# Is this a fish?



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Would anyone care to defend this being a fish??


----------



## Trose (Feb 17, 2005)

Why would someone defend it being a fish? Who says it's a fish? It's a rodent mammal.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

it's a highly evolved fish.

this particular fish has, through natural selection, developed the ability to breathe air and walk on land.

(and yet strangely, i voted 'no' in the poll ... )


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Patience grasshoppers


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

"Object Recognition
adapted from David Forsyth, UC Berkeley
People draw distinctions between what is seen
• This could mean
– “is this a fish or a bicycle?”
– “is this George Washington?”
– “is this poisonous or not?”
– “is this slippery or not?”
– “will this support my weight?”
Great mystery
– How to build programs that can draw useful distinctions based on image
properties"

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...ame&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

A pet shop owner told me it was a live parrot.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Would anyone care to defend this being a fish??


I think the Catholic Church did so at some point, no?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes indeed.....



> When Venezuelans' appetite for capybara clashed with the church's ban on eating meat during Lent, a local priest asked the Vatican to give the world's biggest rodent the status of fish. *People rejoiced when the Vatican agreed, declaring that capybara isn't meat*


http://www.rebsig.com/capybara/capymeat.html

How convenient.......I'll let you draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

It's a short snouted standard wirehaired dachshund, that had its tail cropped just after birth.


----------



## moonsocket (Apr 1, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> It's a short snouted standard wirehaired dachshund, that had its tail cropped just after birth.


If indeed it is a short snouted standard wirehaired dachshund it should probably go on a diet.  (Also seems to be alot taller than normal, no?)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There are many definitions made to suit the convenience of participants in religious and secular worlds. 

If I put up a poll with this sonogram and asked: "Is this human being?" I could have all sorts of fun saying that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is not considered a "human being."

Instead of seeing the article about the capybara as ridiculous, I see it as an example of a church encouraging people to eat what they want, when they want instead of lording it over them. They didn't declare it not to be "meat," nor did they call it a fish, but accorded it the same status as food fish. It's easy to make fun of a world in transition. Life is full of inconsistencies and conveniences.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It can't be. I don't see a hook in it's mouth!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Take the "Vatican" fact with a grain of salt. There is currently no solid documentation supporting the fact.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

I can't see how anyone can declare the Capybara (the world's largest rodent) a fish.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Of course it's not a fish!

Fer cryin' out loud, it's so obvious that it's a _bird_!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I can't see how anyone can declare the Capybara (the world's largest rodent) a fish.


Yes Che....that's my point 
BTW any number of other "not fish" species suffer similar "interpretation.

Dogma is.........until it isn't.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's just like people who believe in GHGs as the world's most important problem, then fly off on long unnecessary airplane trips. We all have to justify our behaviour somehow--let's not ridicule people just because we don't agree with their justifications.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> There are many definitions made to suit the convenience of participants in religious and secular worlds.
> 
> If I put up a poll with this sonogram and asked: "Is this human being?" I could have all sorts of fun saying that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is not considered a "human being."
> 
> Instead of seeing the article about the capybara as ridiculous, I see it as an example of a church encouraging people to eat what they want, when they want instead of lording it over them. They didn't declare it not to be "meat," nor did they call it a fish, but accorded it the same status as food fish. It's easy to make fun of a world in transition. Life is full of inconsistencies and conveniences.


Yeah the ridicule here is pretty ironic when many of the same people can look at an unborn baby and give it wart status, right up to seconds before delivery in fact. So called highly intelligent, enlightened individuals living in an age of advanced science. They have their own dogma I suppose. Talk about twisting things to suit an agenda. Its the modern day equivalent of the Nazi's defining Jews as sub human to justify their termination.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I see it as an example of a church encouraging people to eat what they want, when they want instead of lording it over them.


Imagine a church Lording it over people.

Anyway, I hear it tastes like chicken.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah the ridicule here is pretty ironic when many of the same people can look at an unborn baby and give it wart status, right up to seconds before delivery in fact. So called highly intelligent, enlightened individuals living in an age of advanced science. They have their own dogma I suppose. Talk about twisting things to suit an agenda. Its the modern day equivalent of the Nazi's defining Jews as sub human to justify their termination.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


That was fast... bringing Nazis into the thread with only 2 pages.

