Have you ever noticed that once a species becomes invasive, everybody treats it like public enemy and think that it is fine to abuse and torture it because it is "evil"?
I think that humans have a primal instinct to destroy the enemy, and because of anti war sentiment being dominant in the west, that has shifted from people to animals. What do you think?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Yes, I feel different about invasive and native animals on an aesthetic level
a lot of people just want to be violent towards something, and since there's really no possibility of losing when fighting small wildlife, they jump at the chance. pretty pathetic when you think about it
This schizo rambling and samegayging about his multiple personalities lmao. It reads like those manifestos about inbred demons and communist computer gangster gods. How many more years until his mind totally falls apart?
nobody is going to laugh at your joke because they know they're not me and probably don't appreciate you suggesting they are.
>262 replies
ITS HAPPENING AGAIN FELLAS
I just read this entire thread and still don't understand what you people are arguing about. Did the same thing with the tools thread you're bringing up. Weird ass autists fighting over irrelevant shit. Why don't you just post a funny toadline instead of whatever this is?
>Why don't you just post a funny toadline instead of whatever this is?
>autist one: vague convoluted statement that's hard for people to understand
>autist two: THAT'S WRONG AND HERE'S WHY!
>autist one: Let me rephrase 150,000 times and see if you understand
>austist two: YOU'RE MOVING THE GOALPOSTS YOU moron!
>autist one: there are no goalposts
>autist two: YOU'RE SPEAKING, IT MUST BE AN ARGUMENT
>autist one: more useless explanations that aren't understood and wouldn't be accepted even if they were
>autist two: I WON THE ARGUMENT AND I'M GOING TO BRING IT UP EVERY TIME I SEE YOU FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS!!!
>autist one: lol, lmao
>t. autist one
You could at least make it a little less obvious. Reading it now that statement was neither vague nor convoluted and there was at least a few autists in that thread
>Reading it now that statement was neither vague nor convoluted and there was at least a few autists in that thread
mmm.
so it was clear and nobody understood it?
would you interpret me saying rapists had a selective advantage through most of human history to mean
rape is great and everyone should do it?
>so it was clear and nobody understood it?
It seems pretty clear to me
That’s the point. A slow board is far better off without people like you turning everything that could have been an interesting discussion into a shitflinging contest, like directing this thread into a discussion about whether or not fricking rape is actually bad of all things
>like directing this thread into a discussion about whether or not fricking rape is actually bad of all things
show me the part you read as me defending rape so I can tell you why you're a fricking moron.
If you’re new here the one in this thread and the last thread they’re talking about is a serial thread ruiner. Usually when he enters a thread it’s to try make a show of intelligence, even when nobody asked or if it has nothing to do with the thread. The result is usually the quality of the thread taking an absolute nosedive, which is exactly what happened in this thread and the last one. Usually it’s confined to paleontology threads where he argues with that Chinese feather hoax guy who seems to have disappeared lately
>a serial thread ruiner.
most threads in the archive 404'd with less than 10 posts. Of those, almost half had fewer than 5 posts.
I'm not exactly shitting in the rose garden here.
>it’s to try make a show of intelligence, even when nobody asked or if it has nothing to do with the thread
>see exhibit A below
I didn’t say you were defending rape. I said you were creating a discussion about whether or not it’s bad. Learn to read a sentence
>I said you were creating a discussion about whether or not it’s bad.
I was trying to create a discussion about whether or not it has adaptive benefit, the exact same angle I took on OP's question.
if other people think this is the ethics and morals board that's their mistake. I'm here to discuss animals and nature.
>I was trying to create a discussion about whether or not it has adaptive benefit, the exact same angle I took on OP's question.
Which is what I said
>if other people think this is the ethics and morals board that's their mistake. I'm here to discuss animals and nature.
Funny you’re discussing ethics and morals then
>Which is what I said
you equate adaptive benefits with good or bad?
that is a very basic misunderstanding of animals and nature. One which I and others (including probably yourself) have explained repeatedly itt
>you equate adaptive benefits with good or bad?
No, I’m talking about your discussion about whether or not it is inherently bad and that it’s an example of turning a thread to shit. You’re misunderstanding, I didn’t give any opinion on whether or not it is good or bad nor am I talking about whether genetic success determines right or wrong
>your discussion about whether or not it is inherently bad and that it’s an example of turning a thread to shit.
I have only attempted to point out that nature doesn't judge good or bad.
I have failed, but I don't feel that's my fault. Nor is it inappropriate to point out obvious principles of biology on this particular board.
>I have only attempted to point out that nature doesn't judge good or bad.
And done so in a way that ensures the thread declines into what it is now. In case you hadn’t noticed, using an example like “a fair argument can be made that requiring every parent to raise their own kids is antisocial, and thus rape is good.” is asking for the thread to turn into a shitshow. Especially since that scenario is not even under nature’s lens but a societal one
>is asking for the thread to turn into a shitshow.
