boka]There are no social ladder among domestic animals.
Domestic animals grew up in an artifical enviroment and similarly
like how culture and envoriment affect the thoughts and behaviour
of humans,animals are influenced the same way.
If u claim that natural social ladder that exist in wild kitten or
any other animals would remain in domestic animals then answer
this:
why do domestic kittens and domestic dogs which grew up together
from birth share a loving bonding?
If domestic animals were to retain their primal traits then
according to science and from scientific studies,both the domestic
dog and domestic cat can never grow up in harmony and behave like
they would in the wild.
They do not behave like the wild cats and dogs in the wild because
these pets are domestic and their living enviroment from birth
affects them.
If domestic animals retain their primal mind and abilities then why
does a tiger/lion that grow up in the zoo have a 80% chances of
dying of hunger as compared to their counterparts who grew up in
the african plains?
Shouldn't they still know how to hunt as good as their counterparts
who grew up in the wild if what u claim is true?
Scientist have done research and found animals which grew up in the
wild and zoo are toally different.
those which grew up in the zoo CANNOT HUNT WELL and DO NOT REGONISE
A SOCIAL LADDER[well unless they manage to continue living for the
next decades of their life in the wild then perhaps they will learn
something from their counterparts] because an animal from birth is
nutured and taught by it's mother the survival skills and the
ability to regconise what is a social ladder.
Do u NOT KNOW that an animal,any animal,do not cary their primal
traits from young?
These skills are passed on by their mothers,they teach them how to
hunt and what to avoid.
Asian are conservative.
Are they conservative by nature of is it their enviroment.
U claim domestic animals retain their primal charteristic and
judging from your analogy, your stand would be they are
conservative BY NATURE.
My stand however is different.
I say it's their enviroment.
An asian who grew up in an asian country is more convservative than
their counterparts who grew up in a western community.
This has nothing to do with what nature because how someone or
something turns out to be is the work of their culture and
enviroment.
3) Boka proceeds to patiently lecture me that domestic cats are
unsuitable for such discussions, and my argument is thus null and
void.[deathbait]
[boka]Your arguments are null and void.
U claim that natural selection takes place in domestic
animals.
Mr death,what is the gauge that u use in your measurement of
"natural selection"?
My stand is that,natural selection do not take place in domestic
animals because
1)they from young are not taught what is needed in the animal
kingdom and they do not know who to mate with[there are no
guildlines]
2)more often,it is the owners of these domestic animal which
determind who they mate with,U are saying that TRUE natural
selection is when the owners put 2 BEAUTIFUL coloured skin kittens
to mate,that to u is called natural selection.
But that is not true natural selection for kittens.
For a female butterfly to mate with a colourful male is true
naturalselection because in the animal world,brightness of a colour
are used to determind which are the alpha males[colours are used as
a sign of fertility and strenght]
The same goes for birds liek the peacock.
For kittens however,they are like other mammals.
Their "guildlines" on who is stronger is not often based on
colours,it is based on a compeition,a fight.
The winners is the strongest.
Let me refresh the audience of your stupidty with what i have
posted.
let's see..
[Posted by deathbait]
..
This is how evolution(in this case, natural selection) works. Sick
ppl die, Healthy ppl develop the immunity AFTER they recover and
pass it on. Your precious society is the one that's been preventing
the latter from happening. We stopped evolving in most ways a long
time ago. Go look up the basics of evolution first, k?
[boka]Time and time again u proved to be an idiot.
HIV is a natural thing that would happen if humans partake in
casual sex.
The reason why HIV is here is because casual sex among humans was
not meant to take place in the beginning.
If causal sex is ok and what nature wants us to do and as u said
for gene diversification then why is mother nature infecting humans
with a deadly virus when her sole purpose from your point of view
is to diversify the race?
Nature immunity and artificial immunity is different.
Again u compares apple and orange.
Evolution is about being better IN THE NATURAL WAY.
If sick animal dies and strong animal lives in a natural
competition then that is called evolution.
However, when u inject and animal/human with a vaccine and they
live,u consider them STRONG?
Like I said u are stupid.
If I were to help a lion bleeding to death and it survive, IS THAT
CALLED SURVIVAL OF THE FITESS?
WE STOPPED EVOLVING A LONG TIME AGO?
DO U KNOW THE TRUE MEANING OF EVOlVING?
EVOLUTION IS CONSTANTLY TAKING PLACE AND IT EVEN NOW WE HUMANS ARE
IN THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION.
THERE ARE NO RESULT OF EVOLUTION BECAUSE IT TAKES PLACE
CONSTANTLY.
WE EVOLVE TO ADAPT.
AS THE EARTH WARMS UP AND ENVIROMENTAL CHANGES OCCUR,WE HUmANS WILL
EVOLVE TO ADAPT TO THE ENVIROMENT[LESSER HAIRS AND LARGE SWEAT
GLANDS IN SOME WAYS]
GO READ UP ON BIOLOGY 101 IDIOT.
[deathbait]
--Because a cure will lead to an increase in casual sex, fuck the
HIV infected. We don't need no stinking cure.
What cult are you in again?
I shall repeat my points for sake of clarity.
1) casual sex is not a bad result in the bigger scheme of things.
It leads to diversification of the gene pool, which is always a
good hedging mechanism.
[boka]WOW!
IF PEOPLE PARTAKE IN CASUAL SEX FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIVERSIYING THE
GENE POOL THEN WHY ARE THEY USING CONDOMS AND OTHER CONTRACEPTIVE
METHODS TO PREVENT PREGNANCY?
TRY TO PULL THAT OFF IDIOT!
2) On the family level, you have no need to worry about cures of
HIV leading to casual sex unless your family is already unstable.
In which case, the existance of a HIV cure is the least of your
worries
3) Societies with strong family ties(arguably stronger than the
current era) have been built in the past with no threat of HIV at
all. To suggest that the elimination of HIV will break down the
family structure of society is to deny all existance of proof
readily available.
[me]This is more than just family ties.
We live in a society and not just within our family.
4) The monogamy is/was not always the only family structure in the
world. Just because your society practices a system of monogamy
does not mean it is natural, nor does it mean it has to stay that
way lest civilization as we know it collapse around us. In fact,
monogamy is an unnatural result of humans having outgrown their
primal needs.
5) you are an idiot. Stop worrying about how to deny cures to the
terminally ill and start worrying about your mom's infidelity. I
assume that's why you're so insecure about family ties. No? In that
case, just stop worrying.[/b][/quote]
[boka]Personal attacks?
