# Below average argument



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Hopefully a pin-worthy discussion started with a few PMs between Peacock and myself.

Key questions: What is the appropriate sized tank for any given fish?

I felt an old tilapia being kept in a 75 would live out its last years fine, Peacock found the choice of set-up disgusting. Seeing that we both have kept fish in pools and large tanks, it is interesting that we disagreed on the appropriateness here. 
Led to a better discussion of what is the right sized tank for a fish...

<begins with questions as to why arguing against the 75 was not a worthy cause>

ACESTRO:

I agree that the tilapia could be in a better home but your peacock bass could be in the Amazon, as could my cudas be in the Rio Orinoco or in Peru...

If you had tilapia (Oreochromis) you'd know they can live under ridiculous conditions (fresh to pure saltwater, etc., extreme crowding, low oxygen...). Not that they should be crowded but this animal isn't in any condition to interact with other aggressives anymore, she's "out to pasture" so to speak.

Last and most important point is this; telling someone that what they are doing is disgusting is the least likely way of bringing about change. That is something lost on most people. I'm proud to speak my mind too but subtlety will beat bluntness 10 times out of 10.

Peace Neal! 

PEACOCK:

i have kept tilapia. In a decent sized tank they will interact extremely socialy. The problem with your Concept is Most fish dont use all the Amazon river.. And if given a decent amount of room they can be just as healthy as fish in their natural habbitat.

you are obviously trying to make an excuse as to why we should not provide adequate room for our captive animals.. "Why give a horse a pasture when it can live in a stall.. I mean its not in the wild any more.. its in captivity.. It doesnt matter on the size of the cage or the care we give it, because its all the same!.. you cannot have a better situation in captivity, because the wild is allways better."

Your suggesting that there are 2 parts to idea.. 1= wild and 1 = captivity.. you are suggesting that there is no LEVEL of captivity.. that its all the same.. suggesting that a stall is = to a pasture..

please make this more clear.. 

ACESTRO:

Ah, debates. Ironically you're the one oversimplifying. It is I who said that certain species require different homes. It is not wild vs captive.

Your peacock bass are not as happy as they could be in the wild. They are not at the end of the spectrum of poor care, or at the point where this tilapia is (sure, it could be in a larger tank), but it is not in a situation like the wild BY FAR. If it were you would have more reproduction from these fish. That is an ultimate compliment to us as fish keepers and I hope your p-bass do get there.

Let me put it this way, you have a big stall, not a pasture. Most of us have a 'big stall'. Ponds can be pastures for most fish but it is unfortunate that they are reserved for large fish (for understandable reasons) because the 'pasture' effect is lost unless the pond is huge.

Hopefully you understand my point. Which kind of tilapia did you have?

PEACOCK:

I dont have any Peacockbass. DonH has them.

Fish happiness is not gauged on the size of the tank. ONly to a certain point.. Once the fish has plenty of room to swim and have tank mates to interact with (depending on the species).. i believe the maximum TANK happiness is achieved.

Do you not agree?

ACESTRO:

I'll stick to my guns and say natural behavior equates with fish happiness (which is a strange concept altogether). It is quite rare that a fish has the room that it would naturally use in the wild. I also think that interaction with other species is over-rated, interaction with one's own species is even over-rated except for schooling fishes and during spawning.

I think we do the best with what we can and there's a very fine line for what hobbyists think is appropriate. The indicators can be relatively clear, however. Survival is one, normal (unstunted) growth is the next, being disease free could be one, normal behavior would be on a higher level as would spawning behavior.

I've kept fish that haven't spawned and it seems to me that not spawning is quite clearly a non-natural behavior (otherwise the species would be extinct). So I try to do my best to either make them as "tank happy" as possible or improve the room/conditions.

I do agree that tank size can have its limitations but there are very few people that have really seen natural behavior in their fishes. Surely you saw things change from a tank to a pool. 

A little bit of acrimony but nothing a good debate should lack.

Let me know if you don't like being red Peacock :laugh: , just wanted to break up the monotony of text so members can get something out of this.

Anyone else, feel free to give opinions. We share this hobby and this forum and how best to take care of fish should be the firstmost of topics.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

"interaction with one's own species is even over-rated"

Over rated? How? Most fish are shoaling fish.. or have alot of interaction with other species in the wild.. IE: Bass and Perch... Sunfish and crappie.

i have experiences many different levels of activity advancedments keeping fish with each other.. Not to mention much healthier fish.. EI: color, growth, attitude..

Peacockbass are not big schooling fish.. but they shoal.. they interact with each other quite often.. If your idea is concrete then a cichla will be perfectly fine housed alone.

Incorrect.. You will notice a much healthier cichla if kept in groups or with other fish like oscars or severums.. I have found this true with every species of cichlid except FH. Even salvini's do better kept with other fish such as silver dollars ect ect..

Even blue Rams.. a Ram pair kept with a school of tetras is a much healthier pair then 2 kept alone.

i will post more up soon.. but i need to start cooking some food.


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

thats a great debate
but that blue and red are giving me headaches with the dark skin


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

White skin = the best.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

You're just picking one thing out of all the things I said. And you're doing it out of context.

To defend it, I'd say that not all fish need other fish to be happy, largemouth bass being an example that I think you incorrectly used. You don't fish out a "school" of largemouth bass. If adults are found together they are simply sharing a commonly desired habitat.

Let's get back on topic (because I acknowledge there are intraspecific and interspecific interactions in most fishes life)....

The reason for saying it's over-rated was related to the one example this started with, the tilapia. She is likely post-reproductive and has clouded eyes, I don't think she's really in the mood for too much interaction (don't take Granny to the club). The best conditions for her may be what she has right now.

The point we were both getting at (I thought) was how to find the happy medium. It's a case by case basis but you can find common variables. A large aggressive fish can be active and healthy in a large tank but if you put another one in there may be mayhem because there isn't enough room (the original topic). So you could make a pool, etc. with enough room. BUT is the large tank with a healthy fish okay? What would tell you it's not okay (besides your own opinion, give me an objective thing to examine). Maybe reduced color? Maybe stunting? Maybe going off food? Maybe being egg-bound? Maybe getting sick from eating hot dogs?







But seriously, I need something concrete and on topic...


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Death in # said:


> thats a great debate
> but that blue and red are giving me headaches with the dark skin
> [snapback]806863[/snapback]​


What colors work for the dark skin, I'll see what works best for both...


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> You're just picking one thing out of all the things I said. And you're doing it out of context.
> 
> To defend it, I'd say that not all fish need other fish to be happy, largemouth bass being an example that I think you incorrectly used. You don't fish out a "school" of largemouth bass. If adults are found together they are simply sharing a commonly desired habitat.
> 
> ...


Incorrect. Large mouth bass school in the wild.. Up untill around 15+ inches. even then, they will follow around other schools. Either for Prey or for company. I see this quite often when snorkling. Bass Also "rest" with each other either under a fallen tree, or around some lillies. Its very rare you will come across one just out swiming by its self.. although i have seen this a few times.

What would tell me its not ok - Lack of activity.. Lack of color.. lack of appetite. Lack of growth.. ect ect.. Disease... ect ect.

A large tank full of fish is a much healthier "habitat" then a smaller tank with a single fish.


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

acestro said:


> What colors work for the dark skin, I'll see what works best for both...
> [snapback]806892[/snapback]​










really only white
but i changed the skin to read the text its no biggie


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I'd have to say "Incorrect" is too gross of a statement.

I've snorkeled a bit myself and seen exactly what this site describes as behavior

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/w...emouth_bass.pdf

I've also seen reports of adult bass rounding up prey so I'm going to leave the jury out on that and hopefully we can *move on*. Starting to think this isn't so pin worthy.









But PLEASE, quit getting sidetracked. And STOP putting words in my mouth, I DO NOT think that fish should be kept by themselves AS A RULE. I DO think that fish interact. I WONT let you polarize and dumb down this really important discussion...



> What would tell me its not ok - Lack of activity.. Lack of color.. lack of appetite. Lack of growth.. ect ect.. Disease... ect ect.


So the owners description of the tilapia eating and "playing" with the artificial plants and surviving without disease even though it's old are not enough to keep you from calling it a disgusting set-up? Seems like the tilapia is doing okay from your objective terms.

No one can argue that a 300 gallon tank with fish that wont harm the tilapia would be best. That's not the question here.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Death in # said:


> :laugh: really only white
> but i changed the skin to read the text its no biggie
> [snapback]806898[/snapback]​


Thanks!


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

So, because the fish is not just sitting in one spot all day, its healthy? So because it pushes around a little plastic plant (onlything in the tank) around in its little 4 foot area, its Fine?

Deciding whether or not a fish is healthy is not a science.. its an art. I can twiddle my thumbs in a closet.. Im staying active... does this mean im not depressed?

Are you suggesting that because the fish is old. Its appropriate to keep it in a small tank? How do you know this fish is not active with other fish? you dont.. just like i dont know if it will just sit in one spot of a 3000gallon tank. but IME it will not just sit on the bottum.. If its playing with a plastic plant.. then chances are it has not lost all of its brain.. like you seem to think it has...

Animal cruelty is an opinoin.. and IMO.. keeping a social 15+ inch fish alone in a bare 75 gallon tank is cruel.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

also. if the eyes are cloudy, then the fish has some sort of problem.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Well this is degrading but I'll continue.

Just like I don't know things, you don't know if the eyes are clouded from disease or age.

You bring up a good point of not knowing!

All I pointed out is that the fish should be fine by the standards I got you to list.

It isn't a bare tank if there are plants to be pushed around.

Again, sure, a 3000 gal tank would be great.

And, again, words put in my mouth, I do not think it has lost all of its brain. Any more of that and I'll just give up here. Lost its brain or los its activity level are two different things.

Instead of a good thread on appropriate fish care this went off track and then to the single case and couldn't even resolve the single case. Oh well, thought I had a good idea.

Let's see, where else were you off.... animal cruelty as an opinion... Sort of, but I challenge you to convince any authorities of that in this case. Good luck finding any tilapia that age and size being cared for that well.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Here is one.

If the fish can be healthy in a small tank, then what are the advantages of keeping it in a big tank?

your idea is coming off to me as - "tank size does not matter".. even if the tank is extremely small..

I would like to give that fish a shot.. give it to me for 2 months and see how much differently it would act in a pond full of other fish.. I would be willing to bet my life, the activity level and coloration would grow.. Not to mention the appetite.

You cannot tell me its happy if you have not seen the fish in a large sized tank with other fish.. Just like i cannot scientificaly say its not happy.

We would need to run 2 tests..

keep the fish in that tank for a month.. then move it into my pond for a month..

i bet you anything.. the difference will be derastic.

You dont know if that fishes color is "good" or not.. just like you dont know if the activity level its showing is "good" or not.. We need to give it 2 difference scenarios to see which it "performs" better in..

do you agree?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I agree but also know that older fish do not show color as well no matter what.

Also, as footclanskates has pointed out, this isn't the most sociable cichlid in the world. It could, in fact, end up dead because of other fish in your pool.

Ay Carumba, my idea of tanksize doesn't matter? Are you reading my posts? It does, but for an old timer like this there is a minimum tank size and it's being met in my opinion. For more info on her behavior I hope we hear from the actual owner.

My original point is your new point: You Don't Know. You made a judgement about this tilapia and her two keepers and I don't think it was fair. Hopefully there can be an eventual understanding here.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> I agree but also know that older fish do not show color as well no matter what.
> 
> Also, as footclanskates has pointed out, this isn't the most sociable cichlid in the world. It could, in fact, end up dead because of other fish in your pool.
> Ay Carumba, my idea of tanksize doesn't matter? Are you reading my posts? It does, but for an old timer like this there is a minimum tank size and it's being met in my opinion. For more info on her behavior I hope we hear from the actual owner.
> ...


Dead because of fish in my pond? Incorrect. None of the fish i had in the pond were aggressive.. Fish tend to me less aggressive when kept in large groups in a big tank.

I have a 16-17 year old Jag.. she has superb color, is extremely active, and has a raging appetite. I dont beleive Age is a huge factor here.. unless of course the fish is 20+..

Those Cichla temensis I had were over 8 years old.. And i can garantee in another 8 years they will still be just as fast.

My judgment was based on my Experience and Knowledge with in this hobby.

That fish Would be a much "happier" fish if kept in my pond with 10 other larger cichlids then kept alone in that small 75 gallon tank.

Do you agree?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Oh, i would also like to throw in. I once kept my Female jag (and many other fish) in a 75.. there was indeed a derastic difference.


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

boys boys... why did u take this off of pm lol

first of all i think this is going around in circles.

and to achieve natural behavior u would have to give them natural sourroundings so lets say a river like the amazon... i mean anything in captivity wont be like exactly the same as in the wild.

also ive seen people keep huge rhoms in 55's and 75's

his talapia is old and he put it in the retirement home... just like your grandparents they dont move that fast or far correct. so they dont want tons of stairs and huge houses which takes them an hour just to get from one side to the other. i mean his fish is big and the tank is also big i mean sure neal of course they could use a bigger tank but whose fish's couldnt besides the membet with the 1100 gal tank...

anyway i kinda agree with both of you but i think acestros fish is fine but maybe a pic of the fish and tank its in would be approptiate

nevermind this cam off of chiefkyles thread

and it looks fine it looks like his fish is fine and i dont think its appaling for him to be in there.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Not my fish, just defending a fellow member here



> i mean his fish is big and the tank is also big i mean sure neal of course they could use a bigger tank but whose fish's couldnt besides the membet with the 1100 gal tank...


Says it all. We don't all have ponds and from what footclanskates told me this fish has been through a LOT and is doing much better now.

I can't argue that fish don't like larger surroundings, this has gone in the last circle, the point is you passed judgement and chose a very negative and ineffective way to make your point. I think I've defended enough, too bad this didn't become the thread I hoped it would.

You're right slckr69, should've stayed in PM


----------



## syd (Nov 6, 2004)

there was alot of stuff here to read im sure it was real exciting but if its about that big ass ugly grey/brown fish yea i would say drop that m**********r in a 125 like its hot not a 75 but who cares rofl


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Yeah, not sure why I cared so much







Just seemed too high and mighty how Peacock reacted.

here's the original thread...

http://www.piranha-fury.com/pfury/index.php?showtopic=66302

for reference.