>most threads in the archive 404'd with less than 10 posts. Of those, almost half had fewer than 5 posts.
>I'm not exactly shitting in the rose garden here.
I am likely the only person on this board capable of understanding what you have to say, and if you find that so revolting I will certainly refrain in future.
A thread with slower posting or being 404d with fewer posts is better than a shitload of your moronation fricking it up. Same as paleo threads being better off without you and paleoschizo. Same as /aqg/ being better off without Flanders. Same as /herp/ being better off without the hoarder. Same as dog/cat threads being better off without bugguy
I'm not here to please you though. I don't go out of my way to annoy you, but you certainly seem to go out of your way to be annoyed by me.
go frick yourself. I very directly addressed the tone and content of OP's question. One I find interesting since he at least posited an evolutionary explanation, even if I don't agree with it.
You don’t need to go out of your way to annoy anyone, it comes naturally to you. That’s why people hate seeing you and paleoschizo argue about dinosaurs in perfectly good threads
you identify me and paleoschizo by how irritating we are to you.
remaining blissfully unaware that we're responsible for the threads you like at least as often as the ones you don't.
neither of which matter.
>you identify me and paleoschizo by how irritating we are to you
you’re plenty recognisable aside from that. Entering a joke thread about shrimp using tools and arguing with people for days on end is a good indicator
>remaining blissfully unaware that we're responsible for the threads you like at least as often as the ones you don't
Paleoschizo has disappeared lately, and you are most definitely not responsible for lighthearted joke threads since you seem incapable of recognising them
>Paleoschizo has disappeared lately
he says in a thread with one of paleoschizo's favorite wojacks at the top.
k. Pardon me for taking your ability to recognize either of us with a large helping of salt.
Never seen it in a single paleoschizo thread over the last few years. But given your habit of pointing and calling multiple people who disagree with you or call you a moron paleoschizo I’m not sure you’re in any position to question other’s ability to identify you
>further devolving the thread by trying to show off how much the board relies on you
Thank you for proving my point
>given your habit of pointing and calling multiple people who disagree with you or call you a moron paleoschizo
OP did not call me a moron and I did not argue with him despite me being fairly certain he is the person you think I hate.
in fact I treated him with respect because the question and his subsequent comments showed insight. Though I have certainly heard paleoschizo complain about woke professors in science thousands of times before, and I've heard him claim to be studying fish at least a hundred times now.
My treatment of the schizo is situational, much like the ethics we discussed itt.
>My treatment of the schizo is situational,
which is why I'm aware that he posts in hundreds of threads on the board every month, and we argue in only one or two of them.
Because I also post in hundreds of threads per month. We both know we're posting together, and we rarely argue.
>OP did not call me a moron and I did not argue with him despite me being fairly certain he is the person you think I hate
Probably because I’m not referring to OP or this thread dipshit. I just said I’ve never seen paleoschizo post that image, so why would you think that means I believe OP is paleoschizo? You’ve called me paleoschizo before, and I’m certain you’ve done the same to others
Ah yeah. I do tend to call any angry tard I meet paleoschizo
but unlike you I also recognize him when he's not being an angry tard.
>Ah yeah. I do tend to call any angry tard I meet paleoschizo
You tend to call people paleoschizo because you are convinced you know who everyone is, as you’re doing right now saying you can recognise him posting around the board with your psychic abilities
>but unlike you I also recognize him when he's not being an angry tard
Sure sure, and you also go out for dinner dates together
>you can recognise him posting around the board with your psychic abilities
I recognize him the same way you recognize me.
which is not nearly as often as he posts. Or nearly as often as I post.
but neither one of us is all troll all the time. I don't give a frick what you think of me, but if he actually disappeared board traffic - good and bad- mostly good- would instantly drop by about a third.
>I recognize him the same way you recognize me
Sure you do. And how exactly do you know it’s him?
>mostly good- would instantly drop by about a third.
That remains to be seen
>And how exactly do you know it’s him?
I ask
Ah so you’re lying then
I feel like one of the critical errors on Wauf is that most of you just assume stuff, you don't ask questions.
but maybe that's an intellectual strong point. What do I know?
>you don't ask questions
You’re probably familiar with that, given you don’t ask paleoschizo whether or not it’s him when you see him
>you don’t ask paleoschizo whether or not it’s him when you see him
only he and I know if I do.
though I could prove it to you via the ever-useful archives. I don't see the point.
One of the more interesting things about animal behavior is how rarely they ask questions. On the extremely rare occasions when an animal asks a question, it's about themselves, not others.
very weak TOM. An interesting similarity to the majority of users on Wauf.
OP at least has the grace to ask what other people think. It's actually a remarkable thing in animals or autists.
>though I could prove it to you via the ever-useful archives. I don't see the point
That’s my point. Not in the archives, not in the threads that have been up recently
>That’s my point.
who gives a frick about you or your supposed "point"? what you think doesn't matter unless you have something interesting to say.
you are the shit you b***h about.
