Post Race!

[homer13j]

This should help Witis see the light:

http://videosift.com/video/Troy-McCl...rs-in-MEAT-YOU

[dday9]

Just be glad you're not Mississippi.

It's like we're always competing for last place.

[Shaggy Hiker]

My mother once told me that all the other states should be thankful for Mississippi so that we are never in last place for anything.

[Niya]

Humans aren't the fastest or the strongest creatures on the planet, nor do they have any obvious weaponry on display like wolverine's claws, fearsome protruding teeth, tusks, horns, or poisonous fangs. Basically they look like they have evolved to operate in quite a civilised rather than savage manner.

I strongly believe you're trolling us here for amusement but I'm not mad. However there are people that actually believe nonsense like this.

Evolution doesn't care about building civilizations, it only cares about the propagation of genes, preferably ones that give the creature that owns it the best chance of survival. It doesn't care how we do it, only that its done. We don't have fangs and horns not because we were meant to be civilized but because we don't need them. Snakes don't have the means to fashion weapons to hunt or defend themselves which is why they have venom. We evolved a higher level of intelligence and appendages that allow us to influence our environment in a way that hooves or wings cannot. This allows us to fashion tools which make up for our lack of horns and tusks.

[Niya]

You know its funny, all these tree hugging types don't even realize that if their ancestors shared their silly sentiments, humans would never have even made it to the stone age. Good thing they were too busying figuring out how to tame their harsh environment so their children could survive to cry about eating those poor helpless cows.

[Niya]

Humans are supposed to be intelligent enough to discriminate between the innocent, including cows, and the guilty, including fish and snakes.

Well I don't think even a tree hugger would say something this silly

Innocent and guilty animals....I rest my case your honor!

[Witis]

They don't need shade for the reasons we need shade. We use shade as relief from the sun, but lots of light doesn't penetrate all that far into water, and heat gets absorbed pretty quickly. What shade does for the fish is keeps the water cooler, which is what keeps the fish cooler. There is also a certain amount of protection from predators, but that often depends on how the vegetation is arranged. In the ocean, the fish can always move around, and the heating from the sun has a different impact.

On the other hand, underwater vegetation does provide cover for lots of fish, so they do use it, though it isn't quite the same thing.

Hmmm, it is still difficult to envision fish that have evolved to live in desert waters needing cool water and a large amount of shade to survive, and if a particular species does need cooler water to survive then there are always points in the stream or river where there are natural rock walls to provide permanent shade and deeper pools as any vegetation is likely to recede as will the size of the water flow in really hot summers. Although I do agree that if the cows kill all of the river bank vegetation then it likely puts extra stress on the system.

A single cow is unlikely to kill a tree. They don't eat them, and they don't kick them into kindling, or anything like that. Lots of cows in an area can trample the banks to the point that the roots of the tree get damaged, or the cows could rub against them until they wear off the bark, but neither of those is all that common. What the cows tend to do is wipe out any new shoots and any brush. A mature tree can take it, young trees die, so as the old trees die from whatever reason, they are not replaced by new trees, and the result is a barrent stream bank.

Are you saying that the cows actually eat the small branches rather than just the leaves and flowers and kill the smaller trees? That sounds a bit of a strange thing for a cow to do, perhaps if they are starving, but I don't imagine cows would typically kill plants and trees rather than just grazing on them.

You are right that there are animals in the desert. In our deserts, the largest animal is generally the antelope. There are places with some elk, places with deer, and places with bighorn sheep. In all cases, the numbers of animals are VERY rare. While crossing 60 miles of desert, I saw about 5 antelope. I also saw several hundred cows. That's roughly the ratio you find on grazing areas. So, while there are other animals, their density is around 1-3% that of grazing cows, and possibly even less. If cow populations were reduced to that of antelope, no rancher could afford it. After all, a cow is several times the size of an antelope, sheep, or deer. Only elk are in the same size range, and I didn't see any of them in the desert. I'm not even sure they live out where I was, though they do live in desert-like areas with more elevation.

