A third call is reserved for males making unwanted mating advances
They are clearly mistaken, since animals can't say no!
LateossWuz gud 1 point on 2017-06-01 22:40:11
You get into an argument someone who says animals cant consent.
Casually paste the link to this study, thenBAMtheir argument is invalid.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-06-01 23:16:37
Funny how scientific findings are totally reliable and ultimately true when they fit into the personal narrative, but are a "result of bias and narrowmindedness of scientists" when they don´t...
Additionally, the study is about bats, so the only ones who should try to convince outsiders with the study linked above would be "bat zoos"...and I honestly doubt there are many active ones besides the usual fantasizing keyboard "zoos".
"Science found out that bats can fly" - "See, that´s the bulletproof evidence all animals can fly"...
Until we all wake up and stop arguing like little kids, with narrow perspectives and selective perception, nobody will get anywhere...
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-06-02 16:07:14
Additionally, the study is about bats, so the only ones who should try to convince outsiders with the study linked above would be "bat zoos"...and I honestly doubt there are many active ones besides the usual fantasizing keyboard "zoos".
"Science found out that bats can fly" - "See, that´s the bulletproof evidence all animals can fly"...
Do I have to remind you that back when I was arguing with ZetaCola about fuckin' underage animals, you sent me a PM and applied horse logic to dog logic? You did it again when you wanted me to give advice on how to fuck properly.
Not saying you're wrong on that, but keep in mind that you did the same right there.
It's not smart to say: ''Well bats can argue, so other animals can!'' but it is something you should always keep in mind.
You can't directly compare them, but this proves that at least one species can do it, so it's not always too dumb of a thought.
Funny how scientific findings are totally reliable and ultimately true when they fit into the personal narrative, but are a "result of bias and narrowmindedness of scientists" when they don´t...
Most people do this.
An anti-zoo can say: ''Well this article says you're all goddamn retarded!'' and most other anti-zoos will believe them.
Chances are extremely small another anti-zoo will doubt it, and even if they do, they won't show it.
Apparently, this is how it all works. You've got to agree with whoever is one your side. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not.
Ever needed to help a friend before? Even if they were wrong, you've got to defend them, because otherwise they'll automatically hold a grudge against you.
Not saying that any of this is right, just saying that like usual, it's a feature of our own wonderful and peaceful species, the human.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-06-02 17:14:56
"Ever needed to help a friend before? Even if they were wrong, you´ve got to defend them..." ...and this is where our attitudes differ, mate. If maintaining a friendship demands from me to be a traitor to my own ideals, acting against these ideals, then I´d rather end the friendship, not abandon my ideals. Additionally, true friends are those who are honest with you, no matter what...if the friendship is genuine and true, differing opinions won´t challenge it.
"...a feature of OUR own wonderful and peaceful species..."...well, speak for yourself, man. ;) I´ve left mankind long ago...and now I´m more of an observer standing on the outside than part of them.
Regarding the "horse logic applied to dogs": I´ve just quoted what I read in online forums and what I heard when I was talking to canine zoos. I tried to give you new impulses, but also said that I´m nowhere near being a dog person or have advanced knowledge in the canine sector.
My agrumentation you´ve quoted still stands...too much wishful thinking, too much of "grasping even the tiniest straw to keep the head above the water surface", too much of total belief in science when it fits the narrative, but total disbelief and scepticism when science´s findings don´t fit...
But anyways, discussing about this is futile to a certain extend and is owed to the very nature of filter bubbles encouraged by internet culture. When the internet got popular in the mid-nineties, all the early adopters were enthusiastic about all the promises they made to themselves: "When we can merge all the knowledge, we´re heading into a new era of enlightenment for sure!" I believed it too....boy, how wrong I and all the others were....instead of rapid advancements in knowledge, the internet brought out the worst in us all, egoism, filter bubbles, lies amplified a billion times...with truth being the very first casuality.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-06-03 00:30:07
[deleted]
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-06-03 00:31:06
[deleted]
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-06-03 00:31:17
"Ever needed to help a friend before? Even if they were wrong, you´ve got to defend them..." ...and this is where our attitudes differ, mate. If maintaining a friendship demands from me to be a traitor to my own ideals, acting against these ideals, then I´d rather end the friendship, not abandon my ideals. Additionally, true friends are those who are honest with you, no matter what...if the friendship is genuine and true, differing opinions won´t challenge it.
Yeah well I guess our definition of friend differs here.
If I broke my friendships because of things like these I'd really have zero friends like like people always expect of me.
