|
Post by depletedreasons on Jul 14, 2008 6:42:30 GMT -5
Interesting stuff. It sems to me as if most Romanians have some sort of Cuman ancestry.
|
|
|
Post by diurpaneus on Jul 14, 2008 7:17:03 GMT -5
Not most of the Romanians but some Romanians.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jul 14, 2008 9:12:42 GMT -5
Some, Tartar. Most have Bulgarian origin ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dragos Voda on Jul 14, 2008 12:25:11 GMT -5
I killed animals in my days.... but I could never kill a cute thing like this: Typical, people always want to save all the cute animals but could care less about the ugly ones. You never hear anyone protesting about boiling lobsters alive because lobsters are ugly. Regarding the Cuman ancestry of Romanians- how many Cuman words are there in Romanian? None. If they made up a significant part of the Romanian people they would have had some influence on the language.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jul 14, 2008 14:38:00 GMT -5
I don't think that the Cuman genepool is found in the majority of the Romanians, but if we take into account the whole of the Asian impact upon the Romanian population, then it's there, with a strong presence. How strong that presence is, would be hard to estimate.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jul 14, 2008 14:44:41 GMT -5
Whoever you are, you should try to educate yourself first. For starters, most scientist assume that it is unlikely that lobsters, fish, and other simple maritime animals, can feel any pain. Secondly, I don't agree with the practice and neither do those who are vegeratians or who feel that such execution are immoral. It's a question of making priorities and those animals that fall in the seafood chain have a low priority. If it is proven that these animals can suffer and in a significant way, then perhaps our view should change; but with a fish that can only memorize things for 5-seconds, it is rather unlikely that they can suffer.
Nice try in trying to point out our double-standard.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jul 14, 2008 15:19:39 GMT -5
I don't think that the Cuman genepool is found in the majority of the Romanians, but if we take into account the whole of the Asian impact upon the Romanian population, then it's there, with a strong presence. How strong that presence is, would be hard to estimate. That sounds accurate to me.
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jul 14, 2008 15:20:45 GMT -5
Some, Tartar. Most have Bulgarian origin ;D and those Bolgars have some origins that you would not want to think of. ;D
|
|
|
Post by depletedreasons on Jul 14, 2008 15:23:27 GMT -5
Not most of the Romanians but some Romanians. Alright.
|
|
|
Post by diurpaneus on Jul 14, 2008 15:25:39 GMT -5
I killed animals in my days.... but I could never kill a cute thing like this: Typical, people always want to save all the cute animals but could care less about the ugly ones. Most of the people eat meat. If you want to get meat, you have to kill animals. What up with all this snobbery? Protesting against killing animals, but eating hamburgers, cheeseburgers, shaorma and kebab. Where do you think the meat from the fast food restaurants and supermarkets come from?
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jul 14, 2008 17:21:36 GMT -5
Diur, you're back to your old self. That guy was trying to argue the thing that you just argued right now; and of course, you're both wrong.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jul 14, 2008 18:59:49 GMT -5
Whoever you are, you should try to educate yourself first. For starters, most scientist assume that it is unlikely that lobsters, fish, and other simple maritime animals, can feel any pain. I don't believe this for a second. It's true that they have a simpler nervous system than mammals, but that doesn't mean they don't feel when they are being attacked by another creature or otherwise being threatened by light, temperature, acid, etc. It's evident from their reaction that they try to save themselves. If it's not an instinctive reaction to physical damage, i.e., pain, what is it? Plants also react to physical damage. They also try to survive. Unicellular creatures behave in the same way. The truth is that the soup of life consists of creatures that, in order to survive, must devour and digest other living creatures. To me that's one of the strongest indications that whatever is at the origin of the universe --God-- is not a volitional entity. We have evolved to eat plants and animals. If we stop eating certain things, it could lead to malnutrition. Yet with science and technology we may yet develop a food that keeps us healthy without requiring the sacrifice of other life.
