Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:01:50 -0500, Warp wrote:

> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> I fail to see how telling
> >> people "if you believe in something, practice it" comes even close to
> >> establishing a state-sponsored religion
> > 
> >   For fair balance, shouldn't there be a "Nation Day of Atheism"? You
> >   can
> > make the exact same arguments: It's not promoting atheism nor forcing
> > anybody to be atheist. You can be atheist if you want, but it's your
> > choice.

> Actually, there is one - and it's usually (now) held on the same day as 
> the NDP IIRC.

  Mandated by your congress, announced by your president?

  Yeah, exactly the same thing, really.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >    The definition of species is related to genetics, not to behaviour.

> I disagree.

> By human intervention, you can cause all kinds of matings to occur that 
> would never, ever happen in nature. That does /not/ mean that all 
> animals are of the same species.

  The definition of species is that two individuals are of the same species
if they can create fertile offspring. Behavior is irrelevant.

  If a man never has sex with fat women by choice, that doesn't make the
man a different species. That would be just ludicrous.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 13/01/2011 13:15, Warp a écrit :
>   The definition of species is that two individuals are of the same species
> if they can create fertile offspring. Behavior is irrelevant.


Ok, so, 2 males are never (?) of the same species, right ?
They cannot create fertile offspring by themselves.

Same for 2 females.

(but science is so great... )

(Just playing around!)







More seriously, does such definition get transitive ?

A & B are from the same specie because they can produce fertile offspring.
B & C are .... too.

Does that means A & C are the same specie automatically ?

What about a long chain : A & B, B & C, C & D, D & E, E & F...
till X & Y;
Are automatically A & Y of the same specie ?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   It talks about preference, not about capability. 

How do you talk a fruit fly into mating with another fruit fly if it doesn't 
want to?

I think you think "species" is much more strictly defined than it is.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:06:52 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:01:50 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> I fail to see how telling
>> >> people "if you believe in something, practice it" comes even close
>> >> to establishing a state-sponsored religion
>> > 
>> >   For fair balance, shouldn't there be a "Nation Day of Atheism"? You
>> >   can
>> > make the exact same arguments: It's not promoting atheism nor forcing
>> > anybody to be atheist. You can be atheist if you want, but it's your
>> > choice.
> 
>> Actually, there is one - and it's usually (now) held on the same day as
>> the NDP IIRC.
> 
>   Mandated by your congress, announced by your president?
> 
>   Yeah, exactly the same thing, really.

Like I sorta said earlier, talking with you is often like talking to a 
brick wall.  It's all black-and-white to you, isn't it?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:
> More seriously, does such definition get transitive ?

  That was already discussed elsethread.

  (If you missed it, here's a quick summary: Search for "ring species".)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   It talks about preference, not about capability. 

> How do you talk a fruit fly into mating with another fruit fly if it doesn't 
> want to?

  Ostensibly it can be tested without relying on behavioral patterns.

> I think you think "species" is much more strictly defined than it is.

  It's just that defining "species" in terms of behavior is ludicrous.
That would eg. mean there's not one single species of humans currently
living.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:06:52 -0500, Warp wrote:

> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:01:50 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > 
> >> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> >> I fail to see how telling
> >> >> people "if you believe in something, practice it" comes even close
> >> >> to establishing a state-sponsored religion
> >> > 
> >> >   For fair balance, shouldn't there be a "Nation Day of Atheism"? You
> >> >   can
> >> > make the exact same arguments: It's not promoting atheism nor forcing
> >> > anybody to be atheist. You can be atheist if you want, but it's your
> >> > choice.
> > 
> >> Actually, there is one - and it's usually (now) held on the same day as
> >> the NDP IIRC.
> > 
> >   Mandated by your congress, announced by your president?
> > 
> >   Yeah, exactly the same thing, really.

> Like I sorta said earlier, talking with you is often like talking to a 
> brick wall.  It's all black-and-white to you, isn't it?

  I understand that reply to mean that no, your so-called "atheism day"
is not official, mandated by your congress. That's my point. There's a
definite bias.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:03:01 -0500, Warp wrote:

>> Like I sorta said earlier, talking with you is often like talking to a
>> brick wall.  It's all black-and-white to you, isn't it?
> 
>   I understand that reply to mean that no, your so-called "atheism day"
> is not official, mandated by your congress. That's my point. There's a
> definite bias.

Um, no, my comment was nothing more than a comment on your obstinance.  
It should not be taken as an answer to your question, nor should this be.

It's a shame that I have to *explain* that something that isn't an answer 
to your question *isn't an answer to your question*.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 13/01/2011 8:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
...
>
> Jim

Mornington Crescent! :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message