I'm not defending his behaviour because there is nothing to defend. He simply did not agree to the video being posted online. See the letter:
I want to make it clear that Rob Rabel at the University of Kentucky has confirmed that I never gave permission before or after the panel to post the video.
Had Haught agreed to post the video, and then changed his mind, that would be an indefensible move. But that is not what happened. It is only what Coyne said had happened.
What is truly shameful here is that nobody questioned whether Coyne's version of events was actually correct. Nobody was interested in Haught's reasons, or Haught's version of events.
The lack of curiosity is surprising, because Coyne's description of events is bizarre. Why would Haught hand ammunition to Coyne by reneging on a promise? It does not make any sense. But nobody noticed.
In my view, this is shameful behaviour, because we're supposed to be better than this. What is the point of attacking Fox News viewers or tabloid newspaper readers for their credulous acceptance of spoon-fed truthiness when we are guilty of the same thing? We hear one side of the story - Haught "suppressing a bad debate performance" - and we just say "Ha, typical creationist wacko" and think no further. We are what we hate.
Well, yes. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this incident was the way that so many people automatically jumped to a wrong conclusion, without even considering that there might be another side to the story. In the last Slashdot discussion, nobody asked what Haught's opinion was. Nobody cared. They just assumed that the nasty creationist theologian had lost the debate and was trying to censor the result, which is a shameful conclusion to jump to.
Do we actually know Haught's side of the story? When this topic was last discussed, we only heard what Coyne and his supporters were saying about the refusal to release the video.
An open letter has been posted in which Haught says "I never gave permission before or after the panel to post the video". If this is true, then the whole matter needs to be seen in an entirely different light. In particular, I'm not sure exactly what Haught needs to seek forgiveness for? Unless thought crimes such as Christianity are themselves a sort of sin?
The response was quoting NIH research and emergency room statistics.
It's funny how Slashdot's community, normally amongst the first to point the finger at anyone "denying" Science for political or selfish reasons, themselves become deniers of serious research as soon as that research contradicts their own beliefs. The pot smoker apparently knows much more about drugs than any so-called "scientist" with his fancy "evidence" and "facts".
The Kung Fu Panda expansion is no more (or less) of a movie ripoff than Lich King, who looked almost exactly like Sauron, wore the same armor as Sauron, and had a huge tower with an gigantic eye on it, just like Sauron. Blizzard got away with that. They also got away with Harrison Jones and the blatant Raiders of the Lost Ark inspired quests in Uldum.
There's no reason why they can't get away with the same thing for any other film.
It's just... couldn't they have picked something a bit less childish? Why can't we have a Monsters, Inc. expansion, or perhaps one based on Wall-E?
I find it very difficult to convince myself that Iraq and Libya were different sorts of war. Seems like, in both cases, Western armies forced regime change that otherwise would not have happened. And this regime change came at great human cost.
We may imagine that Iraq was about oil, or perhaps the personal enrichment of Cheney and Halliburton. But Mr Blair, for one, supported it because he believed that regime change was the right thing to do. The real arguments for war in Iraq, beyond bullshit conspiracy theories, are pure liberal interventionism. They are identical to the arguments for war, sorry, intervention, in Libya.
Now, one can argue that the majority of Libyans supported that intervention, and that the majority of Libyans were very pleased to risk either being bombed by our air forces (many were), or being tortured and killed by rebels on suspicion of Gaddafi loyalism (many were). But nobody can know anything about the opinions of the majority of Libyans, then or now, any more than Mr Blair could have known anything about the opinions of the Iraqis.
Even today Mr Blair defends the Iraq war as doing more good than harm. He cannot admit he was wrong now. The human rights abuses of the new Libya are only just coming to light. I wonder if supporters of the new Libya will someday admit that they were wrong, or whether, like Mr Blair, they will always say that the war was the right thing to do.
Ssh! You'll make people feel bad about supporting the war in Libya. Remember, this was a media war. Ordinary people in the West are personally invested in a good outcome from the war because they personally wanted it to happen.
This means they will get terribly upset if you start suggesting that maybe Western-backed regime change wasn't such a great idea in this case, just like it wasn't a great idea in any other case (e.g. Iraq, Egypt). Eventually, they will come up with somebody else to blame for why the revolution turned sour, but in the meantime, please, please don't make them feel guilty for needlessly ruining the lives of so many Libyans.
But Microsoft and Oracle do not expect their customers to be grateful for the software. They are not going to rudely tell them to go elsewhere, or write something themselves. Their responses to comments and requests may be unhelpful, but they will at least be polite and respectful.
