INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on November 27, 2009, 04:04:36 PM
-
What is wrong with them? Should we shoot them? Are they suffering from some kind of mental illness? Do we really want these people in our society? Should they be mauled by dogs and left to die?
-
They should be left out to starve and get eaten by hyenas.
-
I can't understand them and never seem to get along with them
-
I don't like non human animals fried or cooked. Don't like human animals fried or cooked either.
You can shoot me now.
-
Soup?
-
What is wrong with them? Should we shoot them? Are they suffering from some kind of mental illness? Do we really want these people in our society? Should they be mauled by dogs and left to die?
IRONY ALERT!!! :duh: Too much irony to handle. Must resist urge to choke the living shit out of Soph... :duh:
-
Animals are much better than humans 8)
-
Animals are much better than humans 8)
If you kill yourself, you might be re-incarnated as a hedgehog! :thumbup:
-
Animals are much better than humans 8)
Never tried humans.
-
Animals are much better than humans 8)
Never tried humans.
I did taste the outside of some, never went further than that. Have heard they are very tasty.
-
But soup? Really, Hyke.
-
No, I just licked some raw, live specimens (of human animals) I mean.
Because of sensory issues I don't eat meat, processed or not. But licking human animals can be very pleasant indeed.
-
:indeed:
-
sick people
burn them at stake
-
Animals are much better than humans 8)
If you kill yourself, you might be re-incarnated as a hedgehog! :thumbup:
Hedgehogs are cute :zoinks:
(http://www.thestranger.com/blog/files/2007/01/hedgehog.JPG)
-
Anyone that hates their own species over others is mentally unfit.
-
hahahahaha
Anyone who DOESN'T hate their own species when they look at what we do is mentally unfit phlexor
-
hahahahaha
Anyone who DOESN'T hate their own species when they look at what we do is mentally unfit phlexor
Go live with the animals and stop using the internet made by HUMANS for HUMANS.
We're the top of the food chain, we can do whatever the fuck we want.
GO HUMANS!!!
-
God you're disgusting
Why do humans like you always breed like fucking vermin? Stop over-populating the planet, phuxor
-
Oh I "like" animals.
I used to work in an abattoir and before lunch, I used to walk past the cattle run and say "Hello lunch" in a friendly tone to the cattle.
I normally would get a hamburger from the canteen. Most of us did.
I "Like" animals. Must say though now when I see cattle or sheep in non-slaughter situations my mouth does start salivating.
Pavlov effect really. It is interesting.
Dogs and cats I tolerate. I don't bond to them though. I don't see their bigger deal. I understand some people really like them and bond to them. I don't.
-
:lol:
Look at you go now Soph!!
You are attacking Phlex because he holds a different ethical position than you. You are slamming him (or doing your best to) because he believes that humans are more valued than animals.
Phlex is about the most inoffensive person here and rarely attacks and writes short concise responses showing his position on things.
You accuse him of being disgusting and vermin because he has children? WTF?
You have lost it you silly girl.
If you think humans are no value (and yes we are talking generally) then discard the trappings of human life and live in the jungle and THEN maybe you have a moral standpoint and experience to back such a ridiculous and moronic position. (No showers or toilets in the wild.... :-[ )
Hell if we all became vegetarians and no longer encroached on animal habitat, sent our pets in the wild and discarded all animal produce, think (really try here Soph) what life we would have.
The only reason why Humans are where they are on the evolutionary ladder and not extinct is that we have used and feasted on animals.
God you are stupid Soph.
-
I bond strongly with dogs and feel empathy towards animals in general, and I go out of my way to help animals if they're in trouble, even when it's just a spider trapped in the sink, but I don't object to the human consumption of animals provided they're treated humanely.
-
Yeah there is a distinct difference between treating animals cruelly and not being so retarded as not to see their place in the greater scheme of things.
If you saw a pet suffering would you have it put down? If you saw a person starving and torturing an animal would you not ignore it as their business? If you saw an animal that you were about to slaughter and eat with a fractured leg would you not delay the process of slaughtering it because there was other stuff to do and you were going to kill it anyhow? Answering yes to all of these shows a decent moral mindset, and not a particular "love" of animals.
I am not an "animal person" yet I have often had people loan me their animals whilst they had to go away on whatever holiday or moving house because they weren't in a position to take them and they knew I would look after the animal.
They knew I was not going to love or bond with them but they would be looked after and not mistreated. When I had my heart attack I called from the hospital to have a friend come in to the hospital and pick up a spare set of keys just so they could go and collect a cat of an ex-housemate I was looking after, because I knew otherwise it would go without at least a couple of meals.