OP here. I am a native of /aq/ who is going to college out of an intrest in fish. I don't think this thread has anything to do with paleoschizos or any other namegays
In my opinion, whining about namegays and muh chooods is the worst part of this board and the thing that cripples discussion here the most.
>I am a native of /aq/ who is going to college out of an intrest in fish.
an amazing coincidence to be sure.
your point?
>your point?
my point is paleoschizo is also from /aq/
also has been claiming to be in college studying fishes for so long he should have three PhD's by now
also dislikes the woke professors he pretends to have
also loves his animal wojacks,
also posts constant threads about the ethics of animal abuse,
also proposes evo-devo just-so stories to explain them,
also constantly says he's not paleoschizo,
and also has posted the lizard wojack in your OP
It's an amazing coincidence. But surely you are not him since you say you are not.
> In my opinion, whining about namegays and muh chooods is the worst part of this board and the thing that cripples discussion here the most.
well, you’re half correct
Tourist here. Is bugguy the same person as the old moron in this thread who was arguing that animals don’t use tools a few weeks ago? Or was the name bugguy referring to someone else originally and has been repurposed for this other resident frickwit?
>who was arguing that animals don’t use tools a few weeks ago?
so many people that can't read english here.
are we being invaded?
We all saw that embarrassment of a thread stop acting like you’re the smart one
If I say
>no animals use tools (as humans do)
>or all animals use tools
you pick the part you want to read
ignore the line you don't want to read
and then shit yourself daily for weeks on end.
That’s not what you said. Anybody can go check the archives to see it, but I’m not sure they would need to when the thread went on for days
>That’s not what you said.
It's not what you heard anyways.
Hard to hear what isn’t said
Like you said the thread is archived.
anyone that wants to can go back and see you failing to read for days straight.
Just like in this thread.
Probably the funniest thing you do is trying to convince me that what I said isn't what I meant.
it's amusing. But not surprising. You can't understand what I say so you dumb it down to something I didn't say instead.
>you dumb it down to something I didn't say instead.
same as anyone who thinks I'm defending rape or murder when I say
>both are common in nature
>both are extremely common in human history
>both offer obvious selective advantages
>humans have evolved to do both
>humans have evolved to do both
and since it's rarely vital to our survival, that means we evolved to enjoy it. Or at least the male half did.
>that means we evolved to enjoy it
However just because we evolved to enjoy something does not necessarily make it "good." Nor does it mean we can't control our natural urges in favor of a better society.
>Probably the funniest thing you do is trying to convince me that what I said isn't what I meant
I don’t particularly care what you meant, because you change it on a whim. What I’m talking about is what you said, not what you claim that you meant
as mentioned in that thread
you don't read a whole post
you don't even read whole sentences
you pick out a string of words,
take it out of context
and pretend that's ALL that I said
this is your special gift
as a moron,
you cannot read a whole sentence
let alone several of them.
How to work around your hyperfocus on parts of sentences to the exclusion of other parts isn't really my problem though.
I do want to dumb my ideas down for the average reader, but autistic people are not the average reader anywhere outside Wauf. And even here I'd bet most of the severely disabled posters are in fact just one or two people with a LOT of posts per day each.
bugguy used to be a namegay here who's been gone for a few years now, dunno why he's suddenly being used as a boogeyman again., Probably some old wounds.
The fact you lot can recognize people by posting style is kinda scary. the only real recurring autist I remember is that one dude who was obsessed with the idea that big cats (machairodonts specifically ) evolved to prey on early hominids. maybe that was him.
Also Jesus lord this is possibly the most autistic thread on Wauf at the moment. Between one side trying to justify rape and murder and the other side acting like homosexual sapiens is somehow separated from nature just because we can self reflect I'm not even sure who's trolling who anymore. Threads enjoyable nonetheless.
>one side trying to justify rape and murder
just saying, nature doesn't have morals.
I would prefer not to be raped or murdered, but nature doesn't give a frick what happens to me. And in the grand scheme of things, humans that raped and murdered did quite well.
>humans that raped and murdered did quite well.
basically, that's all of our ancestors. We come from an extremely long line of rapists and murderers. All of us.
more relevant to the thread,
we all have ancestors that killed animals for fun and for dinner.
And as long as history has been keeping track, people have tortured other people, and animals as well. No reason to think it hasn't been going on for millions of years. And no reason to be surprised that people still do it.
getting rid of the human desire to kill animals would be like getting rid of the desire to drink water or have sex.
it would mean the end of the human race the instant grocery stores disappear. People need to enjoy killing animals for food, that's a very basic survival instinct.
notice how he waits exactly 10 minutes to answer himself
I scrolled my facebook feed, read 2 articles about trump and one about the reappearance of the Central Rock Rat, and then came back to see what the tard had to say.
Next I'm going to check my emails, submit an invoice to a client, and then come back again to see what the moron has to say. morons need their attention so they don't shoot up schools or molest their pets.
