Acceptable.

[blueeyes]

I am not certain that this is the correct area. Religon and Morality are not always the same thing. If this I placed this incorrectly, please move.

Hypothetical question. Would you kill someone to stop him or her from murdering a thousand other humans? Not an innocent man; someone who understood what they were doing. Nor would your kill be clean. Not an order given, but you must deliver the bullet and taste the blood. Either choice, your life is in danger.
Would you?

If you need the situation to be further fleshed out, I will, but doing so may devalue the results.

[silenceowl]

I dont think i could ever hurt another person.

It is better to go to the next life with a clean soul. Than to die having done such a horrible thing.

[MidnightPsi]

I would want to but I probably couldn't get myself to do it unless the guy was coming after me and I couldn't escape, I'm sure survival instincts would kick in and I'd be forced to in a way.

[LV426]

I would want to but I probably couldn't get myself to do it unless the guy was coming after me and I couldn't escape, I'm sure survival instincts would kick in and I'd be forced to in a way.
Er no, not unless I had a personal reason for stopping their plan, too many humans as it is.

[Nightmare GenoReaper]

Er no, not unless I had a personal reason for stopping their plan, too many humans as it is.


took the words right out of my mouth Lycan

[Xzengrim]

If I was in danger personally, sure I would. ALthough I guess it also depends on who the thousand about to be executed are. If they're a group I don't like, I could say we could do without them. But if they're decent, then they really do deserve to live and I'd be doing everyone a favor.

This is just the question that is accepted as a given by soldiers. They are intended to kill in order to prevent future violence.

[blueeyes]

You are just as likely to die either choice, unless you consider yourself a good match against an tall, well built human with a gun.
The thousands are the populace of a small city. You neither love nor hate them.
Would it be problematic for you people to stamp the poll, even if you post?

[Sass]

I don't believe that sinning is real or an apt expression for killing someone. Killing someone or a lot of someones isn't a big crime to me, even if it's someone I care about. Much like Lycan the tucan I think there are too many people.

[LV426]

I also would like to point out that there could be a reason why those people need to die. I mean what if among them is an insane zealot that will eventually kill many more? So you might save 1000 people but doom 1,000,000 people to death by allowing a maniac to live.

[blueeyes]

Not the response I expected. I did not believe this group would attempt to justify that decision in that way. You people are very strange.
Lycan. You are looking too far into this. If you really entered that situation, with only seconds to decide, predicting the future doesn't seem like the mostly likely mental process.

[LV426]

I didn't realize this was a split second decision.

[blueeyes]

What in life isn't.

[Ender]

^Sit ups. TV Station Watching. Child Naming. Book selection. Computer Shopping...

[LV426]

What in life isn't.
Oh well since I am a god I just stop time until I am ready to make a decision. :cool:

[blueeyes]

Want to put money on it? Humans decide most of their opinion on a person within the first second of meeting them. Most people make decisions on most things in life on nothing more than split seconds decisions hidden under the name of intuition.
BTW, I would no consider watching television life or part of life.

[blueeyes]

Lycan, if you choose to use that method of thinking, you could just as likely end up killing more. Could one of the thousand were destined to find a cure for cancer?

[LV426]

Lycan, if you choose to use that method of thinking, you could just as likely end up killing more. Could one of the thousand were destined to find a cure for cancer?
Who says that is neccesarily a good thing? What if that person who makes the cure for cancer ends up making a more deadly virus that ends up killing even more than the cancer would have?


Seriously unless I had a personal interest in the people that are to die I would let them die, however I would make sure the person was held accountable for his or her actions.

[Sass]

Philosophy owns.

Blueeyes: What makes us strange, exactly? Strange is a personal opinion. In my group of friends I'm considered quite normal seeing as how I'm much like they are, and have the same mind set reguarding death and like subjects.

[blueeyes]

I am attempting to learn what I can about human mentality. Consider it a side project; while I am here, I might as well spend my time well.
From what I know about therian mentality (a small subject field, I will admit), I did not think that the reactions would apply among these lines. I need to continue my study if I made such a basic error. I do not mean that any of you are not normal. I just mean that this has not gone as I thought it would.

Lycan, it may be fine for a god to analyze every choices effects on the future, but the rest of us will have to think in only three dimensions. I must have left out an option; think about it and kill them both.

[LV426]

Well no, I wouldn't kill the person who was going to kill all of those people. First because he or she could be killing those people for a good reason and maybe needs to kill many more for a greater good. Second, if he or she needs to be punished, death is not a punishment.

[blueeyes]

For directly killing a town? Without an insanity plea, the person would be sure to have a death sentence.
The greater good? That would be the reason to save the victims. It does not matter what someone else thinks is the greater good. It only applies to your own view, your own thoughts.

But I am not responsible enough to change your views or expect mine to matter to you. I apologize for attempting to do so anyway.

[Werewolfchick]

Kill the stupid, nutso person. I would. It may just be the wolf in me speaking but I would either kill the person or stand back and watch the people being killed then laugh. Your choice. Also why did you put this here? I mean why did you think up that situation? Did it pop into your head or is this going to happen in real life to you?

[blueeyes]

I am afraid creativity is not one of my skills. Not going, though. Had. I have made my choice a while ago.
I post this here only as a method to test the thoughts and responses of the people here. I put it in religon because morality seems to be intertwined, although the two are often at ends.

[Fluffy]

Hypothetical question. Would you kill someone to stop him or her from murdering a thousand other humans? Not an innocent man; someone who understood what they were doing. Nor would your kill be clean. Not an order given, but you must deliver the bullet and taste the blood. Either choice, your life is in danger.


You said this was a split second decision, but I tend to disagree.
You see, killing a purrson is usualy a direct thought requiring at least slight planning. If this 'maniac' was planing to kill a thousand people, that would require a plan on his/her part, thereby I would also have time to plan or think on the situation.

Having said that, the first thing I'd do would be to ask 'why'.

The next thing would be to find out in whatever way, wether anyone I particularly cared for was involved one way or another - either in planing to kill or in being one of thsoe killed.


Like some of the others here generaly unless someone I knew or cared for was involved, I would not bother. However unlike them, my reason is not because there's "Too many humans" my reason is I just don't care.

I do have enough morality in me to turn the purrson in, including giving all the information I recieved about the plan. Might just gain a bit of a reward for it also. Nothing's too good for my bank account. :)

Part of your question does say 'your life is in danger', and if that were the case I wouldn't hesitate to defend myself. Similar if anyone I cared for was part of the thousand.

In that situation, indeed the kill wouldn't be clean, nor would a body ever be found. (less questions that way and less chance of jail time)

As for blood, being vampiric it'd do me a nice bit of good. However, I'm not into strangers bleeding for me. I'm very much into being clean. :) These days hiv and related are a big prospect.

Hope I covered everything there.

[LV426]

Blueeyes, you say that stopping the death of those thousand people is for the greater good but how exactly can you determine that?

Those people might be doing horrible things in their lives to justify their death. Have you ever seen the movie Frailty? In that movie there is a man who is supposedly visited by god and given a list of people who are evil. They are demons, they do evil crimes against others, and yet they are sometimes seen as model citizens. The man murders those people. He thinks they are demons, and then in turn is killed by one of this sons. The other son sees the demons too and so carries on his father's work of demon slaying.

My point is that just because the reason isn't obvious, doesn't mean that there is not a reason that those people should die. The only reason that I would interfere is if someone I cared about was in that mass of people and then I would only try and protect that person, not the whole mass of people.

The only other reason that I might actually kill the "gunman" is if I knew him or her personally and had an intense disliking for the person.

[blueeyes]

I hope that it would not come to this.
Why would it matter if the people in that town are among those you love or even know? There are the same number of lives, no matter what way you look at it.
The concept is that of a small town; children, women, and men, none more vile or innocent than the next.
The gunman, a report would later turn out, was doing it for money. No further information was discovered during the investigation.

I have now corrupted my own research.