It was a pain in the arse and the cat was not a particular friend or critical part of my life but I had a responsibility (unwanted as it was) towards th damn thing. :P
-
What is wrong with them? Should we shoot them? Are they suffering from some kind of mental illness? Do we really want these people in our society? Should they be mauled by dogs and left to die?
they should be put down.
-
I bond strongly with dogs and feel empathy towards animals in general, and I go out of my way to help animals if they're in trouble, even when it's just a spider trapped in the sink, but I don't object to the human consumption of animals provided they're treated humanely.
i eat meat petey, that doesn't mean i don't appreciate animals more than humans. humans suck. they're the most unappreciative, wasteful and cruel beings on the planet. and also really tacky. just look at chavs. all us humans should be put down for the sake of All There Is.
-
I bond strongly with dogs and feel empathy towards animals in general, and I go out of my way to help animals if they're in trouble, even when it's just a spider trapped in the sink, but I don't object to the human consumption of animals provided they're treated humanely.
i eat meat petey, that doesn't mean i don't appreciate animals more than humans. humans suck. they're the most unappreciative, wasteful and cruel beings on the planet. and also really tacky. just look at chavs. all us humans should be put down for the sake of All There Is.
Wow! You are one crazy messed up girl. That is OK though Milla. Each to their own.
-
I dislike most humans and animals. I don't care what they do at all, let it be violence, tortured, tattooed or hunted for food.
However, I won't attack them myself since I'm not really a violent person. I don't have it in me to kill anyone or anything except for flies and other small insects, so I let others do that job. :zoinks:
-
God you're disgusting
Why do humans like you always breed like fucking vermin? Stop over-populating the planet, phuxor
At least I can get a woman.
Human nature is human nature, why hate what we are. Separate the action from the person.
I don't like it when people torture animals, doesn't mean I don't like the human race.
-
Phlexor is one of the reasons why we're currently over-populated :thumbup:
-
I bond strongly with dogs and feel empathy towards animals in general, and I go out of my way to help animals if they're in trouble, even when it's just a spider trapped in the sink, but I don't object to the human consumption of animals provided they're treated humanely.
i eat meat petey, that doesn't mean i don't appreciate animals more than humans. humans suck. they're the most unappreciative, wasteful and cruel beings on the planet. and also really tacky. just look at chavs. all us humans should be put down for the sake of All There Is.
Show us the way if you really believe that. Are you committed enough to that fucked up point of view to put yourself down? I fucking doubt it.
-
Phlexor is one of the reasons why we're currently over-populated :thumbup:
Where do you live and where does Phlex live. England may be populated (Has a few immigrants if I understand right)
Australia certainly isn't.
That in mind aren't you just happy to admit you were being a silly girl? ???
-
Try reading a newspaper or two Less, that is if you can of course :(
-
Phlexor is one of the reasons why we're currently over-populated :thumbup:
Is that meant to be an insult? I don't get it.
-
God you're disgusting
Why do humans like you always breed like fucking vermin? Stop over-populating the planet, phuxor
At least I can get a woman.
Human nature is human nature, why hate what we are. Separate the action from the person.
I don't like it when people torture animals, doesn't mean I don't like the human race.
Yeah but what kinda woman? Probably not the kinda woman I'd want myself
I could get an ugly/fat girlfriend as well if I wanted. I've had offers IRL. I just have standards. Now go and buy some condoms, PLEASE
-
:lol:
-
We need people like Phlexor and I who have kids to bring them up properly to eliminate this NT bullshit and bring the world together
-
Sure, pick on the NTs ::)
-
nomnomnom
-
The more of use the better
-
God you're disgusting
Why do humans like you always breed like fucking vermin? Stop over-populating the planet, phuxor
At least I can get a woman.
Human nature is human nature, why hate what we are. Separate the action from the person.
I don't like it when people torture animals, doesn't mean I don't like the human race.
Yeah but what kinda woman? Probably not the kinda woman I'd want myself
I could get an ugly/fat girlfriend as well if I wanted. I've had offers IRL. I just have standards. Now go and buy some condoms, PLEASE
I like Tigergirl. Know idea what she looks like. But I like how she is here on I2.
-
I don't like animals in general or so.
I like it that there are animals. That there are plants. That there are humans. And sometimes I bond with an animal, a plant or a human.
I want to treat animals with respect. So, if I see a spider in the house, I'll put it outside most of the times. Even wasps, (I'm terrified of them) I will put out if I see them in the house in June. End July or later, I will not hesitate setting traps for them and let them drown in lemonade. They are way to aggressive then to have around. Mosquitoes I squash whenever I can. They are after me, I go after them. But not with poison. Keeping it a fair fight :P
I'm not opposed to eating meat, don't like it myself, but that's another thing. I hate cruelty against animals (though guilty with the wasps, I know) I think animals deserve a good animal life, before they are eaten.
I don't understand the way some people think about animals.