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

hey its alright if u didnt make a thread i would have never been the one that was right in a thread acestro was posting in


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

slckr69 said:


> hey its alright if u didnt make a thread i would have never been the one that was right in a thread acestro was posting in
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ya got me there.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> Not my fish, just defending a fellow member here
> Says it all. We don't all have ponds and from what footclanskates told me this fish has been through a LOT and is doing much better now.
> I can't argue that fish don't like larger surroundings, this has gone in the last circle, the point is you passed judgement and chose a very negative and ineffective way to make your point. I think I've defended enough, too bad this didn't become the thread I hoped it would.
> 
> ...


I think i proved my point and you proved yours.. enough said..

Fish are more "happier" in a larger tank.. this is a fact.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

slckr69 said:


> hey its alright if u didnt make a thread i would have never been the one that was right in a thread acestro was posting in
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I disagree.. infact i dont think your correct at all.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Ace, answere this for me

That fish Would be a much "happier" fish if kept in my pond with 10 other larger cichlids then kept alone in that small 75 gallon tank.

Do you agree?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Peacock said:


> I think i proved my point and you proved yours.. enough said..
> 
> Fish are more "happier" in a larger tank.. this is a fact.
> [snapback]807090[/snapback]​


Hmmmm, how do you say.... DUH

Not really an epiphany. Kinda like saying 'water is wet'


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

acestro said:


> Hmmmm, how do you say.... DUH
> Not really an epiphany. Kinda like saying 'water is wet'
> [snapback]807100[/snapback]​










water is wet
that explains alot of questions i had


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Peacock said:


> Ace, answere this for me
> That fish Would be a much "happier" fish if kept in my pond with 10 other larger cichlids then kept alone in that small 75 gallon tank.
> 
> Do you agree?
> [snapback]807094[/snapback]​


Changing the angle again.

I'm afraid this has gone to the toilet. Tell me this, would your peacock bass have been more happy in your pool or the Amazon.

wait, wait, I have another

Would the tilapia be more happy in a toilet or an airplane....

I'm afraid all this has made me stupider, thanks a bunch.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

You obviously act like a child when the argument is not headed in the direction you want it to.

there was no need for bashing.. but you obviously cannot help your self..

later Dick.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Not bashing. I tried and tried to keep the thread informational. You tried to railroad me and I'm simply not that stupid.

You're right, it didn't go where I wanted it to. Who would get anything out of reading about bigger tanks and more tankmates being better? You tried to trick me into the other side of that argument. Aint gonna happen youngblood....


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

There is plenty of info posted here about tank size and fish..

It is fact tank size contributes to the "happiness" of a fish.. So does keeping certain fish in groups.

Do you disagree? is this not what you wanted out of this convo?

my question is, what the f*ck did you want posted here?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I agree it had a good start, that's why I cordially requested we make the PMs a thread. I had no idea that you would pick one sentence and go to town. And then try to corner me into saying I support cramming fish into the smallest tanks possible.

It just disintegrated, that happens, no big.

By the way, what happened to "cichla for life"? You gave them up?


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

hey peacock how am i not right that this should have stayed in pm... basically the whole thread is you and ace.. so boom







i was right next time read what was said....


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> I agree it had a good start, that's why I cordially requested we make the PMs a thread. I had no idea that you would pick one sentence and go to town. And then try to corner me into saying I support cramming fish into the smallest tanks possible.
> 
> It just disintegrated, that happens, no big.
> 
> ...


unlike some.. i put my future ahead of "current Materials and hobbys".. i dont have time for fish anymore.























if i cant properly house a fish.. i wont keep the fish.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

unlike some?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> unlike some?
> [snapback]807140[/snapback]​


nah.. not some..

more like ALOT... (you are not included..)


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I'm kind of hung up on the term "happy". Does the fish have a smile on its face? Did it tell you so? Or are these just suppositions? Personally, I think the fish is "happier" in the wild. Then again, we will never know.









Sorry, continue on. I wait to read the rest of the direction of this post.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Good question..

what does "happy" mean? well the definition i used for the word in this context is=

Good growth, Good color, High activity level, Free of disease, Large appetite, Not being timid, ect ect..

so basicaly Healthy = Happy in this case.


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

Peacock said:


> unlike some.. i put my future ahead of "current Materials and hobbys".. i dont have time for fish anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you don't have time for fish but you have HOURS of time to be on the net..okay







makes plenty of sence there...


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

thePACK said:


> you don't have time for fish but you have HOURS of time to be on the net..okay
> 
> 
> 
> ...


im reading and doing home work. have any idea how much time and money it takes to keep a 2000g, 180g, 380g, 125g, 100g, 75g going at once?

There isnt much time for a job and college..

sit down.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I have officially run out of brain cells, I will now flush a tilapia down an airplane toilet.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

i miss my cichla


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Last brain cell is telling me to link this....

http://www.piranha-fury.com/pfury/index.php?showtopic=66535


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Peacock Posted Today, 03:45 AM
> Good question..
> 
> what does "happy" mean? well the definition i used for the word in this context is=
> ...


That wasn't my question. You used a humanistic application for your determination and definition. Oh well, can't say I'm not a bit disappointed as I always read where one hobbyist says to another, "my fish are happy". No one has yet explained to me how a fish knows "its happy" or is it because you are happy and just transposing it on the fish that it might be feeling that. Of course that opens another can of worms and into the PETA realm.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

hastatus said:


> That wasn't my question. You used a humanistic application for your determination and definition. Oh well, can't say I'm not a bit disappointed as I always read where one hobbyist says to another, "my fish are happy". No one has yet explained to me how a fish knows "its happy" or is it because you are happy and just transposing it on the fish that it might be feeling that. Of course that opens another can of worms and into the PETA realm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You asked me what "happiness" ment.. and i told you.. I used the word Happiness in my recent posts to suggest healthiness.

Your question was flawed.. you should have asked if it was Possible for fish to feel the emotion of happiness... but you did not.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Sorry to break it to you but fish do not feel anything. They are animals. They cannot feel anything, including happiness. They do not know emotion. The fish's knowledge ends at perception, where as humans can interpret what we percieve. This is why we can feel happiness and fish cannot.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

I disagree..

you basicaly suggesting fish dont feel anything but hunger, the need for breeding, and to stay alive...


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

thats exactly what i'm saying. are you suggesting fish have the capacity to be happy, or feel other emotions, ie; love?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

IM suggesting fish have capacity to feel certain LEVELs of Anger, frustration, happiness.

please keep in mind i used the phrase- CERTAIN LEVELS.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Even keeping "certain levels" in mind, they still cannot be angry, frustrated, or happy. Fish can only do what they need to do to survive. Suggesting that they can have "certain levels" of anger and happiness is saying that they can "kind of" be humans, since humans are the only ones who can feel these emotions.


----------



## syd (Nov 6, 2004)

you can not group all animals together. clearly as you move up in intelligence levels, there is a greater capacity for feelings and can be seen in actions and even expressions.

but yes all animals feel pain and one day we might see if plants and fungus and all that other sh*t may also


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

i do not doubt that an animal can feel pain, if i did i'd be an idiot. And i do not doubt that some animals are smarter than others. But to say an animal can be happy or angry is completely illogical.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> i do not doubt that an animal can feel pain, if i did i'd be an idiot. And i do not doubt that some animals are smarter than others. But to say an animal can be happy or angry is completely illogical.
> [snapback]807235[/snapback]​


you obviously have no idea what you are talking about..

Your suggesting Humans are the ONLY animals who possess the mental capacity to feel emotions such as anger, frustration, sadness, happiness, ect ect

You need to do some more research.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Firstly, human's and animals are different. If you can't get past this point I give up.

Second, yes humans can only feel the afformentioned emotions. Let's take anger. If animals can infact be angry you are saying animals have intellectual capicity, meaning they can see something and not only know that it is there, but know that what they see makes them angry. A FISH DOES NOT KNOW ANGER. A piranha will not be angry at you if you do not feed it or do not do a water change. Why? Because a piranha does not know what a water change is, or what feeding time is. All it knows is that the water level decreases, increases and that is it. Same with feeding time. all it knows is that food is something new enters its environment. It has been trained by previous trial and error to either accept that something as food.

Stop letting your passions cloud your intellect, its making you seem ignorant.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Our mental capacity does not define us as ****'s.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Peacock said:


> Our mental capacity does not define us as ****'s.
> [snapback]807268[/snapback]​


what does?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> Firstly, human's and animals are different. If you can't get past this point I give up..
> [snapback]807265[/snapback]​


LOL.. your a dipshit dude.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> what does?
> [snapback]807269[/snapback]​


LoL.. omg.

scientific classification.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

I know it's easier to insult then to accept.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> I know it's easier to insult then to accept.
> [snapback]807275[/snapback]​


Your a waist of my time if you believe Humans are not animals because we have a more advanced brain..


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Peacock said:


> LoL.. omg.
> 
> scientific classification.
> [snapback]807273[/snapback]​


 Ah yes, hiding behind science, because everyone knows science is the only thing that is absolute.

Find a definition and let me continue to prove you wrong


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Peacock said:


> Your a waist of my time if you believe Humans are not animals because we have a more advanced brain..
> [snapback]807278[/snapback]​


 an animal and human are different, even science knows that.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

I'll bet you love your pets and your pets love you back too, right


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> an animal and human are different, even science knows that.
> [snapback]807281[/snapback]​


Oh? so what are we? Dont use the word HUMAN either.. because thats a common name for **** sapiens sapiens..

If science knows we are not an animal.. why are we classified in scientific classification? Why do we have a genus and species name? Why does science believe we evolved from other Homos?

This is going to be fun.. lets see what you got jackass.

DO NOT pull religion into this..

are we a plant?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Peacock, play nice.

Do you really think saying things like



> you obviously have no idea what you are talking about..


will ever help you make your point?

I'd close this but I think you're about to get some more of what's coming to you...
so I'll kick back and wait.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Alright, where to begin.
"If science knows we are not an animal.. why are we classified in scientific classification?"
Science classify's everything. Human's, animals, plants, bacteria, etc. According to scientific classification, we are at the top if i'm not mistaken? maybe its just a coincidence that what i'm saying is we are above animals.

"Why do we have a genus and species name?"
Man did evolve. Even if everything else evolves, we will still be at the top of scientific classification. why? because we're there now, we can't un-evolve.

"Why does science believe we evolved from other Homos?"
This is true also. i beleive i just adressed it.

Now, a few questions of my own. Since we both agree man evolved, what was the original organism man evolved from? Where did that organism come from?

I've still yet to mention religion.


----------



## Andy1234 (Apr 23, 2004)

since we elvovled from other apes/ primates then what would they be considered? or did we jsut evolve into our own kind instead of being animals, we are to animals mammals to be more exact and to be even more exact part of the primate family, and interns leaves to be animals again


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Let me quote myself from way back in the beginning;



> fish happiness (which is a strange concept altogether).


That solves that. No happiness as _we _know it.

Peacock, do not pretend to be a scientist, it is insulting to real scientists. Do not invoke science as your ally, it is not. It is your ego and need to be right that is the only thing at issue here. Also at issue is your choice to be rude instead of making convincing arguments. You are the weakest link, goodbye.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

There is no TOP to scientific classification.. Scientific classification is how scientists categorize and name plants and animals. there are only 2 categories... plants and ANIMALS... there is nothing else.. therefore we are an ANIMAL..

What are we if we are not an animal? A plant?

Your suggesting we are on TOP of the classification.. which is completely rediculous because there is no such thing as being on top in the classification proccess.. you are talking about the FOOD chain... LOOOLLL....

Yes, we are on top of the food chain.. but this does NOT mean we are something other then animals..

i have no idea where you are coming from....



> what was the original organism man evolved from? Where did that organism come from?


Evolutionalists claim we evolved from a single cell.. I am unsure as to where it came from. we share something like 99.8% of the our DNA with practicaly everything alive on earth.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> Let me quote myself from way back in the beginning;
> That solves that. No happiness as _we _know it.
> 
> Peacock, do not pretend to be a scientist, it is insulting to real scientists. Do not invoke science as your ally, it is not. It is your ego and need to be right that is the only thing at issue here. Also at issue is your choice to be rude instead of making convincing arguments. You are the weakest link, goodbye.
> ...


How am i pretending to be a scientist and give them a bad name?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Please, no one take this information as scientific fact. I do not have 2 hours to explain why, just trust me.









It scares me when people throw out random, made up facts and cite them as true, PLEASE STOP.



Peacock said:


> There is no TOP to scientific classification.. Scientific classification is how scientists categorize and name plants and animals. there are only 2 categories... plants and ANIMALS... there is nothing else.. therefore we are an ANIMAL..
> 
> What are we if we are not an animal? A plant?
> Your suggesting we are on TOP of the classification.. which is completely rediculous because there is no such thing as being on top in the classification proccess.. you are talking about the FOOD chain... LOOOLLL....
> ...


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

IF you see falsities in my posts please bring the information out.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

> I do not have 2 hours to explain why, just trust me.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

shits.. its 98% with chimps.. not all living organisms.. (this is what i get for listening to a complete jack-ass for a science teacher)

my bad.

but isnt it 97% with yeast?


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

i dont have all night, so:

where did the single cell come from? where did earth come from? it had to come from one ultimate source. Call the source what you want, i don't really mind.

your saying we're either animal or plant according to science. also according to science the earth was once square. also according to science, relataive motion once did not exist, until einstein prooved this wrong. My point? science is not always right, it's knowledge changes as technology allows it to do so.

ultimately, humans and animals are different. show me whatever statististics or facts you want, but by pure reason you can surely see the difference. if you refuse to do so then i pity you. why? becuase you live with false knowledge that you treat as absolute knowledge.

tomorrow when i have time i'll set up a thread explaining why we're different from animals. it will be long becuase it seems i haven;t gotten anywhere with peacock in the last little while.

until then, enjoy your opinions, because i WILL proove them wrong.

its sad that a 17 year old has more knowledge than his presumable elder.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

> but isnt it 97% with yeast?


----------



## Andy1234 (Apr 23, 2004)

cant we all just get along?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I'm just crying over here


----------



## Kory (Jun 5, 2003)

this thread is cracking me up


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> [snapback]807325[/snapback]​


god damnet.. i really hate HS bio teachers.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Well I used to teach college...ready?

Are we separate from animals?

Yes. For starters we are aware of our existence, our mortality, ethics, religion, etc. (take your pick or pick all of those things)

Do fish experience happiness?

No. Not the way we think of it.

What would be "happiness" for a fish?

Since there is no such thing as we know it, a replacement term could be "well-being" as in fish "well-being" is shown by their health and their display of the full range of behaviors and spawning.

Are we at the top of the evolutionary tree?

