Red squirrels are BACK

[Xamonas Chegwé]

This is not the case. Evolution is what it is, and we have already agreed that evolution is morally neutral. Therefore nothing humans do is better or worse than anything else that affects the environment.

Non sequitur.

Morality is, by definition, the differentiation of human actions into those that are good/right and those that are bad/wrong. (The question is, is it right to make such a division? )

So, since morality is a tightly proscribed human invention that only has relevance in terms of human actions, to claim that its lack of relevance in other areas implies its lack of relevance in the human case is nonsensical.

If only humans have morals, why do dogs demonstrate a sense of "fair play?"

Dogs have behaviour that we interpret that way. It almost certainly stems from an extremely similar mental process to that which governs our own morality. However, they do not, to my knowledge, articulate that process and attempt to generalise and objectivise it. Humans do - and that is what is called morality, not the behaviour itself.

[pErvinalia]

So, evolution is not good?

It's neither good, bad, nor purple. It's neutral to your moral beliefs. What else could it be?!?

And therein lies my point. If humans turn the planet into a Venus-like atmosphere with pools of boiling lead by excreting CO2, it's neither good, nor bad, nor purple. Well, it might be purple, but I think rusty red is more likely...

Anyway, it is what it is, and it's going to be what it's going to be, and no amount of anthropomorphic angst makes it good or bad, so STFU about "global warming" already.

Adapt or die.

non-sequitur. You are implying it is "bad" to mess with evolution. You are wrong, even by your own admission. As usual. So STFU.

You can't "mess with evolution" dear boy. Evolution is not predictive, it is descriptive. Whatever happens is evolution, whether it is better for one species or another or not.

You literally could not defeat a 10 year old in a debate. FFS. You claimed that people who try to mess with evolution are areswits, in response to the concept that UK authorities are managing the two different species for the benefit of the red squirrels. What this bollocks above has to do with that is anybodies guess. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION, man manipulating his ecosystem is "natural". So, once again, why is it an "arsewit" thing to do to manage the two different species for the benefit of the red squirrels?!?

[pErvinalia]

You are a debating retard of the highest order. You said "Who the hell do you think you are to mess with evolution? That's what makes one an arsewit."

Indeed. And you still don't get the point, so yes, I'd have to concur with your analysis of your mental abilities.

You can't even fucking read properly. I'm analysing YOUR mental abilities.

My argument is that if Red Squirrels can't compete against Grey Squirrels, then Red Squirrels are just fucked and it's no big deal, and it doesn't matter a whit how the Grey Squirrels got there because it's all part of nature and evolution. You were the one bitching about imported "invasive" species.

You are the one claiming that messing with evolution makes one an arsewit, while in the same breath claiming that man messing with evolution is "natural" and therefore ok. Is it too much to ask that you could construct a fucking cogent argument at some point in your inglorious posting career on the rationalist forums?!?

You're not an arsewit for messing with evolution because evolution is a descriptor, not a predictor. You're an arsewit if you complain about how evolution is proceeding. Sorry if I was a bit unclear.

Who's "complaining"?!? This topic is about positive action to conserve threatened species, something which you have already argued is "natural" and part of evolution itself. Your "argument" is a fucking dogs breakfast. I'm starting to side with Hack. This place, at least in the science and atheism topics, would be better off without you. We waste so much time addressing your simplistic and wrong shit, and then having to face the inevitable prospect that you are incapable of learning new concepts. Imagine what informative discussion we could have here without having to address your primary school level failings in knowledge and logic.

[Seth]

You are a debating retard of the highest order. You said "Who the hell do you think you are to mess with evolution? That's what makes one an arsewit."

Indeed. And you still don't get the point, so yes, I'd have to concur with your analysis of your mental abilities.

You can't even fucking read properly. I'm analysing YOUR mental abilities.

Well, I know you like to think you are, but you're not.

My argument is that if Red Squirrels can't compete against Grey Squirrels, then Red Squirrels are just fucked and it's no big deal, and it doesn't matter a whit how the Grey Squirrels got there because it's all part of nature and evolution. You were the one bitching about imported "invasive" species.

You are the one claiming that messing with evolution makes one an arsewit, while in the same breath claiming that man messing with evolution is "natural" and therefore ok. Is it too much to ask that you could construct a fucking cogent argument at some point in your inglorious posting career on the rationalist forums?!?

You're not an arsewit for messing with evolution because evolution is a descriptor, not a predictor. You're an arsewit if you complain about how evolution is proceeding. Sorry if I was a bit unclear.

Who's "complaining"?!?

You.

This topic is about positive action to conserve threatened species, something which you have already argued is "natural" and part of evolution itself. Your "argument" is a fucking dogs breakfast.

Slurp it up, puppy.

I'm starting to side with Hack. This place, at least in the science and atheism topics, would be better off without you.