When people hear I'm a vegetarian they feel guilty, and some say they are part-time vegetarian, because they don't eat rabbit or so. So what? There is no difference in eating rabbit or eating pork. There is a difference in eating a beast that had a rotten life, and eating a beast that has had a decent life. And there is a difference between eating an animal, or eating a pet animal.
Someone eating his own pet, I have problems with that, unless in times of real hunger. Because it is a betrayal of the bonding, and times should be very dire indeed, before even thinking about that.
I don't get how people eat pork happily, but find it cruel to eat lamb. That lamb has been walking outdoors, being a lamb for a year. That pig most of the times has never seen a field, and is only a few months old.
Oh, one other thing I find weird.
I knew a vet, she worked both in a pet clinic and a vet clinic. In both she would treat cats and dogs too. She hated doing the regular things like spading in the pet clinic. Because there she had to over-treat the animals, for the sake of their owners. In the vet clinic, she'd treat the animals like animals. Not giving extra painkillers and such. Letting them go home sooner too. And they recovered far quicker that way. With the extra painkillers in the pet clinic, there would be more complications, and it took longer for the animals to recover.
Cruelty in my eyes. Over-treating an animal, because the boss of the animal feels happier that way is abuse.
-
Animals are better than most peope at least you know where you stand
-
Animals are better than most peope at least you know where you stand
I don't know. I've seen wild animals kill other animals, just for fun. Depends on what animal I guess.
But yes, they can be easier to deal with. The etiquette is easier to learn.
-
I have a tendency to get along with most even unfriendly ones
-
I have a tendency to get along with most even unfriendly ones
Guess it is respecting them that does it.
I walk a street daily, with a dog in it that has a restraining order. He has attacked too many posties and newspaper boys and girls. He's in the street unleashed quite a lot. But he only has a sniff and then lets me go through.
My brother is even worse, he gets past every watchdog. And dogs in the neighbourhood will go and find him when they have ticks, because he can remove them quickly. He knows when that is what they are coming to see him for.
-
God you're disgusting
Why do humans like you always breed like fucking vermin? Stop over-populating the planet, phuxor
At least I can get a woman.
Human nature is human nature, why hate what we are. Separate the action from the person.
I don't like it when people torture animals, doesn't mean I don't like the human race.
Yeah but what kinda woman? Probably not the kinda woman I'd want myself
I could get an ugly/fat girlfriend as well if I wanted. I've had offers IRL. I just have standards. Now go and buy some condoms, PLEASE
Why don't you say that to TigerGirl then? You know she posts here, PM her then if you have the guts.
You know what happens to retards like you have have impossibly high standards? then end up lonely and bitter, so sucks to be you. :hahaha:
-
Animals are better than most peope at least you know where you stand
I trust humans to be humans and do all those shit things, we are what we are, same as most predator animals.
Maybe some people have predator guilt.
-
There's no point, I'm sure she'll find it herself and call them out for their bullshit.
They've tried it with me about Emma, but I couldn't really give a shit about what they say about her. Just a tactic to provoke. :laugh:
-
and you'd know all about that wouldn't you shleed? C'mon don't play that kinda bullshit on here. You've made some pretty fucking sick comments to me in the past. In fact, tonnes of them. :wanker:
-
I do it for the fun of it. :laugh:
-
What a fascinating life you must lead :orly:
-
:orly:
-
Actually, since an organism's greatest enemy is usually its own species (since it has the most in common with it and therefore is fighting over similar resources) it makes a little sense for humans to find other humans more distasteful than, say, some other species. --Especially when those species are cute and fluffy and share our lives and, generally speaking, can give us less noxious experiences than run-ins with other humans.
I was always an animal person. Preferred them hands down. I always found it strange though that I didn't go into Zoology or something related and instead am studying the human brain... hmm...
My empathy for other humans has increased since I've been with bf. Don't know, maybe he's just revved up my oxytocin/vasoppressin more so that I find babies a little cuter and people a little less annoying. --One thing I know is that I'm the one that's changed because surely babies are just as ugly as they've always been and people are just as obnoxious.
Still adore animals though.
-
There's no point, I'm sure she'll find it herself and call them out for their bullshit.
They've tried it with me about Emma, but I couldn't really give a shit about what they say about her. Just a tactic to provoke. :laugh:
I know, I know. I'm more amused by the circus than annoyed.
-
Funny way you have of showing amusement Phlexor :zoinks:
When I find something funny, I laugh. You tell people to fuck off :toporly:
-
Funny way you have of showing amusement Phlexor :zoinks:
When I find something funny, I laugh. You tell people to fuck off :toporly:
You don't get it, it's an aussie thing, like saying "come off it", "bullshit".
You have to remember that we have a more laid back attitude over here generally than say the UK.