Bravo! beejacon


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I love how a thread on the status of a living full grown animal becomes a debate on abortion. Talk about one track and obsessed.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> There are many definitions made to suit the convenience of participants in religious and secular worlds.
> 
> If I put up a poll with this sonogram and asked: "Is this human being?" I could have all sorts of fun saying that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is not considered a "human being."


And this from the person who said he didn't think abortion should be outlawed.
Well what do you really believe?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nothing better to contribute MF .

BTW not that you would ever know - because I fly BA I have a carbon neutral option available which I took.
So stuff the snipes.. as I said...... you have no idea....you demonstrate that quite clearly repeatedly.
Can't defend a position - reduced to sniveling grade 6 commentary from the cheap seats.

••

McG - save your breathe - I support a woman's right to choose and your right to try and dissuade her with reason, not abolition.

••

Pragmatic response to the real world or dogma - you can't have both.

This was just an amusing illustration of the results when the "both" attempt is made. 

I'm sure the capybara could have used the day off.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I certainly didn't bring up abortion here.

MacDoc: Did I mention your flight? You might remember the tabulator counting the GHG emissions from Al Gore's airplane tour while promoting his "Inconvenient Truth" film.

I've heard about British Airways "carbon neutral" option, in which they might increase fuel efficiency at some point and "assist the atmospheric research community in direct measurement of the atmosphere and evaluation of metrics to describe *non-CO2* effects of air transport." 

This is the one about which British activist Robert Newman says:

"...there is not enough money in the world to offset the emissions from flying. Even if you combined all the treasuries and gold reserves and assets and security bonds of every country in the world. How much, for example, will it cost to put Bangladesh on stilts? What day rate were you thinking of paying the workers who are carrying ice and snow up to the top of Kilimanjaro? How many laboratories with how many tenured research fellows and professors before we fine-tune the gamma-ray that's going to zap the ice-crystal clouds in the upper troposphere caused by vapour trails?

Second, what you are paying for is not to offset emissions but to offset the danger of regulation or full-cost accounting being imposed on BA."

How about "not creating" instead of specious "offsetting?"


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> That was fast... bringing Nazis into the thread with only 2 pages.
> 
> Bravo! beejacon


If the shoe fits...


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

« MannyP Design » said:


> That was fast... bringing Nazis into the thread with only 2 pages.
> 
> Bravo! beejacon


Godwin's Law rises again?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I certainly didn't bring up abortion here.


True but you are the one who chimed in with the fetus picture.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I see it as an example of a church encouraging people to eat what they want, when they want instead of lording it over them.


I see it as an example of hypocrisy.... But then it is the catholic church we are talking about - the very definition of hypocrisy (look up "indulgences"). The church will do whatever it takes, without recourse to morals, ethics, decency or even its own prior statements... These are the same people who tried to make the case that condoms promoted the spread of aids....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> True but you are the one who chimed in with the fetus picture.


Why would a photo of a foetus automatically remind someone of abortion?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Chealion said:


> Godwin's Law rises again?


Goodwin's law is BS. His argument's premise is false. The idea that no one could be as bad as real Nazis is silly.
Rwanda genocide or Pol Pot come to mind as two really good examples of events than can and should be compared to the holocaust. Goodwin's law is a form of censorship that is designed to prevent the comparison of any atrocity or civil liberty clampdown with the Nazis. This inherent denial is problematic because it assumes that there are no events leading up to Nazi society and criticizes any one pointing to markers indicating a possible rise of a similar situation in other (or the same) places.
I think it time to take Goodwin's law off the books. Lest we forget.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Why would a photo of a foetus automatically remind someone of abortion?


Maybe because you talk about the issue right below the picture? Could you be any more disingenuous.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

martman said:


> The idea that no one could be as bad as real Nazis is silly.