Schizo monologues lol
>he doesn't understand english
I accomplished more in the 10 minutes between those 2 posts than you will all year.
made more money in 10 minutes than you will all year too.
morons can't understand this.
Based larping schizo man
Just paid my house payment.
Schizos aren't allowed to own houses.
as you schizos should know.
One of the most notable weird things bugguy engages is misandry
It's really baffling but he is absolutely obsessed with men all being dumb psychopaths and will grasp at straws and spin whatever he can to "prove" it. HE. Schizophrenia is one hell of a disorder.
>he
dont misgender xir
kek’d
lol'd a bit.
so when I point out the fact that most men are stronger than women, that's misogyny?
or that black men are more likely to be convicted of a violent crime in the US than white men, that's racism?
or that bugguy lives on an entirely different continent than me, if he's still alive, that makes me bugguy?
you seem to have a problem with facts. You want to label them and then dismiss them. You are extremely stupid.
>switched personas yet again
Mkultra kill phrase: chlorine dioxide is bleach
>surely I'm not a moron
>the 500 people that have called me a moron must actually be just one demon
schizophrenia at its finest.
Protip, you're just a moron. Everyone sees it.
They are invaders. Invaders deserve no kindness.
This has been one of the most autistic and stunted tonal shifts of a thread I’ve ever seen.
I dunno, I thought the part where nobody itt could imagine someone describing a behavior the speaker doesn't personally endorse or agree with was peak autism.
no theory of mind, no empathy. Just if a person talks about animals raping each other that person must be a rapist or defending rape. Doesn't get much more autistic than that.
Wauf is a pack of howling morons, that's the charm of the place.
this
went from autistic arguing to some vague sentiment of agreement to autistic arguing again
pretty funny doe
It is good for the environment to remove invasive species and it can be fun too
Imagine not having memories of your teen years where you and the boys waste money stepping on parakeets
Why would you do such a thing? Thats horrible. Those are smart animals.
>jannies dgaf
Time to abandon this board.
stop being a killjoy ffs you will live
its happening again
you getting assfricked?
I made this thread to comment on normies having no principles and being easy to convince to do bad things. Why are we debating the golden rule? Treat others as you would want to be treated. Animals can suffer, so if we have a reason to kill them, we should go about it with an attitude of making it quick and minimizing suffering. That's simple empathy. Having no empathy for animals signals to others a warning that you are not a good person to be around.
>Having no empathy for animals signals to others a warning that you are not a good person to be around.
unless most other people also lack empathy in that situation.
destroying invasive animals with extreme prejudice is not only legal, it's encouraged. Our government does it if we don't.
In that case yes, if it is publicly supported and the animal is sufficiently demonized. I am not talking about killing the animals, I am talking about the hypocracy of treating them like evil and exacting excessive suffering on them, while worshiping native wildlife at the same time. Kill with respect, and never be a useful idiot. That's all I mean to ask
>I am talking about the hypocracy of treating them like evil and exacting excessive suffering on them, while worshiping native wildlife at the same time.
it's situational.
I know vegans that happily kill spiders and mice in their house. It's not hypocritical, there is no one set of human laws or rules that applies to every single situation. Human behavior isn't absolute, and autistic people can't understand this. Or are offended by it.
Why shouldn't people strive to be fair and just. I try to be good to the world around me. Why can't everyone else do the same?
>Why shouldn't people strive to be fair and just. I try to be good to the world around me. Why can't everyone else do the same?
prisoner's dillema
good people get killed all the time by bad people they didn't expect. So over time we'd expect good people to either disappear, or be a lot more careful about who they're good to.
Humans have a wide mean streak. As you'd expect from a species that's spent the last hundred thousand years at least killing anyone that wasn't mean enough to defend themselves in advance.
>or be a lot more careful about who they're good to.
and this is where invasives come in
even good people tend to fear and distrust something foreign or different. Invasive species and immigrant people are the very definition of foreign and different.
the other problem is how people view them
>these are innocent animals that mean no harm
>these animals are doing harm even though they don't mean to
both of these are true.
Which one is at the front of a person's thoughts is going to dictate how they treat the animal.
I don't hate mice, they are complete innocents.
They're also adorable and have a right to their lives.
But I don't really care if they suffer in my house because they are potentially doing me harm.
You arent just. You are a soulless slimebag overcome with hubris. A midwit who thinks The One True Ought is within his grasp.
Most similar to a lawyer. You have no real morals. You have a fetish for “logic”. Consistency is not a god, and never will be. It is a demon. Humans can not reason or comprehend a consistent system governing universally “good” behavior. If you think otherwise you are corrupted by pseudo-spiritual delusions of grandeur.
Ideal human behavior will never be consistent from the perspective of a human. Deal with it you fricking autist.
they very idea of ethical consistency somehow being “good” is fallacious and indefensible. the universe is in perpetual flux. good is a moving target.
logic is non functional if it is not based in reality.
meh
attempting to be kind and going too far is arguably a better error than the opposite.