-
Oh yeah?
So why didn't you get so hurt when I told you to fuck off? :eyelash:
-
Why would I?
-
I think the important thing that you're all forgetting whilst busying yourselves with bickering is that I'm the most important person on here and should be adored.
So stop wasting time and get back to adoring me. :eyelash:
-
You are adorable. :-*
-
Actually, since an organism's greatest enemy is usually its own species (since it has the most in common with it and therefore is fighting over similar resources)
Biology 101 FAIL!!!
-
Actually, since an organism's greatest enemy is usually its own species (since it has the most in common with it and therefore is fighting over similar resources)
Biology 101 FAIL!!!
When was the last time that you found yourself competing with a sparrow or a rabbit for territory and breeding opportunities?
-
:lol:
-
Actually, since an organism's greatest enemy is usually its own species (since it has the most in common with it and therefore is fighting over similar resources)
Biology 101 FAIL!!!
When was the last time that you found yourself competing with a sparrow or a rabbit for territory and breeding opportunities?
The same time a sparrow and a rabbit engaged in "cooperative hunting" behavior with me. FFS is it so difficult to understand social-group evolutionary theory??
-
I think the important thing that you're all forgetting whilst busying yourselves with bickering is that I'm the most important person on here and should be adored.
So stop wasting time and get back to adoring me. :eyelash:
I worship the ground you walked on.
-
Actually, since an organism's greatest enemy is usually its own species (since it has the most in common with it and therefore is fighting over similar resources)
Biology 101 FAIL!!!
When was the last time that you found yourself competing with a sparrow or a rabbit for territory and breeding opportunities?
The same time a sparrow and a rabbit engaged in "cooperative hunting" behavior with me. FFS is it so difficult to understand social-group evolutionary theory??
Human social evolution wasn't driven primarily by the need to compete more effectively with non-human animals; it was driven by the need to compete more effectively with other humans. Social aptitude only has a minor impact on an individual's ability to hunt, forage and avoid predation, but it has a huge impact on an individual's ability to secure a breeding partner, and the combined social traits of individuals in a group has a huge impact on the ability of those individuals to compete with individuals in other groups, who as a group may be more or less socially cohesive, aggressive, xenophobic etc. There's a long history of groups of humans being displaced or wiped out by more aggressive or sophisticated groups of humans, but not so much of a history of groups of humans being wiped out or displaced by sparrows, rabbits or even dangerous predators like lions.
-
Humans have no real competition, that is why. Animals that hunt in packs usually have to compete against other species, and not another pack of their own species.
-
* microbes, parasites, and malaria mosquitoes approaching now *
-
* microbes, parasites, and malaria mosquitoes approaching now *
* arms the big fucking bug bomb and runs like fuck *
-
Humans have no real competition, that is why. Animals that hunt in packs usually have to compete against other species, and not another pack of their own species.
Would you say that wolves are atypical of social predators?
Wolves are territorial animals. Studies have shown that the average size of a wolf pack's territory is close to 200 km2 (77 sq mi).[53] Wolf packs travel constantly in search of prey, covering roughly 9% of their territory per day (average 25 km/d). The core of their territory is on average 35 km2 (14 sq mi), in which they spend 50% of their time.[54] Prey density tends to be much higher in the territory's surrounding areas. Despite this higher abundance of prey, wolves tend to avoid hunting in the fringes of their territory unless desperate, due to the possibility of fatal encounters with neighboring packs.[55] Established wolf packs rarely accept strangers into their territories, with one study on wolf mortality in Minnesota and the Denali National Park and Preserve concluding that 14–65% of wolf deaths were due to predation by other wolves.[56] In fact, 91% of wolf fatalities occur within 3.2 km (2.0 mi) of the borders between neighboring territories.[57] The majority of killed wolves are dominant animals, due to their greater assertiveness in confronting other packs.[58] In rare cases in which a stranger is accepted into the pack, the animal itself is almost invariably a young specimen of 1–3 years of age, while the majority of killed wolves are adults.[59]
Communication between these boundaries is achieved in part through scent marking and howling. Howling is the principal means of spacing in wolf populations. It communicates the location of a core territory as well as enforcing a territory-independent buffer zone around the roaming wolf pack. This territory-independent buffer zone is a means of avoiding encounters with neighboring packs near territory borders.[60] Lone wolves, in contrast, rarely respond to howls, instead taking an "under the radar" approach. Howling communicates a core territory over time, as a wolf packs spends much of their time there.
-
"Sewer rat may taste like Pumpkin Pie but I would not know because I would not eat the nasty mother fucker"
-
You are adorable. :-*
Now doesn't that feel better? :zoinks:
Actually, since an organism's greatest enemy is usually its own species (since it has the most in common with it and therefore is fighting over similar resources)
Biology 101 FAIL!!!