Psychologists Zimbardo, Milgram and others demonstrated quite effectively back in the '50s that *ANYONE* can be just as bad as the "real Nazis". If you ever took psych 100, you should know this.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> Goodwin's law is BS. His argument's premise is false. The idea that no one could be as bad as real Nazis is silly.
> Rwanda genocide or Pol Pot come to mind as two really good examples of events than can and should be compared to the holocaust. Goodwin's law is a form of censorship that is designed to prevent the comparison of any atrocity or civil liberty clampdown with the Nazis. This inherent denial is problematic because it assumes that there are no events leading up to Nazi society and criticizes any one pointing to markers indicating a possible rise of a similar situation in other (or the same) places.
> I think it time to take Goodwin's law off the books. Lest we forget.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law

You should read up on it before mischaracterising it.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
> 
> You should read up on it before mischaracterising it.


No mischaracterisation here. From your link:


> There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law.


As I said censorship.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> Maybe because you talk about the issue right below the picture? Could you be any more disingenuous.


I don't believe I did talk about it at all, except in your reference to it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> As I said censorship.


The poster is still welcome to continue posting--but by the time the Nazi argument is used, in a Godwinian sense, few will listen or respond. That's not censorship.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> There are many definitions made to suit the convenience of participants in religious and secular worlds.
> 
> If I put up a poll with this sonogram and asked: "Is this human being?" I could have all sorts of fun saying that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is not considered a "human being."
> 
> I


Granted you didn't use the word abortion but to say you weren't talking about it is beyond disingenuous, it is a lie especially coupled with the picture and the post made by MacGuiver.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The poster is still welcome to continue posting--but by the time the Nazi argument is used, in a Godwinian sense, few will listen or respond. That's not censorship.


Exactly. 

Also: "His argument's premise is false. The idea that no one could be as bad as real Nazis is silly." does not line up well against, 

"Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin argues in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, that overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact."


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

rgray said:


> I see it as an example of hypocrisy.... But then it is the catholic church we are talking about - the very definition of hypocrisy (look up "indulgences"). The church will do whatever it takes, without recourse to morals, ethics, decency or even its own prior statements... These are the same people who tried to make the case that condoms promoted the spread of aids....


Gee, the little rule categorizing the capybara as a fish was just a way of getting around the stringency of meatless days on the pampas, not some sort of profound doctrinal issue. I've always thought it was likely done tongue in cheek.

Did it ever occur to you that this kind of anti-Catholic rant might hurt people's feelings? Is that what you want?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The poster is still welcome to continue posting--but by the time the Nazi argument is used, in a Godwinian sense, few will listen or respond. That's not censorship.


It is a form of it and it makes the comparison of events with those of history impossible. The holocaust is not the only example of genocide in history and the events leading up to it have an important message for society. If we fail to notice them because of Goodwin's Law than we do a disservice to history AND the present. I agree that constant comparisons with Nazis is grating and absurd much of the time but Goodwin's Law is a baby with the bathwater situation. I think it is counter productive and an insult to those who dies in the holocaust and other genocides before and since.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Also: "His argument's premise is false. The idea that no one could be as bad as real Nazis is silly." does not line up well against,
> 
> "Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin argues in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, that overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact."


While I agree that MacGuiver's use was spurious in this instance I still see major problems with the law.
The application of Goodwin's law IS UNIVERSAL! (despite what those who use it claim)
Every time anyone uses a comparison to the Nazis Goodwin's Law is evoked. I've never seen it not invoked in recent times. The problem is the over use of Goodwin's law has done exactly the same thing it was trying to avoid in the first place.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Martman: 

1) I'm certainly not a liar. Since when am I accountable for other people's posts--especially those that _follow_ mine?? 
2) Not listening or responding is not a form of censorship. It's nonsense to suggest that Godwin's law is an insult to holocaust victims. This is just the type of thing Godwin was talking about, ironically.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> But the application of Goodwin's law IS UNIVERSAL! Every time anyone uses a comparison to the Nazis Goodwin's Law is evoked. I've never seen it not invoked in recent times. The problem is the over use of Goodwin's law has done exactly the same thing it was trying to avoid in the first place.


A matter of opinion. Your initial assertions still mischaracterised the law as being what you see as the overuse of the law.

The problem still exists that nazi comparisons are whipped out with minimal reasoning thus cheapening the depth of meaning behind the history. The quick-and-easy correlations are generally not justified relative to why a given correlation was used over other (non-nazi/fascist) correlations or argued on their own substance, except for the obvious affect of emotional manipulation. Also a matter of opinion.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Did it ever occur to you that this kind of anti-Catholic rant might hurt people's feelings? Is that what you want?