No. It is more like a bush with many ends to many branches. But we do have a completely different level of consciousness and concept of metaphysical things (religion amongst other things)

Why is it insignificant how many genes or chromosomes we share with other animals?

Because the only thing that's important are the genes that actually CODE for anything. Plenty of DNA does nothing, and chromosomes are different sizes in different animals. Be veeeery careful using science, even scientists trip over important details.

Any more questions?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Peacock, you're writing and not reading.....


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Maybe someone didn't pay attention in class?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

> because i WILL proove them wrong.


Prove me wrong? How... You have not even touched me yet buddy.



> where did the single cell come from? where did earth come from? it had to come from one ultimate source. Call the source what you want, i don't really mind.


are you suggesting God created the single cell? because its unthinkable to think that it has allways been around?



> your saying we're either animal or plant according to science. also according to science the earth was once square. also according to science, relataive motion once did not exist, until einstein prooved this wrong. My point? science is not always right, it's knowledge changes as technology allows it to do so.


So your suggesting that Scientific classification is Flawed because people 300+ years ago said the earth was flat?

Please understand there is no guessing with Scientific flassification.. It is a "science" not an Artform...



> ultimately, humans and animals are different. show me whatever statististics or facts you want, but by pure reason you can surely see the difference. if you refuse to do so then i pity you. why? becuase you live with false knowledge that you treat as absolute knowledge.


The question is.. Are YOU going off any Facts besides your OWN PERSON OPINION.. i have fact on my side... stating that HUMANS are animals.. You do not.



> tomorrow when i have time i'll set up a thread explaining why we're different from animals. it will be long becuase it seems i haven;t gotten anywhere with peacock in the last little while.


OK, we can do this tomorrow too.. be ready.



> its sad that a 17 year old has more knowledge than his presumable elder.


i disagree.. infact i believe its rather amazing.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

i like how you choose only to quote certain parts of what i say, and how you avoid the original question.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> i like how you choose only to quote certain parts of what i say, and how you avoid the original question.
> [snapback]807362[/snapback]​


He's so good at it. I think you should consider law school Peacock.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

> Are we separate from animals?
> 
> Yes. For starters we are aware of our existence, our mortality, ethics, religion, etc. (take your pick or pick all of those things)


You are saying that because we make up realigion and have morals we are different all around from animals?

THE ONLY thing that sets us apart from other animals is our advanced brains. But this does not make us any more then an animal. Chimps can learn sign language... they can comunicate with humans.. they can feel pain.. sadness.. happiness... anger... fear... ect ect. Does this mean they are different aswell?

ALL animals have different levels of "advanced brains".

We are to dogs, as a cat is to a fly.. A dog has a much more advanced brain then a Neon tetra.. just as an African Grey parrot has a much more advanced brain then a mouse.. Same as an elephant has a much more advanced brain then a cat.

There are different levels to this.. It is true though.. we do have the most advanced.. but this does NOT Catagorize us differently then animals..



> Do fish experience happiness?
> 
> No. Not the way we think of it.


I agree.



> What would be "happiness" for a fish?
> 
> Since there is no such thing as we know it, a replacement term could be "well-being" as in fish "well-being" is shown by their health and their display of the full range of behaviors and spawning.


I agree again.



> Are we at the top of the evolutionary tree?
> 
> No. It is more like a bush with many ends to many branches. But we do have a completely different level of consciousness and concept of metaphysical things (religion amongst other things)


To my knowledge the SC "BUSH" does not classify us by levels of brain power. I could be wrong.. but i doubt it.



> Why is it insignificant how many genes or chromosomes we share with other animals?
> 
> Because the only thing that's important are the genes that actually CODE for anything. Plenty of DNA does nothing, and chromosomes are different sizes in different animals. Be veeeery careful using science, even scientists trip over important details.


this is true.. also known as "trash DNA".

But.. the question is.. Why do we have trash DNA?


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

let me leave you with something to ponder, or read and get confused. this is addressed to those who thing man and animal are the same.

unless you free your minds by becoming critticaly concious of what you hold unconciously and uncritically, you are liable to become victims of your own unconciously held beleifs, or of the beleifs of other, which may rule you all the more tyranically because what you hold as knowledge operates in the dark. question everything. question science. question the capabilities of man. the greatest thinkers and the greatest inventers have done so. is it any coincidence that we now see them as briliant? those who refuse to use reason have come and gone without recognition because what they stated was not worth recognizing.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> He's so good at it. I think you should consider law school Peacock.:laugh:
> [snapback]807364[/snapback]​


it was an optinion.. but Real estate + investing = more money.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

"You are saying that because we make up realigion and have morals we are different all around from animals? "

we don not make up religion. there's something called revelation

and your right, Chimps can learn sign language, but not invent it


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> "You are saying that because we make up realigion and have morals we are different all around from animals? "
> 
> we don not make up religion. there's something called revelation
> 
> ...


we dont? explain to me why there are 100000s of different religions who have nothing to do with each other..

Bah. lets not get this into a religions/bullshit convo..

Chimps invet tools and methods for certain activities.. so do a couple species of birds...


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

peacock, your the perfect skeptic


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Yes i am. I question everything.. it keeps me safe.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

in that case, are you alive?
are you siiting in a chair?


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

nevermind, this is getting way off topic. we strayed from the fish/happiness thing about 20 posts ago


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

That depends.. I am asuming im alive because thats the word given for the concept of being "alive". Having Life. My question is..

What is alive? what is life? and is there another form of it.. Is there a better form.. IE: being more free.. Is there something more pure then being alive on this earth???

bah.. i hate this.. it keeps me up all night.

I dont believe in God so its hard for me to come up with answeres..

Yes im sitting in what we humans call a chair..


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> let me leave you with something to ponder, or read and get confused. this is addressed to those who thing man and animal are the same.
> 
> unless you free your minds by becoming critticaly concious of what you hold unconciously and uncritically, you are liable to become victims of your own unconciously held beleifs, or of the beleifs of other, which may rule you all the more tyranically because what you hold as knowledge operates in the dark. question everything. question science. question the capabilities of man. the greatest thinkers and the greatest inventers have done so. is it any coincidence that we now see them as briliant? those who refuse to use reason have come and gone without recognition because what they stated was not worth recognizing.
> [snapback]807376[/snapback]​


Nice. Question everything is the way to go. As a scientist I'll be the first to say that science does not explain everything.

Peacock: don't ask why, there can be junk DNA without a reason, everything MOST CERTAINLY does not need a reason or purpose. By the way, evolution is very far from perfect.



> I could be wrong.. but i doubt it.


Says it all. Very sad. Such an attitude will forever be an impediment to enlightenment.

Good night all.


----------



## lemmywinks (Jan 25, 2004)

wtf is the point of this thread anymore? it's come from will a tilapia be happy in a 75g to what is the f*cking meaning of life


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

But then 1 could ask- What is more Pure? What is PURE?

How can it be more Pure? what would make it more Pure??

One thing people must realize is- we name "stuff" words to help comunicate with others.. If everyone had their own opinion on what "something" was called then we would not have a working lanquage.

bah.. this is getting way off topic..

Humans are animals.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Peacock said:


> I dont believe in God so its hard for me to come up with answeres..
> 
> [snapback]807393[/snapback]​


so deductively to come up with answers, you have to beleive in god. and if you did beleive, this whole argument about man and fish would have been solved already


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Peacock said:


> Humans are animals.
> [snapback]807399[/snapback]​


rational animals, if you insist we are animals- we have in the addition to the 5 senses intellect and will.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

tired, i'll address why man is different from animals in a thread tomorrow


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

> Says it all. Very sad. Such an attitude will forever be an impediment to enlightenment.


i disagree. Because im extremely confident in my knowledge/opinion, i cannot be enlightened?

If proven wrong, i do not just ignore it.. i realize it and work with the correct information.. you out of all people should know this by now.

and yes.. im well aware that not everything has an answere.. this is why i am an insomniac.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

> so deductively to come up with answers, you have to beleive in god.


Religion has "answers" to certain questions science does not.. visa versa.



> and if you did beleive, this whole argument about man and fish would have been solved already


yes. because i would not question my faith that states Humans are different then animals.. we are replicas of God.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> rational animals, if you insist we are animals- we have in the addition to the 5 senses intellect and will.
> [snapback]807403[/snapback]​


You have reconized Humans as animals..


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

why wont you let me sleep?!

you can not be a replica of god. this is why: according to science the part cannot be greater than the whole. my tooth cannot be bigger than my body, because my tooth is part of my body. we cannot be replicas of god, becuase god is greater than us.

if you did question your faith it would not be faith. faith is knowledge of what has been answered. looks like i'm going to have a definitions part to my thread


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

although we have gotten nowhere, i still thank you for the argument. its going to give me a chance to better my rhetoric skills.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> why wont you let me sleep?!
> 
> you can not be a replica of god. this is why: according to science the part cannot be greater than the whole. my tooth cannot be bigger than my body, because my tooth is part of my body. we cannot be replicas of god, becuase god is greater than us.
> 
> ...


sorry.. i should have used the word Image. not replica.

Thats why i said it.. because i would not question my faith.. Faith is not knowledge of what has been answered... Faith is the theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and trusting acceptance of Gods will.

i do not have faith in God.. i have Faith in my self.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> although we have gotten nowhere, i still thank you for the argument. its going to give me a chance to better my rhetoric skills.
> [snapback]807418[/snapback]​


something i need to work on..

anyways. nice work dude. see you tomorrow if you are up to it.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

faith in yourself implies you are god. you cannot be god, remember, the part cant be greater than the whole?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> faith in yourself implies you are god. you cannot be god, remember, the part cant be greater than the whole?
> [snapback]807425[/snapback]​


damnet! i thought you were going to bed.. LoL.

according to dictionary.com there are 6 definitions of Faith..

_1 Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2 Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

3 Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4 The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5 The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6 A set of principles or beliefs. _

so technicaly i can have a Faith in my self.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Peacock you wrote:



> You asked me what "happiness" ment.. and i told you.. I used the word Happiness in my recent posts to suggest healthiness.
> 
> *Your question was flawed*.. you should have asked if it was Possible for fish to feel the emotion of happiness... but you did not.


My question was not flawed. It was as follows:


> I'm kind of hung up on the term "happy". Does the fish have a smile on its face? Did it tell you so? Or are these just suppositions?


I never asked you what happiness meant. Its obvious to anyone you are putting your opinion or ideas that your fish are happy based on YOUR definition. What I'm seeking from you is how YOU ARE measuring your fishes happiness based on it swimming around the tank. It seems rather plastic in thought. If I were a fish in your care, I'd rather be free, that is, if I even knew what the fishes concept of freedom is, which I don't. So I ask you again, are you making a supposition? To quote you above you stated; _I used the word Happiness in my recent posts to suggest healthiness. _Happiness does not define health. You can be healthy and unhappy or vice versa. So your connection with the term happiness is certainly weak argument. So getting back to my original question.........

A simple Yes or NO will suffice.

ACESTRO: This is my favorite quote:

" Even as all kinds of men are needed to build up a community, even so we need all kinds of scientists to develop science in every possible direction. Some are very sharp and narrow-minded, others are broad-minded and superficial. Many scientists like Hannibal, know how to conquer, but not how to use their victories. Others are pedagogues. Others want to measure everything more accurately than it was before. This may lead them to the making of fundamental discoveries, or they may fail, and be looked upon as insufferable pedants"...............George Sarton, in the Study of the History of Science.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

I was using the Term Happiness inplace of Healthiness.. Make this connection and you can see my point.

Fish cannot possibly be Happy.. They are not inteligent enough..

I was using the term happy hypotheticaly.. a Happy fish IMO...

Please notice the "IMO"..


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

move to Lounge?


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2004)

piranha45 said:


> move to Lounge?
> [snapback]807669[/snapback]​


How about move to the trash bin?
It began as a discussion about the preferred aqurium sizes for fish. 
This thread may need to be started over again.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Peacock Posted Today, 08:33 AM
> I was using the Term Happiness inplace of Healthiness.. Make this connection and you can see my point.
> 
> Fish cannot possibly be Happy.. They are not inteligent enough..
> ...


Again you are making suppositions that "they are not intelligent enough". All I was trying to get out of you was a *Yes* or *No *on whether or not you are making suppostions. Instead I keep getting a long explanation of it in the hypothetical. Changing or adding verbage (as in the IMO) doesn't answer the question.

Oh well.







So getting back to the original question. You can make assumptions for the fish on the proper size gallonage, but it doesn't mean that is what the fish prefers except in the abstract. In otherwords, you are god in that you control all things for the fish and make it live or die based on how you see its environment or ignore it.

It doesn't mean the fish will be happy or healthy. All you can do is the best you can in duplicating the natural environment. In cases of fish that are found in large lakes or rivers, you want it to grow big, then give it the largest home you can buy. Then hope it is big enough for the fish to naturally develope without being stunted.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Good ol' Frank helping get this back on track! Feel free to link a new discussion for the other deeeeep topics, let's tackle this.

Or go bullsnake's route with the garbage, man that's funny! I feel a little more like that train is falling half way down a gorge right now!


----------



## syd (Nov 6, 2004)

lmfao @ not beliveing we are animals. we are mammals in the primate family.

and yes humans did create religion as a means of comfort and control.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> syd Posted Today, 05:10 PM
> lmfao @ not beliveing we are animals. we are mammals in the primate family.
> 
> and yes humans did create religion as a means of comfort and control.


I don't recall Darwin stating we are descended from apes, but a common ancestor branched off or as used in science, Tree of Life with all its speciation. Popular misconception. Origin of species vs. Origin of Life most different discussion when trying to apply to Darwin theory of evolution. Hmmmm...... I'll stay out of that one and let acestro find a new home for that argument.:laugh:


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

humans [**** sapiens] are bipedal primates/mammals. that classifies us as animals.

i think the arguement between everyone is on different levels. the word "animal" has been taken out of context. where peacock is look it at it in the way of classification and acestro is comparing to conciousness or realization of the existence of self.

in the most basic manner, yes, we are animals and any true scientist will agree. we are living organisms and we are classified. the term **** sapien isn't just some arbitrary word.

but when the word animal is taken out of context, we can also be seen as above animals, in a sense. we are highly intelligent [though that can be questionable] in relation to other "animals." we have a realization of self and have the gift of reason.

basically, i think your arguements were going on two different parallels.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

agreed Hyphen.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Human's classify, animals do not. However, since humans have devoted many years and pages to this study of evolution and nomenclatural placement, we put ourselves into the "animal category". However, its an argument based solely on terminology and not really worth a grain of salt. Unless your the one arguing.