I agree the anon has no morals and doesn't understand them, but at least he's trying to be good, and that deserves some recognition.
>at least he's trying to be good, and that deserves some recognition.
in the same way my dog sitting on command deserves some praise and maybe a treat.
if a person or animal can't do something for a reason, we get to do the reasoning for them and they get to do the thing for a treat instead.
An error isn't desirable. Over time they have harmful effects, ie: starvation, eradication of all life. That's why we have conditional morals instead of internally consistent ones, especially when it comes to complex topics like ecology. But if a moral contains any ifs or buts that's too much for autistic people because they have an intellectual disability. Even if you can explain it, it's too much for them. Even if you explain it and they can't argue against the explanation, they continue being stupid later because at least 2/3s of them consider themselves to be superior minds because they are better at rote memorization and some blogger retroactively diagnosed hitler with autistic depressive hyperactive disorder and an inoffensive caricature of their personality type is a favorite sidekick of scifi and fantasy writers.
lots of people lack the part of the brain necessary to understand, and you'll find a shitload of them on the internet in general and Wauf in particular because that's a safe space for them.
someone with morals would innately know the answer to your moral question. About half the posters in your thread know the answer without having to think about it at all.
Whats the moral answer then?
taking care of others is noble, but protecting yourself is necessary.
and protecting yourself is sometimes accompanied by a lot of cruelty. Hopefully the cruelty is minimized, but even if it isn't, that doesn't make protecting yourself wrong.
I am completley open to what you have to say. You sound like you know what you are talking about.
>Even if you explain it and they can't argue against the explanation, they continue being stupid later because at least 2/3s of them consider themselves to be superior minds because they are better at rote memorization
I don't see myself as surperior. I have a problem in the opposite side of that spectrum in fact.
What do you mean I have no morals? That is a strong accusation.
You really don't have morals. You just see a puzzle and want all the pieces to fit and stay together.
>if it's right to do this
>and this
>then it cant be right to do that because the principle is violated by that
>i need to solve this!
For you, effects seem to take a back seat to reasoning out a "just" system.
Everyone else has this
The way the world is -> (morals govern) course of action -> the way we want the world to be
And it works really well because most human behavior is innate and what of it isn't, is conditioned during a period in which acquired behaviors become as strong as innate ones - so the third step is mostly agreed upon. It comes very close to the morals themselves being innate as a rational consequence of human nature and conditioned culture. The fatal flaw is distant cultures have fundamental moral disagreements that they can not talk out.
This system is apparently complex, but it is actually extremely simple and already very consistent. Actions are indirectly governed by the desired future state. You get hung up on all the "programming" developed to avoid actions that are counterproductive on average, the principles, the rules. Everyone else already knows they're half bullshit and what matters is the end goal.
So while you're having a breakdown over the difference between killing invasive hogs and shooting your neighbors pet dog everyone else immediately understands that we want a world without invasive hogs, and we now want a world without you.
I have always been told that the ends do not justify the means. Isn't such a utilitarian system that of the totalitarians?
So while you're having a breakdown over the difference between killing invasive hogs and shooting your neighbors pet dog
I would not, the situational moral is obvious here. I have no problem with shooting hogs. I am not extremely emotionally invested in this stuff either, I just feel bad for the animal and think its annoying when people arent humane about it. Is it that you mean this is a nessecary evil?
This is great conversation. Most people don't get this deep into subjects.
>I have always been told that the ends do not justify the means.
except when they do.
usually they do.
it's rare that they don't.
you're diving right back into absolute rules in place of flexible ethics with that one.
so is your position one of moral relativism? And isn't moral relativism bad? From a quick google search it seems that is the general consensus.
>so is your position one of moral relativism?
label it
>And isn't moral relativism bad?
condemn it
a mindless process of labeling things and dismissing them so you don't have to think about them.
you'd make a great lawyer and a horrible juror.
I appreciate the complement I guess. It should come to mind that I have just about no real world experience. I only graduated from highschool a few years ago. Maybe I will become less autistic over time.
>Maybe I will become less autistic over time.
nope, but you will understand how normies think if you spend enough time talking to them. Probably won't do that here though.
He's not talking to normies here so how will he ever know? He's just learning how more functional autists view them.
Normies are people who are less than one standard deviation away from the mean IQ and do not have any mental disorders beyond non-disorders caused by poor lifestyle choices like depression and anxiety. In common speech normies also includes the people who are one standard deviation or more below the mean IQ.
>He's not talking to normies here so how will he ever know?
yep, that's what I said.
>Probably won't do that here though.
for autistic people I usually recommend getting a joe job. Go work construction or be a dishwasher or run a cash register. Not to make money or learn job skills. Just to learn how to survive in public. Learn how real people work.
that's funny. I actually used to do a little landscaping work for a friend named joe.
