I abide by the laws of state, country, and polite society. I challenge you to find me ONCE doing things above stated, publically. I win.
You abide to a side that does not push itself to moral boundaries and you abide like a sheep, in such scenario.
You do not win, and gathering that you do from the simple idea that others will follow is unreasonable at best.
I don't see that.
Are you seriously disputing the integrity of the report?
If you're going to do that, then there's no point carrying on this discussion.
And now humans are being compared to dolphins!
"Well, dolphins do it, so so should I!" xD
No, there is a good comparison to be drawn, not a correlation or even a reason -- a comparison.
Mainly because I have been stalked by one. Any other questions, boy?
Generalize an entire group of people over one example? Fallacious, hm? That, and I wouldn't try and be so condescending when you're at this point of a debate -- it shows an inherent idiotic flavour in all other texts you then add.
Ability to be dishonest.
Right, because that's something to revere humans for.
You call these complex, but they're actually more to do with the flaws humans have and thus compensate for... rather than actually not having them in the first place.
Emotional hatred, not Pavlov.
Makes sense that they can feel something... granted, I have no real reasoning behind that so I'll give you that one.
I could argue that hatred is unreasonable, however.
Ironically..."Only the unloved hate, the unloved and unnatural."
- Charlie Chaplin
Of course, this isn't necessarily scientifically following or contributing to the actual point... worth pointing out.
Maybe ya don't like the taste of contraceptives or something irrational like that. *shrugs* it's none of my biz.
... Wait... what?
How does that even make it beneficial?
I mean, seeing wounded soldier, on the enemy side, and helping him.
... Isn't that compassion? That, and the battles animals would have are based on survival -- that kind of ideology does not work in that scenario.
Very true. But, don't I recall saying much of the same thing earlier on?
I don't know if you do -- I don't... can you get me the quote and the page its on please?
So there is no difference b/w human beings and animals.
You can't derive that conclusion (or sarcasm if that's the case) from merely that. And... well, not necessarily no. It's the complex social and financial ideology that we're given with -- plus the fact that we adapt the environment to us and not vice versa that makes us much more unique.
For one thing, I think evolution is a bit fishy, (pardon the pun)
Simply put, you're questioning the theory of evolution by natural selection... correct?
I said it's unnatural for the human race, and serves no purpose.
Serves no purpose? No... not any practical ones -- but unnatural? Pretty sure that isn't the case.
1) Ya ain't animals, no matter WHAT the Bad Touch says.
Er...
We are animals -- we are chordates beyond that. It's part of science, and saying we're not is.... stupid, to say the least
2) Ya have no legitimate reasons based on the survival of ya species.
And? As if people care about their species -- if they want kids they want it for themselves, nothing more.
Of course there can be exceptions, however that's the general idea people have.
3) Ya really shouldn't bandwagon. It's bad form in arguementation.
Bandwagon? What?
Only because I took initiative and.... *ahem* dealt with him.
You couldn't say it would've ended in intercourse -- it's hypothetical.
Yes... I know I brought up a hypothetical situation, but I didn't state it as an absolute
That -- and the same reason that it's based on one example still applies.
Good night, Nichodemus ^^
- H