I would take the time to disagree with you and defend my reasoning but it seems Peter's already beaten me to the punch. :green:
Go, Peter... go, Peter... it's ya birthday... :asthing:
-
Actually, since an organism's greatest enemy is usually its own species (since it has the most in common with it and therefore is fighting over similar resources)
Biology 101 FAIL!!!
When was the last time that you found yourself competing with a sparrow or a rabbit for territory and breeding opportunities?
The same time a sparrow and a rabbit engaged in "cooperative hunting" behavior with me. FFS is it so difficult to understand social-group evolutionary theory??
Human social evolution wasn't driven primarily by the need to compete more effectively with non-human animals; it was driven by the need to compete more effectively with other humans. Social aptitude only has a minor impact on an individual's ability to hunt, forage and avoid predation, but it has a huge impact on an individual's ability to secure a breeding partner, and the combined social traits of individuals in a group has a huge impact on the ability of those individuals to compete with individuals in other groups, who as a group may be more or less socially cohesive, aggressive, xenophobic etc. There's a long history of groups of humans being displaced or wiped out by more aggressive or sophisticated groups of humans, but not so much of a history of groups of humans being wiped out or displaced by sparrows, rabbits or even dangerous predators like lions.
Since Sophist's comment wasn't directed at any one species (humans in particular) you're commiting a fallacy of division.
-
14 to 65 percent is a huge swing there, doesn't seem like a real accurate measurement as far as statistics goes. If it was 60 to 65 percent it would be more convincing.
-
14 to 65 percent is a huge swing there, doesn't seem like a real accurate measurement as far as statistics goes. If it was 60 to 65 percent it would be more convincing.
:agreed: I caught that too.
-
14 to 65 percent is a huge swing there, doesn't seem like a real accurate measurement as far as statistics goes. If it was 60 to 65 percent it would be more convincing.
It varies depending on local conditions at the time of study, particularly on the level and nature of human interference and wolf population density.
Discussion
The main cause of wolf mortality in Croatia in the surveyed period was
related to the activities of man, comprising mostly intentional killing by gun:
65.2% in the whole period and 50.0% since protection. Similarly, man was
the cause of the major part of mortality in the wolf population in Minnesota
(U.S.A.) even after its protection (1972–1977): 59% (FRITS and MECH,
1981), and 80% (FULLER, 1989). Natural causes of wolf mortality in
Minnesota totalled 14%, through a combination of 3% by diseases and
11% by other wolves (FULLER, 1989). In another study in Minnesota
intraspecific aggression accounted for 24% mortality (FRITS and MECH,
1981). The highest recorded intraspecific killing among wolves was recorded
in Denali National Park in Alaska (U.S.A.) ranging from 39 to 65% of all
mortality causes (MECH et al., 1998). That is a clear sign that the influence of
man is negligible, or even non-existent, there. Wolves tend to self-regulate
their numbers when other causes of mortality are low. We found that only
6.5% of wolves died of natural causes, and just one intraspecific killing
among them, indicating a strong man-made mortality rate. Five rabid wolves
comprise 83% of all such cases (n=6) recorded in Croatia since 1977 when
the rabies outbreak reached this area (Ž. ČAČ, Croatian Veterinary Institute,
personal information). On the population level this disease could not be counted
as a major regulatory factor among wolves.
-
Actually, since an organism's greatest enemy is usually its own species (since it has the most in common with it and therefore is fighting over similar resources)
Biology 101 FAIL!!!
When was the last time that you found yourself competing with a sparrow or a rabbit for territory and breeding opportunities?
The same time a sparrow and a rabbit engaged in "cooperative hunting" behavior with me. FFS is it so difficult to understand social-group evolutionary theory??
Human social evolution wasn't driven primarily by the need to compete more effectively with non-human animals; it was driven by the need to compete more effectively with other humans. Social aptitude only has a minor impact on an individual's ability to hunt, forage and avoid predation, but it has a huge impact on an individual's ability to secure a breeding partner, and the combined social traits of individuals in a group has a huge impact on the ability of those individuals to compete with individuals in other groups, who as a group may be more or less socially cohesive, aggressive, xenophobic etc. There's a long history of groups of humans being displaced or wiped out by more aggressive or sophisticated groups of humans, but not so much of a history of groups of humans being wiped out or displaced by sparrows, rabbits or even dangerous predators like lions.
Since Sophist's comment wasn't directed at any one species (humans in particular) you're commiting a fallacy of division.