Yep - the free ride is over.

I could and will also post hubris puncturing incidents where scientists, politicians and any number "authorities" do a face plant or expose their hypocrisy.

My point is that any structure of thought is not immune to question or ridicule because of it's inherent nature.
That's the free ride religion has had.

Questioning and examining and challenging is part and parcel of scientific method and serves humanity well in part because of the that built in dynamic.

Rigidity and dogma do not serve well and need challenge.

So if your feelings are hurt by exposing dogma to challenge and loss of respect...so be it.

Respect needs to be earned, knowledge needs to be earned and tested.

Situations like the "Friends of Science" crowd need to be challenged and held to account for their actions.

No sacred cows.....including sacred cows.
Prove the benefit, prove the relevance, prove the reason for "special exemptions" such as tax free status for churches.

The current Ontario situation with Children's Services is a case in point - they needed challenging and have been.

If a deep abiding skepticism of authority is ingrained......far fewer young humans would go to war at the behest of their "leaders".

If ONE learns to question........it's worth a few hurt feelings.

•••

We now serve Goodwin's Law up on the sacrificial plate of skepticism :clap:


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> If a deep abiding skepticism of authority is ingrained......far fewer young humans would go to war at the behest of their "leaders".
> 
> If ONE learns to question........it's worth a few hurt feelings.


:clap: 

the only down side to this is it make being an authority much more work


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Martman:
> 
> 1) I'm certainly not a liar. Since when am I accountable for other people's posts--especially those that _follow_ mine??
> 2) Not listening or responding is not a form of censorship. It's nonsense to suggest that Godwin's law is an insult to holocaust victims. This is just the type of thing Godwin was talking about, ironically.


I already re quoted the portion of your post where you obviously allude to the abortion argument.

The censorship is the automatic shutting down of an argument with a winner declared because of a Nazi comparison. Now if you mention Hitler or Nazis you are silenced or at least ignored without consideration for the point being made.
The effect is quite simple: You are not allowed to make comparisons to Nazis period.
The problem is that in many arguments I've seen this law used to shut down valid comparisons. The insult is that you can't make a comparison at all anymore. We aren't allowed to say this is similar to when Hitler did this (or that). So how can we say never again when we have placed this event in a special place of it's own? Genocide is not rare. It happens all the time. I can think of several off the top of my head in the last 100 years alone. This event is no holly grail (pardon the mixed metaphor) of dastardly deeds. There have been and will be many others especially if we are not allowed to compare our society with Nazi society to see if we are off track and how.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Chealion said:


> Godwin's Law rises again?


Indeed, Ken.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> There have been and will be many others especially if we are not allowed to compare our society with Nazi society to see if we are off track and how.


First, obviously "if we are off track and how" can be determined by comparing to numerous other regimes, current and historical and basic philosophy. Make the case for picking one over the other or none at all or expect to see a reaction/non-reaction to a poorly designed argument.

Second, You're allowed to say whatever you want (within the limit of fascist hate speech laws  ) but you have no right to be listened to. That is up to you and your ability to make an engaging case as others see it, if you want others to participate. Blaming everybody else or some humourous fake-law is shirking responsibility.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

martman said:


> No mischaracterisation here. From your link:
> 
> 
> As I said censorship.


So you're saying that by my making reference of Goodwin's law, I am censoring MacGuiver's right to free speech? 

Me sad.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Gerbill said:


> Gee, the little rule categorizing the capybara as a fish was just a way of getting around the stringency of meatless days on the pampas, not some sort of profound doctrinal issue. I've always thought it was likely done tongue in cheek.


"tounge in cheek"... Oh, please. The "little rule" simply serves to deny the arbitrary stupidity of the meatless Friday "rule" which history tells to be just a sop to the fish marketers in a particular time and place. It has no theological underpinnings.



> Did it ever occur to you that this kind of anti-Catholic rant might hurt people's feelings? Is that what you want?


I have simply noted 2 items from the long history of the catholic church. These are historical fact. If these hurt someone's feelings they might use the energy to see what it is that they really have given their allegence to. 

