And another thing!

 

Once I get ranting, I can't be stopped.

 

'cept with a bullet.

 

Anyway, I just glanced at another of these comments on my out and I couldn't help myself. I'm so fucking tired of people saying that when someone does something horrible or what have you, they become "an animal." People who are out of control are "animals." Shut the fuck up; people who go insane and start killing each other are not animals. I understand the efficiency of an animal killing another animal, but the comparison is still full of shit. Animals kill to survive--people kill for fun. In the end, there's no other reason for one person to kill another. Even a person defending themself from another still comes down to fun--the attacker is insane and tries to stab the victim--for pleasure--and so the victim must fight back. It's still in the name of enjoyment, in the end. And you couldn't convince me that religious psychos slaughtering other groups is not for their own enjoyment, but I won't get started on that. That's my brief rant (counterpoint to my madly LONG one about homosexuality) so I bid you all goodnight.

 

You've never had a housecat. Animals too kill for fun.

Actually I do have cats. Just because they attack toys and hunt flies and mice and the like doesn't mean they enjoy it. I don't know why they play with stuff, but it isn't for the sheer enjoyment of slaughtering something.

well, to be technical, humans ARE animals - but that aside, when people do things that are outrageous they're compared to animals because of the seemingless brutality when a tiger, per say, hunts its prey. I don't think calling someone an "animal" is a comparison of intentions, which is what you're pointing out, it's comparing the actions aside from everything else.

well, to be technical, humans ARE animals - but that aside, when people do things that are outrageous they're compared to animals because of the seemingless brutality when a tiger, per say, hunts its prey. I don't think calling someone an "animal" is a comparison of intentions, which is what you're pointing out, it's comparing the actions aside from everything else.

 

I love it when folks say or write "per say", like their some lilly-livered French cocksucker on a ballgagging tour of Japan. How's that for animal?

.......we aint nothin but animals well some of us cannibals who cut other people open like cantalopes.......Technicaly, I think that I like animals over people most of the time..........especially with a nice horseradish sauce.

I love it when folks say or write "per say", like their some lilly-livered French cocksucker on a ballgagging tour of Japan. How's that for animal?

glad I could be of some assistance to ya

 

 

Once I get ranting, I can't be stopped.

 

'cept with a bullet.

 

Anyway, I just glanced at another of these comments on my out and I couldn't help myself. I'm so fucking tired of people saying that when someone does something horrible or what have you, they become "an animal." People who are out of control are "animals." Shut the fuck up; people who go insane and start killing each other are not animals. I understand the efficiency of an animal killing another animal, but the comparison is still full of shit. Animals kill to survive--people kill for fun. In the end, there's no other reason for one person to kill another. Even a person defending themself from another still comes down to fun--the attacker is insane and tries to stab the victim--for pleasure--and so the victim must fight back. It's still in the name of enjoyment, in the end. And you couldn't convince me that religious psychos slaughtering other groups is not for their own enjoyment, but I won't get started on that. That's my brief rant (counterpoint to my madly LONG one about homosexuality) so I bid you all goodnight.

 

Here's the bullet.

 

That is about the stupidest conclusion I

Here's the bullet.

 

That is about the stupidest conclusion I

Here's the bullet.

 

That is about the stupidest conclusion I

Oh come on, again with the damn religious morales issue? I thought we already went over that, it has no basis man. Put down the pipe, pull your head out of your ass, and realized that some of us are strong enough to live our lives decently without having to be governed by a 2000 year old book.

Loco Wombat I

 

 

My basis of debate is based on Darwinism or survival of the fittest. Down

Vortex

 

So what are you trying to say that you agree with Silver dragon 87?

 

When the Americans (western European white guys) colonized our great country they were white supremacist similar to the KKK. They killed everyone who got in their way. They conquered and enslaved the West Indies inhabitants and took their resources. They did all that stuff with slaves they bought because the Christian white culture considered itself superior to all minor cultures. Shit they even indentured white folks as slaves for ship passage to the New World. These guys were kick ass and don

Vortex

 

So what are you trying to say that you agree with Silver dragon 87?