As for cows using the same watering holes, I believe they do tend to, yet the damage they do ends up being widespread due to their density on the land. This can be seen within a couple years by fencing off the banks.

Ah ok, I think I might understand the problem now. The ranchers get loads of cattle that are used to grazing on lush vegetation and then move them to the desert. If they let such a large number of cattle graze anywhere near the running water the cattle naturally feel like they are in starvation conditions and head straight for the only green vegetation available and eat everything living on the river banks until they kill it.

From cattle tanks. The use of cattle tanks and the fencing of streams moves cows away from the banks of the streams and puts them somewhere that can be used as sacrificial land. You can generally tell where a cattle tank is, too, if you have any elevation to view from, because the area around the tank is pounded into dust with nothing but flies living in it.

I agree that fencing has all the attributes you mention. Get the cows off the land and you wouldn't need any fencing.

True, although I can't blame the cows for behaving like they are in starvation conditions when they are forced to live in the desert, and that means that if a rancher is going to have cattle in the desert they probably do need to fence off the stream banks to protect the wildlife that lives there.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Your view of a desert might be based on caricatures. Deserts have a lack of precipitation, but heat is optional. The high desert country in southern Idaho does get mighty hot during the summers, but is seriously cold in the winters. There is also abundant grass, it just has a strange lifestyle. We have a period in the spring called the green-up, which is when everything is growing fast. Much of the grass then turns brown and apparently lifeless. This is still forage for cows, the grass has just stopped growing for the year and is effectively dormant. So, it isn't starvation conditions. The cows fatten up fairly well, though they require much more area than would cows in a lush environment.

Still, you have it pretty nearly right. I have no idea what a cow tastes (they will readily eat some poisonous plants and do themselves in, so who knows how things taste to them), but I would think that the lush green vegetation along a stream might be more pleasing than the drier vegetation out on the plains. Wading around in the water is fun for humans as well as cows, so it's not quite clear what the motivation is there, either.

As for the fish, they aren't so much concerned about sunburn. The issue is that the lack of vegetation allows the water to be heated by the sun until it becomes lethally hot for the fish. If the fish are adapted to a desert stream with lots of riparian vegetation, and all that vegetation goes away, then the average and maximum temperatures of the stream will increase. There is no hiding in the shade that will help with that, so they just die.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Well I don't think even a tree hugger would say something this silly

Innocent and guilty animals....I rest my case your honor!

That's what makes him Bambi. It's the Witis way.

[Witis]

We can solve the human population problem easily: Provide education and career opportunities for women. Birth rates are at or below replacement level in every country where this is done.

The Chinese one child policy, first implemented in 1979, has worked as "Demographers estimate that the policy averted 200 million births between 1979 and 2009" (Wiki). However, many families murdered females in preference for males: ""Sex-selected abortion, abandonment, and infanticide are illegal in China. Nevertheless, the US State Department,[67] the Parliament of the United Kingdom,[68] and the human rights organization Amnesty International[69] have all declared that China's family planning programs contribute to infanticide" (Wiki). As a result many have suggested that the one child policy is the underlying cause for the sex imbalance in China: "According to a report by the National Population and Family Planning Commission, there will be 30 million more men than women in 2020, potentially leading to social instability" (Wiki). It is also said to induce little emperor syndrome. Therefore it is probably not the sort of policy to emulate in anything other than a dire emergency.

By comparison "After the Korean War ended in 1953, the South Korean government suggested citizens each have one or two children to boost economic prosperity, which resulted in significantly lowered birth rates and a larger number of only children to the country" (Wiki).

[Witis]

This should help Witis see the light:

http://videosift.com/video/Troy-McCl...rs-in-MEAT-YOU

Yes that makes the point nicely homer13j.

[Witis]

Humans aren't the fastest or the strongest creatures on the planet, nor do they have any obvious weaponry on display like wolverine's claws, fearsome protruding teeth, tusks, horns, or poisonous fangs. Basically they look like they have evolved to operate in quite a civilised rather than savage manner.