I learned everything I know about people working as a line cook and then later on construction sites.
It's a good way to make friends that are like us, and ones that aren't.
>joe job
sorry, that one took me a minute
> for autistic people I usually recommend getting a joe job. Go work construction or be a dishwasher or run a cash register. Not to make money or learn job skills. Just to learn how to survive in public. Learn how real people work.
What is your idea of this happening
The ends do not justify the means only applies when the means have undesired side effects (ie: dead people). Most people get this, they understand that it actually means "if the means lead to concurrent unwanted ends, find new ones" but that's a little harder to remember and idiots might question it and come up with something even dumber.
In the case of hogs it's really difficult to come up with means that the end wouldn't justify. And then, out come the people who think we need more pitbulls to hunt hogs, and recreational machine gun ownership. And THAT is what is meant by the ends do not jsutify the means.
Hmmm. I think I may be someone very vunerable to suggestion and pressure from others. Perhaps I am more agreeable than I would like to think I am.
what are your thoughts on general college dogma concerning philosophy?
>are your thoughts on general college dogma concerning philosophy?
I'm unaware of it.
I haven't been in college in 30 years outside of giving the occasional lecture.
what are your thoughts on it?
It is very pozzed. The professors are smart but they all seem to be ideolouges at the same time. The last few weeks in philosophy I had to write about feminism and nonwhite burden and the like.
To be honest I feel doubtful if it is even a good idea to continue if it keeps up with politics being my main source material.
Yeah I don't think I'd tolerate that.
an academic needs to be free to question things like feminism and inclusiveness and what if anything we owe on account of history.
philosophy like morality should reflect reality.
I do question it. Personally I think its bullshit. I am studying with the aspiration of working with fish. I have a great intrest in freshwater fish and fishkeeping. My dream is to go to the tropics and well, I don't really know. Maybe work in the fish exporting trade? I am starting to realize that maybe I am looking at a meme degree here...
I feel like the guys in the tropics catching the fish are making pennies while the shippers and retailers in the west are making millions. But it would be a good life. I'd do it if I could.
Yeah I am a nature autist so doing it would be the life for me. I can spend hours in a north american creek when I go out of state without even thinkng of anything else. Its one of the only times I feel at peace.
same, I have a particular passion for fish, but geology paid way better. So I spend my vacations looking at fish and my job looking at dirt and rocks.
there's a lot of room still for descriptive work on fish. I used to keep discus, and I think a couple new species were described just in my lifetime. It's crazy what's out there in the jungles that hasn't been published.
>there's a lot of room still for descriptive work on fish.
some day...
Just ignore the philosophy part. Aside from philosophy of science, none of it is going to matter. Do the work but don't spend too much time worrying about it. It's the modern equivalent of religious studies or something. Not important to your job or degree, and ultimately it's up to you to decide what you believe in.
thanks
Protip:
>its about the humans
Farming is torture because i wouldnt want to be that animal
>its about the animals
The animal does not care.
With how dangerous invasive plants are, I never think twice before destroying them, because they destroy our local ecosystems.
Same thing with animals, I've had to kil wild boars and European deers multiple times, they have no natural predators in my area ( south of Argentina) and destroy all flora they come across.
That's also what I think about immigrants, but that's a topic for /misc/.
>Have you ever noticed that once a species becomes invasive, everybody treats it like public enemy and think that it is fine to abuse and torture it because it is "evil"?
No I have literally never seen this happen. People kill invasives but animal abuse is still a crime. Please post some evidence of large groups of people going out of their way to "torture" and "abuse" an invasive species.
he's right regarding torture and abuse, but wrong that it only applies to invasives.
In the US afaik it's still legal to catch tons of animals in leg traps, or hunt with dogs in some places. Archery hunting probably isn't nearly as clean and quick as animal rights guys hope. Nor is rifle or black powder. And with invasives we aren't even that strict, you can kill them pretty much however you want.
It's not animal abuse if it serves a larger purpose. Not in the US anyways. We systematically torture farm animals, and don't worry much about the suffering of wild animals either.
oh ok this is just the vegangay thread cool
you can't imagine people agreeing that hunting and ranching is no fun for animals,
and still doing it anyways?
protip, that's most people. We know feed lots suck and egg farms are torture, we just don't care.
I like volunteering in my park and digging up knotweed.
It make me feel good and there are cute girls.
based
partially correct, but empathy is still an emotion that can’t be given out lightly
>neo nazis
at least you know why your view is wrong
Unless it's a cat. To which then people will start worshipping them.
schizo post, get off the internet downie, be on the lookout for rapists though
I've seen natives telling their kids to stomp on a species of small lizard here that's invasive.
The lizards in question haven't impacted the populations of similar lizards and snakes here because they fill a different niche. As well they've been here for half a century so I'm pretty sure they're naturalized.
So yeah, people love to jump at a chance to commit socially acceptable sadism.