I wasn't replying to Sophist's comment about organisms facing the greatest competition from members of their own species. I was replying to your comment in which you claimed that you (a human) last found yourself in competition with sparrows and rabbits when they engaged in cooperative hunting behaviour with you, and your suggestion that I should refer to social-group evolutionary theory to better understand your position. Thus, I referred to social-group evolutionary theory in the context of human-human competition vs human-non-human competition, since that's the direction the conversation had taken, and delivered my conclusion that human social evolution at both the individual and group level has been driven primarily by human-human competition, and not by human-non-human competition.
-
When you have nothing but you and other wolfpacks at the top of the food chain, it is obvious what you will have to compete with. You might have a wolf die to a bear or something else every once in a while, but what else is there to even challenge a pack? Another pack, yes this makes sense. What if the pack of wolves in an area had to compete against a pack of mountain lions? The wolves would be in deep shit. You are showing that it depends on the area, so if the wolves are obviously at the top of the food chain in a certain area, they have no competition but themsleves. Humans only really compete with other humans, which is what I stated earlier. Wolves are not at the top of the food chain as far as social hunters go. Lions get killed by elephants in some places, and they aren't even predators.
What is going to fuck with an Orca (Killer Whale) other than a human? A Sperm Whale might be able to take one Orca down, but they can hunt as a family. Great Whites get eaten by Orcas. The only thing that kills an Orca with any regularity, is a human. Your greatest enemy is the species above you on the food chain that preys upon some of the same things you prey upon, if not then it is your species competing with itself. That is kinda common sense.
-
When you have nothing but you and other wolfpacks at the top of the food chain, it is obvious what you will have to compete with. You might have a wolf die to a bear or something else every once in a while, but what else is there to even challenge a pack? Another pack, yes this makes sense. What if the pack of wolves in an area had to compete against a pack of mountain lions? The wolves would be in deep shit. You are showing that it depends on the area, so if the wolves are obviously at the top of the food chain in a certain area, they have no competition but themsleves. Humans only really compete with other humans, which is what I stated earlier. Wolves are not at the top of the food chain as far as social hunters go. Lions get killed by elephants in some places, and they aren't even predators.
What is going to fuck with an Orca (Killer Whale) other than a human? A Sperm Whale might be able to take one Orca down, but they can hunt as a family. Great Whites get eaten by Orcas. The only thing that kills an Orca with any regularity, is a human. Your greatest enemy is the species above you on the food chain that preys upon some of the same things you prey upon, if not then it is your species competing with itself. That is kinda common sense.
QFT You'd think Sophist and Peter would be able to see this obvious fact. Perhaps they're educated beyond their intelligence. ::)
-
Actually, since an organism's greatest enemy is usually its own species (since it has the most in common with it and therefore is fighting over similar resources)
Biology 101 FAIL!!!
When was the last time that you found yourself competing with a sparrow or a rabbit for territory and breeding opportunities?
The same time a sparrow and a rabbit engaged in "cooperative hunting" behavior with me. FFS is it so difficult to understand social-group evolutionary theory??
Human social evolution wasn't driven primarily by the need to compete more effectively with non-human animals; it was driven by the need to compete more effectively with other humans. Social aptitude only has a minor impact on an individual's ability to hunt, forage and avoid predation, but it has a huge impact on an individual's ability to secure a breeding partner, and the combined social traits of individuals in a group has a huge impact on the ability of those individuals to compete with individuals in other groups, who as a group may be more or less socially cohesive, aggressive, xenophobic etc. There's a long history of groups of humans being displaced or wiped out by more aggressive or sophisticated groups of humans, but not so much of a history of groups of humans being wiped out or displaced by sparrows, rabbits or even dangerous predators like lions.
Since Sophist's comment wasn't directed at any one species (humans in particular) you're commiting a fallacy of division.
I wasn't replying to Sophist's comment about organisms facing the greatest competition from members of their own species. I was replying to your comment in which you claimed that you (a human) last found yourself in competition with sparrows and rabbits when they engaged in cooperative hunting behaviour with you,
...and you failed to understand that that was a reductio-ad absurdum?? :duh:
and your suggestion that I should refer to social-group evolutionary theory to better understand your position. Thus, I referred to social-group evolutionary theory in the context of human-human competition vs human-non-human competition, since that's the direction the conversation had taken,
No, that's the direction YOU were trying to take it in. At first I thought you were simply trying to use humans as an example, but then it became obvious that you were commiting a fallacy of division. Perhaps I shouldn'tve replied to that red-herring in the first place. ::)
and delivered my conclusion that human social evolution at both the individual and group level has been driven primarily by human-human competition, and not by human-non-human competition.
If this is what you were ACTUALLY trying to do, then you would've gone back to the beginning of Hominin evolution where we were clearly competing against other species.
-
Actually, since an organism's greatest enemy is usually its own species (since it has the most in common with it and therefore is fighting over similar resources)
Biology 101 FAIL!!!