If one uses biblical, then humans are more than animals given a divine right. If you go with animal activists, animals are equal or better than humans. And the argument goes on.

So the basic is, we are indeed animals with power of reason that exceeds other mammals and critters. Does it make us smarter? depends on where you are in the food chain. But "real" animals don't give a damn about classifications or where they are in comparison to **** sapiens sapiens. Just what's for lunch.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

....I feel like Dr. Frankenstein. It has become a lounge topic, let's move there.


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

acestro said:


> ....I feel like Dr. Frankenstein. It has become a lounge topic, let's move there.
> [snapback]808672[/snapback]​










dam has it gone that low


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

hastatus said:


> So the basic is, we are indeed animals with power of reason that exceeds other mammals and critters. Does it make us smarter? depends on where you are in the food chain. But "real" animals don't give a damn about classifications or where they are in comparison to **** sapiens sapiens. Just what's for lunch.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you have reinforced my statement.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> hyphen Posted Today, 12:55 AM
> QUOTE(hastatus @ Dec 20 2004, 02:33 PM)
> So the basic is, we are indeed animals with power of reason that exceeds other mammals and critters. Does it make us smarter? depends on where you are in the food chain. But "real" animals don't give a damn about classifications or where they are in comparison to **** sapiens sapiens. Just what's for lunch.
> 
> you have reinforced my statement.


Absolutely, I've reinforced your statement in the abstract. Still doesn't mean that peacock comprehends any of it.


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

everyone's always givin neal a hard time


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

It builds character.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

hastatus said:


> It builds character.:laugh:
> [snapback]809115[/snapback]​


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

hastatus said:


> Again you are making suppositions that "they are not intelligent enough". All I was trying to get out of you was a *Yes* or *No *on whether or not you are making suppostions. Instead I keep getting a long explanation of it in the hypothetical. Changing or adding verbage (as in the IMO) doesn't answer the question.
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> ...


Yes or No?

You are suggesting tank size does not matter? That it will not restrict the health of the fish?


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

Peacock said:


> Yes or No?
> 
> You are suggesting tank size does not matter? That it will not restrict the health of the fish?
> [snapback]809149[/snapback]​


I think he is saying for best health get a big tank.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

hastatus said:


> Absolutely, I've reinforced your statement in the abstract. Still doesn't mean that peacock comprehends any of it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are suggesting Hyphen is correct outside of concrete existence? Suggesting that there is 2 parts to the problem? IE- Humans are animals but Not?

How can you be something tangible, but not? How can you phsycialy be an animal... but Not? Are you telling me that we are something completely different with in concrete existence, then we are out side of concrete existence??

So, with in what is real... we are not animals.. but we are animals out side of what is real..

you make no sence..

Please dont use the word abstract.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Peacock Posted Today, 06:02 AM
> QUOTE(hastatus @ Dec 21 2004, 02:33 AM)
> Absolutely, I've reinforced your statement in the abstract. Still doesn't mean that peacock comprehends any of it.
> 
> ...


I figured you wouldn't get it.

So let me go a step further in solving the puzzle for you.

a. Humans created the concept of naming species>>>>>>>animals did not.

b. Humans created the concept of humans being animals (= a terminology) often confused for definition with being an "animal". So in layman terms you are not actually an ape, though you might act like one. You only share certain traits.

c. I will use the term "abstract" anytime I feel like it, especially when it applies to this text message and in particular to YOU.







Feel free to wind tunnel your thoughts.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Filo Posted Today, 05:57 AM
> QUOTE(Peacock @ Dec 20 2004, 09:55 PM)
> Yes or No?
> 
> ...


I'm glad someone is paying attention (and reading/comprehending). BTW, the big tank is just one thing. The rest includes suitable water conditions, diet, etc.


----------



## the grinch (Feb 23, 2004)

Peacock you need to think outside the box a little. You are a smart guy but except the fact you cant answer a question you dont understand, or have the answer to. These are questions scientist argue still. There is no FACT for certain we even evolved from apes. Fact is they dont know. We dont know. I read your posts and see you are spinning around trying to have an answer for everything. I think your on the right track, its good you have questions, your thinking. 
P.S. Maybe you need god in your life. lol


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> the grinch Posted Today, 07:28 AM
> Peacock you need to think outside the box a little. You are a smart guy but except the fact you cant answer a question you dont understand, or have the answer to. *These are questions scientist argue still. There is no FACT for certain we even evolved from apes. Fact is they dont know. We dont know*. I read your posts and see you are spinning around trying to have an answer for everything. I think your on the right track, its good you have questions, your thinking.
> P.S. Maybe you need god in your life. lol


Exactly Grinch (see bold). Scientists only deal with the origin of species not the ORIGIN OF LIFE. Religion is the primary proponent of origin of life (a Creator).
As I wrote earlier to peacock (and I'm not sure he even read it or understood it) we all derive from a common ancestor. We (science) doesn't know for a fact WHO the common ancestor is yet because human fossils are not as evident as reptilian or in more fashionable term the dinosaurs. That is why birds share a common ancestor = the dinosaurs from certain period of time during its evolution.


----------



## the grinch (Feb 23, 2004)

One more thing chimps dont use sign as a language. They cant sign "I really could go for some ass right now." They recognize a sign with symbols, or commands, not as "free speach"


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

hastatus said:


> I figured you wouldn't get it.
> 
> So let me go a step further in solving the puzzle for you.
> 
> ...


This still does not make Humans different then animals.







You are making no sense. Scientificaly we are animals. Are we not? this is what im trying to prove. Bringing up the idea that Humans created the concept of naming animals or being animals is not needed. Humans developed science and scientific classification.. and durring the proccess of classifying we added our selfs in.. we Are animals because there are only 2 types of living things on this earth.. Plants and Animals.

You are suggesting we are in some way Not animals because we created the idea of animals and classification..

My question to you is.

Why does the concept of naming humans animals matter, when we are scientificaly proven to be animals?

wait.. dont answere anything but this..

Do you believe Humans are Animals?

You are making this more complex then needed..


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

the grinch said:


> One more thing chimps dont use sign as a language. They cant sign "I really could go for some ass right now." They recognize a sign with symbols, or commands, not as "free speach"
> [snapback]809275[/snapback]​


actualy they can say alot. "let me out".. "can i have apple?" .. "hi".. ect ect

true though.. they cannot hold a conversation.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Peacock Posted Today, 07:38 AM
> QUOTE(hastatus @ Dec 21 2004, 07:02 AM)
> I figured you wouldn't get it.
> 
> ...


I'm going to bed, this is going to take as much time to explain as it does leading a donkey (ooops, horse) to make it drink water.







In the meantime, anyone else care to try and s-p-e-l-l it out simpler for him? I'll try again in the afternoon. Assuming the thread is not locked by then.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

bring it on Old Man.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Peacock Posted Today, 07:38 AM
> QUOTE(hastatus @ Dec 21 2004, 07:02 AM)
> I figured you wouldn't get it.
> 
> ...


Well, after re-reading your latest post, it becomes clear to me you just don't comprehend what I wrote. Its kind of like watching a dog chase its own tail not figuring out the part is connected. So it is with you.

We are not scientically proven to be "animals" in the literal sense. We are classified as "animals" by people called scientists. Does it make it so? Yes, by people. Does it make it so by "nature" don't know. As we are the only free-thinking critters on earth that can decide what is good and what is evil. Not to mention the ability to worship or not. Having said that, yes it is a complex question, something you also don't comprehend.

But having said that, we are separated by scientists in our own grouping or clade. As of this date, chimps (our closest DNA relative) are not in the genus ****. Once chimps are put into the human tree (or branch to be more accurate), then you can claim animals are classifying animals. Personally, I can see why you think of yourself as a pure animal. Indeed, I also see your connection to the chimp.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

To help folks out, animals make up one of the 5 Kingdoms of Life (Animalia) :

1. Kingdom Animalia 
2. Kingdom Fungi 
3. Kingdom Plantae 
4. Kingdom Protisa 
5. Kingdom Monera

Now, I need to get me some coffee.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

hastatus said:


> Well, after re-reading your latest post, it becomes clear to me you just don't comprehend what I wrote. Its kind of like watching a dog chase its own tail not figuring out the part is connected. So it is with you.
> 
> We are not scientically proven to be "animals" in the literal sense. We are classified as "animals" by people called scientists. Does it make it so? Yes, by people. Does it make it so by "nature" don't know. As we are the only free-thinking critters on earth that can decide what is good and what is evil. Not to mention the ability to worship or not. Having said that, yes it is a complex question, something you also don't comprehend.
> 
> ...










wow nice!


----------



## Natt King Shoal (Aug 7, 2004)

Dodging the sidetracks, I think the essence if this thread is weather or not a fish is 'happy' in a particular setting. Here is the simple answer: we will never know unless we develop the ability to ask them. We can't even say a fish is happier in a certain setting.

Happiness is a qualitative measurement. It is not something you can place a number on.

I like the term 'well-being' mentioned earlier that could equate to growth, color, and apparent health. But then again, we could only benchmark with these factors as every fish is different.

There is no way to provide a fixed answer to either question, making it a philosophical debate which is what this thread is turning into; and thats not a bad thing!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Natt King Shoal Posted Today, 05:24 PM
> Dodging the sidetracks, I think the essence if this thread is weather or not a fish is 'happy' in a particular setting. Here is the simple answer: we will never know unless we develop the ability to ask them. We can't even say a fish is happier in a certain setting.
> 
> Happiness is a qualitative measurement. It is not something you can place a number on.
> ...


There you go.


----------



## Hoser98 (Dec 31, 2003)

Peacocks argument strategy:

1. Make ignorant comment.
2. Attempt to debunk additional comments by saying "you're wrong" without providing any facts to back himself up.
3. Misquote someone by choosing 3 out of 5 words to make up a new statement.
4. Ask a question barely relating to the topic.
5. Rinse. Repeat. Wipe hands on pants.

The fact is this: Yes, any fish could use more space. No man/woman has a tank large enough to provide the amount of water/interaction that a fish could have in the wild. What we, as fish owners, do OUR best to provide a home for the fish that WE love, in the hopes that our fish will provide us with years of entertainment, and relaxation (as watching my fish swim around merrily seems to provide me with). All fish are different, just as people are different. Some people need a mansion to live in, whereas some are completely satisfied with an apartment. Some like the big cities, some like the country. This is not arguable, as this is fact: All people are different. So, is it so hard for you to understand that maybe, just maybe, a fish with a simple brain, might have preferences of his/her own? Why does this Tilapia have to have a huge tank with plenty of tankmates, when she seems to enjoy her surroundings now?
The fact is, this is an enthusiast site, with extreme opinions, instead of common sense opinions. For a change, instead of saying "I'm doing it for my fish's sake" Change it to what you are really doing "I'm trying to impress either myself, or someone else" Your fish is alive, that's all it knows. It may swim around more in a larger tank, but does that mean it's happy? If I had a bigger apartment, would I run around more?


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I should add one last thing here......unless peacock wishes to continue arguing with himself. *The nature of the scientific method means that things are never proven, only disproven. *So Peacocks argument is mute.


----------



## shutter13 (Jun 23, 2004)

there is no right or wrong answer..... its opinion...

since two very knowledgeable fish keepers are argueing this i dont think it matters much


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Excellent point Frank. Look up Karl Popper for scientific philosophy and the concept of 'falsification'. Prove is a baaaaad word in biology.



> 1. Make ignorant comment.
> 2. Attempt to debunk additional comments by saying "you're wrong" without providing any facts to back himself up.
> 3. Misquote someone by choosing 3 out of 5 words to make up a new statement.
> 4. Ask a question barely relating to the topic.
> 5. Rinse. Repeat. Wipe hands on pants.



































> I like the term 'well-being' mentioned earlier that could equate to growth, color, and apparent health. But then again, we could only benchmark with these factors as every fish is different.


Thanks! Seemed better than happiness! And fishes do differ, as I think CHOMP pointed out that breeding alone isn't enough indication of "happiness".

I also agree with the Grinch, Peacock is the ultimate logic machine and has trouble thinking outside of the box. I'd advise Peacock to avoid things like Taoism with its paradoxical wisdom, his head may blow up.


----------



## sweet lu (Oct 3, 2003)

from what i understand after through-o reading and deep thought, hard thinking, long masterbation, and cross examination of both sides, i can tell that i indeed have a very very big "stall"


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I read some of his logic. Its quite interesting. Makes me think of a single hominid cruising the wilderness seeking sex. Finding nothing but apes and engaging his lust. Thereby creating a new species. Interesting thought eh? Taking it into today, people do have sex with animals, so nothing has really changed except genetics and civil law.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

um, someone take the eggnog from Frank...


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

And take the u-kno-what from Lu.










I apologize to everyone for starting this abomination.


----------



## crazyklown89 (Aug 28, 2003)

acestro said:


> And take the u-kno-what from Lu.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And to think I had to wait six pages for that, Ace!

I expected better from a man of your caliber.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

acestro said:


> And take the u-kno-what from Lu.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## sweet lu (Oct 3, 2003)

acestro said:


> And take the u-kno-what from Lu.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i swear iv stopped sniffing chalk,


----------



## chiefkyle (May 3, 2004)

Wow, I didn't even know I spawned this post.


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

.lmao..you should ask for the letter D now neil..

you have O-W-N-E already :laugh:



> 1. Make ignorant comment.
> 2. Attempt to debunk additional comments by saying "you're wrong" without providing any facts to back himself up.
> 3. Misquote someone by choosing 3 out of 5 words to make up a new statement.
> 4. Ask a question barely relating to the topic.
> 5. Rinse. Repeat. Wipe hands on pants.


CLASSIC..FREAKIN CLASSIC


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)




----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

=|


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> acestro Posted Today, 12:38 AM
> um, someone take the eggnog from Frank...


I'll have you know, I only sip on Cognac when I have these thought processes. Eggnog is to passe.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

hastatus said:


> Well, after re-reading your latest post, it becomes clear to me you just don't comprehend what I wrote. Its kind of like watching a dog chase its own tail not figuring out the part is connected. So it is with you.
> 
> We are not scientically proven to be "animals" in the literal sense. We are classified as "animals" by people called scientists. Does it make it so? Yes, by people. Does it make it so by "nature" don't know. As we are the only free-thinking critters on earth that can decide what is good and what is evil. Not to mention the ability to worship or not. Having said that, yes it is a complex question, something you also don't comprehend.
> 
> ...