Here are some more: The bible as the word of god? We'll never know because the church of Rome re-wrote it to their convenience at the Council of Nicea (sp?). Or how about the church of Rome buying art from the Nazis, stolen from the jews, for pennies on the dollar to fund the Nazi war effort and make a tidy profit to boot? Or the Vatican bank brokering a deal so that Argentina could buy French Exocet missiles to attack British sailors in the Faulklands? Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.........

Sometimes feelings need to be hurt.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

rgray said:


> "tounge in cheek"... Oh, please. The "little rule" simply serves to deny the arbitrary stupidity of the meatless Friday "rule" which history tells to be just a sop to the fish marketers in a particular time and place. It has no theological underpinnings.
> 
> 
> I have simply noted 2 items from the long history of the catholic church. These are historical fact. If these hurt someone's feelings they might use the energy to see what it is that they really have given their allegence to.
> ...


:clap: :clap: :clap: 
LOL!!

Calling all Christaphobes! The Catholic hate fest is just getting started. Be sure to get your hate fueled bigoted comments in early and often. All inflammatory BS is welcome!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> I already re quoted the portion of your post where you obviously allude to the abortion argument.


No, you quoted me out of context and insisted *yourself* that I was talking about abortion. Anyone can see that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> So if your feelings are hurt by exposing dogma to challenge and loss of respect...so be it.


That's sweet. Just don't irritate the Greenhouse Gas Bag about his catastrophic global warming theories or "You're gonna fry!!!!"


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> No, you quoted me out of context and insisted *yourself* that I was talking about abortion. Anyone can see that.


Out of context?
:lmao:

I'll put it to the forum.
Who here thinks Macfury was referencing abortion with his fetus post?
Anyone here think he didn't mean that when it first appeared?
Did I quote Macfury out of context?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Martman: You're asking for a vote? Why don't you just quote the text where I referred to it?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Martman: You're asking for a vote? Why don't you just quote the text where I referred to it?


I quoted the first two thirds of your post? What do you want? How can I quote you in context if that wasn't it?
How can you sit here and tell me you were not alluding to abortion?
Of course I'm calling you dishonest! You are lying to my face! Again!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> I'll put it to the forum.
> Who here thinks Macfury was referencing abortion with his fetus post?
> Anyone here think he didn't mean that when it first appeared?
> Did I quote Macfury out of context?


I don't think he was but that, within the context of the long-standing abortion debate, it could easily be inferred by many, if not most, people. Simply a difference of precision over taking things as "read". 

Given that, do you need me to answer the last question? That would involve me looking at the post history, which may get boring.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I'd appreciate it if you did. I think he is being unfair. But I certainly can't require it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> I'd appreciate it if you did. I think he is being unfair. But I certainly can't require it.


Disclaimer: I do swap emails with MF, but will do my best to remove myself from any special knowledge.

MF started with:
"If I put up a poll with this sonogram and asked: "Is this human being?" I could have all sorts of fun saying that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is not considered a "human being.""

And the provocative picture combined with the words, bring the abortion debate to mind in many, if not most, people. It did for me. 

But it was an "If..." example to push his thesis:
"Instead of seeing the article about the capybara as ridiculous, I see it as an example of a church encouraging people to eat what they want, when they want instead of lording it over them."

That's an important point.

Your post confused the "If" with an opinion on abortion:
"And this from the person who said he didn't think abortion should be outlawed.
Well what do you really believe?"

So, skipping the rest, the question was, to me, whether it was disingenuous to "play innocent" or truly a matter of precision. Sadly, that's subjective. 

If it was someone who is known to push the anti-abortion issue, there would be a strong case. But, like him or not, MF is known to push precision (e.g. on discussions of "need" and "rule of law"), so the case is weakened. 

Could there be elements of intentional provocation combined with an honest example to push the thesis? Sure. I'm not sure if that's disingenuous or a lie, though. Expecting that people will make an imprecise inference is a tricky notion.

I can't say for certain one way or the other, but would have simply said something along the lines of what I have: I can see how many, if not most, people would make that connection. The old legal, "reasonable person" test. 

If particularly miffed, "disingenuous" seems to be in order, but the "lies" concept is much more difficult to push when presuming another's mindset.