[Xzengrim]

OK... let me try to help here:

Instead of a gunman and so on, consider this scenario:

You walk over the top of the mountain and come to the edge of a plateau that overlooks a valley, where there is a small town. You don't know the name of the town, you've never been there before, you don't know who lives there. Just a generic township. You can distantly see forms moving in and about the streets, but you don't know who they are.
Then you notice that next to you on the plateau is a man (also whom you've never met) aiming an immense laser gun at the village. The side of the device says "Super Village-Exploder 50,000." The guy is going to pull the trigger any minute. He doesn't see you behind him, and there are plenty of hefty rocks lying around (if you catch my drift).

Now the question is, what do you do?

(My apologies in advance to Blueeyes, for ruining your wonderful experiment. Any one with half a conscience should consider my question a similar, yet *seperate* query from Blue's experiment.)

[blueeyes]

And much better worded version. Thankfully, your set up is much better than mine.

[LV426]

Ask him if he will wait while I make some popcorn, this looks like it might be good.

[McKitty]

If some of the people he was to kill were related to me or people I loved I would do it in a heartbeat. I couldn't live with th e guilt of knowing that I could have saved all of their lives. For if I let him live, all those people I care for die and me personally, I can't accept that.

[MidnightPsi]

Is there no way in this scenario to take this guy out without killing him? Like bashing his village destructo thing with one of the rocks?
I probably couldn't bring myself to kill him but I would try to stop him somehow.

[blueeyes]

I wondered how long it would take for a post to raise that query. What if trying to save both would endanger both more? You'd place your life, his life, and the life of the town, in danger. 50-50 chance they all go poof. What would you do?

[Xzengrim]

That's wonderful. Just remember, you don't know if anyone in the town is related to you. Theoretically, they might be; but you have no way of knowing that from here.

[Whisper]

Ok when it comes to the first hypothetical question. Even though I may not know anyone in the town or whoever the thousand(s) of people may be I would still kill the one man or woman. To me that since that person knows what they're doing and killing people, painfully might I add, then I'd put my life on the line to save the others. But then again, that's just me.

[McKitty]

I would still do it. I'd rather have the death of one man then the deaths of a thousand on my conscious.

[Hellcat]

The mind is a strange thing. It can play strange tricks. Sometimes we don't always react to a situation in real life as we would do in hypothersis. I would like to think that if the life of my children was on the line, I'd kill the person who posed that threat by any means necessary. However in a real life situation who knows what would happen. I believe that everything happens for a reason- some people like to call events an act of God, personally its just fate and fate has a purpose (like god I suppose).

[MidnightPsi]

What if it was a matter of you sacrificing your life for thousands of people you don't even know. You could step in the line of fire, be obliterated and save thousands, or you could walk away, letting all those people die, and no one would even know that you were there. Your life or theirs'?

[blueeyes]

That's not quite the question, Psi. That one will only give me so much information; two groups, both very simple, with no reasons or drives behind them. I am afraid that won't help me with my research much.

[MidnightPsi]

sorry :(

[blueeyes]

No, I thank you for bringing up a good point.

[Beserker Cub]

I would propably use my instinct aswell. And don't really care that much about some damned town. I don't really care if somebody dies now in America, Australia, Europe or anywhere else and I don't know this person...personally.
I would deliver the bullet..all 1000 of them..not really. My moral says to kill this murderer. Shit happens.

[War Wolf]

Alright folks, let me tell you why I would F***ING DESTROY THE BASTICH! This ain't a complex philosophical question folks, a murderous bastich wants to destroy a small town full of innocent people, take away their basic right to live, the freedom to grow and learn, and a bunch of you are wondering whether it is okay to kill such an evil being?! I'm a warrior, I understand that if I protect someone by killing a person bent on the destuction of another for sick and/or pleasureable reasons, I am wiping out years of development and growth. I am destroying a person who might have had similar interests and experiences as I did growing up. I also know that I am saving one or more innocent lives that I probably don't know, but I know have the same right to live.

The definition in my mind of evil is someone who causes pain, trauma, or death, whether physical, mental, spiritual, or emotional in an innocent person for their own sick pleasure and/or amusement. Now while many are not as pure as driven snow, the bulk of humanity has not done nothing to deserve death.

Some people are warriors, some aren't. Warriors kill evil entitys while putting their own lives in the way. They do it for different and personal reasons. I do it because I still believe in Justice, Freedom, Honor, and Human Decency! I will kill any who would cause the death of or try to take the freedom away from innocent people.
Blueeyes, if you want to see LOTS of people who think like me, come to America if you aren't here already, most of us think like this. If we didn't, we wouldn't care about the world's population or still be free. I personally think that the urge to fight for Truth, Freedom, and the Right to Live is a natural urge in people, some are simply not able to kill which means they are better at creating and inventing rather than protecting. But remember, it is the warriors who make sure the inventers, artists, and philosophers of humanity can
continue living free.

If you don't like it, TOUGH! Your opinions are your own, mine are my own. And to sum it up, just look at my signature. I mean every word.

[War Wolf]

And as proof of my belief, why have most people who have voted on this said they would do what's right and shoot him?

[silenceowl]

I just sat here reading all this, and i realized something.........we are all insane.

Not that its a bad thing.
But everyone of us here........we are all nuts.:shrug:
Completely and utterly crazy.

[Beserker Cub]

well, DUH!!

[blueeyes]

Yes. We are insane. But, as a friend told me, "that's what makes things fun."
I can't agree with the cause of your arguments, but your purpose is apparent.

[DarkHunter]

I really can't answer this but here goes:

Yeah I probably would kill him. First, he's a rival to all my great plans of domination of the world (possibly).

2nd, those people probably don't deserve to die.

3rd, if they did deserve to die I could always pull the trigger myself.

[blueeyes]

How do you consider yourself capable of deciding whether a man deserves to live or die? No one, especially not some human so sure of himself, has enough knowledge or wisdom to decide such things. People live and people die, no matter where or when or what. But no one 'deserves' either.

[kat]

How do you consider yourself capable of deciding whether a man deserves to live or die? No one, especially not some human so sure of himself, has enough knowledge or wisdom to decide such things. People live and people die, no matter where or when or what. But no one 'deserves' either.
It's not a matter of capability, but whether or not you should. You shouldn't decide on the fate of a person, but people do it all the time.

And yes, there are plenty of people that deserve to die. If they either don't benefit the human race, or actually damage our progression, then they should be removed.

[blueeyes]

There is not a single one that truely deserves to die. Look far enough into the mind of evil, and you can see threads of good. Believe me in that. I have before, something that I regreted. No matter how corrupted or vile the actions those threads cause, the good still exists.

But you only search for those who do evil. It is a little difficult for me to understand that, when it comes from someone would commit such an evil, whether by intent or to stop a greater evil. To take Lycanthrop's arguement, you could be doing something to retard the advancement of "humanity" in the future.
Everyone has a degree of evil. I would give the yin-yang arguement here if it was anything new to either of us. By simply trying to measure the scales of justice, you only delay your own reactions, endanger others, and tanish whatever it is you consider your soul.
Good and evil are concepts far too complex and interwoven for anyone to consider.

[kat]

There is not a single one that truely deserves to die.
That is entirely your opinion. You don't have anything to back it up. Even your next comment "Look far enough into the mind of evil, and you can see threads of good," lacks evidence. You can't look into someone's mind and see why they do things. Even the slightest kind action can be done for selfish reasons. So, I'm sorry, but your neo-Hippie ideals are far from reality.

Everyone has a degree of evil.
So what? The definition of evil is subjective, anyway. What I call evil, and what a Fundie-Christian calls evil are two different things.

Good and evil are concepts far too complex and interwoven for anyone to consider.
Actually, no they're not. The only problem is that they are based entirely on opinion, and you can't define an opinion for an entire planet.

[blueeyes]

You think I am a neo-hippie? Interesting. I suppose it could happen, if I become a pacifist, hate goverment, and become capable of doing drugs.