LOL.. Jesus franky. You are suggesting that we are not animals at all... "Does it make it so? Yes, by people".. with your train of thought i could go on and say Nitrobacter is not bacteria in the literal sense. I could go on and question everything in life this way.. i could say- "A shrub is not a plant.. Its only a plant to Humans because we named it a plant. but does that make it so by "nature"?"

You are not a human!! **** sapiens named their kind Humans.. but that does not mean in the literal sense we are humans.. Scientists named our speices Humans.. Does it mean we are? yes, to people.. but thats not the whole picture.. Its just a word and its real meaning is beyond us. Are we humans by "nature"? Its beyond us!!

I could question the Fact your name is Franky.. Because your mother named you this.. You are not Franky.. its just a word... just a word your mother named you... It does not make it so by "nature"... atleast we dont know.. Well.. What do we know Franky?

What do we know that is concrete by Nature? Answere this!! that the moon is bright at night? but then again.. we can question this to.. How do we know the moon is the moon by "nature"?? We can also question the Idea of "nature" and if it is so by "Nature"!!

see.. your idea is flawed.. if you question Humans as being animals by "Nature" then you must question everything by "nature". When you are eating with your wife (asuming you have one and are not a complete outcast from the public at age 80) do you question the fact that the food you are eating may not be food by "nature"? and that your wife is not really your wife, you just think she is???



> Does it make it so by "nature"?


and this is to all the little shitheads trying to be COOL by "agreeing" with Frank-

You are little fish in a BIG lake. sit the f*ck down.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

thePACK said:


> .lmao..you should ask for the letter D now neil..
> 
> you have O-W-N-E already :laugh:
> CLASSIC..FREAKIN CLASSIC
> ...


Yea keep talking putts... You have to rely on Frank to take me because you cannot.

smart move though- letting the bigger guy go in, because there is no way you will touch this.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> I also agree with the Grinch, Peacock is the ultimate logic machine and has trouble thinking outside of the box.
> [snapback]810051[/snapback]​


You are suggesting Logic is thinking inside the box?

Definition of Logic = The study of the principles of reasoning.

Definition of Reasoning = The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.

Inside the Box huh?

smoked.


----------



## Kain (Mar 13, 2003)

Holy Cow







This thread has gone in so many directions, I feel like im stuck reading a script from the Matrix. First its about tank size, then it goes to animals vs humans, then a little about creation vs evolution, then taking jabs at neal, then sweet lu and his snortin









From what I can gather so far, the emphasis is animals and whether or not we humans are in that category. Honestly, I dont even know where to begin with this because it is used so loosely, especially when viewing from different cultural perspectives. Neal's view is based on what the majority of people in our society share while Frank and a few other members are looking at the term from a broader and more scientific standpoint. I dont think there is a right or wrong here. Both sides have valid arguments when tackling the issue from their own perspective. The problem is which perspective an individual chooses to follow.

Jeezus, its late,I feel like a zombie. I'll try and review more of the thread tomorrow and comment more.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Peacock Posted Today, 10:43 AM
> QUOTE(acestro @ Dec 21 2004, 09:56 PM)
> I also agree with the Grinch, Peacock is the ultimate logic machine and has trouble thinking outside of the box.
> 
> ...


Tis' the season to be jolly. I've lost interest in this thread Peacock, sorry.









I believe you have already been clearly defined where you are in the scheme of life and certainly the mental capacity you exhibit, is well, redundant.

BTW, thanks for the PM, but this isn't Entertainment Weekly nor an actual science debate. Otherwise your view of life would be more coherent. And certainly you would comprehend what I wrote. Just about everybody else has that has participated.

To the rest of the P-FURY members, have a Merry Christmas (you too Neil.).


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

> You are suggesting Logic is thinking inside the box?
> 
> Definition of Logic = The study of the principles of reasoning.
> 
> ...


Wow, you are the champion of faulty arguments. What a retard, you didn't even define 'box' or 'inside the box'. There's more than reasoning and logic...nevermind.









Tried to give the benefit of the doubt (because so many have given up on you), I officially give up on you as well. The end.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

crazyklown89 said:


> And to think I had to wait six pages for that, Ace!
> 
> I expected better from a man of your caliber.:rasp:
> [snapback]810350[/snapback]​


Yes I am ashamed.







It's fun to get Peacock all riled up and sputtering nonsense though! Glad to hear you're off the chalk Lu. Hope you had fun Frank, so easy pushing Peacocks buttons!







I guess you're right, he's not going to change... oh well.

I should have known better than conversing with someone who posts an unidentified fish in the "identify this" section of scientific discussion.







(doesn't that really say it all?)

now, seriously, I am done.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> acestro Posted Today, 05:47 PM
> QUOTE(crazyklown89 @ Dec 22 2004, 12:50 AM)
> And to think I had to wait six pages for that, Ace!
> 
> ...


Pushing his buttons is relatively easy. Simple minds have a trigger they can't help letting loose, particularly when the discussion is beyond their mental grasp.

Come over for a glass of cognac. It helps put Peacock and his arguments in the proper perspective.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

Someone needs to make a new damn thread. This one is too confusing . Peacock---have some cognac


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

> Come over for a glass of cognac. It helps put Peacock and his arguments in the proper perspective.


To understand Peacock I think I need to drink a can of paint thinner









and I wouldn't mind at all if a mod shut this abomination down...


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

We need to allow our "lab rat" the chance to get in a few last words. Afterall, that is his fallacy. Not knowing when to quit.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

> The problem with your Concept is Most fish dont use all the Amazon river.. And if given a decent amount of room they can be just as healthy as fish in their natural habbitat.


The problem with this concept is that even a 500 gallon pond seems like diddly sh*t in comparison to the amazon. Someone who thinks any enclosure they're keeping animals in is approximating the wild is deluding themselves into believing a load of crap.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

There's even more problems than that, but you make a good mention of scale (and an excellent job of getting back on topic). I think this topic is actually a good one, if we only leave one person out of the conversation









I agree Frank, the lab rat needs one more long post to prove to himself (only) that he is right about something.

Gee, I can't wait.


----------



## Kain (Mar 13, 2003)

Ok, let me try to rephrase this again. If I confuse anyone, its ok, cause Im confusing myself too









Anywayz, here goes...."animal" is a somewhat loose term and its description differs from topic to topic. It is similar to the word "creature". When discussing a topic such as living creatures on this planet, then we would fit inside that category perfectly. However, if the topic is something like monsters or unknown creatures, then we humans would be placed in an entirely different category. If we are discussing animals as any multicellular organism other than plants(im narrowing it down to just plants and animals), I believe we humans would fall into that category. However, if the topic is based on intelligence then we would be somewhat segragated from the category. The term animal, from this standpoint, is viewed as a life form whose actions relies heavily on instinct rather than logic. Sorry if im stating anything obvious. Im too lazy to read through the thread and only skimmed through a few posts.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> elTwitcho Posted Today, 08:24 PM
> QUOTE
> The problem with your Concept is Most fish dont use all the Amazon river.. And if given a decent amount of room they can be just as healthy as fish in their natural habbitat.
> 
> *The problem with this concept is that even a 500 gallon pond seems like diddly sh*t in comparison to the amazon. Someone who thinks any enclosure they're keeping animals in is approximating the wild is deluding themselves into believing a load of crap. *


That is a good argument, however the only suitable substitute (and then its only clinical) is the auto-water changer. That replenishes minerals and allows a simulation of a "river system". A fish is still in a "box".


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Kain Posted Today, 09:00 PM
> Ok, let me try to rephrase this again. If I confuse anyone, its ok, cause Im confusing myself too
> 
> Anywayz, here goes...."animal" is a somewhat loose term and its description differs from topic to topic. It is similar to the word "creature". When discussing a topic such as living creatures on this planet, then we would fit inside that category perfectly. However, if the topic is something like monsters or unknown creatures, then we humans would be placed in an entirely different category. If we are discussing animals as any multicellular organism other than plants(im narrowing it down to just plants and animals), I believe we humans would fall into that category. However, if the topic is based on intelligence then we would be somewhat segragated from the category. The term animal, from this standpoint, is viewed as a life form whose actions relies heavily on instinct rather than logic. Sorry if im stating anything obvious. Im too lazy to read through the thread and only skimmed through a few posts.


Finally someone with a realistic question and statement.







As I wrote above, we are members of animalia, a general category (based on having a spine/backbone). As are many other critters that are considered mammals, by certain traits (however the duckbill can be rather confusing as the kiwi bird). If you did a read of plants and put them in the category of humantic terminology, plants are people too.:laugh:


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

hastatus said:


> Tis' the season to be jolly. I've lost interest in this thread Peacock, sorry.:laugh:
> 
> I believe you have already been clearly defined where you are in the scheme of life and certainly the mental capacity you exhibit, is well, redundant.
> 
> ...


























Merry Xmas Franky.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> Wow, you are the champion of faulty arguments. What a retard, you didn't even define 'box' or 'inside the box'. There's more than reasoning and logic...nevermind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How about instead of making little piddly comments.. try and take me down.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> To understand Peacock I think I need to drink a can of paint thinner
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow that was funny.








nice work Dick.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> laugh: I guess you're right, he's not going to change... oh well.
> 
> [snapback]811364[/snapback]​


I wont change.. not untill some one completely shuts me down.. and you two have yet to do this.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> The problem with this concept is that even a 500 gallon pond seems like diddly sh*t in comparison to the amazon. Someone who thinks any enclosure they're keeping animals in is approximating the wild is deluding themselves into believing a load of crap.
> [snapback]811596[/snapback]​


True, a 500 gallon tank seems like sh*t to a 3 foot cichla.. but NOT to a 2 inch Tetra.

it depends on the species of fish you have.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Peacock Posted Today, 09:47 PM
> QUOTE(acestro @ Dec 22 2004, 05:47 PM)
> laugh: I guess you're right, he's not going to change... oh well.
> 
> I wont change.. not untill some one completely shuts me down.. and you two have yet to do this.


Dum, dee, dum, dum dum.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

For an 80 year old guy you sure act like your 65 years younger.. I have-ta love people who give up and resort to rediculous comments directed to the others...


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

lol you guys are horrible haha


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

omfg are you guys seriously still one this.

like holy sh*t what the f*ck.... will no one just let it go i mean cmon you guys dont always have to have the final word...

either that or we make a poll to ask p-fury who the hell is right and im sure p-fury would choose Ace


----------



## crazyklown89 (Aug 28, 2003)

Peacock said:


> I wont change.. not untill some one completely shuts me down.. and you two have yet to do this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How can they shut you down? You never shut the f*ck up.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

slckr69 said:


> omfg are you guys seriously still one this.
> 
> like holy sh*t what the f*ck.... will no one just let it go i mean cmon you guys dont always have to have the final word...
> 
> ...


you idiot. this is not between Ace and I.. its Frank and I.. if you dont even know whats going on in here then read befor posting.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Peacock Posted Today, 10:02 PM
> QUOTE(slckr69 @ Dec 22 2004, 09:58 PM)
> omfg are you guys seriously still one this.
> 
> ...


Futue te et ipsum caballum.:rasp: Better still: Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

1st line= I dont ride a horse.. i ride a bike.

Second = You will need a shitload of viagra









damn you guys act immature..


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

You guys are confusing eachother because your not using proper definitions of words. Peacock, that post where you mentioned "nature" 56 times was complete crap. If had to mark it as an assignment, i would deduct marks for improper use of words.

the nature of something is it's essence. that said, look up essence on whatever site you got the rest of your definitions and rewrite your post, so we can have a proper debate.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

you complete DIPSHIT.. you could not make the connection that i was using Franks Idea of "nature" in my reply?

jesus christ.


----------



## sweet lu (Oct 3, 2003)

Peacock said:


> Wow that was funny.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Acestro real name is dick, i didnt know that

hey dick







you leanr something new everyday :laugh:


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Peacock said:


> you complete DIPSHIT.. you could not make the connection that i was using Franks Idea of "nature" in my reply?
> 
> jesus christ.
> [snapback]811840[/snapback]​


 if you used franks idea of nature your rant would have made sense. instead you substituted your own and wrote frank all over it.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Peacock said:


> For an 80 year old guy you sure act like your 65 years younger.. I have-ta love people who give up and resort to rediculous comments directed to the others...
> [snapback]811737[/snapback]​


I think it'd be interesting to list how many people you've insulted in this thread. Not to mention your redundantly banal responses to questions.

I'm not worried about who's right. It started as me cooling Peacock off for his rude behavior regarding the care of a tilapia. Then it seemed like a potentially interesting debate on fish care (there's MY big mistake). And then Peacock has made putting a foot in the mouth a sport (not to mention insulting people).

Peacock, I have yet to see one smart comment by you. Quote one and repost it and then I'll consider if you are an intellectual challenge for anyone. Or maybe you'd prefer to have an argument with your 98% similar yeast buddies?

One more challenge, go through the 170 or so posts here and find me someone who agrees with your nonsense. Accomplish these two feats and I'll find you worth conversing with. Otherwise, you are a waste of carbon.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> if you used franks idea of nature your rant would have made sense. instead you substituted your own and wrote frank all over it.
> [snapback]811934[/snapback]​


That's the beauty of Peacock's ignorance. He can spin anything into his own artificial 'reality'. Like the thinking outside of the box statement. He defined logic and reason, and he thought that proved that the box did not contain logic.







Amazing how he thought he was correct without even defining "the box".

We must remember the wisdom of Hoser98

Peacocks argument strategy:

1. Make ignorant comment.
2. Attempt to debunk additional comments by saying "you're wrong" without providing any facts to back himself up.
3. Misquote someone by choosing 3 out of 5 words to make up a new statement.
4. Ask a question barely relating to the topic.
5. Rinse. Repeat. Wipe hands on pants.

I will add

4(a). Make statements barely relevant to the topic and decide they prove his point

I'd like to know how Peacock thinks science is capable of proving things and how he thinks evolution occurs (how did we become man from ape?). Give it your best shot Peacock, we're ready to have some more fun with you.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> acestro Posted Today, 12:09 AM
> QUOTE(Umbilical Syllables @ Dec 22 2004, 11:44 PM)
> if you used franks idea of nature your rant would have made sense. instead you substituted your own and wrote frank all over it.
> 
> ...


Acestro, I covered that under "horney hominid" somewhere between 2 or 3 cognacs.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Did Peacock even try to answer? I don't remember guess I'll have to reread. Cool quote by the way (saw it late), fits in well with our local "insufferable pedant"


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Have to admit to being impressed with Kain. Covered the animal question in one post.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Umbilical Syllables Posted Yesterday, 11:44 PM
> QUOTE(Peacock @ Dec 22 2004, 05:59 PM)
> you complete DIPSHIT.. you could not make the connection that i was using Franks Idea of "nature" in my reply?
> 
> ...