The whole invasive species concept is weird. I get a new species will disrupt the balance of the environment it moves to and potentially cause issues for humans until things settle down into a new equilibrium, so there are reasons to want to avoid it. On the other hand the issue is often framed as if nature were in a state of static perfection and god never intended for anything to change and species to move and outcompete others.
What’s going on with all the weird spacing in here reminds me of another site
Might be that moron who spent an entire thread trying to argue that animals don’t use tools, he tends to use paragraphs separated like that too. if it is then the stupidity of his takes check out
>that animals don’t use tools,
or
>all animals use tools
you read what I write through your own lens and see only what you project onto my words.
Rape is normal in the animal kingdom, so is murder. These are facts. Denying the animal nature of humans is also normal for the religious. Biologists aren't looking at nature or human evolution through a religious lens. We don't deny it or pretend it is either good or bad. We simply observe it and speculate on why it is what it is.
OP is also asking about it. It gets confusing because behavior that's "bad" in one situation may be perfectly "good" in other situations.
Thought so
You're right about one out of 100 times you say something.
You seem to be familiar with that
newbie
i noticed that too… quite curious…
some people are sadists and they are constantly looking for socially acceptable victims that makes them feel justified in enjoying hurting others
basically this
it do be like that
Excellent, another thread about invasive species 🙂
I’m sure the discussion will be productive and insightful just like last ti-
Can’t decide if gem or coal
>derailed by the same zoophilia argument we had a million times
Can we get back to the thread topic?
I think the idea of invasives is completely moronic. The ecosystem is always changing and we are just another way of doing it. There's no difference in an iguana hitching a ride on a piece of wood or on a boat to a new island. Armadillos crossed the Rio Grande around the same time we settled Texas. The first record of a red cardinal in the northeast US was in the mid 1800s. Species are always expanding their range because nature isn't a static entity.
People boating from Portugal to Ireland brought a bunch of exotic insects and plants with them over 5,000 years ago. Are they still invasive?
Really invasives are only species that we personally don't like regardless of the "damage" (by our terms) they do. Like lanternflies because they are big and colorful and easy to rile up normies with.
>Can we get back to the thread topic?
yes, let's get back to the same moronic bait thread we have every fricking month
>words
don't care, didn't read, commit unalive
>Can we get back to the thread topic?
we are on topic
OP is a moral imbecile who thinks harming animals is looked down on and outlawed for the animal's sake, and the easiest way to explain to him that context matters it by telling him the crime isn't against the animals, but against society.
doesn't matter if he's a dog fricker or a cat killer, the crime isn't about the animal. His entire post assumes we're only trying to protect animals. Which creates dissonance when he (the moral imbecile) is confronted with situations where it's ok or even encouraged to kill an animal.
It's not about the animal. It never was.
Not even bugguy is as stupid as you. Yes, the crime is about the animal. Do you not know how normal people feel? Is this how psychopaths attempt to create morals? Do you really think the world operates on absurd social darwinist explanations and peoples motivations are actually entirely different? Is this a symptom of thinking israelite illuminati reptilian cyborgs run everything?
Oh wait, you are bugguy aren't you
Then you will never understand why it's perfectly legal to torture chickens in egg farms and completely illegal to torture them in the coffee shop
Because
ANIMALS LIVES ARE NOT THE SAME AS HUMANS
THEY DONT HAVE RIGHTS
THEY HAVE PRIVILEGES THAT YIELD TO OUR NEEDS
TORTURING ANIMALS IS WRONG UNLESS IT IS PART AND PARCEL OF FULFILLING HUMAN NEEDS
THEY ARE SECOND PRIORITY BELOW US
IF SOMEONE IS HUNGRY THEY EAT CHICKEN
Basic fricking human shit you actual autistic. You're on the "wrongplanet" alright, get the frick off it. Take a 9mm lead rocketship back to your homeworld.
Ooh whats next are you gonna put on your fricking spock ears and go "nyeeeeeh i hate my species we're so immoral and dont philosophize correctly this isnt LOJIKAL wheres muh ethical consistency"
Cry the frick about it. This has never, and will never change, because humans are facultative carnivores and animals are borderline automatons we spare pain as the slightest mercy. Otherwise they are below us, below the slightest issue with our health. They are animals, not people. Not "beings". Animals. Lower form of life.
Fricking animals is wrong because raping an animal is wrong
That's their privilege
If an animal needs to be fisted to maximize efficiency in feeding humans their privilege is worth less than our slightest need
Animals are not people, they are not "sentient beings", they are animals ====== a lower, inferior form of life.
Vegan frickwit
>but thats because you say so and muh lojik lojik *im jut liek le peace aliens from le hippy show*
And virgin too amirite?
Yes, that's why it's fine to hunt feral pigs with spears but if you hunt deer like that you're going to prison
It's not about the animal
Killing animals for fun is perfectly legal in the context society allows
>You can kill an invasive species all you want but one we want around can only be killed in limited quantities
>you think this is proof its actually ok to have sex with animals and its only society that thinks its wrong
No, its actually proof animals have limited privileges that fall below humanity's needs and you are 100% wrong responding to people who are 100% right.