 

When the Americans (western European white guys) colonized our great country they were white supremacist similar to the KKK. They killed everyone who got in their way. They conquered and enslaved the West Indies inhabitants and took their resources. They did all that stuff with slaves they bought because the Christian white culture considered itself superior to all minor cultures. Shit they even indentured white folks as slaves for ship passage to the New World. These guys were kick ass and don

 

Crispy, I find your entire arguement faulty. Animals are not instinctively cruel. As you pointed out at such length, people kill to make themselves feel better. Animals kill because they are being threatened or because they need to eat, and not for any other reason. It is all a matter or survival, not crulety. Here are some perfect examples: a person will kill the biggest and most healthy animal, for example a buck, they can find, because it makes them feel good about themselves. Animals that prey upon deer will kill the smallest and weakest, and often one that is ill. Which one is selfless? Which furthers the world? A human will torture another human for years, and many animals attack the jugular of their prey to kill it quickly. While this is not so much a deliberate act of mercy as one of efficiency and to make themselves more successful, which is more admirable? Which animal would YOU rather be? The object of someone's sick game, or just another piece of meat who took a bad step?

 

The point is that animals are hungry. People are twisted. Animals are NOT cruel. They might do things we view as cruel sometimes, but they're only trying to survive, and they'll do anything they have to do it. They don't mean to inflict any pain--they just want their dinner.

 

You have clearly never taken a course in psychology because, many times, people DO kill for fun. They do it because it makes them feel powerful, or because it temporarily chases away some spectre of their past--pain, anger, guilt, etc.

 

And Wumbat is right, you have brought religion into an issue where it doesn't belong. Spouting off about abortion and spirits is turning the arguement into something else. Abortion does not belong in this debate.

 

And Crispy, you later on go on to prove my point. Survival of the fittest is nature, not cruelty. Animals do not kill their young or compete with each other because it amuses them or they enjoy it, they do it because it is a law of the way of nature. The strongest go on to breed, the weakest do not get that opportunity. Thus, nature thrives. If people did the same, the world might be a better place. People kill people indiscriminately. Isn't it always the good ones who die? The drunk always walks away from the crash, and the child is always dead.

 

Your piss-ass country was founded on invasions and barbarianism. Mine was founded on the desire for a peaceful country. Unfortunately, pretty much all early white people viewed foreign cultures as uncivilized, and the dark chapter in my country's history can't be erased. However, we have maintained a general wish for peace, and WE thrive. YOUR fucking hellhole is not functioning. Your people are killing each other, children are shooting up their schools, junkies are everywhere, and people just don't give a shit. The rest of the world looks at your home with disgust and shame. Don't you think that says more about YOU than it does about them? No, of course not. Americans are never wrong.

 

Vortex: thank you for mentioning the religious crutch because I'm sick of being the only one to say it.

 

 

 

Crispy, I find your entire arguement faulty. Animals are not instinctively cruel. As you pointed out at such length, people kill to make themselves feel better. Animals kill because they are being threatened or because they need to eat, and not for any other reason. It is all a matter or survival, not crulety. Here are some perfect examples: a person will kill the biggest and most healthy animal, for example a buck, they can find, because it makes them feel good about themselves. Animals that prey upon deer will kill the smallest and weakest, and often one that is ill. Which one is selfless? Which furthers the world? A human will torture another human for years, and many animals attack the jugular of their prey to kill it quickly. While this is not so much a deliberate act of mercy as one of efficiency and to make themselves more successful, which is more admirable? Which animal would YOU rather be? The object of someone's sick game, or just another piece of meat who took a bad step?

Thoughtful post and well stated! I agree with association of cruelty away from animals. To be cruel one must be operating with a thought process and not instincts. Hunting methods are as you state in most cases but within the individual species the weak is systematically eliminated and as you said by the assistance of other carnivores. Domesticated house cats are abnormal in their killing practices and seem to enjoy killing for fun and appear to enjoy a little torture before the final death. Within the species of non-human animals the rule of nature is the strong survive. In the human race it appears the intent is likewise and add intelligence and competitiveness. Instances of humans torturing other humans are rare unless you speak of prisons and rehabilitation?