Thank you.









I'd like him answer acestro questions with specifics and not just more questions and retorts. Since he is putting a sci-spin on it. Let him be bold and go where no idiot has gone before.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Agreed. Peacock we humbly await your wise response.

Explain how something can evolve from ape to human

Explain how science proves things

For a bonus, show how a white horse is not a horse.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> if you used franks idea of nature your rant would have made sense. instead you substituted your own and wrote frank all over it.
> [snapback]811934[/snapback]​


you obviously did not see the connection.. please stay out of this.



acestro said:


> I think it'd be interesting to list how many people you've insulted in this thread. Not to mention your redundantly banal responses to questions.
> I'm not worried about who's right. It started as me cooling Peacock off for his rude behavior regarding the care of a tilapia. Then it seemed like a potentially interesting debate on fish care (there's MY big mistake). And then Peacock has made putting a foot in the mouth a sport (not to mention insulting people).
> 
> Peacock, I have yet to see one smart comment by you. Quote one and repost it and then I'll consider if you are an intellectual challenge for anyone. Or maybe you'd prefer to have an argument with your 98% similar yeast buddies?
> ...


There is no need for some one to agree with me. If you cannot see my point then you are the one who is missing out. i need no support.



acestro said:


> That's the beauty of Peacock's ignorance. He can spin anything into his own artificial 'reality'. Like the thinking outside of the box statement. He defined logic and reason, and he thought that proved that the box did not contain logic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


fun with me? yes. thats exactly what this is.. you guys are trying desperately to corner me and rub everything in.. but it wont work


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

You haven't answered one question clearly (and Kain has even showed you the way). You're in need of "cornering" because you never answer clearly. These are very answerable questions.



> "There is no need for some one to agree with me. If you cannot see my point then you are the one who is missing out. i need no support. "


I implore you to look up "Occam's razor" to see if it is indeed everyone else who is wrong.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Funny how once a clear question is presented you run and hide.

This will be good for you, you need to learn that you need to learn.

You really want to pass up this opportunity?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Holy geez, Peacock's been writing for 20+ minutes, so much for a nice and concise answer.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

And then he stopped.









Hmmm, I smell a google search


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> acestro Posted Today, 01:37 AM
> And then he stopped.
> 
> *Hmmm, I smell a google search *


Does he even know how?









I had a CSM once tell me "assumption is the mother of f**kups." When you put it in the context of Occam it makes perfect sense.

Going to get some dinner. This thread also needs some popcorn.


----------



## crazyklown89 (Aug 28, 2003)

ace, you know you can use the EDIT button right?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> Agreed. Peacock we humbly await your wise response.
> 
> Explain how something can evolve from ape to human
> 
> ...


well lets first look at the definition of evolution-

_Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. _

Now we can look at Primates and why we would evolve from a more simpler speices.. The idea of Evolution is to better evolve within your habitat.. this is pretty complex but im confident i can make it simpler.

by comparing humans with other living species, Scientists have found out that humans are mostly similar to the African and Asian apes. I guess DNA has suggested we are closer to african ape then asian though... Anyways, they believe we are closely alike in mental and phsycial form.. We also share close similarities in social activity.

The chimp (Pan troglodytes) is our closest relative. but dont think we evolved from chimps.. Both Chimps and Humans elvolved from a common ancestor.

How did we evolve? well throughout the years as the species was moving along the country side there became "needs" for a more advanced speices.. EI- the ability to creat tools, and alike abilities. This is where natural selection comes into play.. Those animals who did not possess the new traits to better the speices did not breed and or died, leaving only those who could better adapt to the new world/habitat alive and able to breed.

Over the Generations the new offspring who were able to adapt, did... being able to walk upright sturdier... run faster.. creat a wide range of tools.. have a better immune system... ect ect.. once the foundation for a "smart" species is layed down, it can become more civilized. Requiring things like religion, language, cunieform, ect ect.

Does this answere question number 1?

#2- Explain how science proves things..

well like mentioned above it proves things by disproving all other possibilities hoping to rule out everything it can so only 1 or few possibilities are left.

thats kinda of the laymans description, i know. I make the mistake of making hardcore statments when there is still a small % the answere is something else.. LoL.. ive been working on this.

Is this the answere you were looking for?

#3- For a bonus, show how a white horse is not a horse

To my knowledge (working with horses most of my life, unfortunatly) there is no solid white horse... You can find 99% white horses but never fully white..

this is obviously a genetic result.

But im not sure i understand your question.. Can you rephrase this for me?

EDIT- typo.


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

i think we need a thread lock.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Leave us Hyphen!! Only 1 cichla Loco is needed here


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

fine, fine.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

damn this is some good reading


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Both Chimps and Humans elvolved from a common ancestor.


I told you some human was screwing around with some ape.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

hastatus said:


> I told you some human was screwing around with some ape.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You probably carry a higher % in the blood line of that single hominid...

jk.. lol


----------



## crazyklown89 (Aug 28, 2003)

Peacock said:


> You probably carry a higher % in the blood line of that single hominid...
> 
> jk.. lol
> 
> ...


Yo mama.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

My opinion - We are Animals by physical traits and origins... we are not plant matter therefore we are animals.. untill there is another catagory we are classified under Animalia..

I see where you are comming from Frank. You are suggesting we may be animals but we are still completely different from then in the mental sense. being mentaly more advanced. You also bring up an interesting idea that Humans created the concept of naming other life forms animals/pants.. therefore how do we know they are alike by "nature" and not just scientific classification..

am i correct frank? english is my worst subject and i will be first to admit i find it hard to fully understand people when just reading their responses.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Peacock Posted Today, 02:24 AM
> My opinion - We are Animals by physical traits and origins... we are not plant matter therefore we are animals.. untill there is another catagory we are classified under Animalia..
> 
> I see where you are comming from Frank. You are suggesting we may be animals but we are still completely different from then in the mental sense. being mentaly more advanced. You also bring up an interesting idea that Humans created the concept of naming other life forms animals/pants.. therefore how do we know they are alike by "nature" and not just scientific classification..
> ...


And they thought animals can't learn or a chimp can't be taught to read.
















Here's one more. Take the plant. Make a list of the similarities they share with animals. For example.

animals need food, so do plants.
animals need to reproduce, so do plants.

Then follow it up with how dissimilar they are and why. Then round it up with should they or should they not be considered animals too. Explain either way.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Oh yeah, before I forget, acestro what do you think about my model on hominds cross mating with other life forms to create a new species? Sounds crazy, but yet when you look at the human need for sex and the evolutionary changes (including DNA) makes a person go hmmmmmm.......of course that could lead to old arguments that might fall into the racist category, but I don't want to go there. Im writing possibilities not probabilities.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

You are still desperately trying to pin me down.. you obviously Hate the fact i and still standing.

Im watching a movie now.. i will answere your questions when finished.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

actualy.. there is no point to answere this.. because you will simply come up with more questions..

your entire goal here is to make me fall..

it wont happen


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

You don't have to be in a forest to know a tree has fallen down somewhere.









I'll look in tomorrow.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

hastatus said:


> You don't have to be in a forest to know a tree has fallen down somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You dont have to be 80 to have the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

Well i am sure you guys already know this but...we do have animal cells...


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Filo said:


> Well i am sure you guys already know this but...we do have animal cells...
> [snapback]812345[/snapback]​


*hits head on desk*


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Not a bad response Peacock, and without cursing or insults!

Let me get to the flaws...



> why we would evolve from a more simpler speices..


Flawed thought #1 (is evolution necessarily progress?)



> The idea of Evolution is to better evolve within your habitat..


Flawed thought #2 (how active or reactionary is evolution?)



> Both Chimps and Humans elvolved from a common ancestor.


Flawed thought #3 (what species are missing here?)



> Over the Generations the new offspring who were able to adapt, did...


Flawed thought #4 (again, actively reacting to needs?)



> Does this answere question number 1?


Not exactly, the flaws are important to clear up.

#2- Explain how science proves things..



> well like mentioned above it proves things by disproving all other possibilities


Flawed thought #5 (You are falling for a trick question here.)



> mistake of making hardcore statments when there is still a small % the answere is something else.. LoL.. ive been working on this.


Progress! Related to the impossibility of proving things. Falsification.



> Is this the answere you were looking for?


Nope, you fell for it like I hoped (actually feel guilty...) But you are waaaay closer than before.

#3- For a bonus, show how a white horse is not a horse



> To my knowledge (working with horses most of my life, unfortunatly) there is no solid white horse... You can find 99% white horses but never fully white..
> 
> this is obviously a genetic result.
> 
> But im not sure i understand your question.. Can you rephrase this for me?


This one actually looks like a trick question but it is not. Again I'm guilty for predicting a logical examination and being correct. This is the 'outside the box' question here. Let's say there are pure white horses.

I say a white horse is not a horse. Why is that correct?

Relates to a chinese philosopher and greek philosophy as well. Gongsun Longzi is the man you need to speak to









Looks like things have returned to a more civil state tonight


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I just saw a movie too. Manchurian candidate, not bad.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Peacock said:


> actualy.. there is no point to answere this.. because you will simply come up with more questions..
> 
> your entire goal here is to make me fall..
> 
> ...


Sorry, but if this was pass/fail you failed. Don't need to make any more questions.

But I really don't want this to be a in-your-face, win or lose, I'm right you're wrong, kind of thing. You were off in all three answers and that's okay! You'll live! I'm not going around the block bragging about a sho-down on the internet with a youngun. I've taught thousands of college students and I've never tried to be 'above' anyone, everyone has different kinds of knowledge to share and the worst impediment to learning is arrogance not ignorance.



> You dont have to be 80 to have the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.


Is it just me or is there more disrespect in the new generation? Not that I haven't been rude and in the face of a PhD or two.







Maybe the classic need for a challenge or rite of passage or.. who knows.

For your question Frank, I'm not sure. I almost wonder if natural selection has fallen apart with us where you can have that bizzarre desire and still have a family and pass on your genes. Hybrids have been suggested as methods for evolution in fish, but I know in some lizards they create dead ends, like asexual species that don't compete well.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

For the plant/animal situation, what about protists? Separate? Animals? Plants? They actually are not a good evolutionary group, so where do they fit?

Again, not trying to knock anyone down, let's discuss...


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Ace, do you want me to answere the questions you posted above? under flawed thoughts?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> you failed.
> 
> [snapback]812456[/snapback]​


Why and How?

1 thing i hate more then the idea of not being rich/famous.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Let's just say you didn't fail and are still standing, it doesn't matter.
I respect that it isn't a good feeling for you, no big. Give the flawed things a shot to fix them.


----------



## RhomZilla (Feb 12, 2003)

I have no idea why this topic is in the lounge, or why no one has moved it.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Rich and famous, OVERRATED! Mo money mo problems


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

RhomZilla said:


> I have no idea why this topic is in the lounge, or why no one has moved it.
> [snapback]812471[/snapback]​


You can move it back if you want. Actually fits with nonP scientific now. It has changed its scary face multiple times...


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> Flawed thought #1 (is evolution necessarily progress?)
> Flawed thought #2 (how active or reactionary is evolution?)
> Flawed thought #3 (what species are missing here?)
> Flawed thought #4 (again, actively reacting to needs?)
> ...


1- Yes. It is progress. 
2- Its always active because the world is allways changing. 
3- what are you looking for? each species that branched off or ?? 
4- Yes. (if i am understand your questions correctly)
5- Can you explain this to me?

oh, check out this link i found.. pretty interesting. 99.4% now.. LOL!!!

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030519/chimp.html


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> Rich and famous, OVERRATED! Mo money mo problems
> [snapback]812472[/snapback]​


keep talking poor man


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I'm not so poor that I have to give up my fish while I'm working and going to school :laugh:

I'm afraid you missed on all of the flaws (I was waiting for some good answers!!!).

I'm still curious about how close we are to yeast.:laugh:


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Peacock said:


> 1- Yes. It is progress.
> 2- Its always active because the world is allways changing.
> 3- what are you looking for? each species that branched off or ??
> 4- Yes. (if i am understand your questions correctly)
> ...


1. NOT progress
2. NOT active
3. Any species between humans and chimps?
4. No.
5. I'll give you this one. There is NO proving, biologists do NOT prove things. You were close on this one.

I'm starting to wind down here. Hopefully all parties looking and participating are getting some cool knowledge out of this, maybe it'll be in scientific in the morning...


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

1- explain. If it is not progress, then what is it? what other word best fits it?
2- explain. 
3- between.. are you talking about the common ancestor? to my knowledge there is no between... Humans and chimps are 2 different lines coming from that CA.. 
4 explain.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Well, the answers aren't as snazzy as people would like.

Evolution appears to have a lot of RANDOMNESS in it. It's a hard thing to grasp and my comparative anatomy classes actually had trouble (when they should have been taught it by that point! ).

There is no 'direction' or 'reaction' in evolution. Turtles don't grow fur as a reaction to the earth getting colder.

Things aren't necessarily getting more advanced or complex (although there is a trend towards that obviously (single cell to multi cell, etc.))

The trick that works best to describe how things evolve is this:

There HAS to be variation. If you don't have variation you are fucked. Because when changes happen there are NO, I repeat NO, reactions to the change. There are only organisms that have variation (say some turtles with hair and some without, to continue a silly example).

The variation has to be there before the selection event (earth getting cold).

The quote I say is "Either you're ready or you're not". Not as snazzy as most would like, but that is the big picture in evolution.

Progress is irrelevant. If survival meant being simple or stupid, that's what would be left on the earth. When the asteroid/comet hit 65 million years ago, you had to be under 50 pounds to survive (on land). Is bigger better? Sometimes, not then. It's situation specific.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

For the chimps, there are several species between chimps and us. You are smart to not say that chimps are our ancestors. You really cant find ANY species and its ancestor living at the same time. Just like almost all fish alive today (the teleosts) have nothing to do with the lineage that led to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, etc.

But the tree with us has lots of extinct branches like **** habilus, **** erectus, Neanderthals, Austalopithecus (I'm probably spelling these names wrong, I'm a herp and fish guy! ). You get the idea, there's been a lot between us and those hairy goofballs.

For the white horse thing, it is about paradoxes used to point out the flaw in our own logic and language. Horseness by nature has nothing to do with color and white has nothing to do with horses. So a white horse is in some logic circles neither white nor a horse. Weird, but I'll find a website to help.

Not the best paradox in my opinion. Better ones are like "Work is done, then forgotten, therefore it lasts forever".

