• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Why I Hate Hybrids - Controversial

Roy Munson said:
It goes against the laws of god and nature.

Hmmmm......nothing in what we are doing here with the keeping and breeding of our captive-bred corns has ANYTHING to do with so called laws "of God and nature"...or did i missed the sarcasm? (it happens)
 
Roy Munson said:
Well, tuna-scenting may not be unethical, but it is wrong. It goes against the laws of god and nature. No sir, I don't like it. Hope I never need to do it. :nope:

Don't knock it til you try it ;)

starsevol said:
BUT...there is a difference between tricking a hatchling into eating to save its life...and tricking one species to mate with another just because you want them to.

Not if you consider that the only reason to force them to live is that you want them to.In the natural course of things, these little ones would die.
 
WELL yes that is true...but unnatural or not forcing a little one to live..in my eyes...is more ethical than forcing 2 to mate that wouldnt otherwise.
As an animal lover, I dont want to watch something starve itself to death. Forcing an animal to live benefits the animal.

But there is something about tricking animals to mate and create babies that can only benefit the breeders wallet.
 
cka said:
Hmmmm......nothing in what we are doing here with the keeping and breeding of our captive-bred corns has ANYTHING to do with so called laws "of God and nature"...or did i missed the sarcasm? (it happens)

Ha ha. Yeah, you missed the sarcasm. I knew I should have used a winky emoticon. I would absolutely employ the tuna-scenting method if necessary. From the success stories I've read, I'd try it before I'd mess around with an anole. :)
 
ultimuttone said:
Not if you consider that the only reason to force them to live is that you want them to.In the natural course of things, these little ones would die.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too.

Roy Munson said:
No sir, I don't like it.
FLAMO!!!!!111

(Just remembered "mister horse" from Ren & Stimpy after about 12 years of not thinking about that...)
 
starsevol said:
WELL yes that is true...but unnatural or not forcing a little one to live..in my eyes...is more ethical than forcing 2 to mate that wouldnt otherwise.
As an animal lover, I dont want to watch something starve itself to death. Forcing an animal to live benefits the animal.

But there is something about tricking animals to mate and create babies that can only benefit the breeders wallet.

From a purely naturalistic point of view, the organism's primary function is to pass on its genes. Both parents of hybrid offspring accomplish this. Sounds pretty natural to me, and in fact, it happens in nature. You will be hard pressed to find little cans of tuna with pinkies soaking in them strewn around the Southeast U.S.. I don't dig hybrids, but it's not an ethical issue for me.
 
Buy the parents of hybrids WANT to breed with their own kind. But it is not what WE want, so we fool them.

Someday they will rise up and smite us ;)
 
Ahhh...its like, as a living natural organism YOU want to pass on your genes too.
So someone sets up a date with you and Jessica Simpson, shuts off a light, and switches her with Roseanne Barr.....
 
starsevol said:
Even though I dont know definately that my girls are rootbeers, based on the breeders creamsicle project I believe they probably are.

And I dont think its possible to "pollute" hybrid lines, just as I dont think that breeding a poodle/lab to a collie/shepard makes it more of a mutt than it was before.

Ahhh, but what if the breeder breeeding the hybrids wants to breed a 50% corn to a 50% corn? In that case, you would theoretically get a 50% corn hatchling, keeping the hybrid line "pure". However, if you substitute one of those 50% corns with a 100% corn, and the breeder wants 50% corn offspring, is his line now not "polluted" when those hatchlings emerge 75% corn? Same argument for those that want 100% corn, and end up hatching out 75% corns. It works both ways, but only if the breeder is looking for a particular result. If they do not get that result, then their line is now polluted and ruined, even if it is a hybrid line.
 
I am either not breeding them again. Or labeling the offspring rootbeers and creams...
that is that..
 
starsevol said:
Ahhh...its like, as a living natural organism YOU want to pass on your genes too.
So someone sets up a date with you and Jessica Simpson, shuts off a light, and switches her with Roseanne Barr.....

Enough Tequila and I think a version of that has happened to more than one of us :roflmao:
 
starsevol said:
Ahhh...its like, as a living natural organism YOU want to pass on your genes too.
So someone sets up a date with you and Jessica Simpson, shuts off a light, and switches her with Roseanne Barr.....

Well, you know the old saying: "Any port in a storm..." ;)
 
my little stupid rant generated alot of pages...
I wish it could have been as nice elsewhere
I love this forum..I love these people...
well most of them lol...

just was so devistated when I thought about it....you know..that my girls are probably rootbeers...and that I myself might have done some damage..that part makes my heart hurt...
 
starsevol said:
Buy the parents of hybrids WANT to breed with their own kind. But it is not what WE want, so we fool them.
So you're saying that it is the actual "fooling" in and of itself that is "wrong?" Like the animal is embarrassed or somehow "harmed" by being tricked? I'm REALLY lost now.
 
Back
Top