And I believe that it would be a lesser forum in the event of either your or Hack's absence. You see, I don't get all het up about such things, I just enjoy the give and take. You need to take a pill or something. Maybe smoke some pot. Come on over to Colorado and you can possess up to half an ounce at a time. Might help you relax a bit.

We waste so much time addressing your simplistic and wrong shit, and then having to face the inevitable prospect that you are incapable of learning new concepts.

Hm...So you continue to hit yourself in the head with that hammer despite the intense pain it causes why, exactly?

Imagine what informative discussion we could have here without having to address your primary school level failings in knowledge and logic.

Says the primary failer of knowledge, reason and logic in the entire forum.

I'd like to imagine an informative discussion with you, but I'm not able to because you are historically incapable of engaging in reasoned debate if anyone even remotely threatens your dogmatic preconceptions and biases, in which event you immediately resort to ad hom as an ego-boosting evasion of informative discussion. You need to work on that...a lot.

[JimC]

You can certainly define man's activities in terms of ecosystems as "natural" if you wish, as long as you understand that they are having a broader and vastly more rapid effect on the living world than anything short of cometary impact, even leaving putative climate change to one side. Then, any activities where government or private groups attempt to preserve ecosystems or endangered species are also "natural".

Seth, you took issue with my use of the term "impoverished" in regard to living systems that have undergone multiple, rapid extinctions, whether local or global. It isn't a sentimental, subjective term, it implies a clearly researched reduction in species numbers, which in term has a flow-on effect on the stability of an ecosystem. This is Ecology 101, and many, many examples have been documented. We are finding many biological treasures in undisturbed ecosystems, novel antibiotics being an example. It is in everyone's interest to preserve biodiversity whenever it is realistically possible.

[Seth]

This is not the case. Evolution is what it is, and we have already agreed that evolution is morally neutral. Therefore nothing humans do is better or worse than anything else that affects the environment.

Non sequitur.

Morality is, by definition, the differentiation of human actions into those that are good/right and those that are bad/wrong. (The question is, is it right to make such a division? )

So, since morality is a tightly proscribed human invention that only has relevance in terms of human actions, to claim that its lack of relevance in other areas implies its lack of relevance in the human case is nonsensical.

If only humans have morals, why do dogs demonstrate a sense of "fair play?"

Dogs have behaviour that we interpret that way.

And evidently we have behavior that dogs interpret that way. So what? It's still evidence of moral and ethical structure in dogs.

It almost certainly stems from an extremely similar mental process to that which governs our own morality. However, they do not, to my knowledge, articulate that process and attempt to generalise and objectivise it. Humans do - and that is what is called morality, not the behaviour itself.

Clearly you need to take a couple of primary and advanced classes in Dog, because if you understood Dog much at all, you'd know they can be quite sophisticated in their reasoning and articulation. It's just that they use their entire bodies to communicate rather than just their voice.

I think I related the anecdote about my ex-fiancee's German Shepherd, Lylah, but I'll relate it again as an example of extremely sophisticated reasoning in dogs.

One Saturday morning the ex and I put Lylah out of the bedroom so we could make whoopee without her sticking her cold nose in inappropriate places at inappropriate (to us) times. We idled about afterwards for a few hours, and then I got up and went to the kitchen to get a cold drink. I noticed a puddle of dog pee by the back door, and in the middle of the puddle, sitting neatly on it's end, was a roll of toilet paper, which had soaked up most of the pee. I was quite puzzled and thought the ex must have put the roll there but not finished cleaning up. When I asked her, she didn't know what I was talking about. Upon investigation we discovered that Lylah, wonderful girl that she is, had an accident because we ignored her rather obvious requests to be let out. We discovered, to our astonishment, that she had gone to the guest bathroom, opened the door (which was always kept closed), gone into the bathroom, extracted the unopened six-pack of toilet paper from beside the toilet, carefully opened the package, extracted a single roll of toilet paper and placed it neatly in the middle of the pee puddle...all on her own.

The degree of sophisticated reasoning and moral/ethical structure required for this to occur is very high and I found it quite literally jaw-droppingly advanced. I still do.

In order to complete those actions, she had to a) attempt to get us to let her out; b) wait as long as she could to avoid making a mess in the house; c) feel some degree of guilt or dismay over making a mess in the house; d) reason that toilet paper might fix the problem; e) remember where an available roll of toilet paper was; f) open the closed door; g) find and recognize a six-pack of toilet paper as having the necessary components to achieve her goal; h) open the package without ripping everything to shreds; i) carefully extract a single roll from the package, which implies she knew that one roll would do the trick and that six rolls still wrapped in plastic would not; and j) place the roll in the pee puddle to complete her spill response plan.

Nobody, and I mean nobody can tell me that this chain of events was unreasoning instinctual behavior. It was carefully thought out and executed and shows both guilt, remorse and self-actualization, from which I infer a moral and ethical structure that drove the effort.

