Thread: Western black rhino declared extinct

That really sucks.

Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis

This is why we need to decrease our population in order to make room for endangered animals who are close to extinction from loss of habitat and overhunting.

We can also all just start to consume less, which would accomplish the same thing, and not exploit third world countries so they wouldn't resort to poaching for money.

We know that won't happen. Humans won't do anything about other species dieing off like this until there are only a few species left, and at that point it will be far too late.

Wow, this sucks so hard. Now that this happened, would the animal poaching start to decrease? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Derier44

When they invent time machines, im going back to save the rhinos >=)

Count me in. "FOR THE RHINOS!" :D

Originally Posted by Derier44

When they invent time machines, im going back to save the rhinos >=)

How do you know you already haven't?

Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis

What I'm implying is that we must try to decrease our population without the process of genocide. Abortion and gay marriage are too controversial, life in space is impossible, birth control isn't enforced much, and a one child policy similar to China's is marked unconstitutional.

We could work towards increase standard of living since industrialized nations seem to have decreased birth rates without any law specifically in place since children become an expensive burden.

On another note, I honestly don't see how legalizing gay marriage would cause a reduction in population. To put it bluntly, you've taken an anti-gay argument and spun it in a very hilarious fashion that isn't at all homophobic yet still seems ignorant. Just because gays are allowed to marry, doesn't mean there's going to be a sudden outburst of gayness that would significantly reduce the world's population.

Originally Posted by The Outrage

How do you know you already haven't?

Because if I did then we wouldnt be disscussing this.

Originally Posted by Derier44

Because if I did then we wouldnt be disscussing this.

Future you took them to the future. They've been saved, you just don't know it yet. You have to make it look like they're going extinct and not being saved, or else you would not have the incentive now to go back to save them in the first place, creating an effect similar to dividing by zero. There are very strict time travel rules, and if you're going to meddle in time, you have to make it look like you aren't.

Originally Posted by The Outrage

On another note, I honestly don't see how legalizing gay marriage would cause a reduction in population. To put it bluntly, you've taken an anti-gay argument and spun it in a very hilarious fashion that isn't at all homophobic yet still seems ignorant. Just because gays are allowed to marry, doesn't mean there's going to be a sudden outburst of gayness that would significantly reduce the world's population.

The idea of legalizing gay marriage is because of the fact that they can't reproduce, so more gays = less babies. This was taken to the extreme in one South Park episode when people from the future went back in time to get jobs because of how overpopulated the world in their original time was. After the rednecks grew tired of these time travelers taking their jobs, they decided to become homosexuals in hopes of them being erased from time. They continue on doing so in the end of the episode when they realized how cleaning up everything such as planting and recycling was "gay." Also, I'm not homophobic because being gay is proven to be a natural trait. As for the whole time travel thing, didn't DBZ and OoT proved that changing something in the past would resulting in splitting the timeline in two or more?

Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis

The idea of legalizing gay marriage is because of the fact that they can't reproduce, so more gays = less babies. This was taken to the extreme in one South Park episode when people from the future went back in time to get jobs because of how overpopulated the world in their original time was. After the rednecks grew tired of these time travelers taking their jobs, they decided to become homosexuals in hopes of them being erased from time. They continue on doing so in the end of the episode when they realized how cleaning up everything such as planting and recycling was "gay." Also, I'm not homophobic because being gay is proven to be a natural trait. As for the whole time travel thing, didn't DBZ and OoT proved that changing something in the past would resulting in splitting the timeline in two or more?

There's a lot of things in that post I wish to comment on, but fear it would be in vain.

I will however say this, you missed the point where legalizing gay marriage doesn't create more gays. The lack of right to marriage also won't make openly gay people take the "straight" option.

I do wonder if you read my post correctly since I said you weren't homophobic, but your comment came of as ignorant since you're spouting the same stuff as anti-gay individuals who go around saying that if you give gay people the same rights to marriage, our population would go extinct. Perhaps the only thing keeping them straight are marriage laws, but normal people, I can assure you, do not work that way.

I also don't understand how you can't dissociate points the South Park creators are trying to make, and things that they are clearly just joking about. The didn't even insinuate gay marriage would create more gays. Everyone there systematically took the "gay option" to prevent the future by taking an easy way out, rather than solving the problems they have at hand in a more sensible fashion (like my suggestion of trying to increase standards of living) because it was easier to have an orgy, than to actually plan for the future. The point wasn't "more gay marriage = more gays = less people"

Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis

The idea of legalizing gay marriage is because of the fact that they can't reproduce, so more gays = less babies.

Just because gay marriage is legal doesn't mean there will all of a sudden be a flood of people going gay. And the notion that just because gay people can't reproduce on their own will quell the surplus pop. is redidulous because, even by not being married, they still can't have children on their own. And South Park isn't exactly the best of places to pull theories from friend.

Edit: Outrage why you gotta ninja? Lol

Originally Posted by yourlilemogirl

Just because gay marriage is legal doesn't mean there will all of a sudden be a flood of people going gay. And the notion that just because gay people can't reproduce on their own will quell the surplus pop. is redidulous because, even by not being married, they still can't have children on their own. And South Park isn't exactly the best of places to pull theories from friend.

Edit: Outrage why you gotta ninja? Lol

Marriage is still a requirement for a couple to be fully together whether you like it or not, it's a traditional thing for us humans. And South Park is the best of places to pull theories as they give out lessons in the end of each episode about a certain topic they're parodying from movies to smoking to ancient aliens. Speaking of gays, there was an article I found a few days ago about two gay penguins whose kind is on the endangered species list. Perhaps that could be the only con about saving animals from extinction when nature tries to troll us.

Let's not turn this into something it's not, which is about the current extinction status of the western black rhino, not the laws and such regarding gay marriage.

Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis

Marriage is still a requirement for a couple to be fully together whether you like it or not, it's a traditional thing for us humans. And South Park is the best of places to pull theories as they give out lessons in the end of each episode about a certain topic they're parodying from movies to smoking to ancient aliens.

While I agree South Park is an interesting case where they can be incredibly childish yet still make an important point, as I had illustrated in my post above, you completely missed the point they were making in that episode. It was that people would much rather take the easy way out than work things out now so we wouldn't have problems in the future.

Let's work through the logic here: if marriage is a requirement for couples to fully get together, how would gay marriage lessen the population? First of all, marriage is not a prerequisite for having children--but most people do have children after getting married. It seems to me, that allowing gay marriage as a population control would have no effect at all, since you're allowing people who can't naturally have children to get together in a union that makes it more socially acceptable to have children. In short, the only way this would work is if you are saying gay marriage would increase the frequency of gay individuals, which, as said four times now (which you amazingly seems to have escaped you all three times previously) is not the case. Really, it seems like the solution would be to ban straight marriage--but of course, that won't stop people from having children, they'll just realize marriage is just a legal term.

And to get more rhino-y, how would lessening the population stop people from poaching these creatures because their horns make money? They're not just dying because we're encroaching on their habitat.

Originally Posted by The Outrage

And to get more rhino-y, how would lessening the population stop people from poaching these creatures because their horns make money? They're not just dying because we're encroaching on their habitat.

That I haven't thought of yet. Seeing that Africa has a large number of third world countries where the citizens would anything to earn money, it would be near impossible to convert them to industrialized countries seeing that is not how America rolls due to how they wish not to be involved in other countries' problems like how they wish to remain neutral during the first two world wars, until something bad happens which caused them to join the fight, and backed down on President Wilson's League of Nations. So our only hope is if something disastrous happens that may affect the U.S., which will cause them to spring into action and solve the problem as quickly as possible.

Originally Posted by yourlilemogirl

We know that won't happen. Humans won't do anything about other species dieing off like this until there are only a few species left, and at that point it will be far too late.

Uh, what "species" are we even talking about here? If a species is naturally dying off, it's not mankind's duty to protect it. (I'd advocate only saving small sample populations for scientific preservation/study and observation's sake, assuming we could figure what is dying out naturally.) If mankind's action is in any way responsible, then that's a little different. Regardless, men aren't required to preserve everything.

Beyond that, humans haven't killed that many different species of animals, at least when one considers how many different species there are. (This is one species of rhino out of many species of rhino, some of those others even flourishing.) As well, I'd like to note that man's duty is to man: should we worry about the harm we do when we eliminate malaria-carrying mosquitoes, or birds that can stop jet engines?

Originally Posted by The Outrage

Future you took them to the future. They've been saved, you just don't know it yet. You have to make it look like they're going extinct and not being saved, or else you would not have the incentive now to go back to save them in the first place, creating an effect similar to dividing by zero. There are very strict time travel rules, and if you're going to meddle in time, you have to make it look like you aren't.

Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis

The idea of legalizing gay marriage is because of the fact that they can't reproduce, so more gays = less babies. This was taken to the extreme in one South Park episode when people from the future went back in time to get jobs because of how overpopulated the world in their original time was. After the rednecks grew tired of these time travelers taking their jobs, they decided to become homosexuals in hopes of them being erased from time. They continue on doing so in the end of the episode when they realized how cleaning up everything such as planting and recycling was "gay." Also, I'm not homophobic because being gay is proven to be a natural trait. As for the whole time travel thing, didn't DBZ and OoT proved that changing something in the past would resulting in splitting the timeline in two or more?

I was actually gonna mention the DBZ time travel "formula" (/concept), although I don't exactly get how Cell appeared in the first place (he would be / was the first to appear in the alternate timeline past, and not Trunks), or how Trunks returned to his split timeline future to fight the androids that ruined his world.

If I hold to any time travel at all, it's pure forward travel (that being the opposite of "suspension," where one "times" [verb] through time faster than those in normal time), though I also saw a good working of time travel in Danny Phantom: once something appears in the past, it is embedded in the past. (I.e., changing the course of the future won't remove something that went back to the past, even if the future it came from no longer exists. I.e., the present is the present.)

Oh, "being gay" is not "proven to be a natural trait." There's a complex interplay between biological factors, environmental factors, "historical" factors, and all sorts of other factors that can determine... well, the "condition" of being gay--and I'm sure you would take issue with those who offer evidence that being gay is not natural at all. Regardless, the most important factor must necessarily be choice. Seriously, I can't help but think that supposed gay "advocates" can't be but such in the simplest way: ultimately, to this effect, that law and custom should change to accommodate gays because they can't help but be. (You can't have an intellectual position if you merely form a position diametrically opposed to the opposition's position.) If being gay is purely biological, then it is by nature not a legitimate choice at all.

Originally Posted by League

Uh, what "species" are we even talking about here? If a species is naturally dying off, it's not mankind's duty to protect it. (I'd advocate only saving small sample populations for scientific preservation/study and observation's sake, assuming we could figure what is dying out naturally.) If mankind's action is in any way responsible, then that's a little different. Regardless, men aren't required to preserve everything.

Beyond that, humans haven't killed that many different species of animals, at least when one considers how many different species there are. (This is one species of rhino out of many species of rhino, some of those others even flourishing.) As well, I'd like to note that man's duty is to man: should we worry about the harm we do when we eliminate malaria-carrying mosquitoes, or birds that can stop jet engines?

I'm strictly speaking on species that man has a hand at destroying or displacing. I'm not saying that it is man's job for preserving animals, but it's our job to be responsible for our direct and indirect actions.