Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So i've been on facebook...for a little bit anyways before I was kicked off by hunters who don't want to debate, they're dead set on killing everything. Humans of the US of A have wiped out native wolves so they had to get wolves from a different location...they're the ones who cause it to happen and now they're complaining on how the "wrong" wolf is there. Why? It's the same with brown anoles, which them and green anoles are common back yard lizards but one has green scales (and can turn brown). Iguanas are also commonly hated for some reason. Humans call creatures like the two I mentioned invasive yet humans themselves have taken over the world. Yes humans used to be in this area before but they were natives and they respected nature. My point in the rant is why? Why do humans split other animals into different groups and say ____ wolf has this diet, personality, environment but _____ wolf has this, or even better Brown anoles are from cuba how dare they intermix with the green anoles...statements such as those yet when you dare call humans different they throw a fit. I mean no offense in this statement I'm about to say but it's the truth. Black humans, white humans, slightly off white humans, asians, whatever the shade is really they all come from different backgrounds yet they're all called "humans" why not take after what they do to non human animals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main reason humans are classified together as Homo Sapian, and other animals are broken down more is due to more dramatic differences.  Homo Sapians they all can interbreed, and follow the same diet without much issue. Lactose intolerance could be brought up as a differentiating feature in that regard, but compared to other species differences that is fsirly minor. Given enough time and isolation broken down into smaller groups in varied environments humans could well diverge. But due to modern travel and large population sizes this is unlikely to occur. Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo Erectus coexisted for a time with Homo Sapiens before the Homo Sapiens out-bread them. So untill Homo Sapiens diverge more dramatically they will all be Homo Sapien.

 

Homo Sapiens have variations in eye color, skin color, hair density, hair color, etc... such variations can exist in a species without falling outside of that categorization. And even .ore significant changes need to exist to fall outside a genus. The particular species in question has a culture that is polluted by previous generations heavily mistreating other members of the species based on superficial characteristics. As such the current culture is largely one which is insensitive to anything which could be seen as supportive of the previously far more oppressive culture. Therefore making a big deal out of superficial features is heavily frowned upon, and comments which, whether intending to incite division or not, that focus on such things, outside of some tightly knit social structures, will result in backlash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ithral Dharzul said:

The main reason humans are classified together as Homo Sapian, and other animals are broken down more is due to more dramatic differences.  Homo Sapians they all can interbreed, and follow the same diet without much issue. Lactose intolerance could be brought up as a differentiating feature in that regard, but compared to other species differences that is fsirly minor. Given enough time and isolation broken down into smaller groups in varied environments humans could well diverge. But due to modern travel and large population sizes this is unlikely to occur. Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo Erectus coexisted for a time with Homo Sapiens before the Homo Sapiens out-bread them. So untill Homo Sapiens diverge more dramatically they will all be Homo Sapien.

 

Homo Sapiens have variations in eye color, skin color, hair density, hair color, etc... such variations can exist in a species without falling outside of that categorization. And even .ore significant changes need to exist to fall outside a genus. The particular species in question has a culture that is polluted by previous generations heavily mistreating other members of the species based on superficial characteristics. As such the current culture is largely one which is insensitive to anything which could be seen as supportive of the previously far more oppressive culture. Therefore making a big deal out of superficial features is heavily frowned upon, and comments which, whether intending to incite division or not, that focus on such things, outside of some tightly knit social structures, will result in backlash.

Green and brown anoles can breed easily as well. Humans class anoles based on their scale color, wolves based on there area of living like the "Canadian" "timber" and "grey" wolf. They're both a group of the largest canines but the whole "diet" argument is too strict. Because the animals that live in the different areas are different they have a different diet and by the logic there humans of different areas should be treated as such. It's an annoying double standard, the only other double standard to rival that is humans killing every species for fun but if a non human animal dares kill and eat a human the world comes to an end. Woe is me a creature ate a human. Such a big deal. Humans say they're oppressed yet they kill everything, maybe not directly but the toxic waters kill the fish which sure I don't care that much about yet my diet is mostly fish and insects so I kind of need them, dragon kin species that are classes as lizards that eat insects suffer from the toxic pesticides used. Snakes which eat creatures like rats suffer from the same effect especially if said rats are being baited by poison. The only acceptable thing humans do is an accidental meltdown like in Chernobyl. I don't know if you've been but the human stuff is overrun and nature is acting as it should. The wolves over there are massive too. Predators are oppressed because they're killed for killing prey, prey are oppressed for being overpopulated because humans killed off the predators. Humans are one of the most annoying animals ever. I want to eat all of them but then i'd be sick  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2017 at 12:28 AM, DergSilverscale said:

Green and brown anoles can breed easily as well. Humans class anoles based on their scale color, wolves based on there area of living like the "Canadian" "timber" and "grey" wolf.

That is not how scientific classification works.

Scale color is one (1) observable difference that leads to being able to tell species apart from physical characteristics. Other physical differences include physical variations in things like head shape as well as a ridge down the middle of the brown anole's back. Brown anoles also cannot turn green, that's something only the green anole can do (the green anole can turn brown, but it is green), while the brown anole...can turn slightly more brown.

A subspecies is less distinct than a different species, and yes, often characterized by geographic differences! But subspecies are often isolated from each other because of their different ranges and do not interbreed regularly. A red wolf does not look like a gray wolf, you may notice. There are differences in size, coloration, habitat, fur patterning and structure, and range among all wolf subspecies.

On 11/15/2017 at 12:28 AM, DergSilverscale said:

Humans say they're oppressed yet they kill everything, maybe not directly but the toxic waters kill the fish which sure I don't care that much about yet my diet is mostly fish and insects so I kind of need them, dragon kin species that are classes as lizards that eat insects suffer from the toxic pesticides used.

Really? I was under the impression that dragons don't physically exist on Earth. Dragons are not classed as "lizards" (a komodo dragon is not a dragon, sorry, that's just a colloquial name for it, the scientific name is Varanus komodoensis and the genus Draco is already being used by little tiny gliding lizards like the reptile version of flying squirrels). Dragonkin are not classed as lizards, either, those are humans who identify as dragons for non-physical reasons and they do not need to eat insects or fish. Neither do you, given that you're a non-physical spirit in a human body. Now you're just pretending there's any science behind this.

  • Like 2
  • High Quality 1
  • Winner 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cipher said:

That is not how scientific classification works.

Scale color is one (1) observable difference that leads to being able to tell species apart from physical characteristics. Other physical differences include physical variations in things like head shape as well as a ridge down the middle of the brown anole's back. Brown anoles also cannot turn green, that's something only the green anole can do (the green anole can turn brown, but it is green), while the brown anole...can turn slightly more brown.

A subspecies is less distinct than a different species, and yes, often characterized by geographic differences! But subspecies are often isolated from each other because of their different ranges and do not interbreed regularly. A red wolf does not look like a gray wolf, you may notice. There are differences in size, coloration, habitat, fur patterning and structure, and range among all wolf subspecies.

Really? I was under the impression that dragons don't physically exist on Earth. Dragons are not classed as "lizards" (a komodo dragon is not a dragon, sorry, that's just a colloquial name for it, the scientific name is Varanus komodoensis and the genus Draco is already being used by little tiny gliding lizards like the reptile version of flying squirrels). Dragonkin are not classed as lizards, either, those are humans who identify as dragons for non-physical reasons and they do not need to eat insects or fish. Neither do you, given that you're a non-physical spirit in a human body. Now you're just pretending there's any science behind this.

Sure but by that logic black humans and white humans are different species, they live in different areas (or used to) eat different things, statistically highly likely to commit crime within themselves...but no that's "racist" right? Why is it? Dragons do exist on earth, just hidden from humans view. I know it's not a dragon, it's a huge lizard though. Dragons are essentially lizards we have cold blood, scales, eyelids, and limbs...sure we have wings but still. We aren't avian that's for sure.

I am speaking through a half shift, through my dragons spirit. I'm dragonkin by definition. There is science involved in many things you know. Sure i'm in a rubbish body but still I myself in spirit am a dragon, and I hold the memories of many past lives as such. I know I don't "have" to eat insects and fish but I like doing so. Insects are quite sustainable and it provides a meal to me as well as my reptilian children that are kin to dragons. Who are you to tell me i'm pretending?