This is also how FLOSS developers should behave. Free software may not cost money, but it does cost time to evaluate a program, and this is time invested by the user. If the user then comments about the program to the developer, then he has spent even more time on it. The developer, not the user, should be pleased that somebody has invested time on trying the program and commenting on it.
It may well be that the developer does not want to implement suggested features. In that case, he can say so without being rude. Or, if not, he can remain silent.
In my view, it is arrogant to tell your users that they should be grateful for whatever you provided, even if they don't like it. Using free software is not begging, and free software users deserve respect too.
Well, it is certainly more open than ARM, and that was the point I was making.
Secondly, as I said, there are many 486 clones. It is only around the introduction of Pentium Pro and MMX that the ISA began to be patented. Clones typically omit these instructions.
Actually it is the other way around. The x86 platform is mostly based on open standards. There are more 486-compatible clones than you may realise. ARM, on the other hand, is strongly proprietary. There are no clones at all. The ARM fragmentation has occurred because of a lack of open standards - while the PC guys were standardising PCI, USB and VGA, every ARM licensee was reinventing the wheel to give their own SoC the features that nobody else had. While the core ISA is always the same, the system architecture is not.
When ARM CPUs were only used for embedded systems, this was fine, because each vendor could provide a BSP for each supported OS. Now that ARM CPUs are being used in general-purpose computers like Windows Phone 7 and Android handsets, the fragmentation has become an issue preventing users from loading alternative firmware. Clearly, this is a concern for Linus Torvalds (and Linux supporters who understand the issue) as it causes pain for kernel development and makes it essentially impossible to produce a single OS that could be installed (say) on any ARM-based smartphone.
A simple answer, such as "gun control", is just as silly as any other simple answer you might receive in response to this question.
Maybe it is because the USA and the UK are utterly different countries with very different societies. Things that happen in one do not necessarily explain what would happen in another if some of those differences were removed. Our (UK) policemen all seem to be wearing stab vests now, which wasn't necessary not so long ago, so something has certainly changed, and not in a good way.
That'll be really, really slow. Unlike an SSD a CF card won't do intelligent management of writing, so every time the OS writes a block to the "disk", a huge number of blocks will be erased and rewritten. So you would need to use a rather contrived arrangement, such as a read-only root filesystem with/tmp in RAM, or the entire root filesystem in RAM. On an old machine with very little RAM, this will be tricky.
I'd suggest an PATA to SATA adapter to enable the use of a modern hard disk.
Yes, and this can't replace the fuel tax, because if it did, The Netherlands would have the cheapest fuel in Europe. Drivers in neighbouring countries would drive there to refuel. There's no border checkpoint. So it would need to be an additional tax on top of the fuel tax.
The article quotes someone as saying: âoeTo do it you need support of the government, and it needs to happen when there is not an election because thereâ(TM)s always a bit of resistance.â
Most likely a lot of resistance. The only thing people hate more than being taxed is being taxed twice. And when the "meter also factors in the cost to society in the form of pollution, traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions and wear and tear on roads", people are inevitably going to wonder if these costs are being calculated in a fair and reasonable way.
It does take a while to rebuild a Windows machine, so take a full backup after it's set up. Modern backup software can image a complete Windows system while it is running via the volume shadow copy service, storing the image on an external hard disk drive. In the event of disk failure/virus infection, you boot the restore software from the live CD and restore the image. This proceeds without user intervention, and about half an hour later, everything is back precisely as it was after installation. It's then possible to apply whatever updates have been released since the backup was taken, and if you wish, do another backup with the new updates.
I did quite a bit of research to find good software to do this. There is one program named "Macrium Reflect: Free Edition" which I can highly recommend. Though I have since bought the full version, I found that the free edition had all the features I really needed. (Though really, given how long it takes to rebuild one of these machines, £30 for some backup software is a great deal.)
There is also Acronis True Image and Norton Ghost, and a number of FOSS solutions. I was not willing to rely on any FOSS software's ability to correctly parse NTFS, and I found Acronis awkward to use. Lastly, there is the inbuilt Microsoft Backup, but this only backs up documents, not software. You really need something which can image the entire disk and restore it like a virtual machine snapshot. Microsoft Backup won't do that.
That's exactly my understanding, too. ARP/RARP packets aren't IP packets and hence can't cross routers. But "postbigbang" implies that he knows some other "trick". I am very interested to know what this might be.