I'm not a pushover, but sometimes you gotta put on your masks, remember?
"...a feature of OUR own wonderful and peaceful species..."...well, speak for yourself, man. ;) I´ve left mankind long ago...and now I´m more of an observer standing on the outside than part of them.
Yeah you know what I meant.
I know you like to show you're a bit more special than others, I know that by now, but this shit behavior is a part of humans. Good you've grown out of it, man!
And goddamn, you really scared me there for a sec. I started thinking lower of you over time but goddamn I thought you were claiming to be one of those otherkin retards like we have roaming around here. I wouldn't expect that, even from you.
Regarding the "horse logic applied to dogs": I´ve just quoted what I read in online forums and what I heard when I was talking to canine zoos. I tried to give you new impulses, but also said that I´m nowhere near being a dog person or have advanced knowledge in the canine sector.
''...And I can´t imagine one reason why this isn´t basically the same with dogs.''
This tells me something different, but fair enough.
What concerns me that you'd listen to these so called canine zoos. I wonder why I didn't catch that earlier.
I thought that out of all people here, you wouldn't believe shit they said. Just surprised, that's all.
I guess it doesn't really matter since any kind of help didn't work in the end.
But anyways, discussing about this is futile
Wow, stop right there man.
You're damn close to the answer! Here, let's play a game.
-is---sing --yt-in- on t-- i--er--t is --int--ss as it w--'t -ha--e shit.
Win and get some free knowledge!
Want some tips? It goes something like: Discussing... Anything... Internet... Pointless...
When the internet got popular in the mid-nineties, all the early adopters were enthusiastic about all the promises they made to themselves: "When we can merge all the knowledge, we´re heading into a new era of enlightenment for sure!" I believed it too....boy, how wrong I and all the others were....instead of rapid advancements in knowledge, the internet brought out the worst in us all, egoism, filter bubbles, lies amplified a billion times...with truth being the very first casuality.
Sounds almost like you're obsessed with the past! If so, we finally have one thing in common.
Talking about sounds... this sounds like my whole life, too! Life is full of surprises dissapointment, isn't it?
It goes like this: Expecting shit, not getting it even though you'd cut a leg off and kill for it, then getting judged for even caring about it or thinking it'd happen.
Yeah, well, that's how it goes. Thanks for reminding me!
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-06-02 21:19:53
They are only a result of "bias and narrowminded scientists" when misapplied. The science doesn't make conclusions. People do. I point out when those conclusions are poorly drawn.
That said, no one was seriously applying this to all animals, I hope.
Andrew-R 1 point on 2017-06-04 23:25:54
..may be related, but some time ago (less than 3 years, I think) I had talk with one of my few friends, about communication with non-humans. I said 'but may be bats also not less advanced/interesting than dolphins', and he argued 'but most humans will probably not want to be close friend of flying bat, because for us they look ..ugly?'.
Sure, overgeneralizing is bad, but not generalizing enough is also error - and there is no sure and fast rule to say where our generalization ability started to mis-serve us. Science is made by humans, and not just humans but part of humanity (self)considered elite ..with all sad consequences of this. But guess take-away (and keep it inside) lesson from those studies ..world is nearly always MORE complex than our models/images of it. Of course, at some level it might become amazingly simple, but this simplicity still rests on very big complexity.
/r/zoophilia archive
They are clearly mistaken, since animals can't say no!
You get into an argument someone who says animals cant consent.
Casually paste the link to this study, then BAM their argument is invalid.
Funny how scientific findings are totally reliable and ultimately true when they fit into the personal narrative, but are a "result of bias and narrowmindedness of scientists" when they don´t...
Additionally, the study is about bats, so the only ones who should try to convince outsiders with the study linked above would be "bat zoos"...and I honestly doubt there are many active ones besides the usual fantasizing keyboard "zoos".
"Science found out that bats can fly" - "See, that´s the bulletproof evidence all animals can fly"...
Until we all wake up and stop arguing like little kids, with narrow perspectives and selective perception, nobody will get anywhere...
Do I have to remind you that back when I was arguing with ZetaCola about fuckin' underage animals, you sent me a PM and applied horse logic to dog logic? You did it again when you wanted me to give advice on how to fuck properly.
Not saying you're wrong on that, but keep in mind that you did the same right there.
It's not smart to say: ''Well bats can argue, so other animals can!'' but it is something you should always keep in mind.
You can't directly compare them, but this proves that at least one species can do it, so it's not always too dumb of a thought.
Most people do this.