I don't imply that you could read someone's cortex and suddenly know why they would do anything. However, if you learn enough about someone's past, their emotions and drives, you can easily find, if not why they think; what they think.

To your last comment... It is evil to let someone die. It is good to protect someone. Individual acts are easy to judge as good or evil. Individuals would have to be judged by a complation of those actions. Even the least intelligent neo-hippie would accept that.

[kat]

You think I am a neo-hippie? Interesting. I suppose it could happen, if I become a pacifist, hate goverment, and become capable of doing drugs.
No, that is not how all hippies were. That's like trying to suggest that all Christians believe exactly the same things and behave exactly the same way.

I'm noticing that you base a lot of your thoughts on pure generalizations. Like this one:

if you learn enough about someone's past, their emotions and drives, you can easily find, if not why they think; what they think.
No, you can't. Not definitely. You can only guess.

To your last comment. It is evil to let someone die. It is good to protect someone. Individual acts are easy to judge as good or evil. Individuals would have to be judged by a complation of those actions.
Once again, this is purely your opinion. There are no defined laws that suggests the definition of evil and good. Evil to let someone die? How about euthanasia? Is that evil? Is it good to protect someone like McVeigh? It's all highly subjective. "Even the least intelligent neo-hippie would accept that."

[Werewolfchick]

I am afraid creativity is not one of my skills. Not going, though. Had. I have made my choice a while ago.
I post this here only as a method to test the thoughts and responses of the people here. I put it in religon because morality seems to be intertwined, although the two are often at ends.


blueeyes what did you choose to do?

[DarkHunter]

Good and evil are concepts far too complex and interwoven for anyone to consider.

Thats what we're doing here. Thats what this post is doing. Considering the concepts of good and evil. True evil is doing something harmful to those around you to further yourself or for no particular reason at all. Feeling no remorse for whatever actions you commit, however pointless. People like this sure as hell deserve to die. From a moral point of view anyway.

From a natural point of view, with more crazies and psychos the population would be more under control. But thats just the "nature" point of view.

[LV426]

I have to interject and also agree with Kat when I say that killing is not an act of evil. In fact murder is what the entire planet thrives on. Every living creature is a murderer in it's efforts to continue to survive. If your life was threatened would you not see a justification in killing someone? If your family was threatened would you hesitate to kill out of some moral dilemna or would you act immediately?

There is no way to judge someone's actions as being evil when you can not possibly know what their reasons are for their acts. Living creatures do not kill for no reason. There is always a reason even if it isn't apparent, and there is no such thing as an innocent.

A cat killing and eating a mouse thinks that he is perfectly justified in killing the mouse but I can guarantee that the mice think the cat is evil and a murderer. Is the mouse an innocent? No, the mouse carries disease, kills plants in order to eat, and kills other creatures for food.

So do you kill the cat for eating the mouse? Kill the mouse for eating the grain? Kill the grain for killing the surrounding plants that were competition for it's survival?

If it is evil to let someone die then you would be guilty of being evil yourself by competing with other humans to survive, that competition could cause them to die and so in effect you are responsible for their death.

I would also like to say that death is not evil, it is natural, and for some death is a blessing.

[blueeyes]

Of course I base myself off generalizations. It not only makes me seem less intelligent, but also is a wonderful way to make conflict begin; conflict is the best way to learn, particularly with the mindset of this place. Another reason is that I was not around when hippies where, a problem that would limit my knowledge severly.

Yes, you can understand how people think if you observe them long enough or learn enough about their past. What other reasons would there be for mental health doctors? You may not be able to dechipher every pulse of a neuron, but you would be capable of understanding them.

I have already given my opinions on the subjects you gave. I am amazed how quickly Lycan's opinion shifted on the subject, but mine remains the same. I admit that killing is evil, but that sometimes other events override it. However, I do not consider myself capable of making decisions without experiencing enough of the events. If you are willing to; glass houses.

Lycanthropehowl, I would advise you to pay attention. I said earlier in a thread you ran my views; animals do not have the same upper mind that humans are so proud of, and so can not be guilty of moral crime. But it is still evil. As I said, we are all guilty of something, and innocent of something.

Werewolfchick, I thought I made my choice obvious. The lack of news regarding a dam taking out a town should verify that.

[Xzengrim]

I find this very interesting. I think that one of the biggest defining qualities of generation X is its advancement of The Grey Area. No other generation has so embraced the idea the morals are relative. I do not find this to be either a bad thing or a good thing in and of itself; I just wonder what's going to happen because of it. It's a global electronic bohemia!

But on that note, it should also be taken into account that no one ever believes that they are doing evil. The one guy about to wipe out the town more than likely assumes that he is doing the right thing. McVeigh, Hitler, and a host of other psychos did it in order to be a nice guy... catch my drift?

That, and if we're going to get religious here... didn't God used to tell people to kill all the time? I know that with God's own permission it's not a sin, but it just goes to show you that there are exceptions to every rule. That, and animals, I think, are below murder. They're not capable of the ethics or malice or aforethought required to murder.

[blueeyes]

Nice how no one questions the priest with the bloody knife. God was just an excuse.

[War Wolf]

Dudes and dudettes, here's the score.

We are not talking about whether it is evil to kill for food, we are talking about whether it is okay to kill one evil person too save a whole bunch of people that we don't know. This person we are talking about is not killing a barracks full of Nazis or terrorists, he/she/it is doing it because it brings them pleasure and/or for ambitious reasons. I say it is not only okay, it is morally reprehensible and down right wrong to let them die! Warriors exist in this world to do the protecting, if you aren't a warrior or can not kill for whatever reason, don't get in the way of the protecters!

Everyone, reality is reality whether we like it or not, whether we think we understand it or not. To paraphrase the man, "There is more in this universe than is dreamed of in your phylosophy."

And blueeyes, killing is not evil if you are doing it to protect people who haven't earned death. The way you earn death is to kill and/or cause large amounts of trauma whether physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual. And to generalize is to show a lazy and slow mind.

I am not trying to cause enimity or anger in anyone, I am simply trying to show you the world as I have learned it. If you don't like my beliefs, than that is your choice.

[LV426]

I'm not sure how my statement shows that I changed my mind. I still would not stop someone from killing a bunch of people unless I had a personal interest to do so. I simply don't care that much about my fellow man barring a few people to actually stir myself to stop another person from killing. As I said there may be a reason why those people have to die.

Killing is not evil. You keep saying that killing is evil. Killing is not evil it is a fact of life. Every living thing, human,beast, plant, bacteria, virus, every living thing, is guilty of killing.

I also find it hard to believe that you prevented an entire town from being killed by a single person.


As for religion and human sacrifice, I have been reading up on human sacrifice in religious practices and have found that most human sacrifice started out of greed and was only justified by using religion to support it.

Who says no one questions the priest? I question priests all the time, those with and without a bloody knife so to speak.

[blueeyes]

War Wolf, according to X's scene, there is no way to be sure he's doing it for pleasure or if he has a 'better' reason.
Also; you can not be both a warrior and a guardian at the same time. Either one or the other; looking for people to help, or looking for evil to take care of. I am afraid that if you think otherwise, you are only deluding yourself.

LH, I personally find your apathy disgusting, but that is just me. Killing is evil, no matter what the circumstance. I know enough about human morality to understand that has been hardwired into your mindsets. Humans evolved from a species that never had to kill; the only time one would to so would only decrease their chance of survival. That is why people find it so disgusting to deal with blood or death and people are impressed by the power of a gun.

I could not care less whether you believe me. I am no hero, nor do I want to play one on TV. Just as likely someone else would have stopped him, or the safeguards might have worked, or the man would not be capable of his actions. Believe me or don't.
I don't care. Consider me a roleplayer with a psych project to do on the side.

[LV426]

Have you ever read about human evolution? Humans evolved from killers. Apparently you don't seem to understand, survival of the fittest means that if something stands between an animal and it's survival it is going to kill or be killed. That is how life works.

