Upload
Login or register

cabbagemayhem

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 32
Date Signed Up:2/19/2011
Last Login:7/30/2016
Location:Tennessee
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#8290
Highest Content Rank:#1514
Highest Comment Rank:#843
Content Thumbs: 6997 total,  7528 ,  531
Comment Thumbs: 8003 total,  11565 ,  3562
Content Level Progress: 56.99% (57/100)
Level 166 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 167 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 88% (88/100)
Level 267 Comments: Pure Win → Level 268 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:1
Content Views:224800
Times Content Favorited:453 times
Total Comments Made:5774
FJ Points:13659
Favorite Tags: chan appendix (2)

latest user's comments

#58 - No, the lighting just makes him look black. 12/05/2015 on How to defeat ISIS 0
#103 - False, see >> #102 12/05/2015 on #Lifesaver 0
#102 - Yes, but variation is irrelevant because our species is define…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/05/2015 on #Lifesaver 0
User avatar
#105 - novus (12/05/2015) [-]
So we are the same species as neanderthals? We could interbreed with them, yet they are a different species. The point I'm trying to make is that there is a lot of wiggle room in determining species.
User avatar
#108 - cabbagemayhem (12/05/2015) [-]
It's not known if we could interbreed with Neanderthals. One hypothesis is that we could and did interbreed at one point, but there's very little knowledge on when or if that occurred. However, if we were able to interbreed at some point, we would have been the same species at the time, and we would merely be different subspecies. There's no wiggle room for categorizing the species of observable mammals.
User avatar
#120 - novus (12/06/2015) [-]
You are correct in that I should have been saying subspecies and not species. Subspecies can interbreed, but have sufficient morphological or habitat differences to be granted a division. And as I said elsewhere there are many animals (including some of our closest relatives) that have been given subspecies categories with less variations than humans show.

I'm sure there's more to it, such as the mobility of humans possibly causing fuzzier boundaries between potential subspecies classifications, as geographical isolation is one of the important characteristics of a subspecies. That no longer exists with modern humans. But my broad point is, from what I've been told, the scientific community has a very good memory, and every aspiring famous scientist wants to be viewed favorably by the community in terms of papers and awards (an experiment comes to mind recently where scientists responded more positively to accolades than to money. Recognition is very important to people in those fields). And so no one wants to be "that guy" that pushes for scientific racial divisions on the already-fuzzy foundation of subspecies classification. That's a fast way to get blacklisted, putting your name on that kind of paper. So the somewhat arbitrary standards of subspecies classification plus social pressure keeps us as somewhat-official races instead of subspecies. So I've been told anyway.
#98 - There is only one human race, but the contestants are also cal…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/05/2015 on #Lifesaver 0
#109 - stalini (12/05/2015) [-]
There is human species, which consists of different human races.

Should not be that hard to comprehend.
User avatar
#104 - twoeyedcyclops (12/05/2015) [-]
Humans are so confusing :s
#95 - Those methods are only used for plants, asexual organisms, and…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/05/2015 on #Lifesaver +3
User avatar
#99 - novus (12/05/2015) [-]
False, see >>#96
User avatar
#100 - novus (12/05/2015) [-]
oops, >>#96
User avatar
#103 - cabbagemayhem (12/05/2015) [-]
False, see >>#102
#91 - Whoever told you that, you should punch them in the face for m…  [+] (5 new replies) 12/05/2015 on #Lifesaver +2
User avatar
#96 - novus (12/05/2015) [-]
Taken from a 2010 science paper (H is a measure of variation):
"Chimpanzees exhibited H of 0.63-0.73, which is very similar to H found in humans (0.588 - 0.807), however, chimpanzees are divided into four subspecies." "Some species like the grey wolf even exhibited a lower H (corresponding to lower genetic diversity) than humans (0.528 vs 0.588 - 0.807), while the grey wolf has been divided into as many as 37 subspecies."