So don't be so quick to assert that morality is strictly a human construct.

[Seth]

You can certainly define man's activities in terms of ecosystems as "natural" if you wish,

"If I wish?" Dude, it's a scientific fact.

as long as you understand that they are having a broader and vastly more rapid effect on the living world than anything short of cometary impact, even leaving putative climate change to one side.

Yes, but so what?

Then, any activities where government or private groups attempt to preserve ecosystems or endangered species are also "natural".

Indeed. But that's beside the point.

Seth, you took issue with my use of the term "impoverished" in regard to living systems that have undergone multiple, rapid extinctions, whether local or global. It isn't a sentimental, subjective term, it implies a clearly researched reduction in species numbers, which in term has a flow-on effect on the stability of an ecosystem. This is Ecology 101, and many, many examples have been documented. We are finding many biological treasures in undisturbed ecosystems, novel antibiotics being an example. It is in everyone's interest to preserve biodiversity whenever it is realistically possible.

The use of the word "impoverished" carries with it a negative connotation, which I suspect you consciously or unconsciously intended, that sets as a premise the claim that multiple, rapid extinctions create "impoverishment" of the biosphere. That's a value judgment, not a scientific observation. The scientific observation is, "living systems have undergone multiple, rapid extinctions." Whether that is desirable or undesirable is an anthropocentric value judgment. And it is not axiomatically true that it is in everyone's interest to preserve biodiversity in order to preserve "novel antibiotics," for example.

There is an argument to be made that "novel antibiotics" do not preserve human life, but rather that in the long run, they indirectly breed superbugs that have the capability of wiping out the entire species in short order. I'm quite sure you are aware of the current medical philosophy of avoiding using antibiotics as much as possible precisely to prevent such a thing from happening. While "novel antibiotics" may be "biological treasures" for humans, for a generation or three, they may turn out to be the death of us all just as easily.

Of course, objecting to that is itself an anthropocentric conceit that presumes that humans need or have a right to survive in the first place.

Some bioethicists have suggested that allowing large numbers of humans to die by denying them antibiotics is actually "better" for humanity in the long run than potentially creating one superbug that could wipe out the entire species. Allowing those susceptible to existing pathogens to die is a naturalistic way to deal with that potential, but again it's an anthropocentric conceit to assume that humans ought to survive.

And what of the fish, I ask? What fish, you query? Why, the fish in the rivers that are being transgendered and asexualized by birth control hormones coming from city sewers that are not eliminated by treatment plants. Would you support the banning of oral contraceptives because when excreted by women taking them when they pee, they pollute the water and harm fish?

[rainbow]

And what of the fish, I ask?

Thank you for the fish. So Long.

[pErvinalia]

You are a debating retard of the highest order. You said "Who the hell do you think you are to mess with evolution? That's what makes one an arsewit."

Indeed. And you still don't get the point, so yes, I'd have to concur with your analysis of your mental abilities.

You can't even fucking read properly. I'm analysing YOUR mental abilities.

Well, I know you like to think you are, but you're not.

My argument is that if Red Squirrels can't compete against Grey Squirrels, then Red Squirrels are just fucked and it's no big deal, and it doesn't matter a whit how the Grey Squirrels got there because it's all part of nature and evolution. You were the one bitching about imported "invasive" species.

You are the one claiming that messing with evolution makes one an arsewit, while in the same breath claiming that man messing with evolution is "natural" and therefore ok. Is it too much to ask that you could construct a fucking cogent argument at some point in your inglorious posting career on the rationalist forums?!?

You're not an arsewit for messing with evolution because evolution is a descriptor, not a predictor. You're an arsewit if you complain about how evolution is proceeding. Sorry if I was a bit unclear.

Who's "complaining"?!?

You.

Liar. Where am I complaining about evolution?!? Produce evidence or STFU.

This topic is about positive action to conserve threatened species, something which you have already argued is "natural" and part of evolution itself. Your "argument" is a fucking dogs breakfast.

Slurp it up, puppy.

Or dismiss it as the guff it is.

I'm starting to side with Hack. This place, at least in the science and atheism topics, would be better off without you.

And I believe that it would be a lesser forum in the event of either your or Hack's absence.

Yes, because we actually contribute reasoning, logic and evidence to the forum. You just provide logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

You see, I don't get all het up about such things, I just enjoy the give and take.

Yes, that's because you are a troll, and we are intellectually interested in some of these topics. You spoil it for others.

You need to take a pill or something.

You need to get a fucking dog up ya. Seriously. I will never chill while ever you are trolling and misrepresenting good people on this forum. You're a waste of fucking electrons.

We waste so much time addressing your simplistic and wrong shit, and then having to face the inevitable prospect that you are incapable of learning new concepts.