I strongly believe you're trolling us here for amusement but I'm not mad. However there are people that actually believe nonsense like this.

The truth isn't nonsense Niya. =)

Evolution doesn't care about building civilizations, it only cares about the propagation of genes, preferably ones that give the creature that owns it the best chance of survival. It doesn't care how we do it, only that its done.

You seem to be suggesting that it is survival of the most ruthless rather than the most civilised.

We don't have fangs and horns not because we were meant to be civilized but because we don't need them. Snakes don't have the means to fashion weapons to hunt or defend themselves which is why they have venom. We evolved a higher level of intelligence and appendages that allow us to influence our environment in a way that hooves or wings cannot. This allows us to fashion tools which make up for our lack of horns and tusks.

Nah, humans are soft and cuddly rather than gigantic monstrosities. You should compare dinosaurs to humans to see the difference.

[Witis]

You know its funny, all these tree hugging types don't even realize that if their ancestors shared their silly sentiments, humans would never have even made it to the stone age. Good thing they were too busying figuring out how to tame their harsh environment so their children could survive to cry about eating those poor helpless cows.

There is very large difference between ancient hominids like the 6' 3 homo ergaster and modern humans and I am not even sure if they were intelligent enough to speak let alone discuss the merits of which animals to consume.

[Witis]

Humans are supposed to be intelligent enough to discriminate between the innocent, including cows, and the guilty, including fish and snakes.

Well I don't think even a tree hugger would say something this silly

Innocent and guilty animals....I rest my case your honor!

Innocent and guilty men, innocent and guilty animals.
Surely you know that you cannot execute innocent men, similarly you should not be able to murder innocent animals. If you want to be able to legally consume a particular animal then you are going to have to construct a better case than the one you have just presented Niya.

[Witis]

Your view of a desert might be based on caricatures. Deserts have a lack of precipitation, but heat is optional. The high desert country in southern Idaho does get mighty hot during the summers, but is seriously cold in the winters. There is also abundant grass, it just has a strange lifestyle. We have a period in the spring called the green-up, which is when everything is growing fast. Much of the grass then turns brown and apparently lifeless. This is still forage for cows, the grass has just stopped growing for the year and is effectively dormant. So, it isn't starvation conditions. The cows fatten up fairly well, though they require much more area than would cows in a lush environment.

Still, you have it pretty nearly right. I have no idea what a cow tastes (they will readily eat some poisonous plants and do themselves in, so who knows how things taste to them), but I would think that the lush green vegetation along a stream might be more pleasing than the drier vegetation out on the plains. Wading around in the water is fun for humans as well as cows, so it's not quite clear what the motivation is there, either.

I just don't imagine that the cows would kill off all of the riparian vegetation unless they viewed themselves as in starvation conditions, otherwise they would happily graze their entire enclosure and there would be no serious damage to the flora adjacent to the water.

As for the fish, they aren't so much concerned about sunburn. The issue is that the lack of vegetation allows the water to be heated by the sun until it becomes lethally hot for the fish. If the fish are adapted to a desert stream with lots of riparian vegetation, and all that vegetation goes away, then the average and maximum temperatures of the stream will increase. There is no hiding in the shade that will help with that, so they just die.

Boiled fish sounds delish. Although surely the fish will seek out deeper pools and areas shaded by rock walls if they are really effected by the heat?

[Witis]

That's what makes him Bambi. It's the Witis way.

Yep get those innocent animals out of death row. =)

[Niya]

Innocent and guilty men, innocent and guilty animals.
Surely you know that you cannot execute innocent men, similarly you should not be able to murder innocent animals. If you want to be able to legally consume a particular animal then you are going to have to construct a better case than the one you have just presented Niya.

I legally consume animals all the time. Just today, I ate chicken....

[Witis]

I legally consume animals all the time. Just today, I ate chicken....

