37 ms·

> They've been bred for that for hundreds of generations. What is significant about this specific mechanism that makes it noteworthy enough to violate what was

> They've been bred for that for hundreds of generations. What is significant about this specific mechanism that makes it noteworthy enough to violate what was already established?

freejazz 2y ago
Are you genuinely asking this question because you can't fathom how?
- fastball 2y ago
  I'm genuinely interested in the distinction. Humans "breeding" animals is the same as any other environmental factor that affects evolution of a species.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    I'm sorry, are you saying something like french bulldogs would have evolved just the same without human intervention? It seems like you are reforming the idea in a really obtuse manner in order to paper over the obvious distinction.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      Where do you dream this stuff up? What continues to be asked is of what relevance the topic of breeding is to the subject at hand. Nobody is surprised that selective breeding is a thing, denies that it happens, or pretends that it hasn't shaped the animals. What nobody seems to want to answer is why it was brought to the discussion, especially when it was already, and explicitly, established that the exact mechanism for the animal's behaviour is irrelevant to said discussion. No doubt it was posted for good reason, but so far nobody has been able to figure out what that reason is. To the rest of us laymen, an environmental factor is an environmental factor is an environmental factor. What makes breeding so different that it justifies violating the discussion that was taking place?
      - freejazz 2y ago
        >What nobody seems to want to answer is why it was brought to the discussion, especially when it was already, and explicitly, established that the exact mechanism for the animal's behaviour is irrelevant to said discussion. Who said that? As far as I can tell the discussion was the difference between domesticated cows and bison, and I didn't see anyone say breeding is irrelevant except you. > What makes breeding so different that it justifies violating the discussion that was taking place? What exactly are you talking about? You are being obtusely vague >Where do you dream this stuff up? No need to be rude, it's not helping anything. You are being rude to the other poster too, when it's your fault for not communicating clearly and just insisting everyone made the same assumptions as you when it's clear they didn't. Rather than make things clear, you just keep insulting people on top of things.
        randomdata 2y ago
        > As far as I can tell the discussion was the difference between domesticated cows and bison The discussion was about how domesticated animals prefer to stick around humans even when they don't need to, negating the idea that all animals are of the opinion that "humans suck". It was established that the exact reason for why these animals behave that way is irrelevant to the topic, but then the comment about bison introduced the idea that it is relevant. After all, why would we see a post that is irrelevant? But there is no indication of where the relevance lies. Is selective breeding not an environment pressure like any other? What is noteworthy about it that justifies the violation? > No need to be rude, it's not helping anything. Intriguing. It would be interesting to hear the logic behind considering text spit out by a piece of software to be rude. Does rudeness not require human intent? Indeed, a human giving another human the middle finger might be considered rude (human intent) by a human observer, but a monkey giving the middle finger (non-human intent) is not traditionally considered so despite being an identical act. This seems to imply that you assign human-like qualities to software. But at the same time software is well understood to not be human-like. It operates using very different mechanisms. Which, then, seems like software should be treated more like the monkey than like the human, but clearly that is not the case. Tell us more about your take! The other commenter does not seem to recall why he posted the comment about the bison, leaving that topic to be a dead-end, so let's entertain your tangent.
  - ycombinatrix 2y ago
    This guy doesn't know what "breeding" means ^
- randomdata 2y ago
  I genuinely ask what is noteworthy about breeding that separates it from any other mechanism with respect to the topic at hand. There is no indication in the comment of how breeding actually violates the unnecessariness of the exact mechanics. I suspect it was posted without having read the thread that came before it, but we shall see when clarification is revealed, if the original commenter ever follows up.
  - grecy 2y ago
    I've read your comment above and the one above that multiple times. I still don't understand what you are asking. If you don't understand that breeding something for a certain trait will impact that animal, I suggest you go look at pugs or dash-hounds and the medical problems they now have as a result of very specific breeding.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      It was established that the exact mechanics don't matter. But then you introduced an exact mechanic. This means that there must be something incredibly interesting or noteworthy about said mechanic to violate the notion that the exact mechanics don't matter. But you have not yet shared what is notable about it. Breeding for a certain trait is farming 101. There is absolutely nothing interesting about that. So what have we missed?
      - grecy 2y ago
        I am still not following you at all. I honestly feel like either you or I are replying to the wrong comment chain. > It was established that the exact mechanics don't matter Please show me what was established and where. I genuinely don't know what you are talking about. > But then you introduced an exact mechanic Again, please show what I introduced and where. >This means that there must be something incredibly interesting or noteworthy about said mechanic to violate the notion that the exact mechanics don't matter Ahhh, really lost now. > But you have not yet shared what is notable about it. Notable about what? Either one of us is staggeringly confused, or I'm having this conversation with an AI in training.