On this page you will find the "Score Modifiers" controls which allow you to assign bonuses (positive or negative) to particular sorts of comments. There are heaps of options.
Be warned that I am using the "Classic discussion system" (D1). I do not know if this functionality is available with D2.
I use a +3 modifier for ACs because AC posts are often (but not always) more interesting than named posts. I think this is because people speak more freely if they are able to do so without a permanent record of whatever they said which is forever attached to their name (or handle).
The disadvantage of anonymity is group identity, when a mob forms, and people act like assholes because their identities are hidden. See the KKK, or any other group of masked anonymous persons, online or off.
But group identity isn't always the result. Anonymity also promotes individualism, because an anonymous individual can feel free to go against the group identity. You would be lynched for standing in the middle of a large crowd and vehemently disagreeing with the crowd on some subject. But if you can be anonymous - well, you speak freely.
On Slashdot, this form is most common. ACs are the ones who step out of line and post things that are completely at odds with the groupthink on some particular topic. Sometimes, this is just garbage. Other times, it is refreshing insight.
Moreover, the message of "Yes Minister" is that government is 99% civil service and at most 1% elected officials. It is no surprise that elections make so little difference to policy.
Actually the FPGA stores the AES key in battery-backed RAM. The AES key is therefore just as reprogrammable as the FPGA itself. In a typical application, every EEPROM is programmed with the same image, and every FPGA is programmed with the same key.
To avoid allowing an untrusted manufacturer access to the AES key, you might decide to have the boards manufactured and populated in one place, and then sent to your main office for the final key-programming stage.
Well, I think it's pretty cool that the kernel can not only recover when random userspace programs crash, but also recover when those programs are third-party graphics drivers running in kernel space. And recover quickly, without taking anything else out.
It is not as if you are not told that the crash has occurred. You are told immediately after automatic recovery. Messages also appear in the event log. That's much more helpful than going to a blank screen with the keyboard unresponsive, killing all applications and leaving the user with no clue about what went wrong.
Not to mention the ability to quickly recover from a graphics driver crash. It's absolutely amazing when you see it happen. "Oh, my GPU crashed, the screen went black. And... it's back already, and it didn't even affect the game I was playing."
Yes, indeed the argument has been reduced to a single point, because this is the only way it could possibly proceed. Without such a reduction we are simply arguing about the motives of breeders, which you say are mostly bad, and I say are mostly good. This cannot go anywhere as neither of us can show the other is wrong. These are weak claims.
It is therefore useful to me that you have made a strong claim, namely that (quoting you):
I believe [breeding] shouldn't be permitted right now because there is a big enough selection of strays available for it to be pointless and contributory to the problem. Should the rescue problem be resolved down to a manageable level through neutering of adoptions, and greaters levels of adoptions followed by falling levels of strays then certainly breeding begins to hold a purpose.
In any argument, strong claims are risky, firstly because they may be shown to be false, and secondly because they may be used against the person making them. What's happening here is the latter case. I have assumed that you are right about the "rescue problem" and applied it to something else in order to show its wider implications. As you are an expert on logic, you will recognise this form of argument.
You call this "irrelevant" and "illogical" because you have no other answer. The enemy chess pieces encircle you, your king is in check, the game is almost over... so you accuse me of cheating.
Let us consider a few ways out of it for you. There is the way you have already tried, namely to say that the motive for having children is different to the motive for breeding dogs. But what bearing does this have on the situation, when the issue is that there are too many of something, and some of the unwanted things should be rescued? You already argued that it is about population (see the quotation above). You can't change your mind and make out it's actually about motive. That way is closed to you now.
Secondly you could admit that people should adopt children rather than having them. This is logically consistent, though the totalitarian implications are striking.
Thirdly you could admit that your claim is too extreme, and people should merely be encouraged to rescue dogs if they can. This is reasonable and sensible and I would wholeheartedly agree.
Fourthly, you could simply walk away. If you do not wish to waste your time in this discussion then do not trouble yourself. Unlike myself, you do not post here under your real name, and thus have no particular need to defend yourself against anyone who might call you "illogical", "irrelevant", ignorant, stupid, and then respond to a carefully considered defence with further insults and accusations. Incidentally, I do not think you are any of these things, though you are perhaps a little too emotionally invested in this particular discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not defending his behaviour because there is nothing to defend. He simply did not agree to the video being posted online. See the letter:
I want to make it clear that Rob Rabel at the University of Kentucky has confirmed that I never gave permission before or after the panel to post the video.