Yes I am sure that on the evolutionary path ancestral humans killed one another. Every animal kills it's own kind for one reason or another, whether directly or indirectly.


Even the vegetarians are guilty of killing.

And my Apathy isn't so much apathy as just not my concern. I'm more self centered than apathetic. Believe me if someone is messing around with me or those I love then you can be damn sure that I will do more than just stand there and watch. That's just me, the rest of the people have to take care of themselves and their own. Not my job to look out for the world. I have enough of a job taking care of myself and my family as needed. If I try to stop someone from killing a thousand faceless people then I could get killed, and I am not willing to risk my life for people I don't know or care about.

Perversely I would however kill someone who was intending to kill 1,000 animals for no reason and that is simply because as I see it animals need someone to be their advocate and I like animals more than I like people anyway. I bet that really sickens you doesn't it. But hey I don't care, you don't live my life, I do.

If I am killed then there is no one to replace my role to my friends and family. Yes I admit I am self centered and self absorbed and for the most part selfish.

[blueeyes]

Humans evolved from apes. Scavengers. The only meat they would eat had already been killed long ago. Bugs, too, but that does not seem that much of a murder to me. Killing other humans? Not often, not while they were only clans and tribes, not if evolution is correct. Evolution works in groups by relation. I will not even attempt to argue indirect, but I will tell you that I judge by intent, not action.

Your willingness to kill a man to save a thousand animals does not sicken me. You unwillingness does. And to respond to your other answer, I see very little difference between not caring about other people and caring only about the self.

Nor did I say saving the town would endanger you. Only if you wanted to save the town and not kill the man would you be in danger. Anyway, what danger could befall a god, LycanthropicHowl?

[LV426]

Let's say for the sake of argument that humans did indeed evolve from primates. (There are other arguements that say that humans and primates developed independantly of one another). In fact the current closest relative of the animal kingdom, genetically is the chimpanzee. Now seeing as how you may have never studied chimpanzees first hand nor seen any documentaries, or picked up a book about chimpanzees, I can see where you think that they are scavengers.

Chimpanzees are most aggressive. In fact not only will they kill other monkeys and eat them, but they will kill intruder chimps and eat them as well. So not only are they murderers but they are cannibals. Sure they look all cute and cuddly but chimps are extremely strong and have serious canines that can easily pierce flesh. They also hunt in a pack like structure at times. Most of this behavior is simply ganging up on a young or injured animal and bludgeoning it to death with their extremely strong arms and biting it until it dies, but the result is the same, the animal is dead and the chimps eat it. In different places in Africa, they eat different kinds of animals, but mostly young animals, bush bugs, goat-size antelopes and bush pigs. They have been seen eating monkeys and baboons as welll. Of course in terms of their diet throughout the year the meat that they eat is about 2%.

They also use tools to hunt if inadvertant tools. They throw rocks to scare pigs away. The pigs run and the chimpanzees grab the baby pigs. Mostly they use tools to get different kinds of food. They get water from little holes in trees, crumple up leaves and suck water. And, if there's something a bit frightening and they want to learn about it, they use a long stick to touch and sniff it.

I don't know what kind of chimps and apes you have heard about but the living chimps are our closest relatives and also kill to procure food for themselves, to protect their tribe, and to defend themselves. Don't think for a moment that an unarmed human would stand a chance against a fully grown adult chimp in his or her prime if they decided that the human was a threat.

Now as for evolution, have you ever seen walking with cavemen? It's a documentary style show by Discovery channel. They actually use the fossil record to re-create the journey of homosapiens. Yes there are gaps, but they can tell by the way that some of the creatures died, where they died, and by their bones if they ate meat on a regular basis. Sure maybe in the beginning we started out as little ole vegetation munchers but those creature killed to protect themselves or to take over the hierarchy of the tribe or troup. Males killed males to gain control and be on top and even the females had competitions but were less likely to end in death. They also began eating meat on a regular basis which enabled them to develop larger brains, which led to more organized tool usage and social development.


I can't even defend my self absorbtion. That's just me, and I am not alone there are others that feel the same way I do.

As for not being killed or hurt in defending all of those people. Well who is to say that I wouldn't be killed by that man who wishes so many dead. If he truly believes he is right then he would have no qualms executing me in order to accomplish his objective.

Oh yes and one last thing, there are a pantheon of gods that have been harmed or destroyed by humans, I prefer to not put myself in a position where I might join them.

I think you need to go do a little research before making such an obviously incorrect statement.

[LV426]

Chimps Eating Meat

http://www.stonecompany.com/chimp/images/meatz.jpg
The acts of cannibalism and infanticide are very apparent in the behavior of the chimpanzee. Many African studies show that wild chimpanzees kill and eat infants of their own species. (Goodall, 1986:151)


Cannibalistic Behavior
and
Aggression in ChimpanzeesIn Jane Goodall's, May 1979 article in the National Geographic called "Life and Death at Gombe" it reveals the first time that chimpanzees who were always perceived to be playful, gentle monkeys, could suddenly become dangerous killers. "I knew that some of our chimpanzees, so gentle for the most part, could on occasion become savage killers, ruthless cannibals, and that they had their own
form of primitive warfare."(Goodall, 1979:594)

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/meat.jpeg
A chimpanzee community has a home range within which its members constantly roam. Usually the home range consists of roughly five to eight square miles. The adult male chimpanzees usually in groups of three, take turns patrolling the boundaries of their area keeping close together, silent and alert.(Goodall, 1992:14) As they travel they pick up objects sniffing them as if they are trying to find clues to locate strangers. If a patrol meets up with a group
from another community, both sides usually engage in threats, and then are likely to retreat back to their home ground.(Holloway, 1974:261) But if a single individual is encountered, or a mother and a child, then the patrolling males usually chase and, if they can, attack the stranger.(Goodall, 1979:599) "Ten very serious attacks on mothers or old females of neighboring communities have been recorded in Gombe since 1970; twice the infants of the victims were killed; one other infant died from wounds."(Goodall, 1979:599)
http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/slidesets/behavior/gifs/20.gif
In 1972 the chimpanzees of Gombe divided into two groups: the southern
group(Kahama)and the northern group(Kasakela). This was the start of what Jane Goodall called the "four year war." In 1974, a gang of five chimpanzees from the Kasakela community caught a single male of the Kahama group. They hit, kicked, and bit him for twenty minutes and left him bleeding from many serious wounds. A month later after this original occurrence another prime Kahama male was caught by three chimps from Kasakela and severely beaten. A few weeks later
he was found, terribly thin and with a deep unhealed gash in his thigh. There were three more brutal attacks leaving three more Kahama chimpanzees dead before 1977.(Goodall, 1979:606) By 1978 the northern males had killed all of the southern group and took over both areas. "It seems that we have been observing a phenomenon rarely recorded in field studies-the gradual extermination of one
group of animals by another, stronger, group."(Goodall, 1979:608)

In August of 1975, Gilka a chimpanzee mother was sitting with her infant when suddenly Passion, another mother appeared and chased her. Gilka ran screaming but Passion who was bigger and stronger caught up, attacked, seized, and killed the baby. She then proceeded to eat the flesh of the infant and share the gruesome remains with her adolescent daughter, Pom and her infant son,
Prof. This was the first observed instance of cannibalistic behavior shown by Passion and Pom.(Goodall, 1992:22) About a year after this incident, Gilka gave birth to another infant and this time it was Pom who seized the baby, but Passion and Prof again shared the flesh. There is no explanation why Passion and Pom behaved as they did.(Goodall, 1992:23)

"Cases reported from Mahale, Tanzania, are of special
interest because adult males kill and eat those infants that not only belong tothe same community but are likely to be their own offspring."(Turner 1992:151) On October 3, 1989, a case of within-group infanticide among Mahale chimpanzees was observed.