 

 

The point is that animals are hungry. People are twisted. Animals are NOT cruel. They might do things we view as cruel sometimes, but they're only trying to survive, and they'll do anything they have to do it. They don't mean to inflict any pain--they just want their dinner.

 

You have clearly never taken a course in psychology because, many times, people DO kill for fun. They do it because it makes them feel powerful, or because it temporarily chases away some spectre of their past--pain, anger, guilt, etc.

I think I pointed out crimes of passion and other mental illness as basis for killing.

And Wumbat is right, you have brought religion into an issue where it doesn't belong. Spouting off about abortion and spirits is turning the arguement into something else. Abortion does not belong in this debate.

Dude, you brought religion into the debate on your original post:

And you couldn't convince me that religious psychos slaughtering other groups is not for their own enjoyment, but I won't get started on that. <snip>

 

People kill people indiscriminately. Isn't it always the good ones who die? The drunk always walks away from the crash, and the child is always dead.

 

I don

 

I don't know what to say about cats. I heard something somewhere....one time XD about why they do that, but I can't remember it. It does seem odd that they do this, but I still doubt that it's for the enjoyment of tormenting their prey. I guess I'll ask Jeeves later.

 

I don't count the people that I did study in psychology in your groupings of crimes of passion or mental illness, though the people who do enjoy torturing other creatures ARE mentally ill. What I meant was that I see them as separate, at least from crimes of passion. People who fly off the handle and kill someone (because they cheated on them and other wonky reasons) are just people who...well, no, I guess they could be counted as mental illness cases too; normal people don't do that, do they? So I suppose they could all be called mentally ill. And I don't know of any animals who are ill in that manner so...I'm not sure what to say about that either.

 

My comment about religious groups was a statement of fact, not an opening for the issue of religion itself, though the use of the word psychos was a little personal bias which I don't apologize for, but I guess seeing it in there would make it seem that I WAS starting something up about religion. I only meant to point out the incontestable fact that because of religion in general, people kill each other. And animals don't do that (And I'm sure I'll be hearing some 'animals aren't smart enough for religion' so I'll just prepare that arguement in the meantime c(o: )

 

Even religious fundamentalists believe that they are acting in the right. Usually, people do not commit evil for the sake of it. They do it, everyone does, because they believe they are doing what is right. For their situation, anyway. Hitler thought he was right. All those people on suicide missions think they are right too--and those killings probably aren't, to them, indiscriminate because they DO believe they have an enemy, and they are striking them.

 

I don't study Western history, so I can't contest some of the points you made. However, today, Canada could not become part of the US because that would be an invasion. The UN has some power, at least, and basically it just wouldn't happen. The world at large wouldn't stand for that kind of crap, even if they do fear our bully of a neighbour. We have the same problems as the US--those problems are universal--but they do not occur in the same...degree. Volume, not the same volume. People don't shoot each other on the streets as much as they do in the US. A school shooting is unbelievable here, while in the states it is commonplace. Now, anyway. People don't speak the name of a city with fear or apprehension, there is no blackness equivalent to, for example, New York or L.A. There isn't a part of Montreal or Calgary where you shouldn't go because your car will be stolen and you'll probably be mugged. People don't walk the streets with the same kind of fear as they do in the US, and despite what your violent attitude might yell at you, making the rest of the world fear you is in no way a good thing.

 

The difference between our two countries can be seen in our ancient ideals. Canadians think the Greeks were the greatest (except Sparta, though it was admirable in its own way) and Americans (which I use for people of the US even though I shouldn't because it isn't correct) admire the Romans. If you've studied classical civilizations, that should be all I need to say.

 

I can and will 'expel' religion because I have spent many years studying and mulling over it, and I have several long-winded and well-thought rants, but I find them exhausting and so they haven't appeared in full on these boards. Religion makes me sick, and that's all I care to say about it right now.

 

So how in the fuck did we get from people who kill people are animals to people can't be animals because animals are not like people, to animals aren't aggressive, to religion?

 

Oh I get it....It's that fucking Circle of Life shit....right??? :o

So how in the fuck did we get from people who kill people are animals to people can't be animals because animals are not like people, to animals aren't aggressive, to religion?

