I am in an argumentative mood and want to debate something. If there are any interlocutors here who've also got this itch, join me in this thread.
There are a lot of potential topics to debate. The perennial favorites are things like free will, capitalism, animal rights, abortion, the existence of God, the upcoming election, you guys know the drill.
But I wouldn't be averse to debates about things like sports or drugs or whatever either.
Let's debate.
porn is disgusting
If you masturbate you are a cuck.
This is my honest opinion, acknowledging you will never get with these girls and watching them get pleasured by other means is fucking pathetic.
What if you just look at porn as in still pictures of naked chicks (or dudes if that's your thing)? In that case, you're not watching them get pleasured by other means; you're just looking at them kinda just being there.
Trees are mammals.
9/11 was an accident.
All water is toxic.
Youre still getting off to an image when you could be doing the real thing.
Still an internal admittance of weakness
But trees dont produce milk?
Cats vs dogs has been done to death, so I want to ask the real question: rodents, birds, or reptiles?
>Youre still getting off to an image when you could be doing the real thing.
Maybe you couldn't be doing the real thing, though. In which case why not fap to a picture?
youtube.com
Checkmate, ignoramus.
Birds are a kind of reptile. A bird is closer genetically to an alligator than an alligator is to a turtle.
>Reptiles are vertebrates that have scales on at least some part of their body, leathery or hard-shelled eggs, and share a number of other features. Snakes, lizards, turtles, crocodilians, and birds are reptiles. Like all vertebrates, reptiles have bony skeletons that support their bodies.
I know, but they're very different in terms of behavior and responsibility required. I've owned both as pets.
Milk is classified by the fact that it is produced for the young of the producer to consume.
That is sap which is just food storage for the tree itself that is also coincidentally eaten.
Not milk
It's called a Milk Tree
>Milk is classified by the fact that it is produced for the young of the producer to consume.
By that definition of "milk", and defining "mammal" as an animal which produces milk, certain types of birds and fish would be mammals.
bbc.com
OP user, are the Irish white? Please make your arguments and give your reasoning behind it. We're talking biologically and socially speaking here.
Just cuz it has milk in the name doesnt mean that shits milk
Well the other defining characteristics of mammals are fur/hair, 3 ear bones and a particular brain lobe.
Needless to say that tree has none of those
>Well the other defining characteristics of mammals are fur/hair, 3 ear bones and a particular brain lobe.
What brain lobe is that?
They call it Boston cream pie, but it's really more of a cake.
Not a lobe (my bad), the neocortex is the other one
I see. Well, I can't really dispute that then. OK.
I should mention though that it appears that there is a homologous aspect to the neocortex in birds. It's just shaped totally differently, but it seems to have the same type of function and contain the same type of cells.
>"All mammals have a neocortex, and it's virtually identical across all of them," said Jennifer Dugas-Ford, PhD[...]researcher at the University of Chicago[...]"But when you go to the next closest group, the birds and reptiles, they don't have anything that looks remotely similar to neocortex."
>But in the 1960s, neuroscientist Harvey Karten studied the neural inputs and outputs of the DVR, finding that they were[...]similar to the pathways traveling to and from the neocortex[...]As a result, he proposed that the DVR performs a similar function to the neocortex despite its dramatically different anatomy.
>Dugas-Ford, Ragsdale and co-author Joanna Rowell decided to test Karten's hypothesis by using recently discovered sets of molecular markers that can identify specific layers of mammalian cortex: the layer 4 "input" neurons or layer 5 "output" neurons. The researchers then looked for whether these marker genes were expressed in the DVR nuclei.
>In two different bird species[...]the level 4 and 5 markers were expressed by distinct nuclei of the DVR, supporting Karten's hypothesis that the structure contains cells homologous to those of mammalian neocortex.
>"Here was a completely different line of evidence," Ragsdale said. "There were molecular markers that picked out specific layers of cortex; whereas the original Karten theory was based just on connections, and some people dismissed that. But in two very distant birds, all of the gene expression fits together very nicely with the connections."
>Dugas-Ford called the evidence "really incredible."
>"All of our markers were exactly where they thought they would be in the DVR when you're comparing them to the neocortex," she said.
(link wouldn't fit in the post)
I notice you didn't include amphibians. Any particular reason why?