Kalunde a 2nd-ranking male walked up to and snatched a six-month old infant baby boy from the hands of its mother Mirinda. Kalunde ran with the infant on his belly with Mirinda chasing after him screaming. Kalunde then hid in some vegetation until two other males Shike and Lukaja found him and wanted to take the infant away from him. Lukaja finally won a tug of war for the infant between the two other males and handed it over to Ntologi the alpha male. Ntologi, who then dragged, tossed, and slapped it against the ground climbed a tree with the infant in his mouth. He waved it in the air, and finally killed it by biting it on the face. Then he proceeded to
eat the infant sharing the meat with the other chimps.(Nishida, 1992:152) It is strange because this sort of cannibalistic behavior is exactly like a group of chimpanzees feeding on the meat of any mammals dead carcass. Unfortunately, in this case though, it was the meat of a dead chimpanzee infant.


























Some backup for my statements above:

http://abc.net.au/beasts/factfiles/primary_ff_displays/australopithecus_1.j pg
In scientific circles it was always assumed that the first people ate meat, says paleontologist John de Vos from the Naturalis museum in Leiden, the Netherlands. But two years ago, sound scientific evidence for this claim was found.
In fossil remains of the Australopithecus Africanus, the predecessor of man, researchers found carbon compounds that relate directly to meat consumption. This puts an end to all the stories that prehistoric man lived off fruits and vegetables.
Eating meat is a natural condition of man. The first human tools were knives to scrape the meat off bones. 'That doesn't surprise me at all, says De Vos. 'We know that apes, such as chimpanzees also eat meat on occasion.' Neanderthal man, one of the prehistoric men that didn't survive, had a diet that consisted almost exclusively of meat.

For the Australopithecus, eating meat was not so much a choice, as a necessity caused by evolution. Three million years ago a long drought occurred in eastern Africa, the cradle of humanity. The rain forest turned into savannah.
Then two things happened at once, De Vos explains. Man started walking upright and eating meat. ´Australopithecus had to travel greater distances on the Savannah, which prompted him to walk upright. This cost more energy, which is easier to obtain from meat than from vegetable matter. 'On top of that, there was less food to find on the Savannah than there was in the jungle. They had no choice.
In this stage of becoming human, the hominid brain also went through a strong development. This is the reason why some researchers think that meat, a rich source of protein, is good for the development of the brain.

Cave finds revive Neandertal cannibalism
The butchered skeletal remains of six individuals, unearthed at a 100,000-to-120,000-year-old cave site in southeastern France, offer compelling evidence of Neandertal cannibalism, according to a new report.

Neandertal and animal bones found in Moula-Guercy Cave, which overlooks the Rhone River, exhibit identical signs of meat and marrow removal, says a team headed by anthropologist Alban Defleur of the CNRS Anthropology Laboratory in Marseille, France.

Neandertals were the only members of the human evolutionary family known to have inhabited southwestern Europe at the time. Defleur and his coworkers thus propose that Neandertals killed and ate their own at Moula-Guercy—for as yet undetermined reasons.

"This is conclusive evidence that at least some Neandertals practiced cannibalism," holds anthropologist Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, a member of Defleur's group. "Moula-Guercy was a temporary occupation, and we can't say what the reasons were for cannibalism occurring there."

Reports of prehistoric cannibalism go back more than a century. Researchers have identified butchery marks on human bones at a 6,000-year-old French cave and at U.S. Southwest Anasazi Indian sites that are 800 to 1,600 years old (SN: 1/2/93, p. 12).


Defleur began excavating Moula-Guercy in 1991. After finding Neandertal bones with stone-tool incisions suggestive of cannibalism, he invited White to help analyze the remains.

Their report, published in the Oct. 1 Science, focuses on 78 pieces of bone from at least six smashed Neandertal skeletons found among animal bones and stone tools. The Neandertal remains come from two adults, two adolescents, and two children.

The braincases had been broken into fragments and the limb bones shattered. The tongue of one child had been cut out. Microscopic scrutiny of incisions on the bones indicates that the skeletons were cut apart to obtain meat, the researchers contend.

A reassembled leg bone also displayed dents made by a stone hammer, fracture marks produced when the bone was smashed, and striations from a stone anvil against which it was held. Bones of red deer and other animals that lay among the Neandertal remains showed the same types of marks.



References:

Defleur, A., T. White, et al. 1999. Neanderthal cannibalism at Moula-Guercy, Ardèche, France. Science 286(Oct. 1):128.

Bower, B. 1993. The cannibal’s signature. Science News 143(Jan. 2):12.

Sources:

Alban Defleur
Laboratoire d’Anthropologie
UMR 6569 du CNRS
Faculté de Médecine
Secteur Nord
Boulevard Pierre Dramart
13916 Marseille Cedex 20
France

Tim White
University of California, Berkeley
Department of Integrative Biology
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology
Laboratory for Human Evolutionary Studies
Berkeley, CA 94720

[War Wolf]

Blueeyes, you don't have to stand there in front of the persons that you are protecting to guard them. If you kill the entitys that are trying to injur and or kill them, than you are protecting them. So a warrior is also a guardian.

LycanthropicHowl, the cannabalism apes and other members of the animal kingdom practice is not the practice of an evolved species unless they have an unbalanced mind. Infanticide and cannabalism is not a natural instinct in humans anymore even if it was 10,000 years ago. A species becomes truly advanced when they start caring about others of there species whether they are related to them or not. Only the ones that are mentally, emotionally, biologically or spiritually screwed up will not care about whether they hurt they hurt in some manner their own species. To murder one of your own kind for ambitious reasons, such as for food or advantage of some kind, or your own pleasure shows an unbalanced mind.

I am not accusing anyone here of that, I am again simply stating my opinion, however I can not understand your lack of caring for people whether you know them or not and don't know or care whether they committed any crime to earn them a death sentence or not. But, then, one of the beautys of Freedom is that we don't have to get along or understand each other to remain living in this universe.

[LV426]

Actually there are still people in this world that practice cannibalism. They are neither mentaly unbalanced or de-evolved. It's a cultural practice. However the reason that I posted about the Chimps and the Neanderthals exhibiting agressive, cannibalistic, and a hunting nature is because blueeyes made the statement above:

Humans evolved from apes. Scavengers. The only meat they would eat had already been killed long ago. Bugs, too, but that does not seem that much of a murder to me. Killing other humans? Not often, not while they were only clans and tribes, not if evolution is correct. Evolution works in groups by relation.

I simply sought to correct that oversight.

[blueeyes]

Impressive. I am amazed that you would place so much effort into one proof. You see, I am a no one here, and I know very little about this subject matter. You could only have told me that I was indeed wrong. I do give thanks for the information, however.

You are fighting the wrong battle. I apologize for getting you so far from my topic, but as my topic is the current state of moral acceptability, evolution should not come into place. I congratulate you on winning a mental battle with by a massive sum, and thank you for being so willing to educate someone here only to play games.

Finally, the concept is that you have an accurate and powerful handgun, with the knowledge to use it, and would be capable of taking out the man before he even saw you.

War Wolf, if you search for evil to destroy, you are only a warrior. You are not defending anyone; you are attacking. Even if people are saved by your efforts, that is not your pure intent, is it? While a defender has to find people to protect, then stay there. A guardian intends to keep safe. A murder may have to be done as a byproduct of that. The difference is no small one.

[Hellcat]

There is not a single one that truely deserves to die. Look far enough into the mind of evil, and you can see threads of good. Believe me in that. I have before, something that I regreted. No matter how corrupted or vile the actions those threads cause, the good still exists.