And what is your case against chickens that enables you to feel justified in killing and eating them, what makes you think that you didn't just murder an innocent animal?

[Niya]

And what is your case against chickens that enables you to feel justified in killing and eating them, what makes you think that you didn't just murder an innocent animal?

Because they taste good. What other reason could there be mate ?

[Niya]

Oh and last I checked, it was perfectly legal to kill, cook and eat chickens.

[Niya]

Cows taste good too. I love how they make a good burger.

[Witis]

Because they taste good. What other reason could there be mate ?

That is clearly not a valid reason nor is it funny. As humans are omnivores many or indeed most animals should taste agreeable and therefore taste alone is clearly not a sufficient reason to justify killing any animal so you will have to do a lot better than that if you want to justify your culinary killings. For example I imagine that human flesh is flavoursome yet it is not legal to consume it. I put it to you that you indirectly murdered the innocent chicken you stated that you recently devoured.

[Witis]

Oh and last I checked, it was perfectly legal to kill, cook and eat chickens.

You still haven't convinced me that you didn't murder that chicken.

[Witis]

Cows taste good too. I love how they make a good burger.

I bet you are murdering the cows too. Let's hear your reasoning regarding the bountiful bovines, what makes you think you can justify regularly chowing down on beef burgers?

[Gruff]

Witis,

I think you really need to stop throwing around the M word. It does not apply to animals.

mur·der [mur-der]
noun
A law. The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation

Harvesting animals for their protein is an honorable profession. Geez Witis. What's your beef?

Regarding deserts. My experience with them is limited to Saturday mornings and Wile E Coyote.
I've read though that in really hot deserts ponds and washes dry up completely.
Those fish have a very short life cycle.
Their eggs can survive for extended periods without moisture.

[Witis]

Witis,

I think you really need to stop throwing around the M word. It does not apply to animals.

Sure it does Gruff the word can be readily used regarding any creature including humans, for example, here is a definition from Wiki (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/murder)
"murder - 1. An act of deliberate killing of another being, especially a human". I don't imagine anyone would misunderstand the meaning of the word when it is used to refer to any unjustifiable deaths of innocent animals. For example if your house was invaded and the robbers killed your pet during the robbery I am sure you would classify it as murder or use an equivalent synonym such as unlawful killing. I have read various reports that involve the unlawful deaths of pets or police dogs that have resulted in sentences of 35 years+. You must be thinking of the word homicide.

Harvesting animals for their protein is an honorable profession. Geez Witis. What's your beef?

Ah perhaps but only if you don't kill innocent species otherwise it becomes a villainous endeavour.

[Pc Monk]

[Gruff]

Wiki (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/murder)

Well if a Wiki has spoken it absolutely must be true.

BTW that wiki also says the synonym for murder is homicide.
Literally Man-Slayer.

I grew up on a farm. Animals either worked for you or they were dinner.
Sometimes both. According to you I must have "Murdered" countless chickens, ducks, geese, and rabbits. Gosh even an "Innocent" deer or two.

but only if you don't kill innocent species

Ah! now I get why you've earned the nickname Bambi. Talk about innocence.

[FunkyDexter]

I dunno about Shaggy's educating women idea. That sounds awfully dangerous to me.

nor is it funny

it was quite funny...

[Witis]

Well if a Wiki has spoken it absolutely must be true.

Murder also contains the word udder and that means it is a particularly apposite word to use in the case of cows being turned into burgers.

BTW that wiki also says the synonym for murder is homicide.
Literally Man-Slayer.

It is a synonym for some meanings although not all, as men can be murdered it is a synonym for homicide, however, it does not mean that murder can only be used to refer to humans unlike homicide. Other synonyms that are not specifically tied to humans include killing, death, assasination, and execution e.g. wrongful death or unlawful killing although murder is one of the most concise terms to use.

I grew up on a farm. Animals either worked for you or they were dinner.
Sometimes both. According to you I must have "Murdered" countless chickens, ducks, geese, and rabbits. Gosh even an "Innocent" deer or two.

