To just come right out and say it, is that 5 to 7 percent of everyone you meet will as soon kill you as talk with you.
This is quite obvious to those who live in the 'real' world.
What can you believe if you think animals are people? Can you allow the thought that you might have to destroy them to protect yourself? No. So...
You are left with the effort to reconcile your beliefs that you indeed can be a 'friend to all' and the reality of murderous thugs who enjoy cutting off the heads of such fools.
My entire tirade against the animal worship cult has been to try and make them see that IF YOU CAN'T INJURE AN ANIMAL, YOU SURELY CAN'T DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST A HUMAN BEING. Period.
You become Nick Berg. You become a Jew in france in 1939. You can love all about you, but you will be dead.
It's a tough world folks. If you fail to acknowledge that you are a 'mean, lean fighting machine'... you are a dead piece of meat.
Maybe someday. But not yet. Not until we figure out how to live as SENTIENT BEINGS. Not even close yet. Think about it.
When... we understand hatred and killing for religion. Then worship animals and be kind to all.
When... we understand genecide and can prevent it. Then worship animals and be kind to all.
Meanwhile... never move from Washingon state,Oregon and San Francisco. It's a mean world out there folks. And besides, you will look funny without your head!
People who equate animals and humans have two options.
1 - Become a "friend to all".
2 - Become a miitant who will kill for animal rights.
Both of these exist. I don't know which percentage, but the only other option is to be "reasonable" about it. That is to allow others the right to kill animals and eat them or not.
The terrible danger of a movement such as we see in PETA and the other AR groups is that there are only these three choices. ALL THREE CHOICES ARE ANTI-HUMAN AND ANTI-INTELLECTUAL.
By intellect... we must reason that we are animals. That to kill is natural. That to kill a fellow human is wrong. By intellect we must reason that to equate an animal to a human makes the KILLING OF SAID HUMAN AS EASY AS KILLING AN ANT.
I don't expect any reason in this thread. It is not easy to admit that we are animals. But we are. Animals know "friendship" to be an extremely fragile thing. A ghost of the real world. A pretense at best.
(ooooh! does he know how to stir up the do-gooders!)
Trust and civilization... on the otherhand has nothing to do with friendship. It is a matter of logic and intellectual effort. It can be carried forth with skepticism. Barely.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyJesus man...what sort of people are you bumping into?
To just come right out and say it, is that 5 to 7 percent of everyone you meet will as soon kill you as talk with you.
This is quite obvious to those who live in the 'real' world.
What can you believe if you think animals are people? Can you allow the thought that you might have to destroy them to protect yourself? No. So...
You are left with ...[text shortened]... cisco. It's a mean world out there folks. And besides, you will look funny without your head!
If I bumped into 40 people, you're saying that 1 in 20 wants to kill me!!!
I'd barricage my door with 20 locks, vote rebublican and pray to god the commies don't come and get me.....
Originally posted by StarValleyWyTo qoute the 'Elepant Man' John Merrick - "I am not an animal. I am a human being." You are talking through your sphicter muscle. Every person has the capacity to act in a way that benefits others. It is a matter of choice. Of course I will defend myself if attacked. But I would rather get on with people than fight with them.
People who equate animals and humans have two options.
1 - Become a "friend to all".
2 - Become a miitant who will kill for animal rights.
Both of these exist. I don't know which percentage, but the only other option is to be "reasonable" about it. That is to allow others the right to kill animals and eat them or not.
The terrible dange ...[text shortened]... t is a matter of logic and intellectual effort. It can be carried forth with skepticism. Barely.
Originally posted by ianpickeringDid I say that being an 'animal' was bad? No. Only when you pretend to be more that an animal do you begin to have delusions of 'friendship to all'.
To qoute the 'Elepant Man' John Merrick - "I am not an animal. I am a human being." You are talking through your sphicter muscle. Every person has the capacity to act in a way that benefits others. It is a matter of choice. Of course I will defend myself if attacked. But I would rather get on with people than fight with them.
My "sphincter" you mean? My sphicter got ruined in a bad accident. Sorry.
John Merrick can be whatever he wants. Like me. I was born with severe psoriasis. I am (at times) as ugly as he. So?
So 'get on' with whoever will let you. It is those who 'won't let you' that need consideration.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI've spoken to thousands of people over the years, none have expressed a wish to kill me.
To just come right out and say it, is that 5 to 7 percent of everyone you meet will as soon kill you as talk with you.
This is quite obvious to those who live in the 'real' world.
Out of these the vast majority have even acted so polite that I dont even think they had a secret wish for my death.
Some may have found me a pain in the ass - but I still dont think they would rather see me dead than just having me shut up.
I come to think that you feel very threatned by the world - why is this so ?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYes 'Spincter'!
Did I say that being an 'animal' was bad? No. Only when you pretend to be more that an animal do you begin to have delusions of 'friendship to all'.
My "sphincter" you mean? My sphicter got ruined in a bad accident. Sorry.
John Merrick can be whatever he wants. Like me. I was born with severe psoriasis. I am (at times) as ugly as he. So?
...[text shortened]... n' with whoever will let you. It is those who 'won't let you' that need consideration.
Are we more than animals? Of course!!
Can animals play chess?