But you only search for those who do evil. It is a little difficult for me to understand that, when it comes from someone would commit such an evil, whether by intent or to stop a greater evil. To take Lycanthrop's arguement, you could be doing something to retard the advancement of "humanity" in the future.
Everyone has a degree of evil. I would give the yin-yang arguement here if it was anything new to either of us. By simply trying to measure the scales of justice, you only delay your own reactions, endanger others, and tanish whatever it is you consider your soul.
Good and evil are concepts far too complex and interwoven for anyone to consider.

sorry to take this discussion slightly off track, but I feel I must argue with the suggestion that 'no-one deserves to die'. Permit me to point out the blatant obvious here- Everybody dies, doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, what colour skin you have, what your sexual orientation is, what political group you vote for, or what religion you believe. The one guarentee in this existence is that you WILL die. I guess this means that it doesn't matter some entity has seen that we all deserve to die- thus we meet our ends in one way or another. I'm really grateful that I don't have to live forever :)

[blueeyes]

No one deserves to die. No one deserves to live. We take our years doing both at the same time.

For a less cryptic answer, let me just leave it as I don't think people to be killed. That better?

[LV426]

Perhaps to you it seems like a lot of effort but I like to present factual information. I also like to be able to back up my statements and information vith viable facts so that there can be no question about the validity of my statements or comments.

It also serves a dual purpose in making sure that the proper information is given so that those who need to be educated on a topic get the correct information and not false facts made up in someone's mind.

[War Wolf]

War Wolf, if you search for evil to destroy, you are only a warrior. You are not defending anyone; you are attacking. Even if people are saved by your efforts, that is not your pure intent, is it? While a defender has to find people to protect, then stay there. A guardian intends to keep safe. A murder may have to be done as a byproduct of that. The difference is no small one.


Blueeyes, It IS one of my pure intents! I am a warrior, by stopping the bad guys BEFORE they can harm anyone or anymore people, than I am protecting people from future harm. A guardian may stay right near whatever he is protecting or he may go out and make sure that the evil ones never make any where near the people he protects. That is what a soldier does, that is what a warrior does.

[blueeyes]

Then you may want to update your sources, LH. The Defleur is neither the most well considered or most accurate work. Some sound bites do lead to an interesting question... But that is neither here nor there.
I would consider it easier to just say the truth first then validate it after you are questioned.

War Wolf, you can only have one goal at a time, one thing that you focus your existence on. Beyond that, you are only viewing abstract possibilities, objectives that are only mirages. You can either fight for your beliefs, or work to save. Not both at once. Maybe you will become lucky and stop a killing in the meantime, but you can not tell for sure.

[LV426]

I find validation to prevent problems from arising. Oh and The Defleur is not the work cited. Defleur is the author, the work cited is Neanderthal cannibalism at Moula-Guercy, Ardèche, France. The issue was Science Article (Oct. 1, 1999):128.

Sure it isn't up to date but it was late at night couldn't get to the library and didn't need to cite every article ever written. Besides the article that I cited was more than sufficient to prove my point.

[Hellcat]

I find validation to prevent problems from arising. Oh and The Defleur is not the work cited. Defleur is the author, the work cited is Neanderthal cannibalism at Moula-Guercy, Ardèche, France. The issue was Science Article (Oct. 1, 1999):128.

Sure it isn't up to date but it was late at night couldn't get to the library and didn't need to cite every article ever written. Besides the article that I cited was more than sufficient to prove my point.

It certainly was an interesting document. I recall something i read some years ago, but I'll be damned if i can remember where. There are, or was a culture of humans who ate their dead as a ritual practise. they believe(d) that the dead would live on if the closest members of the family consumed their bodies, this practise permitted the spirit of the dead to live on within the family.
Some canabilistic tribes (again this is old information, and I can't remember the source) would kill and eat their enemies. If I remember rightly this was a ritual rather than a religion. Sorry I can't back this up with quotes, I read to much and rarely remember where or when i read it.

[War Wolf]

Blueeyes, specialization is for the insects. Humans have made far greater advances by having multiple goals at the same time and fulfilling them.

You can be a protecter and a warrior at the same time. By killing the evil ones, you prevent future harm from coming to the ones you are protecting. If you have someone in protective custody, you can protect them by killing the one who seeks to harm them. It is a well known fact that the best defense is a good offense.

[Raging Wookie]

Going back to the main question: a man is some were over looking a town, in this town a 1000 or more pepole are going to die because of this guy,he dont know I'm there and I have a gun of some kind, I dont know any body in town {it would not matter ether way to me} no body would know I was even there {see above} what would I do?
I'd shoot the guy and any one who tryed to take his place,Just to know those pepole were safe. That was my anser before I read page 3 post 26 were Blue Eyes said "that reports latter said that the gun man did it for money no further information was discovered during the investigation", I would have tryed to hunt down the rest of the pepole who hired him if it was up to me, but thats just one reporters opinion.
For another thing I feel one can be a protecter or a guardian at the same time if you do both well. But thats just one reporters opinion.

[blueeyes]

War wolf, a human shouldn't talk about specialization like that. Look at your own genetic code and compare the maximum varience to that of an insect. Compared to a fly, a human is ultraspecialized with a genetic code too close together for long term survival.

On the level you meant, I will say only that your goal is not to save someone if you go on the offensive. Your purpose is to kill. Humans, as much as bugs, are very single purpose. Each action may have a cloud of reasons and philosophy behind it, but each purpose is sharp and distinct.
To go on the offense leaves those who do not fight in danger.

Wookie, no one would attempt to follow that man, and no working leads would be discovered to trace his finances.

[Xzengrim]

"Humans, as much as bugs, are very single purpose."

Actually, I think the problem with much of humanity is that they have no purpose given to them. Man must find his OWN purpose. With his mind, he can duplicate any animal or accomplish any goal; but what is that? It must vary from person to person.

Think about it. Being a wolf is really not that difficult. And wolves are born with ALL the tools they need to accomplish that job with relative ease. Eating, hunting, playing, howling... all that stuff. It comes naturally to them. Humans are born without tools and without purpose. Man must make his own pelt, steal fangs from someone else, and learn to hunt in his own way. We're past the point where we are born with a mission.

It is the ultimate Ennui. A Bohemian Species.

[kat]

And wolves are born with ALL the tools they need to accomplish that job with relative ease. Eating, hunting, playing, howling... all that stuff. It comes naturally to them.Uh, actually, they have to learn to hunt. A common problem for animals that have been 'broken in' by humans is that when they're rexposed to the wild, they don't know what the crap to do when it comes to food.

Essentially, they aren't born with all the tools required to survive. Nature vs. Nurture, and nuture has a lot to do with it, in humans just as much as anything else.

And, really, this "purpose" talk is all crap.

[Antero Vipunen]

"Humans, as much as bugs, are very single purpose."

Actually, I think the problem with much of humanity is that they have no purpose given to them. Man must find his OWN purpose. With his mind, he can duplicate any animal or accomplish any goal; but what is that? It must vary from person to person.

First off, I would like to say that from what I have seen in my studies is that if there is a "Purpose" for a species is to survive...plain and simple. Our evolution molds us to this "purpose".

Humans are born without tools and without purpose. Man must make his own pelt, steal fangs from someone else, and learn to hunt in his own way.

Second, take a look in the mirror. You see that melon shaped thing sitting on your neck? It holds your brain. That is your tool. Humans may not have fangs or a pelt. But we do have a brain that is capable of some of the most amazing things.

We're past the point where we are born with a mission.

If this were truly the case, then you would be dead.

Sisu in Kaos---Antero

[kat]

If this were truly the case, then you would be dead.

Ahem~

AHAHHAAHAAHAHAAAA!

[War Wolf]

Folks, listen. By shooting the guy on the cliff, you are protecting the people in the town! If you take the offense and kill the bad guy, you have just killed two birds with one stone! You have protected the people from harm and have taken the offensive, been the warrior, and killed the bad guy!

[Antero Vipunen]

Ahem~

AHAHHAAHAAHAHAAAA!
What exactly is so funny? Just wondering.