Lots of sayings like this work to shake up the mind to think about things in a different way. There is a metaphysical world, but our minds are so logical that it's hard to experience. Then you have goofballs that like to be different and imaginative about stuff that make metaphysical things seem like hippy crap.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Like I said, the white horse thing is about as brain twisting as it gets but here's a site.

http://faculty.vassar.edu/brvannor/Reader/whitehorse.html


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Yes. i agree!!

This goes with that Moth species.. the species turned from brown to white.. then brown again.. Out of each brown moth clutch of eggs maybe a 1-3 would be white and the rest brown/dark colored.. each year the white moths would get eaten while the browns would thrive... the white color made them to noticeable to predators.. but when the weather in that area changed and it began to snow, all the brown moths got eaten while the whites did not.. the population experiences a large decreas because out of each batch 1-3 were white.. but once the whites started breeding it bounced back up.. Out of every white moth clutch 1-3 would be brown.. but they would get eaten just as the whites did befor.. eventualy the weather changed back to what WAS normal and the moth population turned brown again..

Yes!!!!!!!!!! damnet.. how could i have forgotten..


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

but dont we all have a wide range of variation with in our species? this is why we made it as far as we did..

this is why in a clutch of any animal who produce more then 1-2 babys their offspring differate from each other in some way. (IE- dogs, cats, snakes). this happens inhopes that the best one/few will better fit the enviornment and keep the species strong.

it HAS to be random to work.. with out a random color difference those moths would not have made it through the snow...

and i bet there is a HUGE "pool" of random traits.. am i right?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

You're getting it.

Let me tell that story right, though, it isn't a 'seasonal' thing...

First there were white moths. That's fine, the trees were white.
Then there was the industrial revolution, trees turned black from pollution.

KEY POINT: THERE WERE BLACK MOTHS BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

Because there were these rare black moths before the trees turned black, the moths survived and "adapted" (but not 'actively') to the situation. They did not make a black morph as a response.

Interestingly (I think this is happening in England) the trees are cleaning up and enough white moths survived that they are coming back.

Peppered moths, the ultimate example.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

oops. oh well.. the same concept holds true even with my story and the actual truth









Yes.. its key to remember that there was still black moths befor the IR happend.. the white moth population was still producing small amounts of the random black color.. this is basicaly "insurance" encase of something like the IR happened...


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Peacock said:


> but dont we all have a wide range of variation with in our species? this is why we made it as far as we did..
> 
> this is why in a clutch of any animal who produce more then 1-2 babys their offspring differate from each other in some way. (IE- dogs, cats, snakes). this happens inhopes that the best one/few will better fit the enviornment and keep the species strong.
> 
> ...


You're close but you're making some dangerous assumptions. Our variation may be a reason for our success, but it may also be a result of a species that has a huge range. This gets complex with gene flow and allopatric populations, etc.

Number of babies isn't relevant either. Armadillos actually produce a litter of identical littermates (weird, huh?) but armadillos are doing fine. It's more along the lines of Meiosis (yeah, the boring stuff! ) because that's where you never get the same combination twice. So having sexes is a good thing (who can argue against that?! ). But what about asexual organisms? Turns out they have tricks to mix up their genes too (as you would predict!!!!! ).

The "pool" of traits is different for every situation, species, population, but you're getting much closer to an understanding.

And I am toast, have a good night.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

> this is basicaly "insurance" encase of something like the IR happened


But it's important to know that there is no _plan _or _knowledge_ on the part of the moths.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

> Number of babies isn't relevant either


I know.. i was using animals who produce multiple offspring as a sample of how much the babys differate. its much more noticeable when you have 6-30 littermates to compare...


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> But it's important to know that there is no _plan _or _knowledge_ on the part of the moths.
> [snapback]812578[/snapback]​


your saying that the moths themselves dont have any knowledge or part in this?

yes im aware of this.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

damnet.. next time you go to bed be sure to leave me with an assload of questions to answer..


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I'll remember that! I have a lot to do today so my questions would be....

Hey, that protist question is still out there! Are they plant or animal? They definitely aren't a good group by themselves (not a 'natural' group). And they definitely aren't fungus or bacteria.

Also, what animals would you define as reptiles? And why do the crocodilians make the reptilia a mess?

Goes back to the question of what makes a true group (or clade) of animals. Why are mammals a true group but reptiles and protists are not?

I think that's a full plate! Anyone else can give it a shot too, I'll be able to find more questions. I'm sure Frank's got some too!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Sorry busy day today. Arggggghhhh. Speaking of......we can't forget about fungi and algae....are they all plants?


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

Peacock said:


> Yea keep talking putts... You have to rely on Frank to take me because you cannot.
> 
> smart move though- letting the bigger guy go in, because there is no way you will touch this.
> [snapback]811045[/snapback]​


point and laugh..ahhahaahh..







your sad







i'm sorry i don't waste my time on petty people..better things to do..


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

we should have like a cheerleadin gemoticon that says GO FRANK GO


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

thePACK said:


> point and laugh..ahhahaahh..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



































slckr69 said:


> we should have like a cheerleadin gemoticon that says GO FRANK GO
> [snapback]813074[/snapback]​


please get out of here.

now.. its on to those hard ass questions.


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

ill leave when someone shuts me down.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

slckr69 said:


> ill leave when someone shuts me down.
> [snapback]813394[/snapback]​


LOL.. you are a fly.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Take a shot at those questions with me.. lets see who does better.


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

im a fly? hmmmmm ooook

ask me a question ill own you on it.

or do you want to back out now. thats what i thought.

so stfu im not fly u be the fly


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

slckr69 said:


> im a fly? hmmmmm ooook
> 
> ask me a question ill own you on it.
> or do you want to back out now. thats what i thought.
> ...


allright bozo.. lets do this.



> Hey, that protist question is still out there! Are they plant or animal? They definitely aren't a good group by themselves (not a 'natural' group). And they definitely aren't fungus or bacteria.
> 
> Also, what animals would you define as reptiles? And why do the crocodilians make the reptilia a mess?
> 
> Goes back to the question of what makes a true group (or clade) of animals. Why are mammals a true group but reptiles and protists are not?


answer these questions.

ill be answering them shortly after lunch.. lets see who comes out on top jackass.


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

lunch was six hours ago... and im posting first so i will be on top...

hmm but lets see who gets it right.

1. ) its an organism

2.) reptiles are cool i like them a lot sometimes. and i dont think crocodiles make it a mess.

3.) scientist do it silly gosh .. its all a scientific deal. You just gotta understand the system its difficult im sorry if it doesnt always go the way you wanted it to but its life and im sorry your just gonna have to deal with it,


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

slckr69 said:


> lunch was six hours ago... and im posting first so i will be on top...
> 
> hmm but lets see who gets it right.
> 
> ...


what the f*ck is that?

LOOOOOOOOOOOL... kid, go back to playing with your toy GI joes.. this is obviously way above your head.


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

[quote name='Peacock' date='Dec 23 2004, 07:18 PM']
what the f*ck is that?

obviously it was me owning you ...Pwn3d .


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

and i dont have gi joes i never claimed to be a zoologists .


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

slckr69 said:


> and i dont have gi joes i never claimed to be a zoologists .
> [snapback]813439[/snapback]​


either do I.. im just an 18 year old punk.. what do i know???


----------



## sweet lu (Oct 3, 2003)

so, out of all this talking and debating, whos the one whos gonna get laid tongiht? isnt that what we've been talking about?


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

i agree 100% with peacock, fish are, call it happy call it more active, call it what you will, i'll call it comfortable in larger tanks. and to say fish do not get angry, take offense, or can be stressed is illogical. i witness it all the time.. when one caribe has the last bite of food snatched out of his mouth and that caribe swims radically around then takes an offensive posture against the fish that did it and they both start to fight i would say those actions describes anger and being offended,

the same when one caribe is holding fort in his territory and anouther caribe decides that he wants that part of the tank for himself and takes an offensive position and begins to fight with the other caribe, again i would say those actions describe anger, offended, even challenged like feelings, now all this happening in an appropriate size tank, if you were to take that shoal and move them to a lesser size tank, thier would be constant paranoid feeling like actions being taken, a mixture of angered like aggresion which all equal stress and stress can also be described as depressed. if someone has a logical explaination for those actions other then those feelings please do post them.

one more thing, when i have my hand in my vinny's tank for too long and he launches from one side of the tank toward my hand, i do not think he just wanted to get a closer look at my hand, thiers some kind of fish testosterone thier that makes him feel the need to chase my hand out of his tank. whether its basic instinct or not its still an aggressive action that describes anger and i highly doubt that a fish or any living thing could just act that out without some sort of feeling. if im wrong, please fill me in.


----------



## Kory (Jun 5, 2003)

sweet lu said:


> so, out of all this talking and debating, whos the one whos gonna get laid tongiht? isnt that what we've been talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Definitely not you.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I put in *BOLD* the remarks that make a reply to you nearly impossible. Its to humanistic in language and if we tried to explain it to you in natural terms, you'd be stuck, just like Peacock. You are equating instinctive reaction, conditioned response and a host of other self-explanatory situations to make your fish sound "human" in responses. IF acestro wishes to tackle this, more power to him, but I'm going to say Merry Christmas and begin the task of wrapping presents.











> Liquid Posted Yesterday, 11:59 PM
> i agree 100% with peacock, fish are, *call it happy call it more active, call it what you will,* i'll call it comfortable in larger tanks. *and to say fish do not get angry, take offense, or can be stressed is illogical.* i witness it all the time.. *when one caribe has the last bite of food snatched out of his mouth and that caribe swims radically around then takes an offensive posture against the fish that did it and they both start to fight i would say those actions describes anger and being offended, *
> 
> *the same when one caribe is holding fort in his territory* and anouther caribe decides that he wants that part of the tank for himself and takes an offensive position and begins to fight with the other caribe, *again i would say those actions describe anger, offended, even challenged like feelings,* now all this happening in an appropriate size tank, if you were to take that shoal and move them to a lesser size tank, *thier would be constant paranoid feeling* like actions being taken, a mixture of angered like aggresion which all equal stress and stress can also be described as depressed. if someone has a logical explaination for those actions other then those feelings please do post them.
> ...


PS: You may witness something, but I've been studying piranas for many many years and I have yet to see those type of reactions you are describing as having some type of "human" meaning other than opinion. I doubt it will have any meaning to the fish either.


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

that's true, many people associate instinctive reactions to human emotion. maybe because we know no other way of seeing things. we've always been so full of emotion that to try and imagine a creature without emotion is a bit difficult.

there is no proof yet of fish showing true emotion as humans do. many people refer to their cichlids as acting "happy" when they open the tank lid to drop in food. but that could just be conditioned response, or more scientifically, operand learning.

this is an interesting read though. i'll try to stay out of this thread


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I'm not sure what you're arguing lLiquid.

Fish do have a sort of testosterone (it's called 11-keto testosterone) and do exhibit aggression. Fish don't do well in cramped quarters.

Anthropomorphism is running rampant here.

No one can answer my questions? I even had follow ups. How disappointing...


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

> IF acestro wishes to tackle this, more power to him, but I'm going to say Merry Christmas and begin the task of wrapping presents


I'm going to begin OPENING presents!!! Anthropomorphism is the only word I'll throw at Liquid, I really want my questions answered. Sorry slckr69, you may want to give it another shot. I'm not sure why Peacock hasn't tried, are you interested Liquid? Hyphen, you can go for it too! anyone?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Again...

1. protist question is still out there! Are they plant or animal? They definitely aren't a good group by themselves (not a 'natural' group). And they definitely aren't fungus or bacteria.

2. Also, what animals would you define as reptiles? And why do the crocodilians make the reptilia a mess?

3. Goes back to the question of what makes a true group (or clade) of animals. Why are mammals a true group but reptiles and protists are not?

Bonus question: When did the last of the dinosaur lineage go extinct?

Merry Christmas all, hope you enjoyed the parts of this thread that weren't insults and nonsense :laugh:


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

hastatus said:


> I put in *BOLD* the remarks that make a reply to you nearly impossible. Its to humanistic in language and if we tried to explain it to you in natural terms, you'd be stuck, just like Peacock. You are equating instinctive reaction, conditioned response and a host of other self-explanatory situations to make your fish sound "human" in responses. IF acestro wishes to tackle this, more power to him, but I'm going to say Merry Christmas and begin the task of wrapping presents.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


studying or witnessing, i watch them because they're my pets and i consider all of my pets apart of the family. 
your right i am stuck, given your reputation, i have no alternative but to believe what you are saying is correct, but bare with my ignorance on trying to understand this for my self.

when i see two of my fish swim aggresivly around each other and then take a fighting stance neck and neck, it is always a reaction from a territorial dispute or because one has snatched food out of the others mouth, and is always between my 9 inch caribe and 7 inch caribe. for instance, this morning when i fed them, my largest caribe (9") snatched food out of my largest reds mouth (6")and to my surprise because its ussually only the other caribe that i have (7") that has the balls to take an offensive position towards my nine incher. anyhow my red started to swim aggresivly around the caribe, then took a fighting posture faceing him neck and neck too quickly what i think was to relize he was out matched and swim away.

i feed them twice a day, morning and night around 8 pieces of smelt or shrimp a feeding, so they are more then enough fed, they are just very aggresive when it comes feeding time.
when things like this happen, you are saying that this is pure souless instinct and thiers not a hint of feeling like, feeling challenged, anger, ect?? or maybe a better example, but what about crocodiles, thier traits are pure instinct and do not involve any feeling like anger, jealosy, and fear?

what about hunger, does that equate to a feeling or sexual drive among any fish or reptile, does the act of breeding involve the feeling of sexual lust. two fish fighting for the position to mate with the female? no feeling of challenged, want, jealosy, or sexual crave there?

and if not then is thier an explanation for these actions, other then just souless instinct? also does this also go for warm blooded animals?, i mean why does a male lion feel the need to kill all the young that isn't his own when taking over a new pride. why does one of my cats feel the need to plot her ass down right on my face to wake me up only on the weekends when i would like some extra sleep









is thier a link you can provide that prooves for a fact that these animals do not feel? if so please hook me up, obviously poeple know that fish do feel hunger because the physical evidence of depriving any animal warm or cold blooded of food results in hunger like stress, im wondering if thier is solid evidence that they do not feel other feelings, or it was just one of the assumptions made by man because it couldn't be explained.