Humans are more diverse both morphologically and genetically than some of the other mammalian species that have been divided into subspecies. What does this mean? Well, it means speciation is a tricky science and has inconsistencies. But you will find that any inconsistencies regarding humans will always lean towards unification and not splitting us into subspecies. I guess you'll have to ask yourself why and come to your own conclusions on it.
User avatar
#102 - cabbagemayhem (12/05/2015) [-]
Yes, but variation is irrelevant because our species is defined by the ability to breed like every other living mammal. Variation just means our species is more adaptable than others. I don't care how bleeding hearts want to define science, but until we can no longer interbreed, we are the same species.
User avatar
#105 - novus (12/05/2015) [-]
So we are the same species as neanderthals? We could interbreed with them, yet they are a different species. The point I'm trying to make is that there is a lot of wiggle room in determining species.
User avatar
#108 - cabbagemayhem (12/05/2015) [-]
It's not known if we could interbreed with Neanderthals. One hypothesis is that we could and did interbreed at one point, but there's very little knowledge on when or if that occurred. However, if we were able to interbreed at some point, we would have been the same species at the time, and we would merely be different subspecies. There's no wiggle room for categorizing the species of observable mammals.
User avatar
#120 - novus (12/06/2015) [-]
You are correct in that I should have been saying subspecies and not species. Subspecies can interbreed, but have sufficient morphological or habitat differences to be granted a division. And as I said elsewhere there are many animals (including some of our closest relatives) that have been given subspecies categories with less variations than humans show.

I'm sure there's more to it, such as the mobility of humans possibly causing fuzzier boundaries between potential subspecies classifications, as geographical isolation is one of the important characteristics of a subspecies. That no longer exists with modern humans. But my broad point is, from what I've been told, the scientific community has a very good memory, and every aspiring famous scientist wants to be viewed favorably by the community in terms of papers and awards (an experiment comes to mind recently where scientists responded more positively to accolades than to money. Recognition is very important to people in those fields). And so no one wants to be "that guy" that pushes for scientific racial divisions on the already-fuzzy foundation of subspecies classification. That's a fast way to get blacklisted, putting your name on that kind of paper. So the somewhat arbitrary standards of subspecies classification plus social pressure keeps us as somewhat-official races instead of subspecies. So I've been told anyway.
#72 - Close, they go hand in pocket.  [+] (1 new reply) 12/04/2015 on catching pickpockets +11
#73 - sirkanesixtytwo (12/04/2015) [-]
#66 - A bunch of sandwiches and drinks isn't food that's going to be… 12/03/2015 on People who got fired on the... +2
#73 - Picture 12/03/2015 on 4chan comp. #45 0
#48 - No, it's still stealing if you don't get caught.  [+] (7 new replies) 12/03/2015 on People who got fired on the... +7
#51 - darthan (12/03/2015) [-]
It's only stealing if you get caught and people give a shit. Thems the rules.
#60 - sirlorge (12/03/2015) [-]
I mean, it absolutely is still stealing, just that no one notices.

"Hmm, my house has been emptied out, I must have misplaced all my furniture since I didn't catch anyone stealing."
#61 - darthan (12/03/2015) [-]
Sorta a difference between takin a burger, and then burglary. They aren't even roughly in the same ballpark. You're talking about home invasion and burglary. I'm referring to the scenario that was given.

When I talk about stealing, I talk about taking a candy bar from a store, or stealing groceries from a large store chain. Or in this case, stealing food that's gonna be thrown out anyways.
User avatar
#66 - cabbagemayhem (12/03/2015) [-]
A bunch of sandwiches and drinks isn't food that's going to be thrown out anyways. It's stealing, even if it's too small of an amount for them to nab you for it. It's like someone stealing your quarters one at a time: you don't care about the quarter, but they're still parasites for stealing them.
#64 - sirlorge (12/03/2015) [-]
Stealing is taking something that isn't yours to take. Whether you break into the white house or take it from a friend's house or from a public space, if it ain't yours and you take it, you're stealing. Defining it as robbery or burglary by law doesn't make a difference to the point I'm making. Even if it is going to be thrown out.
#65 - darthan (12/03/2015) [-]
Cool, way to be a square bro.

Once again, there's a difference between taking a burger that's gonna be tossed and stealing a TV, but if you feel like they're both the exact same then that's on you.

And I still stick by it's only stealing if you get caught and someone gives a fuck.
#67 - sirlorge (12/03/2015) [-]
Socially, one is more accepted. Legally they are distinguished by concept, but are in theory the same thing: stealing.

If I own something and want to throw it away and you take it, I'd be upset as it sets a precedent for just taking things from me that aren't yours. If you asked, I'd likely give it to you unless there's a very specific reason I want it disposed of. It's the same arguments most kids have growing up: "You weren't using it!" "But it's mine!" ultimately an adult should know how to lend people things, but it's still not cool to just take things because they're not in use

Stealing is stealing, whether you want to look at something subjectively or not is up to you, I was just being objective here.