Consider how the following 'got on' with those who wouldn't let them :
Jesus Christ
Martin Luther King
Ghandi
Nelson Mandela
Get the point?
Originally posted by ianpickeringAt last. Yes we are "more than animals". But we are "also animals". The fact that we are the "dominant animal" and the only "more than animal" gives us rights and obligations.
Yes 'Spincter'!
Are we more than animals? Of course!!
Can animals play chess?
Consider how the following 'got on' with those who wouldn't let them :
Jesus Christ
Martin Luther King
Ghandi
Nelson Mandela
Get the point?
The rights are those of the dominant preditor.
The obligations are those of the only sentient.
We must be 'whole' or we are just... "friends to all". Nothing.
Originally posted by ScheelI am glad you have never heard of murder. Even more glad you have never heard of genecide.
I've spoken to thousands of people over the years, none have expressed a wish to kill me.
Out of these the vast majority have even acted so polite that I dont even think they had a secret wish for my death.
Some may have found me a pain in the ass - but I still dont think they would rather see me dead than just having me shut up.
I come to think that you feel very threatned by the world - why is this so ?
I am really glad for you. Really. In a sad... "geez! another MTV, Wresting fool..." sort of way.
Look at the world. The real one. Crime. Terror.
It has always been and will always will be about 5 to 7 percent of the population. If you doubt this fact... look it up. It is general knowledge.
The problem is that "general" has to get off the duff and look. Sad. Lazy. True.
Well, how can I let this debate pass me by.
The problem with living in fear that people might kill you is that eventually it will come to the point, that someone performs an action that you might interpret as a potentially harmful action, and retaliate straight away and hurt or even kill someone. You become more and more attached to your own life.
The problem with never thinking that people might kill you is that you end up taking a lot of things for granted, your life especially.
Though, Buddha always said that the middle road is the best one to walk, and a Turkish proverb says "no road is long with company". If you tune a guitar string too tight, it will snap, if you tune it too loose it will not play.
Originally posted by DreamlaXI don't think his point has anything to do with "living in fear that people might kill you", I think he's trying justify destruction or killing on the premise that someone may do the same to you so why be the victim.
Well, how can I let this debate pass me by.
The problem with living in fear that people might kill you is that eventually it will come to the point, that someone performs an action that you might interpret as a potentially harmful action, and retaliate straight away and hurt or even kill someone. You become more and more attached to your own life.
The ...[text shortened]... If you tune a guitar string too tight, it will snap, if you tune it too loose it will not play.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
To just come right out and say it, is that 5 to 7 percent of everyone you meet will as soon kill you as talk with you.
I don't know what sort of people live in your area, but I know a LOT more than 20 people, and none of them want to kill me.
What can you believe if you think animals are people? Can you allow the thought that you might have to destroy them to protect yourself? No. So...
I doubt the situation will come up, but, if needed, I would protect myself.
You are left with the effort to reconcile your beliefs that you indeed can be a 'friend to all' and the reality of murderous thugs who enjoy cutting off the heads of such fools.
Will you clarify? What does this have to do with being a friend to nonhumans?
It's a tough world folks. If you fail to acknowledge that you are a 'mean, lean fighting machine'... you are a dead piece of meat.
Are you suggesting that we should be stuck in the ways of the past, living like cavemen?
When... we understand hatred and killing for religion. Then worship animals and be kind to all.
When... we understand genecide and can prevent it. Then worship animals and be kind to all.
What are the links here between the first sentences and the "then" clause?
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
People who equate animals and humans have two options.
1 - Become a "friend to all".
2 - Become a miitant who will kill for animal rights.
Both of these exist. I don't know which percentage, but the only other option is to be "reasonable" about it. That is to allow others the right to kill animals and eat them or not.
You present an incorrect set of options. You are trying to steer the conversation in the direction that you want by presenting the set of options that is to your liking. One can defend animals without falling into the 2 categories that you see. You can still reserve the right to protect oneself against violence from a nonhuman animal and not be militant.
If you applied your reasoning to actions human animals, I think that the flaw would be easier to see.
"People who equate humans with other humans have two options.
1 - Become a "friend to all".
2 - Become a miitant who will kill for human rights.
Both of these exist. I don't know which percentage, but the only other option is to be "reasonable" about it. That is to allow others the right to kill humans and eat them or not."
The terrible danger of a movement such as we see in PETA and the other AR groups is that there are only these three choices. ALL THREE CHOICES ARE ANTI-HUMAN AND ANTI-INTELLECTUAL.
They are not anti-human. I'm sorry that you feel that way. These groups are just saying that other species matter, too. The abolitionists of the 1800s weren't anti-white.
By intellect... we must reason that we are animals. That to kill is natural. That to kill a fellow human is wrong. By intellect we must reason that to equate an animal to a human makes the KILLING OF SAID HUMAN AS EASY AS KILLING AN ANT.
If killing is natural, and what is natural is good, then you have contradicted yourself. If what is natural is not necessarily good, then I don't see the relevance of saying "to kill is natural". You don't have to equate all animals to realize that other animals should have rights recognized.
The whole idea behind being a "friend to animals" or a "friend to all" is to try to not unnecessarily inflict harm upon others. Is there anything unreasonable in this? It is not necessary to eat animals, for example, and it causes great harm--harm to each individual greater than what most human animals have ever experienced.