P.S acetro, i am very intrested, i'll be looking that word up later, but i have to get my lazy ass dressed and begin getting ready for tonight and tomorrow..but i have a very open mind even though i'd hate to think fish do not feel or any living thing for that matter..if my original thoughts are incorrect, i'd appreciate to be enlightened


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Liquid Posted Today, 05:19 PM
> QUOTE(hastatus @ Dec 23 2004, 10:45 PM)
> I put in BOLD the remarks that make a reply to you nearly impossible. Its to humanistic in language and if we tried to explain it to you in natural terms, you'd be stuck, just like Peacock. You are equating instinctive reaction, conditioned response and a host of other self-explanatory situations to make your fish sound "human" in responses. IF acestro wishes to tackle this, more power to him, but I'm going to say Merry Christmas and begin the task of wrapping presents.
> PS: You may witness something, but I've been studying piranas for many many years and I have yet to see those type of reactions you are describing as having some type of "human" meaning other than opinion. I doubt it will have any meaning to the fish either.:laugh:
> ...


Start with _Anthropomorphism _as acestro suggested. Then we can really discuss this beyond human emotion.



> hyphen Posted Today, 05:08 AM
> that's true, many people associate instinctive reactions to human emotion. maybe because we know no other way of seeing things. we've always been so full of emotion that to try and imagine a creature without emotion is a bit difficult.
> 
> there is no proof yet of fish showing true emotion as humans do. many people refer to their cichlids as acting "happy" when they open the tank lid to drop in food. but that could just be conditioned response, or more scientifically, operand learning.
> ...


Naaahh your doing fine. Do join in.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Hey Liquid, excellent post. I think what Peacock has had the most trouble seeing is the short-coming of words. Fish have feelings and fish do not have feelings. Kind of why I brought up the white horse paradox. Words mess this up. That and the anthropomorphism, and you have the formula for almost the entire mess of this thread!

I have tremendous sympathy for fish and other life forms, I just don't think they feel the same as humans. Doesn't mean it's okay to cause a fish, mouse, insect to suffer unneccessarily. Respect for life is different, but no less noble.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> acestro Posted Today, 06:20 PM
> Hey Liquid, excellent post. I think what Peacock has had the most trouble seeing is the short-coming of words. Fish have feelings and fish do not have feelings. Kind of why I brought up the white horse paradox. Words mess this up. That and the anthropomorphism, and you have the formula for almost the entire mess of this thread!
> 
> *I have tremendous sympathy for fish and other life forms, I just don't think they feel the same as humans. Doesn't mean it's okay to cause a fish, mouse, insect to suffer unneccessarily. Respect for life is different, but no less noble.*


No truer words spoken and why THIS causes more separation of man from pure animal.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

hastatus said:


> No truer words spoken and why THIS causes more separation of man from pure animal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good point. None of our fish really give a crap about us!









A good book to use as a reference for a lot of this is "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. You can find pretty much all of animal behavior (and most of human behavior) related to this "selfish gene" hypothesis. Very interesting read for the holidays if you can get it.

Here's a good link with some excerpts to read:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldO...s/selfish.shtml


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

merry Xmas dudes.. ill get back to this stuff when i have some free time.. heading out now. have a good Xmas and be sure to send my gifts to me ASAP..









LoL.


----------



## o snap its eric (Feb 19, 2003)

Holy crap, reading/skimming all this made me feel like i was doing a online reading for my bio class. I wonder why Frank and Asectro even bother trying get your scientific point of view through Peacock. Obviously once peacock has a set notion on a subject this is what he will follow.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Ansectro?

The good thing about this thread is the nitty gritty about science, not the boring step by step you are supposed to get (and should, but not here! ).


----------



## o snap its eric (Feb 19, 2003)

i meant to say acestro not Ansectro. My apologies.


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

acestro said:


> Again...
> 
> 1. protist question is still out there! Are they plant or animal? They definitely aren't a good group by themselves (not a 'natural' group). And they definitely aren't fungus or bacteria.
> 
> ...


well, i'm not up to date with my sciences, but i'll see if i can answer with what i can gather:

1. it's hard to distinguish whether they're plant or animal. you'd have to break down the elements that consittute an animal or plant. i'm not too familiar with protista, but they seem to hold elements of both. they are in their own kingdom, so it could be said that protista are neither plant nor animal, but...protista.

2. well, again, since i'm no scientist, i had to look up the proper definition of reptile, or what reptilia consists of, and here is what i found:

any of a class (Reptilia) of air-breathing vertebrates that include the alligators and crocodiles, lizards, snakes, turtles, and extinct related forms (as dinosaurs and pterosaurs) and are characterized by a completely ossified skeleton with a single occipital condyle, a distinct quadrate bone usually immovably articulated with the skull, ribs attached to the sternum, and a body usually covered with scales or bony plates

with that on the plate, i viewed a list of creatures that fell under the class reptilia. crocodilidae were there and held all the characteristics of a reptile. i don't have much time to do vigorous research, but i wouldn't be able to tell you. but from what i've gathered, i wouldn't see why crocodilidae would create any sort of mess in class reptilia.

3. well, reptilia is a class and protista is a kingdom. i haven't seen anywhere that reptilia or protista were not true "groups". BUT, if i were to take a stab in the dark, i would assume it was because there are so many creatures [i'll try to not use the word animal] that have different qualities. for instance, protista contain things like sponges, protazoa, some types of fungi, and even unicellular organisms. reptilia has limbless, limbed, toothless, and some that even have carapaces.

but to my knowledge [which isn't saying much] i wouldn't see why they wouldn't be considered an actual group. organisms are classified under those classes and kingdoms. i realize that science is ever changing, but right now, organisms are thus classified under kingdom protista and class reptilia.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

For a quick X-mas check, great answer.

Protists are a mess, but the mess illustrates the inadequate nature of taxonomy right now. Some protists have chlorophyll AND move like animals, some don't. The issue is (to answer two of the questions), they do not come from one ancestor, nor do they share common traits (except being, usually, single celled creatures).

Crocs mess things up because they are closely related to a group OUTSIDE of the reptilia and one that is still in existence today. If you're more closely related to a group outside of your group, your group is compromised. What is that group?.....birds. Look up archosaurs, you'll see what I mean.



> i haven't seen anywhere that reptilia or protista were not true "groups"


That's because of 2 things: teachers not being educated and the true story being hard to teach...

Bottom line, a good group has one lineage (monophyletic) and as a result of that common traits. Mammals work, they have one common ancestor (that branched off of reptiles) and they have common traits (milk gland, fur, etc.).

Last lineage of dinosaurs went extinct when?....

Back to NBA viewing! Merry Christmas all!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> acestro Posted Yesterday, 09:44 PM
> For a quick X-mas check, great answer.
> 
> Protists are a mess, but the mess illustrates the inadequate nature of taxonomy right now. Some protists have chlorophyll AND move like animals, some don't. The issue is (to answer two of the questions), they do not come from one ancestor, nor do they share common traits (except being, usually, single celled creatures).
> ...


And my extra 2 points: Are mammals decended from reptiles?

I've got a houseload of relatives and friends tonight and tomorrow so will peek in to see if my extra 2 points is given an answer later.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Acestro, i have to disagree with the white horse example based on conflicting philosophies. In the example given, it was defined by a skeptic, whereas a realist (like myself) would say the white horse is still a horse because it posseses horseness (the universal idea of a horse is still there). White is simply an accidental property of the horse.

The problem with skeptisism is that in essence they beleive nothing is true. I would simply ask a skeptic if their beleif that nothing is true is true. If yes, they contradict themselves. If no, they admit that it is a flawed philosophy. One of my favorite tricks


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> The problem with skeptisism is that in essence* they beleive nothing is true*. I would simply ask a skeptic if their beleif that nothing is true is true. If yes, they contradict themselves. If no, they admit that it is a flawed philosophy. One of my favorite tricks
> 
> 
> 
> ...


incorrect..

Definition of skeptic - _One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions._

NOT one who believes NOTHING is true..


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

And I'm skeptical we will get our questions answered anytime soon.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

hastatus said:


> And my extra 2 points: Are mammals decended from reptiles?
> 
> I've got a houseload of relatives and friends tonight and tomorrow so will peek in to see if my extra 2 points is given an answer later.
> 
> ...


Yes. i believe. but we did not evolve from todays CURRENT reptilians. they evolved with us.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

acestro said:


> Last lineage of dinosaurs went extinct when?....
> 
> [snapback]815244[/snapback]​


I cannot answer this off the top of my head..

damnet. god damnet.


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

i really don't see the relevance to all these taxonomical and biological questions. this thread started off in regards to ethics in keeping wild fish. this isn't encyclopedia brittanica and answering those questions doesn't really get us anywhere.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

hyphen said:


> i really don't see the relevance to all these taxonomical and biological questions. this thread started off in regards to ethics in keeping wild fish. this isn't encyclopedia brittanica and answering those questions doesn't really get us anywhere.
> [snapback]816177[/snapback]​


Sorry you don't want the mental excercise. You will NOT find the answers to these questions in your encyclopedia brittanica by the way... those would be boring questions.



> would say the white horse is still a horse because it posseses horseness (the universal idea of a horse is still there).


It's more the 'term' white horse, I think, that is in question. Like I wrote, there are definitely better examples of good paradox use, I'm just too lazy to get something other than the white horse example!


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Peacock said:


> incorrect..
> 
> Definition of skeptic - _One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions._
> 
> ...


Think about it. If a skeptic doubts and disagrees with conclusions, then how will they ever come to a conclusion themselves? They can't, because coming to a conclusion would contradict their philosophy. Sorry, but you can't effectively argue that.:rasp:


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

I cant argue that? sit down child.

An efficient skeptic requires facts to be moved. we simply will not go by anyone elses opinion.. we need tangible facts.. or, we need to experience such things for our self.

we will never take anyones word over our own.

Your making skeptics out to be people who question everything and never believe anything.. which is completely incorrect. I am about as extreme as a skeptic gets.. and i still believe in the fact i need food to live.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Peacock said:


> I cant argue that? sit down child.
> 
> An efficient skeptic requires facts to be moved. we simply will not go by anyone elses opinion.. we need tangible facts.. or, we need to experience such things for our self.
> 
> ...


From what i've seen in this thread, and from what you've just described, you are a scientist and to a lesser extent a moral relatavist. Not a skeptic.
A skeptic is someone who doubts everything. If you doubt everything you cannot trust anything. No more dictionary definitions please.
And i didnt say you cant argue it, i said you can't EFFECTIVELY argue it.
EDIT: scientist= follower of scientism.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> A skeptic is someone who doubts everything. If you doubt everything you cannot trust anything. No more dictionary definitions please.[snapback]821056[/snapback]​


Once again i will have to show you what the TRUE definition is for skeptic.. You cannot argue this fact.. you cannot make up your OWN definition.. This is the correct meaning.

_One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions._

And by this definition.. i am indeed a skeptic.

owned.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> hastatus Posted Dec 26 2004, 12:58 AM
> And I'm skeptical we will get our questions answered anytime soon.


Like I said...........


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Peacock Dec 26 2004, 02:19 AM Post #293
> 
> QUOTE(hastatus @ Dec 26 2004, 03:52 AM)
> And my extra 2 points: Are mammals decended from reptiles?
> ...


Please clearly explain your remarks in what it is YOU believe, then provide the scientific basis for your argument.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Peacock said:


> Once again i will have to show you what the TRUE definition is for skeptic.. You cannot argue this fact.. you cannot make up your OWN definition.. This is the correct meaning.
> 
> _One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions._
> 
> ...


Sigh
Here's an example of why skeptisism fails. And i'll use your definition so you won;t have anything to argue (although i'm sure you'll find something). I'll use the method of reducto absurdo (sp?, and its latin if you want to look it up). A generally accepted conclusion is that we are alive. If you are a true skeptic, you "habitually doubt, question, or disagree" with this generally accepted conclusion. Therefore you doubt your own existence, and the existence of everyone else. Read that part again, and again, and again until you get it.
Like i said before, you are a follower of scientism. You only accept concrete facts. But you also like to see things for yourself, so your a moral relatavist aswell.

I'm off to my cottage.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Here we are in 2005 and still no answers for acestro to review from peacock.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

what the hell was that word again, my head hurts and i refuse to scroll through anything today..


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

hastatus said:


> Here we are in 2005 and still no answers for acestro to review from peacock.:laugh:
> [snapback]823905[/snapback]​


And I've been gone for several days!


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

hastatus said:


> Here we are in 2005 and still no answers for acestro to review from peacock.:laugh:
> [snapback]823905[/snapback]​


hastatus <peacock


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Hastatus is less than Peacock?


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

acestro said:


> Hastatus is less than Peacock?
> [snapback]824482[/snapback]​


Forgive him, hes been getting his >/< signs mixed up :laugh:


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

acestro said:


> Hastatus is less than Peacock?
> [snapback]824482[/snapback]​


YES! Peacock pwnz!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Filo Posted Yesterday, 10:04 PM
> QUOTE(acestro @ Jan 1 2005, 08:50 PM)
> Hastatus is less than Peacock?
> 
> ...


Looks like someone needs to work on grammer as well.:laugh: Still begs the original questions.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> Sigh
> Here's an example of why skeptisism fails. And i'll use your definition so you won;t have anything to argue (although i'm sure you'll find something). I'll use the method of reducto absurdo (sp?, and its latin if you want to look it up). A generally accepted conclusion is that we are alive. If you are a true skeptic, you "habitually doubt, question, or disagree" with this generally accepted conclusion. Therefore you doubt your own existence, and the existence of everyone else. Read that part again, and again, and again until you get it.
> Like i said before, you are a follower of scientism. You only accept concrete facts. But you also like to see things for yourself, so your a moral relatavist aswell.
> 
> ...


Definition of habitually = _Of the nature of a habit._

Definition of habit = _A recurrent, often unconscious pattern of behavior that is acquired through frequent repetition_

A skeptic does not question every thing.. how many times does one have to say this.. Skeptics are moved with facts. It is Fact that we are alive..

Definition of alive = _In existence or operation._

Definition of operation = _The act or process of functioning_

Definition of Functioning = _The action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or employed_

To suggest a skeptic does not believe in anything is complete ignorance. If that were true, skeptics would not believe their, DNA proven, mother gave birth to them.

"Got-ya again"


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)




----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Somethings refuse to change.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

Peacock said:


> [snapback]826986[/snapback]​


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

hastatus said:


> Somethings refuse to change.
> [snapback]827788[/snapback]​


LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

OMG i thought i ended this argument with my perfect answer to that question peacock gave me.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

You were one of the very few to give an answer right after it was asked, I'll give you that much!

At least this thread has showed me the phenomenon that is the Lounge!


----------