  • Rubbish 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DergSilverscale said:

Sure but by that logic black humans and white humans are different species, they live in different areas (or used to) eat different things, statistically highly likely to commit crime within themselves...but no that's "racist" right?

We are a subspecies of human already - Homo sapiens sapiens (the other (extinct) one was Homo sapiens idaltu). Skin color, over generations, can actually change drastically because of environmental factors unrelated to any actual genetics. Physical appearance differences (such as different facial features people associate with different races) even involve less actual genetic difference than between subspecies. Subspecies of wolves do have more distinct genetic differences. As of right now in science, as far as I'm aware, there's just not enough actual genetic diversity to subcategorize humans further like that.

And actually, different species are determined by their distinct difference on the level of DNA. This difference does have a physical effect, which is why when we talk about different species of the same kind of animal (like big cats, for example), we might talk about how they look or where they live, but that's not why they're actually classified as different species. Defining subspecies is a little looser, but there is generally also at least a distinct variation in genetics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cipher said:

We are a subspecies of human already - Homo sapiens sapiens (the other (extinct) one was Homo sapiens idaltu). Skin color, over generations, can actually change drastically because of environmental factors unrelated to any actual genetics. Physical appearance differences (such as different facial features people associate with different races) even involve less actual genetic difference than between subspecies. Subspecies of wolves do have more distinct genetic differences. As of right now in science, as far as I'm aware, there's just not enough actual genetic diversity to subcategorize humans further like that.

And actually, different species are determined by their distinct difference on the level of DNA. This difference does have a physical effect, which is why when we talk about different species of the same kind of animal (like big cats, for example), we might talk about how they look or where they live, but that's not why they're actually classified as different species. Defining subspecies is a little looser, but there is generally also at least a distinct variation in genetics.

But narrowing them down to kill them is just wrong. The native wolf of the US was killed off, them bringing in more wolves even if they aren't the exact type for obvious reasons is needed, Humans like killing sure but it removes nature. If not species than humans are sub species which are allowed to intermingle yet green and brown anoles are hated for trying to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DergSilverscale said:

Dragons do exist on earth, just hidden from humans view

You might want to read this. Claims like that require evidence, or they're just a belief.

1 hour ago, DergSilverscale said:

Dragons are essentially lizards we have cold blood, scales, eyelids, and limbs...sure we have wings but still.

Somehow I think the whole "magic fire breath" and "wings" thing would probably lead to dragons having their own unique scientific classification completely separate from lizards. You have repeatedly shown generalizations and misunderstandings of how science works. "Essentially lizards" is not the same thing as a lizard. Dinosaurs aren't lizards either, for example. There's more to what a lizard is than cold blood, scales, eyelids, and limbs. Limbs are also irrelevant, given the existence of the legless lizard.

8 minutes ago, DergSilverscale said:

But narrowing them down to kill them is just wrong.

That is not why subspecies exist.

10 minutes ago, DergSilverscale said:

The native wolf of the US was killed off,

No they weren't. Multiple subspecies of wolves are native to the US, including the gray wolf (also know as timber wolf), red wolf, arctic wolf, Great Plains wolf, northwestern wolf, and Mexican wolf. We've got plenty of wolves. Some of them are endangered, yes, but they haven't gone extinct yet.

 

13 minutes ago, DergSilverscale said:

If not species than humans are sub species

I just explained why humans cannot be divided into subspecies. We are already a subspecies. The color and facial feature differences you see are insignificant in terms of genetics.

14 minutes ago, DergSilverscale said:

yet green and brown anoles are hated for trying to

Green and brown anoles are different species. An invasive species such as the brown anole out-competes the green anole to the point where the green anole cannot adapt quickly enough to maintain its place in the environment, and can threaten the entire existence of the other species. By this reckoning, are humans an invasive species? Yeah, probably. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying to prevent other kinds of invasive species, especially if the only reason they're invasive is because humans introduced them in the first place. Ignoring invasive species because you think they're not as big of a problem as humans is irresponsible. We are the only creatures at this point that do have the power to try and undo some of the damage we've done, and that includes things like the control of invasive species, projects to clean and keep clean sources of water, protecting endangered species (even if we were the ones who endangered them, it's even more important then), etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cipher said:

You might want to read this. Claims like that require evidence, or they're just a belief.