Had Haught agreed to post the video, and then changed his mind, that would be an indefensible move. But that is not what happened. It is only what Coyne said had happened.
What is truly shameful here is that nobody questioned whether Coyne's version of events was actually correct. Nobody was interested in Haught's reasons, or Haught's version of events.
The lack of curiosity is surprising, because Coyne's description of events is bizarre. Why would Haught hand ammunition to Coyne by reneging on a promise? It does not make any sense. But nobody noticed.
In my view, this is shameful behaviour, because we're supposed to be better than this. What is the point of attacking Fox News viewers or tabloid newspaper readers for their credulous acceptance of spoon-fed truthiness when we are guilty of the same thing? We hear one side of the story - Haught "suppressing a bad debate performance" - and we just say "Ha, typical creationist wacko" and think no further. We are what we hate.
Did you read the letter?
Well, yes. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this incident was the way that so many people automatically jumped to a wrong conclusion, without even considering that there might be another side to the story. In the last Slashdot discussion, nobody asked what Haught's opinion was. Nobody cared. They just assumed that the nasty creationist theologian had lost the debate and was trying to censor the result, which is a shameful conclusion to jump to.
Do we actually know Haught's side of the story? When this topic was last discussed, we only heard what Coyne and his supporters were saying about the refusal to release the video.
An open letter has been posted in which Haught says "I never gave permission before or after the panel to post the video". If this is true, then the whole matter needs to be seen in an entirely different light. In particular, I'm not sure exactly what Haught needs to seek forgiveness for? Unless thought crimes such as Christianity are themselves a sort of sin?
The response was quoting NIH research and emergency room statistics.
It's funny how Slashdot's community, normally amongst the first to point the finger at anyone "denying" Science for political or selfish reasons, themselves become deniers of serious research as soon as that research contradicts their own beliefs. The pot smoker apparently knows much more about drugs than any so-called "scientist" with his fancy "evidence" and "facts".
The Kung Fu Panda expansion is no more (or less) of a movie ripoff than Lich King, who looked almost exactly like Sauron, wore the same armor as Sauron, and had a huge tower with an gigantic eye on it, just like Sauron. Blizzard got away with that. They also got away with Harrison Jones and the blatant Raiders of the Lost Ark inspired quests in Uldum.
There's no reason why they can't get away with the same thing for any other film.
It's just... couldn't they have picked something a bit less childish? Why can't we have a Monsters, Inc. expansion, or perhaps one based on Wall-E?
I find it very difficult to convince myself that Iraq and Libya were different sorts of war. Seems like, in both cases, Western armies forced regime change that otherwise would not have happened. And this regime change came at great human cost.
We may imagine that Iraq was about oil, or perhaps the personal enrichment of Cheney and Halliburton. But Mr Blair, for one, supported it because he believed that regime change was the right thing to do. The real arguments for war in Iraq, beyond bullshit conspiracy theories, are pure liberal interventionism. They are identical to the arguments for war, sorry, intervention, in Libya.
Now, one can argue that the majority of Libyans supported that intervention, and that the majority of Libyans were very pleased to risk either being bombed by our air forces (many were), or being tortured and killed by rebels on suspicion of Gaddafi loyalism (many were). But nobody can know anything about the opinions of the majority of Libyans, then or now, any more than Mr Blair could have known anything about the opinions of the Iraqis.
Even today Mr Blair defends the Iraq war as doing more good than harm. He cannot admit he was wrong now. The human rights abuses of the new Libya are only just coming to light. I wonder if supporters of the new Libya will someday admit that they were wrong, or whether, like Mr Blair, they will always say that the war was the right thing to do.
Ssh! You'll make people feel bad about supporting the war in Libya. Remember, this was a media war. Ordinary people in the West are personally invested in a good outcome from the war because they personally wanted it to happen.
This means they will get terribly upset if you start suggesting that maybe Western-backed regime change wasn't such a great idea in this case, just like it wasn't a great idea in any other case (e.g. Iraq, Egypt). Eventually, they will come up with somebody else to blame for why the revolution turned sour, but in the meantime, please, please don't make them feel guilty for needlessly ruining the lives of so many Libyans.
But Microsoft and Oracle do not expect their customers to be grateful for the software. They are not going to rudely tell them to go elsewhere, or write something themselves. Their responses to comments and requests may be unhelpful, but they will at least be polite and respectful.
This is also how FLOSS developers should behave. Free software may not cost money, but it does cost time to evaluate a program, and this is time invested by the user. If the user then comments about the program to the developer, then he has spent even more time on it. The developer, not the user, should be pleased that somebody has invested time on trying the program and commenting on it.