Hm...So you continue to hit yourself in the head with that hammer despite the intense pain it causes why, exactly?

Because letting you get away with your murder of logic and reasoning is allowing stupid to win. THAT's the problem in this world, too much stupid. As Confucius said "Stupid wins when good people do nothing to counter it".

Imagine what informative discussion we could have here without having to address your primary school level failings in knowledge and logic.

Says the primary failer of knowledge, reason and logic in the entire forum.

Except that no one sides with you, ever. You'd think that would tip you off to the reality of the world.

I'd like to imagine an informative discussion with you, but I'm not able to because you are historically incapable of engaging in reasoned debate if anyone even remotely threatens your dogmatic preconceptions and biases, in which event you immediately resort to ad hom as an ego-boosting evasion of informative discussion. You need to work on that...a lot.

It's impossible to have an informative discussion with you for the same reason it's largely impossible with a child. You lack logic and reasoning abilities. You aren't even on the same page as the rest of us. It's literally impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you.

[pErvinalia]

This is not the case. Evolution is what it is, and we have already agreed that evolution is morally neutral. Therefore nothing humans do is better or worse than anything else that affects the environment.

Non sequitur.

Morality is, by definition, the differentiation of human actions into those that are good/right and those that are bad/wrong. (The question is, is it right to make such a division? )

So, since morality is a tightly proscribed human invention that only has relevance in terms of human actions, to claim that its lack of relevance in other areas implies its lack of relevance in the human case is nonsensical.

If only humans have morals, why do dogs demonstrate a sense of "fair play?"

Dogs have behaviour that we interpret that way.

And evidently we have behavior that dogs interpret that way. So what? It's still evidence of moral and ethical structure in dogs.

Logic fail. It's nothing of the sort. It's anthropomorphism, which you allegedly disapprove of. Another dog's breakfast of an argument.

[pErvinalia]

You can certainly define man's activities in terms of ecosystems as "natural" if you wish,

"If I wish?" Dude, it's a scientific fact.

as long as you understand that they are having a broader and vastly more rapid effect on the living world than anything short of cometary impact, even leaving putative climate change to one side.

Yes, but so what?

Then, any activities where government or private groups attempt to preserve ecosystems or endangered species are also "natural".

Indeed. But that's beside the point.

It's most definitely not, as you claimed earlier that actions such as this are the actions of "arsewits".

Seth, you took issue with my use of the term "impoverished" in regard to living systems that have undergone multiple, rapid extinctions, whether local or global. It isn't a sentimental, subjective term, it implies a clearly researched reduction in species numbers, which in term has a flow-on effect on the stability of an ecosystem. This is Ecology 101, and many, many examples have been documented. We are finding many biological treasures in undisturbed ecosystems, novel antibiotics being an example. It is in everyone's interest to preserve biodiversity whenever it is realistically possible.

The use of the word "impoverished" carries with it a negative connotation, which I suspect you consciously or unconsciously intended, that sets as a premise the claim that multiple, rapid extinctions create "impoverishment" of the biosphere. That's a value judgment, not a scientific observation. The scientific observation is, "living systems have undergone multiple, rapid extinctions." Whether that is desirable or undesirable is an anthropocentric value judgment. And it is not axiomatically true that it is in everyone's interest to preserve biodiversity in order to preserve "novel antibiotics," for example.

It pains me greatly to say this, but I agree with Seth on this aspect, Jim. There is no subjective morality outside of what the subject values. Extinctions are neither objectively good nor bad. In terms of humanity, they are potentially very bad, and that's the point I would argue if I was you (Jim).

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So don't be so quick to assert that morality is strictly a human construct.

Once I see the text of dog writings on morality, I may change my mind.

[Seth]

So don't be so quick to assert that morality is strictly a human construct.

Once I see the text of dog writings on morality, I may change my mind.

Anthropocentric conceit.

One can express by example.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So don't be so quick to assert that morality is strictly a human construct.

Once I see the text of dog writings on morality, I may change my mind.

Anthropocentric conceit.

One can express by example.

Being anthropic, I have no fucking choice but to be anthropocentric! Call that conceited if you like but I'm kind of proud of being human and not a dog. Being able to lick my own genitals might be nice but eating my own sick is just too gross.

[Seth]

So don't be so quick to assert that morality is strictly a human construct.

Once I see the text of dog writings on morality, I may change my mind.

Anthropocentric conceit.

One can express by example.

Being anthropic, I have no fucking choice but to be anthropocentric! Call that conceited if you like but I'm kind of proud of being human and not a dog. Being able to lick my own genitals might be nice but eating my own sick is just too gross.

Oh come now, one of the great things about being human is one's presumptive ability to reason outside one's own narrow interests. I know you can do it. And if you were a dog, your own vomit wouldn't taste bad, just like your own shit doesn't stink. It's all a matter of perspective.