Somehow I think the whole "magic fire breath" and "wings" thing would probably lead to dragons having their own unique scientific classification completely separate from lizards. You have repeatedly shown generalizations and misunderstandings of how science works. "Essentially lizards" is not the same thing as a lizard. Dinosaurs aren't lizards either, for example. There's more to what a lizard is than cold blood, scales, eyelids, and limbs. Limbs are also irrelevant, given the existence of the legless lizard.

That is not why subspecies exist.

No they weren't. Multiple subspecies of wolves are native to the US, including the gray wolf (also know as timber wolf), red wolf, arctic wolf, Great Plains wolf, northwestern wolf, and Mexican wolf. We've got plenty of wolves. Some of them are endangered, yes, but they haven't gone extinct yet.

 

I just explained why humans cannot be divided into subspecies. We are already a subspecies. The color and facial feature differences you see are insignificant in terms of genetics.

Green and brown anoles are different species. An invasive species such as the brown anole out-competes the green anole to the point where the green anole cannot adapt quickly enough to maintain its place in the environment, and can threaten the entire existence of the other species. By this reckoning, are humans an invasive species? Yeah, probably. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying to prevent other kinds of invasive species, especially if the only reason they're invasive is because humans introduced them in the first place. Ignoring invasive species because you think they're not as big of a problem as humans is irresponsible. We are the only creatures at this point that do have the power to try and undo some of the damage we've done, and that includes things like the control of invasive species, projects to clean and keep clean sources of water, protecting endangered species (even if we were the ones who endangered them, it's even more important then), etc.

Black humans are invasive to white humans, at one point in time black humans were seen as lesser...look at the social justice movement...they're trying to get the black humans to be above...how is that bad? Using your logic...Brown anoles aren't invasive and can coexist with green anoles, i've actually seen it. There are brown and green anoles outside in my yard which I observe every day. I've seen more green anoles than I have brown anoles, again and again I see green anoles outnumbering the brown anoles so your point is invalid...Humans shouldn't be allowed to do such a thing..."stoping" is another word which in humans means mass killing. Just because they went to another area doesn't mean they're bad or invasive. What did humans do to bring brown anoles here besides ships? Sure they went on ships but they weren't deliberately put into nature..."humans are the only species" spare me that crap...Don't use such words as "control" and "invasive species" in the same statement...Humans don't do anything to help the "invasive" species, they only kill. Anoles eat insects...killing insects without chemicals is something humans should be striving for so why care if they're the wrong color of anole? They both eat insects.

  • WTF? 1
  • Low Quality 1
  • Rubbish 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy...you are driving me, a Wildlife Biologist major, insane. The reason certain species are defined as invasive species is because they out compete native species. For example, European Starlings were released into North America. I have watched with my own eyes them throwing a Red-bellied Woodpecker out of its nest cavity and taking it over. Not even a day later, the starlings were kicked out by another invasive species: House Sparrows. Although if you go into a forest you may find more woodpeckers than starlings but they are spreading rapidly and have taken over places where they used to thrive.

People hunt invasive species because they are attempted to conserve those native species. If we don't hunt the Wild Boar, for example, they'll decimate native plants and be a serious threat (they're extremely aggressive towards other animals and humans. Animals like mountain lions don't even try to hunt them because they'll be the one that'll get killed). It does because a philosophical issue to claim that humans are an invasive species. Over time, species spread and establish their place, fitting in to the food chain. For example, Ring-necked Pheasants were brought to North America but haven't been perceived a threat because they are hunted by other animals and humans. We are actually trying to establish habitat for them here! 