I would take the time to disagree with you and defend my reasoning but it seems Peter's already beaten me to the punch. :green:
Go, Peter... go, Peter... it's ya birthday... :asthing:
He's getting his ass kicked, you might need to step in to take your lickings too help him out. ::)
-
When you have nothing but you and other wolfpacks at the top of the food chain, it is obvious what you will have to compete with. You might have a wolf die to a bear or something else every once in a while, but what else is there to even challenge a pack? Another pack, yes this makes sense. What if the pack of wolves in an area had to compete against a pack of mountain lions? The wolves would be in deep shit. You are showing that it depends on the area, so if the wolves are obviously at the top of the food chain in a certain area, they have no competition but themsleves. Humans only really compete with other humans, which is what I stated earlier. Wolves are not at the top of the food chain as far as social hunters go. Lions get killed by elephants in some places, and they aren't even predators.
What is going to fuck with an Orca (Killer Whale) other than a human? A Sperm Whale might be able to take one Orca down, but they can hunt as a family. Great Whites get eaten by Orcas. The only thing that kills an Orca with any regularity, is a human. Your greatest enemy is the species above you on the food chain that preys upon some of the same things you prey upon, if not then it is your species competing with itself. That is kinda common sense.
Intraspecific competition can be the dominant mode of competition for a species regardless of the position which that species occupies in the food chain. Blowflies are prey to many organisms, yet in the following quote, their greatest competition is identified as being from other blowflies.
Intraspecific Competition is defined as the struggle between members of a population for scarce resources. As in intraspecific cooperation, there are two basic types of competition:
1. Adapted or programmed intraspecific competition results from aggressive social behavior such as dominance hierarchies and territoriality. Here only certain individuals high in the peck-order, or holding territories, succeed in breeding. This is sometimes called contest competition because it involves aggressive contests between competing individuals.
2. Unadapted or incidental intraspecific competition results from the accidental interaction between individual organisms utilizing the same resources, for resources used by one are unavailable to others. This is sometimes called scramble competition because everybody is involved in a mad scramble for the scarce resources.
Notice the parallels between intraspecific competition and cooperation. Both can be induced by adapted (evolved) or incidental (accidental) processes. Both are associated with the problem of obtaining resources or avoiding being used as a resource by others. It should not surprise us that these two powerful principles have led to the parallel evolution of aggressive and cooperative social behaviors in many species.
A major consequence of intraspecific competition is that the survival and/or reproduction of individual organisms normally declines as the density of the population rises (see figure). This is commonly called "density dependence" in the literature. However, this term has probably generated more controversy and confusion than any other single issue in ecology. The argument started between the two Australian ecologists A. J. Nicholson and H. G. Andrewartha. Nicholson studied populations of blowflies living in corpses and concluded that density-dependent struggle for food, what we call intraspecific competition, was the main factor regulating population size. Andrewartha studied populations of rose thrips and found that numbers were largely determined by weather which, of course, is not dependent on the density of thrips. The controversy is largely semantic -- a confusion about the meaning of the terms regulation, stability, feedback and so on -- but even so it continues to this day.
The strong nature of intraspecific competition is the basis for the sterile insect technique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique), in which a problematic species of insect is controlled by releasing large numbers of sterile individuals. The sterile individuals compete with the wild individuals for breeding partners, which results in fewer successful matings between fertile individuals and a consequent reduction in the future population. This has an advantage over releasing predators of that species, since most predators consume a range of prey species and only have a small impact on any one prey species, while competition for breeding partners is highly species-specific, producing a high degree of disruption to the target species and a low overall environmental impact.
-
The biggest factor playing into selection is how many viable offspring you manage to have. All other factors, while important in the intermediary sense, are irrelevant if you can't produce offspring (or asexually divide if you happen to be a single celled organism).
If Scraphead or Alex care to give an example of the last time either of them competed with a rabbit or squirrel (or any other species you care to mention) for a woman then I will gladly reconsider my statement. Competing within one's own species is called Intraspecific Competition, and is most rife where resources are limited. In the case of humans, with our dense populations, this is a constant factor. Especially when you consider competing for rights to sexual proliferation. You don't compete between species for that right. And sex (for sexual organisms) is the main way to get your genes passed on. (That or by things like altrusim through kin selection.)
QED.
-
If Scraphead or Alex care to give an example of the last time either of them competed with a rabbit or squirrel for a woman
haven't been following this discussion, but i'm sure they're both perfectly capable of this. :zoinks:
I have a feeling they both lost out though
-
If Scraphead or Alex care to give an example of the last time either of them competed with a rabbit or squirrel (or any other species you care to mention) for a woman then I will gladly reconsider my statement.