 

Oh I get it....It's that fucking Circle of Life shit....right??? :o

Possibly if you read an article in Microsoft Encarta Encydlopedia key word Anthropology, sub section IX, sub section C. 2 Subject Anthropological Evolution Theories through Morgan and Taylor's theories it may shed some light on the discussion.

Possibly if you read an article in Microsoft Encarta Encydlopedia key word Anthropology, sub section IX, sub section C. 2 Subject Anthropological Evolution Theories through Morgan and Taylor's theories it may shed some light on the discussion.

 

Jesus...I think I will just stick to my "Circle of Life Theory"!

Jesus...I think I will just stick to my "Circle of Life Theory"!

Dude it's only a couple paragraphs and it discribes the circle of life from evolution to the worship of one god. The paragraphs detail how Marx found it to mean communism completes the circle and American founders chose the other means to complete the circle. The unknown is what culture is in a void of the one god? Does it mean back to barbarism or a higher level of human life? Only the future will decide if science or religion will coexist to complete the circle.

Sounds interesting...I'll check it out.

spleefman, I just reply to whatever other people say, so I didn't start this process of getting off track, though I didn't try to stop it. Whatever people want to talk about, I'm game. I think the topic itself is pretty much closed anyway; no one seems to have much to say about it without getting deep. On to philosophy!

I'm game......

Well not to be the psychology asshole (as i have in other fourms) but when it comes down to cruelity theres a few reaosn that run. (People are too damn complicated to toss into one bucket)

 

Ok, firstly we say the shiz goes like this. A human being is neither good or evil (Asdie form the philosphical debate about wht IS good and evil which we won't bother with) Darwin was mentioned earlier, he was a smart guy but you messed up his stuff some. We are here to survive and have sex. Thats the jist of Darwin, so whtever helps us fulfill these goals is to be the first response in almost anysituation. (Not getting an abortion may leave a mother poor and to die, she is her primary concern at that point) The thing with all of these instincts is that since we humans are so damn malable, to what extent instict plays a role in our lives depends on the perosn's experiences envorionment (Society, household etc..) Which ever influence most directly affects the individuel is the one thats going to change them the most. However, depending on other influences that response to direct experience will change from person to person (as i said, we're too dman complicated)

Example: I've a friend who was an abused child. He really took his whoopins and this led him to become btter, hatful, destructive and addictive.

 

I too was an abuse child but my path was not the same. I intsead learned to empathize with those who suffer, and this what was done to me should not be done to anyone. I believe somebodys signature is "i've learn tolerence form the intolerent etc.." well that was pretty much me. So were i BORN to be violent, then why would i not become violent uin the wake of something that threatened my existance (As your 'Darwin' theory would have me do) My friend followed that path, but i couldn't have been nature if it wern't common.

 

Why did my friend not follow the same root? I really couldn't tell you. I got a theroy that goes like this;(mind you, i';m still debating this issue with myself and others..its a thinker...) What i'm currently thinking is that maybe intelligence (brain capacity anyhow) Plays a role in how we roll. In no bragging way, but i got a head on my soldier, my friend dosn't really. Not the quickest whip. So therefore, without the ability to reaosn in extreme situations he is more likly to toss reaosn aside (reason relating to the less life threating, and therefore darwin like, response on non-violence. we would not risk our lives if the options there) But if the mind can't reach that type of though, it turns to emotuional reaction. Anger being a very prominat and quick survival emotion.

 

As a wise man once siad "fear leads to anger. anger ;eads to hate. hate..leads to suffering" Yoda, Phantome Menace. (i'm a geek, sue me. i also can fight like a madman!)

 

So if a 'lesser' mind gets into any situation that makes him feel threatened (others influenceing his children, country were such example) then with an emotioal response of anger, he toddles down the kill train. But humans naturally reconize that other humans benefit them and would therefor not wish to kill them off. (unless they are, as staed above, threatened)

 

Another option is that they are Psycotic, in whihc case they live in a world that revolves around themselves without any snese of 'other peopl' and killin one is no different then stepping on a branch. this is an abnormality however so it dosn't really apply to the mass