SiK--Antero

[Were-E-Wolf]

Ah hell, just give me the damn gun. I have a choice to save 1000 people or let them die, I might as well just take the damn gun and save them. They would proboly never know that I just saved their butts and I would get little reconition anyways. The most that would happen is the person giving me the gun would thank me and if I was doing it as a mercinary I'd get paied. I have the choice to let 1000 suffer an agonizing death, which they may face with or without me saving them this one time, and have it shame me for the rest of my life. Or I can stop one man who is willing to shead blood of our race and destroy what little morals we have left. As 'evil' as the people he is about to kill may be, killing is not the answer to solving all of life's probloms. But if you weigh the flesh of one man agaist 1000, 1000 is more to lose.
Were E. Wolf

[Xzengrim]

Well, what I meant is, when you get past the point where survival is no longer a concern (as is the case for modern humans), you have to work for everything you get. Yeah, the brain is a tool. But having the big brain and nothing else (besides the opposable thumbs) means you have to toil all you life. Figure out how to get food, and build a contraption to do it. Figure you where you want to live, and build a house. Always inventing, always making. Nothing comes naturally; you have to figure everything out.

Animals don't have to think of things or work very hard for them (it seems). It comes naturally. The only parameter for being a wolf is survival, and there's not much TO that. We could do all the things wolves do, but it would take a lot more work and a lot more toiling.

What is our purpose? No one can say. Maybe it's simply to trash the place.

[kat]

Well, what I meant is, when you get past the point where survival is no longer a concern (as is the case for modern humans), you have to work for everything you get. Yeah, the brain is a tool. But having the big brain and nothing else (besides the opposable thumbs) means you have to toil all you life. Figure out how to get food, and build a contraption to do it. Figure you where you want to live, and build a house. Always inventing, always making. Nothing comes naturally; you have to figure everything out.
Uh, no. You really don't seem to comprehend that humans don't have to exist with the level of technology we have at this time. If it were necessary, people could easily live like animals. The need to survive is almost always an underlying goal in all our minds, whether we recognize it or not. Stick your head into a filled bathtub. Now, will you need to think about removing your head, or will you just do it? Most of the things we do comes naturally, specifically the things we repeat.

[spawnofFenrir]

Just a gun? no rocket launchers? aww...

[Xzengrim]

"You really don't seem to comprehend that humans don't have to exist with the level of technology we have at this time. If it were necessary, people could easily live like animals."

While they don't need the technology that we have now, in specific, humans NEED technology to survive outside of their original habitat (Africa). If you just went out into the wild (in America or Europe at least) you'd freeze to death pretty quickly. Not to mention the fact that food would probably not be easily available. Living like animals means living off the land... no agriculture, no tools, no shelters. In order to leave the tropics where they came from, humans need technology.

ANd technology means more inventing and building. It means more work.

[Nightmare GenoReaper]

"You really don't seem to comprehend that humans don't have to exist with the level of technology we have at this time. If it were necessary, people could easily live like animals."

While they don't need the technology that we have now, in specific, humans NEED technology to survive outside of their original habitat (Africa). If you just went out into the wild (in America or Europe at least) you'd freeze to death pretty quickly. Not to mention the fact that food would probably not be easily available. Living like animals means living off the land... no agriculture, no tools, no shelters. In order to leave the tropics where they came from, humans need technology.

ANd technology means more inventing and building. It means more work.

technology by defintion is any advancement in task management
Cloth is technoligy
Smashing rocks togethor to kill something or the break something, is technoligy

[Antero Vipunen]

While they don't need the technology that we have now, in specific, humans NEED technology to survive outside of their original habitat (Africa). If you just went out into the wild (in America or Europe at least) you'd freeze to death pretty quickly. Not to mention the fact that food would probably not be easily available. Living like animals means living off the land... no agriculture, no tools, no shelters. In order to leave the tropics where they came from, humans need technology.

ANd technology means more inventing and building. It means more work.

Most creatures have a natural habitat. Species are designed to flourish in certain kinds of environments. Because of our minds, we are able to live in multiple climates. If you were to take a chimp and stick him in Finland during the winter he would die of exposure...just like you, that is if you were naked.

As to the living off the land statement....that phrase basically means deriving sustenance from the land, so agriculture would be fair game.

As far as technology goes, we are merely speaking of enviromental alteration...changin g the environemnt to more efficiently suit our needs. Many species do this, from birds to the lovely platypus. They are all guilty of this by their building of dens/nests. We humans have just taken it to a whole new level.

Sisu in Kaos---Antero

[blueeyes]

I'll take the sixth claw, thank you all so very much.

I believe that part of the arguement here is what would happen if nothing were taught to an animal. In the case of a wolf, it would still howl, still learn how to hunt (in an abnormal style), and even be capable of communicating basic concepts to another wolf. Humans are similar. Within a band of enviromental situations, a human could survive without any technology beyond what he or she would develop. Today, that band stretches far.
Wolves do have to work hard, X, just to survive. Animals do not show strain for the same reason a dog will not admit that it is cold. The only difference between them and humans is that humans try to think too much and redevelop things that they already know on one level or the other.

Kat, go to a different thread to practice your laugh. Maybe prove you that you are a bio student, and not just saying that you're one. If you think the arguement is crap, then do not contribute to it. It smells just the same now as before you added in.

WeW and War W, you don't need to prove your points, and the reasons you give will not dissuade anyone who would do otherwise.

I only speak of purpose of an individual in relation to an action, not as a individual's goal or a species' purpose.

[kat]

What exactly is so funny? Just wondering.
I actually found your "If this were truly the case, then you would be dead" comment to be very frank and highly appropriate at that moment. Would you like me to have been more obvious and just high-fived you? I just liked your comment.

While they don't need the technology that we have now, in specific, humans NEED technology to survive outside of their original habitat (Africa). If you just went out into the wild (in America or Europe at least) you'd freeze to death pretty quickly. Not to mention the fact that food would probably not be easily available. Living like animals means living off the land... no agriculture, no tools, no shelters. In order to leave the tropics where they came from, humans need technology.
Usually, I really wouldn't bother arguing with a statement like this, but it really bothers me that you seem consider a human just thinking to be some sort of horrible form of work. You seem to further suggest that animal's (lower on the chain) life is better simply because what they do comes "naturally" to them, and they don't have to any "thinking".

What exactly do you mean by thinking? Do you think that a cat doesn't have to learn to hunt? Of course it does. It doesn't just magically know when to pounce on its prey; the cat analyzes the situation. No, it doesn't perform mathematic formulae in its head, but it thinks. The same for wolves. There is plenty of evidence that would contradict your "animals just know" idea.

I by no means see technology as a burden. It makes our lives easier. It was simply a development that furthered our species, and without technology, I'm sure our species would still be limited to that spot in Northern Africa, which is not a tropical climate.

We know that it is possible for humans to live as an animal because, frankly, it has happened before. There have been many documented cases of a human being growing up with animals (either wild or owned) and molding their behavior to match the environment. Our brain is such a beneficial tool just to allow us to "regress" like that. [Edit: this concurs with what Antero Vipunen said.]

And I did notice that you decided not to address the latter section of my previous post: Most of the things we do comes naturally, specifically the things we repeat.


Kat, go to a different thread to practice your laugh. Maybe prove you that you are a bio student, and not just saying that you're one. If you think the arguement is crap, then do not contribute to it. It smells just the same now as before you added in.
WeW and War W, you don't need to prove your points, and the reasons you give will not dissuade anyone who would do otherwise.

Blueeyes, it's funny how you seem to pretend to be congenial, only to follow it up with comments like these. I love how you demand that I "prove that [I am] a bio student" but then fail to "put up" any worthwhile evidence or thoughts for your case. In the past, when LH has gone to long extents to provide plenty of information for you, you have gone so far as to ridicule her just for trying. That's a very off balanced way to think.

I also feel as though someone [Me] should remind you that while you may have began this topic, this section hardly belongs to you, and you really have no business telling other members what they how they need to perform in a public discussion.

I will laugh as I wish, participate as much as I find entertaining, and yes, change my signature. I hope you enjoy.

