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?
>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.
> 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.
Why would I have any reason to believe your post was written by a piece of software? What a horrible "conversation" this has been. The point is to give fair readings to other posters here. Not whatever it is you are doing here.
I'll take that to mean that you see software, but okay, let's agree that appearances are not always what they seem.
What ultimately sets humans apart from the monkeys, to make the difference between human intent and non-human intent significant, is identity. Indeed, a human in a costume that is unrecognizable from an actual monkey, thus having no identity, would not conjure rudeness feelings when giving the middle finger any more than an actual monkey would. It is fair to say that identity is not necessarily one's outer appearance. Signing one's name is another way humans confer identity, for example.
Do you recognize a human identity here? If so, describe it for us.
If rude is an identity, that means when a human witnesses a crime, describing the perpetrator as "rude" to the police office on duty will be sufficient to track down and nab the criminal.
Ha. Not going to happen. "Rude" can describe anyone. It does not serve to provide an identity.
And this is how you want us to come to believe that software is human?
To be insufferable may be a quality of humans, but is decidedly not an identity. I suppose your message here is that there is no discernible identity, surprising no one? So, for what logical reason are we considering software to be human again?
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?