- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
There are, of course, many instances of animals that take actions which kills themselves - usually to preserve their kin (their own genes, or their colony, etc.), but also sometimes out of sadness.
Please site these instances that are depicted in such a way in which you have described.
To try to say they have to have the same level of knowing is to try to create an impossible comparison (your own rhetorical strategy).
It's perfectly reasonable to presume that the animals are not too much informed about the laws of physics, at least enough to know the tactic one should take in order to kill itself (sort of like certain birds flinging themselves off of cliffs). Jumping off of a cliff to kill yourself requires that you know fundamental physics, and in an animals head (reasonably presuming) when faced with such obstacles they instinctually think "danger danger!"
So in the event that they just jump intentionally it would be more plausible to postulate something other than [the animal] thinking "I am tired of this life, It's best I just end it".
Now, can you say how any of this relates to what rights animals and humans do or should have??
It was you who falsely asserted that animals destroy themselves knowingly, as in, they have the ability to understand the outcome of a suicidal action- and I would love to see an exemplar cited elaborately.
But college teams makes schools billions of dollars without anything in return (except hopes of being recruited).
Take the NCAA, for example, as an industry they make more money than the NBA. They exploit their players for millions in profit and not even so much as give them a parallel equivalent to .01% in return.
Which is not a plausible assertion. You cannot tell from a look that it is a real Bigfoot.
I said a creature such as bigfoot... I also said 'assuming' are you ignoring my words intentionally?
Understandable does not mean it is your "best bet"
In certain case, one of which I illustrated on, [forgery] may be your best bet.
This is driven by ego, not the search for the truth and reality. If the forgery is discovered (very likely) you would create the opposite of your intent.
The first part of you statement is irrelevant, the second part ignored my scenario's reasoning. If I say "hey I saw bigfoot in X forest, here's his hair and a blurry pic!" And all of what I said was entirely made up; then someone actually goes out there and finds [bigfoot] in X forest, you will be known as the person who discovered bigfoot. There could be no opposite effect.
My key point was knowingly. You are the only one in conflict with scientist when you say that humans understanding evolution any why it would be disadvantageous t destroy their young, is equivalent to an animals understanding.
Also when you say 'suicide' pretending as if an animal is thinking 'I hate my life' like a human would think. The rhetorical strategies doesn't help your argument. Please be honest when you cannot hold a position instead of backing it up with rhetoric.
You are again invoking someone else as a validator for a point. Develop some intellectuality and back up your assertions with reasoning of your own.
Furthermore, he was just as wrong as you, though he understood my point quite well. He is just pretending there is not a distinction between knowingly destroying yourself, and doing so unknowingly. The animals that commit suicide aren't thinking "gee I hate my life," like humans.
As I requested before, refrain from interposing on my arguments given that half of the time you do not make any sense- which is likely due to you understanding or a lack thereof. And you wait for someone to dispute me, then you add on so you can have a sense of security (or up-votes). Funny thing is, most times your security fails and consequently so do you (as in this case, and more recent cases).