Yep, you murdered them, no doubt about it, although you might find that ignorance is an excuse, even in the case of murder, particularly as it is not a crime that is widely understood or promulgated as yet, although there are quite a number of animal welfare and rights groups that continually warn the world about such things e.g. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lled-year.html. There are some of the animal welfare and rights groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...welfare_groups, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_group. There is no telling just how long it will be before the crimes are put into legislation, it is a continually evolving area. However, I don't imagine that you can claim to be ignorant of the crimes anymore Gruff.

Ah! now I get why you've earned the nickname Bambi. Talk about innocence.

I have also defended deer against being hunted and murdered in the past.

[Witis]

it was quite funny...

I usually get humour, although in that case my humour subroutine threw an exception, can you please explain it to me Herbie?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I just don't imagine that the cows would kill off all of the riparian vegetation unless they viewed themselves as in starvation conditions, otherwise they would happily graze their entire enclosure and there would be no serious damage to the flora adjacent to the water.

Cows arent' the smartest of animals, but they know what tastes the best. I assume that the lush riparian vegetation is just more attractive to them. Why they destroy it I can't say, only that they do.

Boiled fish sounds delish. Although surely the fish will seek out deeper pools and areas shaded by rock walls if they are really effected by the heat?

I was going to ask if you were British, but then it occured to me that some kinds of boiled fish really is quite tasty. In particular, a nice chowder is always welcome.

Why would water in a flowing stream be cooler in shade than in sun? As long as the water is moving, that which is in the shade is constantly being replaced by that which is in the sun. Shouldn't the water be constant temperature? In my experience, only cool springs in the bottoms of some streams (or elsewhere) create cold-water refuges for fish, and they DO congregate there, but those are rare in the desert. The rest of the stream is pretty uniform in temperature.If you have lots of shade, it is uniformly cooler, that if you have no shade, but the flowing water doesn't suddenly cool down when it flows out of sun into shadow.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Murder also contains the word udder

Only if you can't spell. I mean, it's not the same letters, and not the same order (in fact, order is closer to murder than udder is).



Frankly, I'm not terribly offended by somebody who feels I murder chicken. We kill things when we live. Even Witis has to draw the line somewhere, and has drawn it at animals. Killing plants is apparently fine. Killing animals incidentally is also apparently fine (if you take away their habitat, that's their problem). Killing fish is also apparently fine. There are a whole bunch of things where killing them is fine. You could line them up, if you wanted to, which would mean that things that are ok to kill are a fine line.

Everybody just divides things up differently.

[Bonker Gudd]

You analyse too much banana-boy.

[Witis]

Cows arent' the smartest of animals, but they know what tastes the best. I assume that the lush riparian vegetation is just more attractive to them. Why they destroy it I can't say, only that they do.

I'm no expert on the intricacies of the psychology behind cow grazing but I assume that if you plonk a cow in the middle of a partially grazed field it will head straight for the longest rather than shortest grass to preserve the grass as much as possible. Thus for cows to eat the riparian vegetation until it actually kills any of it the cows would have to dismiss the desert grass, as a valid source of food. I don't imagine that it is a taste issue as cows love to eat grass, although it is possible that the desert grass is offensive to their tastes. In either case the problem is caused by humans forcing domestic cattle, that have evolved to graze on lush vegetation, to graze in desert conditions; bad humans.

I was going to ask if you were British, but then it occured to me that some kinds of boiled fish really is quite tasty. In particular, a nice chowder is always welcome.

Most fish taste good to me. I have to add that when I explicated that I ate all the salmon in the desert stream rather than the cows I meant the fish flesh rather than the skin or brains. Bears usually only eat the fatty skin, the brains, and the roe, in order to gain weight as quickly as possible and completely discard the low fat fish flesh i.e. Bears don't like sushi.