> They've been bred for that for hundreds of generations. What is significant about this specific mechanism that makes it noteworthy enough to violate what was already established?

freejazz 2y ago

Are you genuinely asking this question because you can't fathom how?

fastball 2y ago
I'm genuinely interested in the distinction. Humans "breeding" animals is the same as any other environmental factor that affects evolution of a species.
- freejazz 2y ago
  I'm sorry, are you saying something like french bulldogs would have evolved just the same without human intervention? It seems like you are reforming the idea in a really obtuse manner in order to paper over the obvious distinction.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    Where do you dream this stuff up? What continues to be asked is of what relevance the topic of breeding is to the subject at hand. Nobody is surprised that selective breeding is a thing, denies that it happens, or pretends that it hasn't shaped the animals. What nobody seems to want to answer is why it was brought to the discussion, especially when it was already, and explicitly, established that the exact mechanism for the animal's behaviour is irrelevant to said discussion. No doubt it was posted for good reason, but so far nobody has been able to figure out what that reason is. To the rest of us laymen, an environmental factor is an environmental factor is an environmental factor. What makes breeding so different that it justifies violating the discussion that was taking place?
    - freejazz 2y ago
      >What nobody seems to want to answer is why it was brought to the discussion, especially when it was already, and explicitly, established that the exact mechanism for the animal's behaviour is irrelevant to said discussion. Who said that? As far as I can tell the discussion was the difference between domesticated cows and bison, and I didn't see anyone say breeding is irrelevant except you. > What makes breeding so different that it justifies violating the discussion that was taking place? What exactly are you talking about? You are being obtusely vague >Where do you dream this stuff up? No need to be rude, it's not helping anything. You are being rude to the other poster too, when it's your fault for not communicating clearly and just insisting everyone made the same assumptions as you when it's clear they didn't. Rather than make things clear, you just keep insulting people on top of things.
      - randomdata 2y ago
        > As far as I can tell the discussion was the difference between domesticated cows and bison The discussion was about how domesticated animals prefer to stick around humans even when they don't need to, negating the idea that all animals are of the opinion that "humans suck". It was established that the exact reason for why these animals behave that way is irrelevant to the topic, but then the comment about bison introduced the idea that it is relevant. After all, why would we see a post that is irrelevant? But there is no indication of where the relevance lies. Is selective breeding not an environment pressure like any other? What is noteworthy about it that justifies the violation? > No need to be rude, it's not helping anything. Intriguing. It would be interesting to hear the logic behind considering text spit out by a piece of software to be rude. Does rudeness not require human intent? Indeed, a human giving another human the middle finger might be considered rude (human intent) by a human observer, but a monkey giving the middle finger (non-human intent) is not traditionally considered so despite being an identical act. This seems to imply that you assign human-like qualities to software. But at the same time software is well understood to not be human-like. It operates using very different mechanisms. Which, then, seems like software should be treated more like the monkey than like the human, but clearly that is not the case. Tell us more about your take! The other commenter does not seem to recall why he posted the comment about the bison, leaving that topic to be a dead-end, so let's entertain your tangent.
- ycombinatrix 2y ago
  This guy doesn't know what "breeding" means ^
randomdata 2y ago
I genuinely ask what is noteworthy about breeding that separates it from any other mechanism with respect to the topic at hand. There is no indication in the comment of how breeding actually violates the unnecessariness of the exact mechanics. I suspect it was posted without having read the thread that came before it, but we shall see when clarification is revealed, if the original commenter ever follows up.
- grecy 2y ago
  I've read your comment above and the one above that multiple times. I still don't understand what you are asking. If you don't understand that breeding something for a certain trait will impact that animal, I suggest you go look at pugs or dash-hounds and the medical problems they now have as a result of very specific breeding.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    It was established that the exact mechanics don't matter. But then you introduced an exact mechanic. This means that there must be something incredibly interesting or noteworthy about said mechanic to violate the notion that the exact mechanics don't matter. But you have not yet shared what is notable about it. Breeding for a certain trait is farming 101. There is absolutely nothing interesting about that. So what have we missed?
    - grecy 2y ago
      I am still not following you at all. I honestly feel like either you or I are replying to the wrong comment chain. > It was established that the exact mechanics don't matter Please show me what was established and where. I genuinely don't know what you are talking about. > But then you introduced an exact mechanic Again, please show what I introduced and where. >This means that there must be something incredibly interesting or noteworthy about said mechanic to violate the notion that the exact mechanics don't matter Ahhh, really lost now. > But you have not yet shared what is notable about it. Notable about what? Either one of us is staggeringly confused, or I'm having this conversation with an AI in training.