If you want to discuss that, make a topic and if I’m interested I’ll come. As for this thread, please stay on topic.
Claws are wonderful things to have.
Discerning when and when not to use those claws can be very effective when it comes to what benefits mankind. lol
Claws can also be quite the fun thing to have - except from the owners’ point of view - of the domesticated cat.
Humans have many traits animals don’t. There is a significant difference between the two. You can redefine the concept of animal to be all-inclusive, sure, but that doesn’t make the difference go away. It merely shifts it. Instead of talking about “humans vs animals” we now talk about “one type of animal vs another type of animal”.
I sympathize with the anti-animal and anti-darwinism stance. However, I don’t think that entails being anti-violence.
What are the categorical distinctions in types of violence? Offensive…to destroy. Defensive…to protect. Non-directional, reactionary violence.
Autsider, why do you keep posting the same thread? And why do you run away from anyone who refuses to confirm your biases?
^ #menopausal-mom-without-grandchildren-posting
That’s silly.
I’ll give an example with animals, since remember, this applies not only to humans, but to all living organisms. Say a starved group of wolves and a starved bear find a deer cadaver. There is only enough meat on it for either the wolves, or the bear. If the former eat and survive, the latter dies, and if the latter eats and survives, the former die. What would you consider offensive, defensive, or non-directional behavior in this case by the bear and wolves?
Say the bear reaches the cadaver first and takes it for himself, attacking any wolf which tries to take it away from him… I assume you’d say he is being defensive, while the wolves are being offensive, no?
Well first of all, is there something “wrong” in being offensive as opposed to defensive? Are both parties not trying to survive, offense/defense merely being different methods of accomplishing this goal? Is there some magical reason why if the bear reaches the cadaver first the wolves have to give it to him?
In reality, there is no such thing as “defense” in the sense you’re using it in the first place, since by occupying space and consuming energy other organisms could consume, one is already being offensive.
Still nothing, huh?
No, the examples, the minutiae, given to cover your stance was silly.
So is this you being offensive, defensive, or reactionary?
I see you’ve adopted the… “arguing tactics” of Mr R. Good call.
Your categorization is lame and you’d only be making a fool of yourself if you continued to argue.
If you can categorize intents regarding violence better, have at it. I asked for help in that dept.
I feel sorry for you right now.
Sadness will only come when the fervor of his extreme ideals breaks him, ideals that rob another, his soulmate, of her potential, her joy in having lived. I feel more sorry for his mentor.
You’re ignoring the arguments. Don’t make me go and fetch all the links.
not an argument
I think you’re having some troubles here. You’re doing deductions from definitions, but your definitions aren’t conventional, and the stipulations that you’re making to justify your unconventional definitions expose more about your politics than they do any reality.
Surely you understand this…right?
Nah you’re just trying to reduce reality down to politics.
Human competition violent or otherwise will eventually destroy humanity with this entire planet along with it. So no, I don’t glamorize violence or competition whatsoever.
Amen. I agree.