It may well be that the developer does not want to implement suggested features. In that case, he can say so without being rude. Or, if not, he can remain silent.
In my view, it is arrogant to tell your users that they should be grateful for whatever you provided, even if they don't like it. Using free software is not begging, and free software users deserve respect too.
486 clones were being produced in the 1990s while any patents were still valid, and not just by AMD. There were also Cyrix, IBM, VIA, ST, UMC...
Can you point me to any ARM clones? Any at all?
Well, it is certainly more open than ARM, and that was the point I was making.
Secondly, as I said, there are many 486 clones. It is only around the introduction of Pentium Pro and MMX that the ISA began to be patented. Clones typically omit these instructions.
Actually it is the other way around. The x86 platform is mostly based on open standards. There are more 486-compatible clones than you may realise. ARM, on the other hand, is strongly proprietary. There are no clones at all. The ARM fragmentation has occurred because of a lack of open standards - while the PC guys were standardising PCI, USB and VGA, every ARM licensee was reinventing the wheel to give their own SoC the features that nobody else had. While the core ISA is always the same, the system architecture is not.
When ARM CPUs were only used for embedded systems, this was fine, because each vendor could provide a BSP for each supported OS. Now that ARM CPUs are being used in general-purpose computers like Windows Phone 7 and Android handsets, the fragmentation has become an issue preventing users from loading alternative firmware. Clearly, this is a concern for Linus Torvalds (and Linux supporters who understand the issue) as it causes pain for kernel development and makes it essentially impossible to produce a single OS that could be installed (say) on any ARM-based smartphone.
A simple answer, such as "gun control", is just as silly as any other simple answer you might receive in response to this question.
Maybe it is because the USA and the UK are utterly different countries with very different societies. Things that happen in one do not necessarily explain what would happen in another if some of those differences were removed. Our (UK) policemen all seem to be wearing stab vests now, which wasn't necessary not so long ago, so something has certainly changed, and not in a good way.
That'll be really, really slow. Unlike an SSD a CF card won't do intelligent management of writing, so every time the OS writes a block to the "disk", a huge number of blocks will be erased and rewritten. So you would need to use a rather contrived arrangement, such as a read-only root filesystem with /tmp in RAM, or the entire root filesystem in RAM. On an old machine with very little RAM, this will be tricky.
I'd suggest an PATA to SATA adapter to enable the use of a modern hard disk.
Yes, and this can't replace the fuel tax, because if it did, The Netherlands would have the cheapest fuel in Europe. Drivers in neighbouring countries would drive there to refuel. There's no border checkpoint. So it would need to be an additional tax on top of the fuel tax.
The article quotes someone as saying: âoeTo do it you need support of the government, and it needs to happen when there is not an election because thereâ(TM)s always a bit of resistance.â
Most likely a lot of resistance. The only thing people hate more than being taxed is being taxed twice. And when the "meter also factors in the cost to society in the form of pollution, traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions and wear and tear on roads", people are inevitably going to wonder if these costs are being calculated in a fair and reasonable way.
Backups?
It does take a while to rebuild a Windows machine, so take a full backup after it's set up. Modern backup software can image a complete Windows system while it is running via the volume shadow copy service, storing the image on an external hard disk drive. In the event of disk failure/virus infection, you boot the restore software from the live CD and restore the image. This proceeds without user intervention, and about half an hour later, everything is back precisely as it was after installation. It's then possible to apply whatever updates have been released since the backup was taken, and if you wish, do another backup with the new updates.
I did quite a bit of research to find good software to do this. There is one program named "Macrium Reflect: Free Edition" which I can highly recommend. Though I have since bought the full version, I found that the free edition had all the features I really needed. (Though really, given how long it takes to rebuild one of these machines, £30 for some backup software is a great deal.)
There is also Acronis True Image and Norton Ghost, and a number of FOSS solutions. I was not willing to rely on any FOSS software's ability to correctly parse NTFS, and I found Acronis awkward to use. Lastly, there is the inbuilt Microsoft Backup, but this only backs up documents, not software. You really need something which can image the entire disk and restore it like a virtual machine snapshot. Microsoft Backup won't do that.
That's exactly my understanding, too. ARP/RARP packets aren't IP packets and hence can't cross routers. But "postbigbang" implies that he knows some other "trick". I am very interested to know what this might be.
It's not easy to find! First you need to click on your user name in the top right corner (next to "Log Out").