Hung jury. Sorry martman.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Good effort Beej! Thanks!
I appreciate the honesty.
If it is not as clear as I thought then I'll appologise. Sorry Macfury but it did seem to me you were being dishonest. If you honestly didn't think you were talking about abortion than I shouldn't have called you a lier.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

rgray said:


> "tounge in cheek"... Oh, please. The "little rule" simply serves to deny the arbitrary stupidity of the meatless Friday "rule" which history tells to be just a sop to the fish marketers in a particular time and place. It has no theological underpinnings.
> 
> 
> I have simply noted 2 items from the long history of the catholic church. These are historical fact. If these hurt someone's feelings they might use the energy to see what it is that they really have given their allegence to.
> ...


Gee, what colour is your tinfoil hat?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Apology accepted Martman. What I was trying to point out specifically was that if I had asked the question "Is this a human being?" showing the photo only, with no context, I could have suckered people in, then dropped the hammer that the foetus was not considered a human being under the Charter.

The parallel is to ask the question about the capybara first out of context, get the agreement from EhMacers that it isn't a fish, then show that the Catholic church disagrees with EhMacers.

To be fully honest, after posting it, I was curious to see if the foetus might actually make people think of abortion, but I personally never intended to argue about abortion rights.


----------



## kwmike (Oct 25, 2006)

It could very well be a fish, if you are talking about steganography.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

KWm - I tried to word the question in such a way as to take away that aspect - why I said "pictured here". Clearly it could be a jigsaw puzzle that accidentally assembled in the wrong way.










But really it was just an extreme example - in this case Catholic - of pragmatism trumping absolutism even to the point of the absurd.
They certainly have no lock on the absurd in terms of trying mash reality into desired theories .

I can think of a certain regime that was quite dismayed when Jesse Owens poked a hole in their pet theory ....he at least survived....Bruno died and Galileo was imprisoned for their instance "it's not a fish".....in their case arguing Copernican view of the universe.

Ironic the powerful in the church could stretch their minds to make a capybara a fish, but NOT move the earth from the centre of the universe.

Speaking of fish -this










caught my eye. Talk about the original lockjaw pliers. Nature is amazing at taking engineering principles to their logical ends some times.



> Ancient predator had strongest bite of any fish, rivaling bite of large alligators and T. rex
> 
> Scientists recreate jaw mechanism of the most formidable fish ever
> 
> ...


http://www2.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/fm-aph112706.php

Probably a tad risky to catch for Friday......for those that walked with dinosaurs. 

For those three that voted Yes - I'd be curious if there were reasons beyond contrarian? - 
C'mon at least KWmike provided his explanation.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Reminds me of a snapping turtle somewhat.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah you're right - and THAT one could do the "bite the broom handle in two" trick very well 

The fish ancienne pictured could apparently do the same with a shark!

There sure are some odd tangents nature takes.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

Poor capy - I like them because they are related to my guinea pigs.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

MBD said:


> Poor capy - I like them because they are related to my guinea pigs.


 I like GP's too. Maybe we should form a separate forum - Cavy Lovers on Macs."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Strange eh - pets are really important to humans - maybe evolution has selected for human caregivers and pets that respond.

I mean I even like my Fire eel - cute little guy.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

Probably just one of those leftovers that went with us developing empathy, etc. I found guinea pigs act oddly a lot like horses - they put their ears down when they are upset, they are startled at little things and their first instinct is to run. They are also very curious. Must be a grazzing, mammal, herd animal similarity.

I can understand liking a fire eel. I think a lot of animals are cute - including an octopus, nautilius and lots of snakes.  

Here is one of my guinea pigs looking dignified....for some reason this photo got hundreds of views on flickr:


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Strange eh - pets are really important to humans - maybe evolution has selected for human caregivers and pets that respond.
> 
> I mean I even like my Fire eel - cute little guy.


got a photo?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Fire eel photo

Never had a lot of luck getting the camera to focus on him - it hits the aquarium face on the auto focus

he looks like this










and this - a bit bigger and more muscular that this one.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

cool! head beck looks kinda like a turtle.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes - I suspect way back - the painted turtle head IS similar tho more of a mouth tho our guy can open pretty wide when he wants.

Now if one were to question if the fire eel were a fish - then perhaps......


----------