You don't compete against members of other species to mate with your own. You don't compete against members of you own species to mate with another species. Your argument is a reductio-ad-retardum. :hahaha:
You realy are comming across as educated beyond your intelligence. You seem to know facts and terms, but not how these things operate IRL.
-
If Scraphead or Alex care to give an example of the last time either of them competed with a rabbit or squirrel (or any other species you care to mention) for a woman then I will gladly reconsider my statement.
You don't compete against members of other species to mate with your own. You don't compete against members of you own species to mate with another species. Your argument is a reductio-ad-retardum. :hahaha:
You realy are comming across as educated beyond your intelligence. You seem to know facts and terms, but not how these things operate IRL.
You wanna sit there and insult me then that's fine, Scraphead. You're obviously going to continue missing my point and I don't have the time or energy to waste on you when you just want to argue rather than reasonably discuss. I wasn't even talking to you in the first place and you singled me out.
Enjoy yourself, rant and rave as you like and your interpretations of evolutionary theory. I'm going back to my work.
-
... when you just want to argue rather than reasonably discuss.
In order to "reasonably discuss" you first have to have a position that is reasonable enough to discuss. You and Peter continue to shoot yourselves in the foot with arguments so flimsy that a high school student could see the flaws in them. Your point is a half-truth at the very best. You try to make the point that your own species is your greatest enemy because you compete againt them to mate... WITH YOUR OWN SPECIES! If you're failing to see that your argument contains internal contradictions, then you're just too fucktarded to have an intelligent conversation with in the first place.
-
LOL at competing against your own species for mates. What a retarded argument. I wonder what the chick at the donkey show thinks about her donkey and how said donkey competes with men.
-
Humans rule
-
That is correct
-
... when you just want to argue rather than reasonably discuss.
In order to "reasonably discuss" you first have to have a position that is reasonable enough to discuss. You and Peter continue to shoot yourselves in the foot with arguments so flimsy that a high school student could see the flaws in them. Your point is a half-truth at the very best. You try to make the point that your own species is your greatest enemy because you compete againt them to mate... WITH YOUR OWN SPECIES! If you're failing to see that your argument contains internal contradictions, then you're just too fucktarded to have an intelligent conversation with in the first place.
That's the point I'm making. Jesus.
1) Mating is the BIGGEST competition most social mammals have;
2) You don't compete against other species for that right for the precise reason you pointed out-- however, its simplicity doesn't make the argument circular.
THAT'S MY FUCKING POINT. For humans and other sexual animals-- particularly social animals--, the biggest evolutionary battle is fought WITHIN one's own species because that's who's vying for the prize and that prize is SEX. And for humans ESPECIALLY since we're one of the most sex-oriented species on earth. Why is this such a hard concept for you?
Whether you think it's a circular argument or not doesn't change the fact that you DON'T compete against a polar bear to win over a pretty woman. You compete against other men for that woman's attentions. Therefore other men, other humans, are your main source of competition.
You're just stuck in the old evolutionary thought pattern that interspecies competition is what drives the majority of selection and that selection acts at a species level rather than at the level of the individual organism. Which is absolute bullcrap. It doesn't matter how well your species is doing as a whole, how long you personally live, how much territory you have, or how much you eat; if you're a sexually reproducing organism that can't get laid then you're screwed and your line dies right there with you. Unlike you were lucky enough to have a proliferative identical twin.
Maybe the simplicity of this concept is too much for you. ::) In which case, maybe something more extensive than a Evolution 101 course (which sounds to be about the extent, if that, of the training you've had) might behoove you. Go back to the literature, look not just at Dawkins but at Trivers, Van Valen, and read up more on Sexual Selection and theory about evolution of the Social Brain. Just give it all a good hard think. And then if you're capable, try and tie that asinine tongue back of yours which is more prone to throw insult before intelligence. Intensity doesn't mean that you HAVE to be a dickhead; it just means you can be one if necessary.
Anyways, act superior if you need to. It probably just means you have a pathetic ego, suck with women, have a small dick, haven't been laid (ever or in years), or in general are just a little prick with nothing better to do than insult the intelligence of attractive women you'd never have a chance with and on topics you seem to know little about.
(That insult, btw, was necessary, because you're acting like an asshole with little provocation.)
-
Mating, an important thing to compete about it seems, never was good at the game :P. But that is indeed within the own species.
Another biggie to compete on is food, and space to live.
That one is within the own species, and with other species.
Farmers cull insects that would eat the harvest. Mice can devour a whole crop if there are enough of them. This is a battle that goes unseen by most people in a town. The production of food is happening miles and miles away. But it is going on on a daily basis. Interspecies primal competition. And of course those mice are not thinking in terms of competing humans. They just want food.
Still, it's no reason to dislike mice or say, colorado-beetles. Those critters just do what they do. That's how they are. And farmers do what they have to do. It is how life is.