Why would water in a flowing stream be cooler in shade than in sun? As long as the water is moving, that which is in the shade is constantly being replaced by that which is in the sun. Shouldn't the water be constant temperature? In my experience, only cool springs in the bottoms of some streams (or elsewhere) create cold-water refuges for fish, and they DO congregate there, but those are rare in the desert. The rest of the stream is pretty uniform in temperature.If you have lots of shade, it is uniformly cooler, that if you have no shade, but the flowing water doesn't suddenly cool down when it flows out of sun into shadow.

You seem to be overestimating the cooling effect of having a few trees on the side of the stream. In the middle of the day, when the sun is at its hottest, there is not respite from the desert sun. If there are any trees, and there don't have to be any in the desert, there is only shade in the morning or the afternoon when the sun is less intense. I agree that cooling springs would be quite rare in the desert, so the coolest water has to be in the deeper pools in parts of the stream where the water is not flowing very fast and covered by overhanging rocks. But desert fish have evolved to withstand such conditions so they must have strategies to cope with overly warm water and even for when the water disappears completely.

[Witis]

Murder also contains the word udder

Only if you can't spell. I mean, it's not the same letters, and not the same order (in fact, order is closer to murder than udder is).

What are you talking about Sharky? There is no o in murder unlike uder.
Murder
..u.der

Frankly, I'm not terribly offended by somebody who feels I murder chicken. We kill things when we live. Even Witis has to draw the line somewhere, and has drawn it at animals. Killing plants is apparently fine. Killing animals incidentally is also apparently fine (if you take away their habitat, that's their problem). Killing fish is also apparently fine. There are a whole bunch of things where killing them is fine. You could line them up, if you wanted to, which would mean that things that are ok to kill are a fine line.

Everybody just divides things up differently.

I have never outlined that it is ok to kill plants, and I challenge you to produce any evidence to the contrary. Similarly I have never outlined that it is ok to kill animals indiscriminately, instead I have provided reasons to justify why some animals can be killed for food including fish, gators, and snakes, and that it is murder to kill innocent animals like chickens, cows, and deer. The key is using one's wit to determine which animals, if any, can be justifiably killed for food. If you don't have a valid reason to justify killing a particular animal then you are almost certainly committing murder. :L

[Witis]

You analyse too much banana-boy.

analyse heh heh. =)

[Shaggy Hiker]

You seem to be overestimating the cooling effect of having a few trees on the side of the stream. In the middle of the day, when the sun is at its hottest, there is not respite from the desert sun. If there are any trees, and there don't have to be any in the desert, there is only shade in the morning or the afternoon when the sun is less intense. I agree that cooling springs would be quite rare in the desert, so the coolest water has to be in the deeper pools in parts of the stream where the water is not flowing very fast and covered by overhanging rocks. But desert fish have evolved to withstand such conditions so they must have strategies to cope with overly warm water and even for when the water disappears completely.

You do realize that you are making all of that up, right? You actually have no data and are clearly guessing. Guessing mostly wrong, too.

[Shaggy Hiker]

What are you talking about Sharky? There is no o in murder unlike uder.
Murder
..u.der

Right...they are similar...as long as you remove several letters. Well, if you remove the o in order, you don't have to remove the r from murder and the second d from udder to get them to look kind of similar. So, one change to one word rather that two changes to one word and one change to the other word, or else the addition of one letter and deletion of two. I'd say order is closer than udder.

I have never outlined that it is ok to kill plants, and I challenge you to produce any evidence to the contrary. Similarly I have never outlined that it is ok to kill animals indiscriminately, instead I have provided reasons to justify why some animals can be killed for food including fish, gators, and snakes, and that it is murder to kill innocent animals like chickens, cows, and deer. The key is using one's wit to determine which animals, if any, can be justifiably killed for food. If you don't have a valid reason to justify killing a particular animal then you are almost certainly committing murder. :L

So you condone killing plants and animals that you find tasty, but moralize about killing other animals? Sounds pretty self-serving, Bambi.

[szlamany]

@witis - don't argue stream mechanics with Shaggy - I believe that's his forte...