An anti-zoo can say: ''Well this article says you're all goddamn retarded!'' and most other anti-zoos will believe them.
Chances are extremely small another anti-zoo will doubt it, and even if they do, they won't show it.
Apparently, this is how it all works. You've got to agree with whoever is one your side. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not.
Ever needed to help a friend before? Even if they were wrong, you've got to defend them, because otherwise they'll automatically hold a grudge against you.
Not saying that any of this is right, just saying that like usual, it's a feature of our own wonderful and peaceful species, the human.
"Ever needed to help a friend before? Even if they were wrong, you´ve got to defend them..." ...and this is where our attitudes differ, mate. If maintaining a friendship demands from me to be a traitor to my own ideals, acting against these ideals, then I´d rather end the friendship, not abandon my ideals. Additionally, true friends are those who are honest with you, no matter what...if the friendship is genuine and true, differing opinions won´t challenge it.
"...a feature of OUR own wonderful and peaceful species..."...well, speak for yourself, man. ;) I´ve left mankind long ago...and now I´m more of an observer standing on the outside than part of them.
Regarding the "horse logic applied to dogs": I´ve just quoted what I read in online forums and what I heard when I was talking to canine zoos. I tried to give you new impulses, but also said that I´m nowhere near being a dog person or have advanced knowledge in the canine sector. My agrumentation you´ve quoted still stands...too much wishful thinking, too much of "grasping even the tiniest straw to keep the head above the water surface", too much of total belief in science when it fits the narrative, but total disbelief and scepticism when science´s findings don´t fit...
But anyways, discussing about this is futile to a certain extend and is owed to the very nature of filter bubbles encouraged by internet culture. When the internet got popular in the mid-nineties, all the early adopters were enthusiastic about all the promises they made to themselves: "When we can merge all the knowledge, we´re heading into a new era of enlightenment for sure!" I believed it too....boy, how wrong I and all the others were....instead of rapid advancements in knowledge, the internet brought out the worst in us all, egoism, filter bubbles, lies amplified a billion times...with truth being the very first casuality.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Yeah well I guess our definition of friend differs here.
If I broke my friendships because of things like these I'd really have zero friends like like people always expect of me.
I'm not a pushover, but sometimes you gotta put on your masks, remember?
Yeah you know what I meant.
I know you like to show you're a bit more special than others, I know that by now, but this shit behavior is a part of humans. Good you've grown out of it, man!
And goddamn, you really scared me there for a sec. I started thinking lower of you over time but goddamn I thought you were claiming to be one of those otherkin retards like we have roaming around here. I wouldn't expect that, even from you.
''...And I can´t imagine one reason why this isn´t basically the same with dogs.''
This tells me something different, but fair enough.
What concerns me that you'd listen to these so called canine zoos. I wonder why I didn't catch that earlier.
I thought that out of all people here, you wouldn't believe shit they said. Just surprised, that's all.
I guess it doesn't really matter since any kind of help didn't work in the end.
Wow, stop right there man.
You're damn close to the answer! Here, let's play a game.
-is---sing --yt-in- on t-- i--er--t is --int--ss as it w--'t -ha--e shit.
Win and get some free knowledge!
Want some tips? It goes something like: Discussing... Anything... Internet... Pointless...
Sounds almost like you're obsessed with the past! If so, we finally have one thing in common.
Talking about sounds... this sounds like my whole life, too! Life is full of
surprisesdissapointment, isn't it?It goes like this: Expecting shit, not getting it even though you'd cut a leg off and kill for it, then getting judged for even caring about it or thinking it'd happen.
Yeah, well, that's how it goes. Thanks for reminding me!
They are only a result of "bias and narrowminded scientists" when misapplied. The science doesn't make conclusions. People do. I point out when those conclusions are poorly drawn.
That said, no one was seriously applying this to all animals, I hope.
..may be related, but some time ago (less than 3 years, I think) I had talk with one of my few friends, about communication with non-humans. I said 'but may be bats also not less advanced/interesting than dolphins', and he argued 'but most humans will probably not want to be close friend of flying bat, because for us they look ..ugly?'.
Sure, overgeneralizing is bad, but not generalizing enough is also error - and there is no sure and fast rule to say where our generalization ability started to mis-serve us. Science is made by humans, and not just humans but part of humanity (self)considered elite ..with all sad consequences of this. But guess take-away (and keep it inside) lesson from those studies ..world is nearly always MORE complex than our models/images of it. Of course, at some level it might become amazingly simple, but this simplicity still rests on very big complexity.