So, humans, if we see them as animals, yes we're invasive species. However, it is kind of hard to say so considering many people don't like to think themselves as animal. As long as we're able to work hard to keep the ecosystem stable, not moving or building over vital habitats, I think it'll get better. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, BirdMonster said:

Oh boy...you are driving me, a Wildlife Biologist major, insane. The reason certain species are defined as invasive species is because they out compete native species. For example, European Starlings were released into North America. I have watched with my own eyes them throwing a Red-bellied Woodpecker out of its nest cavity and taking it over. Not even a day later, the starlings were kicked out by another invasive species: House Sparrows. Although if you go into a forest you may find more woodpeckers than starlings but they are spreading rapidly and have taken over places where they used to thrive.

People hunt invasive species because they are attempted to conserve those native species. If we don't hunt the Wild Boar, for example, they'll decimate native plants and be a serious threat (they're extremely aggressive towards other animals and humans. Animals like mountain lions don't even try to hunt them because they'll be the one that'll get killed). It does because a philosophical issue to claim that humans are an invasive species. Over time, species spread and establish their place, fitting in to the food chain. For example, Ring-necked Pheasants were brought to North America but haven't been perceived a threat because they are hunted by other animals and humans. We are actually trying to establish habitat for them here! 

So, humans, if we see them as animals, yes we're invasive species. However, it is kind of hard to say so considering many people don't like to think themselves as animal. As long as we're able to work hard to keep the ecosystem stable, not moving or building over vital habitats, I think it'll get better. 

I know some "invasive" species do cause harm but literally the same creature with a different color is just mad...green and brown anoles are both anoles, a small lizard. I have seen with my own eyes them coexist. People hunt invasive species for something to kill. If humans didn't kill the predators of an area like coyotes, bob cats, and wolves then maybe just maybe I don't know for sure but I think the prey would fall back in line and not only that but be stronger. Brown anoles should be one of those species because feral cats like to decimate lizard populations so at least an anole of some sort to take care of the insects would do good. Iguanas shouldn't be hunted because they don't do anything wrong, they found a new home like humans long ago did when they came to the "new lands" and decimated the natives...It should be no issue saying humans are an invasive species, it should be a fact right now. Humans are taking over the world, they push all others out and they say others are overpopulated yet they have 7.6 in population...if any creature needs a cull it's the humans

  • Low Quality 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DergSilverscale said:

I know some "invasive" species do cause harm but literally the same creature with a different color is just mad...green and brown anoles are both anoles, a small lizard. I have seen with my own eyes them coexist. People hunt invasive species for something to kill. If humans didn't kill the predators of an area like coyotes, bob cats, and wolves then maybe just maybe I don't know for sure but I think the prey would fall back in line and not only that but be stronger. Brown anoles should be one of those species because feral cats like to decimate lizard populations so at least an anole of some sort to take care of the insects would do good. Iguanas shouldn't be hunted because they don't do anything wrong, they found a new home like humans long ago did when they came to the "new lands" and decimated the natives...It should be no issue saying humans are an invasive species, it should be a fact right now. Humans are taking over the world, they push all others out and they say others are overpopulated yet they have 7.6 in population...if any creature needs a cull it's the humans

I don't know how else to say this, but you are ignoring and denying everything anyone says if it doesn't go with your view point. Why join an otherkin website when you're not trying to learn anything or communicate with others? It seems to me that you just joined it just to rant about how much you hate humans killing dragons. It's not constructive. You said that once but you don't need to repeat it on every forum post.

  • Like 2
  • High Quality 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Syan said:

I don't know how else to say this, but you are ignoring and denying everything anyone says if it doesn't go with your view point. Why join an otherkin website when you're not trying to learn anything or communicate with others? It seems to me that you just joined it just to rant about how much you hate humans killing dragons. It's not constructive. You said that once but you don't need to repeat it on every forum post.

I'm trying to learn but it seems to have a huge human twist to it. The answers are from a human point of view, I wanted to get them from non humanists that's why I joined

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DergSilverscale said:

I'm trying to learn but it seems to have a huge human twist to it. The answers are from a human point of view, I wanted to get them from non humanists that's why I joined

So you only listen to those that agree with you and ignore anything else.

  • High Quality 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complaining about things that don't exist with fantasies that don't exist outside of your head is not debate. 

If you disagree, you may feel free to answer the questions I have posed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×