|
|
|
Post by Dragos Voda on Jul 14, 2008 22:50:42 GMT -5
Anittas, are you familiar with the animal rights philosopher Peter Singer? He holds the interests of all beings capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration, and that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their having wings or fur is no more justified than discrimination based on skin color. In particular, he argues that while animals show lower intelligence than the average human, many severely retarded humans show equally diminished, if not lower, mental capacity, and intelligence therefore does not provide a basis for providing nonhuman animals any less consideration than such retarded humans. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_SingerAs for who I am, I'm not Anclation. I used to be Lup Salbatic.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jul 14, 2008 23:25:03 GMT -5
Worms eat bacteria. Chickens eat worms. People eat chickens. Bacteria eat people --in modern times usually when they are already dead.
It's a circle consisting of living beings that eat one another, and we are part of it. The fact that we usually don't get violently killed gives the impression that we are at the top. But we're not.
Cremation is one way to avoid being eaten by bacteria.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jul 15, 2008 4:29:48 GMT -5
Whoever you are, you should try to educate yourself first. For starters, most scientist assume that it is unlikely that lobsters, fish, and other simple maritime animals, can feel any pain. I don't believe this for a second. It's true that they have a simpler nervous system than mammals, but that doesn't mean they don't feel when they are being attacked by another creature or otherwise being threatened by light, temperature, acid, etc. It's evident from their reaction that they try to save themselves. If it's not an instinctive reaction to physical damage, i.e., pain, what is it? Plants also react to physical damage. They also try to survive. Unicellular creatures behave in the same way. The truth is that the soup of life consists of creatures that, in order to survive, must devour and digest other living creatures. To me that's one of the strongest indications that whatever is at the origin of the universe --God-- is not a volitional entity. We have evolved to eat plants and animals. If we stop eating certain things, it could lead to malnutrition. Yet with science and technology we may yet develop a food that keeps us healthy without requiring the sacrifice of other life. c0gnate, stop acting stupid. Plants can't suffer and we've been through that already. A reactionary instinct is not the same as suffering. Bibleriot explained it better that altough animals may have a nerval system, not all may think of pain the same way. Most studies show that fish don't have the ability to suffer. Have you completed studies of your own that prove otherwise? Okay Lup, I remember you. You were a good guy. Well, I agree more or less with Singer.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jul 15, 2008 7:53:34 GMT -5
c0gnate, stop acting stupid. Stupid are those who try to rationalize eating living creatures by claiming these creatures are indifferent to being eaten.
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jul 15, 2008 11:03:53 GMT -5
No one made such a claim. The claim was that they didn't feel any pain. What you say here is whether they have an instinct for survival and do all they can to stay alive. That's easily proven, since even insects possess that instict.
You are a depressed person, c0gnate. To come here with your cynical comments and argue that because there's a lifecycle, we should all ignore about taking a stand on animal welfare, is a poor argument. You're not George Calin.
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jul 15, 2008 12:18:03 GMT -5
No one made such a claim. The claim was that they didn't feel any pain. What you say here is whether they have an instinct for survival and do all they can to stay alive. That's easily proven, since even insects possess that instict. You mean if a creature can't read Shakespeare, it doesn't feel pain when its guts are torn out? That amounts to asserting that "Pain is only what we feel. Everyone else is too stupid to properly interpret evisceration".
|
|
|
Post by jerryspringer on Jul 15, 2008 12:22:19 GMT -5
It's about nerves and how the brain interprets the impulses. I've mentioned that many times over. I trust the scientists more than I trust you. Who the hell are you anyway to question everything scientists say? I'm not a big deal, but since you speak with a voice of such a great authority, I must ask you: what's your prefession?
|
|
|
Post by c0gnate on Jul 15, 2008 12:38:59 GMT -5
It's about nerves and how the brain interprets the impulses. I've mentioned that many times over. I trust the scientists more than I trust you. Who the hell are you anyway to question everything scientists say? I'm not a big deal, but since you speak with a voice of such a great authority, I must ask you: what's your prefession? Why, I'm a scientist.
|
|