Then click "Account", just next to "Subscription" and "Journal" and just above "Achievements".
This takes you to http://slashdot.org/my/preferences. Click "Viewing" under the "Discussions" subheading.
On this page you will find the "Score Modifiers" controls which allow you to assign bonuses (positive or negative) to particular sorts of comments. There are heaps of options.
Be warned that I am using the "Classic discussion system" (D1). I do not know if this functionality is available with D2.
Fascinating. Any reference for this?
I use a +3 modifier for ACs because AC posts are often (but not always) more interesting than named posts. I think this is because people speak more freely if they are able to do so without a permanent record of whatever they said which is forever attached to their name (or handle).
The disadvantage of anonymity is group identity, when a mob forms, and people act like assholes because their identities are hidden. See the KKK, or any other group of masked anonymous persons, online or off.
But group identity isn't always the result. Anonymity also promotes individualism, because an anonymous individual can feel free to go against the group identity. You would be lynched for standing in the middle of a large crowd and vehemently disagreeing with the crowd on some subject. But if you can be anonymous - well, you speak freely.
On Slashdot, this form is most common. ACs are the ones who step out of line and post things that are completely at odds with the groupthink on some particular topic. Sometimes, this is just garbage. Other times, it is refreshing insight.
And yes, when I see the latter, I mod it up.
Moreover, the message of "Yes Minister" is that government is 99% civil service and at most 1% elected officials. It is no surprise that elections make so little difference to policy.
Actually the FPGA stores the AES key in battery-backed RAM. The AES key is therefore just as reprogrammable as the FPGA itself. In a typical application, every EEPROM is programmed with the same image, and every FPGA is programmed with the same key.
To avoid allowing an untrusted manufacturer access to the AES key, you might decide to have the boards manufactured and populated in one place, and then sent to your main office for the final key-programming stage.
Well, I think it's pretty cool that the kernel can not only recover when random userspace programs crash, but also recover when those programs are third-party graphics drivers running in kernel space. And recover quickly, without taking anything else out.
It is not as if you are not told that the crash has occurred. You are told immediately after automatic recovery. Messages also appear in the event log. That's much more helpful than going to a blank screen with the keyboard unresponsive, killing all applications and leaving the user with no clue about what went wrong.
Not to mention the ability to quickly recover from a graphics driver crash. It's absolutely amazing when you see it happen. "Oh, my GPU crashed, the screen went black. And... it's back already, and it didn't even affect the game I was playing."
Yes, indeed the argument has been reduced to a single point, because this is the only way it could possibly proceed. Without such a reduction we are simply arguing about the motives of breeders, which you say are mostly bad, and I say are mostly good. This cannot go anywhere as neither of us can show the other is wrong. These are weak claims.
It is therefore useful to me that you have made a strong claim, namely that (quoting you):
I believe [breeding] shouldn't be permitted right now because there is a big enough selection of strays available for it to be pointless and contributory to the problem. Should the rescue problem be resolved down to a manageable level through neutering of adoptions, and greaters levels of adoptions followed by falling levels of strays then certainly breeding begins to hold a purpose.
In any argument, strong claims are risky, firstly because they may be shown to be false, and secondly because they may be used against the person making them. What's happening here is the latter case. I have assumed that you are right about the "rescue problem" and applied it to something else in order to show its wider implications. As you are an expert on logic, you will recognise this form of argument.
You call this "irrelevant" and "illogical" because you have no other answer. The enemy chess pieces encircle you, your king is in check, the game is almost over... so you accuse me of cheating.
Let us consider a few ways out of it for you. There is the way you have already tried, namely to say that the motive for having children is different to the motive for breeding dogs. But what bearing does this have on the situation, when the issue is that there are too many of something, and some of the unwanted things should be rescued? You already argued that it is about population (see the quotation above). You can't change your mind and make out it's actually about motive. That way is closed to you now.
Secondly you could admit that people should adopt children rather than having them. This is logically consistent, though the totalitarian implications are striking.
Thirdly you could admit that your claim is too extreme, and people should merely be encouraged to rescue dogs if they can. This is reasonable and sensible and I would wholeheartedly agree.
Fourthly, you could simply walk away. If you do not wish to waste your time in this discussion then do not trouble yourself. Unlike myself, you do not post here under your real name, and thus have no particular need to defend yourself against anyone who might call you "illogical", "irrelevant", ignorant, stupid, and then respond to a carefully considered defence with further insults and accusations. Incidentally, I do not think you are any of these things, though you are perhaps a little too emotionally invested in this particular discussion.