[blueeyes]

I've pretended to be congenial?
Of course I show myself to be off balance. I'm supposed to be the schizopheric freak, maybe a horrible (not good at it) liar as well. If I didn't act strange, it would be only too wierd. Nor do I hope nor need to back up my data; half of it can not be proven, the other half is all common sense (to me) or a few seconds of research.
If I ridiculed LH, I am sorry. I was attempting to defend my views and correct the gradation in this thread best ways that I could.

Do you think I want a college courseload list from you? I meant that you might as well respond in that thread. I know that I have no command over you or anyone else in this or any other thread. That won't stop me from giving pathetic and unasked-for advice.

Although I can understand why you wouldn't return to this thread, I have to say this.

[kat]

Do you think I want a college courseload list from you? I meant that you might as well respond in that thread.I'm not really sure I understand why you've said this in the middle of your response. How about you rephrase it, and this time in a non-stream-of-consciousness fashion?

Also: a list of children raised by animals (http://www.feralchildren.co m/en/children.php).

[Xzengrim]

YEah... I guess you're right. Making and thinking, apparently, IS what humans were intended to do.

I suppose my real point is that whatever it is animals are supposed to do very seldom ever makes them unhappy. Wolves seem happy all the time. I assumed it was because they don't do a whole lot (compared to humans), and because it seems to come naturally to them. Know what I mean? Daily life for a wolf is pretty much the same, but they like it and they're good at it. Humans have all kinds of problems, and ones such as myself spend so much time working, they don't enjoy life too much.

[Antero Vipunen]

I actually found your "If this were truly the case, then you would be dead" comment to be very frank and highly appropriate at that moment. Would you like me to have been more obvious and just high-fived you? I just liked your comment.

No worries, Kat. I was just wondering if you were aiming that sharp wit my way. Thank you.

SiK---Antero

[blueeyes]

I thought there weren't any records of human's raised by felines. Have to research that. Thank you.

kat, The comment was directed to now defunct thread about the possibility of werewolves. In that thread, you said that a physical shift would be impossible. When corrected, you said that, from your knowledge as a biology student, it would be impossible. When a theory was given in response, you did not respond. You, as the most knowledgable person on the subject available, could have easily proven false any incorrect or implausable information. This thread .

X, wolves and dogs are just as capable of being discontent as humans; they just do not allow those emotions to surface. and Even in situations where they are obviously not enjoying themselves, humans do not understand the signals an animal gives. Eg: a cat's "grin" is either a sign of discomfort or to show the feel of entrapment. Many people think that it is a sign of happiness.

[LV426]

Damn I missed too much being away.


Let's cite a very well known man who actually went into the wilds of Alaska and ended up living as the wolves do (to some extent). Never Cry Wolf. Anyone ever seen that movie? That was a real documentation of a man that went into the wilderness with a tent and a few supplies and ended up a naked ass man running around and trying to infiltrate a pack of wolves. He even ate mice.

Oh and as for the children raised by animals I would like to point out that most of them never learned to speak a recognizable language. They were capable of sound reproduction of the animals that they had lived and been raised by but human speech was beyond them because they were not exposed to it. A shame really because I think that those children could have told us what the animals they lived with were saying and been able to translate for us.


Now animals are born with some instincts. Some, not all and hunting is not completely instinct. A wolf or a lion is not born with the instinct to hunt. They emulate the adults of the pack and are taught how, what, and where to hunt. Oh and there has been documentation where wolves did not use a communicative howl until they were shown it. Puppies howl to express their feelings. Unhappy emotions usually such as lonliness, hunger, or fear. Howling itself isn't an instinct it's how they communicate. But they don't learn the complex communication of wolves until they are exposed to it by other wolves.


As for hunting instincts, wolves and other predators may have the instinct to pounce on a small animal and they may even bite it, but they don't have the precision of hunting down until they see adult animals show them.

Animals also think a bit more than some give them credit for. They have to find safe places to raise their young, they have to know the right conditions to hunt food, they have to have a secure place to store their food, and they have to figure out the best way to defend themselves and their food.


I shall give you an example. Back in the 1920's there was a bounty on Cougars, and hunters would go out and kill Cougars by the hundreds. Their preferred way to hunt the cougars was to run a pack of hounds on the cat's trail, the cat would go to tree when threatened by the dogs, and the hunters would shoot the cat out of the tree. Some of these cougars began to figure out that going to tree like their instincts tell them was dangerous. So they overrode their natural inclinations to tree and would continue to run to more rocky mountainous areas that the dogs and hunters could not follow them through and escape.

Now I don't know about you but that shows some pretty advanced thinking for an animal. Almost human don't you think?

[blueeyes]

If I read kat's evidence correctly, some of them were able to speak some degree (if sign language) and still communicate to or befriend animals. (See Shamdeo and Marcos) and
http://perso.club-internet.fr/tmason/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/OldLectures/L3_ExtremeCircs.htm
I doubt that a feral child would be able to teach an adult how to speak a different language in the same way that no adult could teach a feral child how to speak English.

[LV426]

If I read kat's evidence correctly, some of them were able to speak some degree (if sign language) and still communicate to or befriend animals. (See Shamdeo and Marcos) and
http://perso.club-internet.fr/tmason/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/OldLectures/L3_ExtremeCircs.htm
I doubt that a feral child would be able to teach an adult how to speak a different language in the same way that no adult could teach a feral child how to speak English.

I was referring to a verbal communication when I said speak. Yes some of them did learn forms of sign language and yes they did have a deeper affinity with animals but my whole statement was that these children, if any were closer to bridging the gap between animal and human communication. Animals don't just communicate with sounds every posture has a meaning and those wild children would have been able to explain that had they been able to learn an effective form of communication.

Now as for a child teaching an adult another form of language, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to. How does anyone learn a language? It is different for the child to learn because a feral child has never been exposed to speech patterns that they learn as babies by hearing adults and other people around them speak. Being exposed to verbilization forms certain pathways in the brain that enablles the children to learn speech. It is verbilization that the children can't learn because they were never exposed to it. Adults could learn some of a language from a feral child. Grunts, growls, whines, whimpers, those can be interpreted if you pay attention and if the child can explain what the body postures mean combined with different sounds then an adult can learn.

In fact observing wolves has led to a deeper understanding of wolf language in that researchers are capable of interpreting howls, body postures, and growls. Sure we don't know ever nuance, we are sort of like babies trying to understand but yet we have basic concepts. Some researchers have found that by emulating wolves they have gotten repsonses from them. For instance a researcher behaved in the manner of a cub asking for food and the wolf that was approached regurgitated meat for the researcher. Clearly the wolf understood what was being asked for and the researcher undedrstood how to ask for food.

[blueeyes]

Learning a second human languages is simple compared to learning a seperate specie's language. You would have to learn how that species thinks, no easy task. Think about the challenge to learn Japanese, then multiply it by a thousand; Japanese just flips sounds and phrases. Logically, animals would alter tones, basic patterns of speach, and concepts. An adult human would not have dealt with enough of those concepts and would, even after spending the rest of his or her life, have difficulty understanding the tones. A human does not experience the same verbalization that a feral child does, just from another end. The wires in the brain don't develop to relate primal into concepts.

If you consider such a child as an opportunity to learn the foundation of that wiring, you might eventually have more examples such as that researcher. But those would all be only men signing language to animals; even a growl for movement is like a scream or a single letter. It is difficult, even impossible, for ideas to be given in such a way.

[lycanthrope012_8_03]

If making killing justifiable, there should be nothing holding anyone back but there conscience, there beliefes of what is right and wrong, or otherwise justifiable

[blueeyes]

But what defines right and wrong? As LH and X brought out before, no one goes out and thinks that they will go do evil. Those that recognize that a choice they made was 'bad' or evil still think they do so for the best.
In Fruedian circles, it is said that only humans have the superego (the conscience) and the ego (the concept of self), while all animals live through the id (instinct). But animals show signs of morality, whether they see it as right or wrong, and many animals understand the concepts of good and evil.
In short, how do you define conscience.

Lycanthrope012_8_03, you may want to correct your title (servant), and signature (its, not it's).