The pigs run counter to our needs so they have no privileges. The deers privileges are somewhat compatible with our needs.
It's wrong for you to have sex with animals because that is one of their privileges - being spared suffering if it's not to fulfill our needs. You having sex with an animal is not a human need. It actually makes you more likely to develop penis cancer. So for the animals, and your sake, you are forbidden from having sex with animals. But go ahead, say "but the ethical consistency isnt there" in court and see what everyone thinks.
But since you're the one who said "people who dont enjoy murdering people must be the crazy ones" and "psychopaths are just people who break the rules" i think you're going to go to court for the shooting deaths of students and faculty before you frick any animals
I'm not reading all that, schizo.
Either you understand that killing invasive animals for fun is a good thing despite the animals feelings or you don't understand that the laws aren't made to protect animals
>not reading
you did, also not an argument :^)
I'm at work on my phone without my glasses
I haven't read anything you posted past the first sentence
Bestiality is illegal because it's nasty, not for any moral consideration of the animal. Societies usually ban nasty shit if there's a big enough impulse to indulge in them. People talking about moral reasons are confused.
Bestiality is illegal because its rape. Its rape, and it appeals to rapists. Its been well studied enough to confirm this. There’s 50%+ overlap between zoophiles and pedophiles and it would likely be 100% if we were allowed to monitor their internet traffic. Zoophiles and pedophiles have the same brain abnormalities. They follow the same dichotomy, with two types, the molester-rapist and the romantic-delusional. They are the same fricking people with the same mental disorder. Rapists, who rape things, specifically things that are totally unable to defend themselves. We all agree that raping children is wrong because it traumatizes and physically harms them. It is the same for animals. It psychologically and physically harms them. Animals recovered from self proclaimed good zoophiles often have to be put down because once they’re done being afraid of their old owner they just hate people, assuming they dont die from infections first.
It is in fact illegal because we have some empathy for animals.
Not really because bestiality has been illegal since they thought animals were automatons. In the middle ages they would kill both you and the animal if you were caught. The idea of being unable to consent doesn't apply to animals, since we can do whatever we want to them. We can castrate a cat, can't castrate a child. Nobody cares if a cows cavernous vegana is penetrated by your 5 incher, except that you're defiling yourself and the cow. People have been confused by the recent focus on animal welfare but that's just applying a new coat on an ancient ban.
more importantly all of these illegal behaviors and lots more have always been illegal or taboo because they're things humans tend to do quite naturally if not prevented.
and as mentioned in another thread, if every culture throughout time and all over the world does something, it is probably innate. Meaning we evolved to do it and at least some people probably enjoy doing it. The laws exist because the behavior is perfectly natural, but now unwanted. Usually because it's detrimental to the society.
> the middle ages they would kill both you and the animal if you were caught.
Generally I’d say you’re correct but I think it *really* depends on where you were at the time
yes moron psychopaths exist and they love the idea of getting legal kills
I do kill invasive species but I take no pleasure from it and treat it like an unpaid job because I'm not fricked in the head
taking pleasure in killing has been normal through the vast majority of human history. People that didn't enjoy it would've been the crazy ones.
What makes sadists psychopaths is disregard for society's rules, not sadism itself.
>What makes sadists psychopaths is disregard for society's rules, not sadism itself.
also the reason zoophiles are psychopaths.
it's not sex with animals that makes a person a psychopath, people have presumably been fricking sheep since agriculture was invented
it's the disregard for the rules of society that makes them psychopaths.
No, its because they have no empathy for people even when not blinded by rage. You sound like a psychopath attempting to reason how normal people think. Animals and human empathy are separate and normal people only kill other humans when a stronger emotion overrides empathy. They normally become traumatized by this.
Clinically speaking zoophilia has frick all to do with that and is most strongly correlated with pedophilia, impulse control disorders, autism, homosexuality, and being molested as a child.
Psychopathy refers to a deficit in intraspecific empathy among other things nothing else. Not refusing to follow laws not disobeying standards. Thats literally commie talk. A psychopath is someone with no empathy for other PEOPLE.
>No, its because they have no empathy for people even when not blinded by rage
which can only be detected by their behavior.
Primarily their disregard for the rules of society.
zoophilia is relevant because Wauf is populated by autistic psychopaths who tend to either physical or sexual abuse of animals.
>being commonplace in nature equates to it being good
moron detected.
I said it's commonplace. There's no such thing as "good" or "bad." That's shit people make up.
No, its not detected by breaking laws. Disobeying social standards, making up your own, choosing another group, these things only diagnose a psychopath if you are a soviet psychologist ordered to find new excuses to jail dissidents.
The diagnostic criteria for psychopathy are quite stringent. You can go refer to the DSM yourself. Most importantly to this topic, it has NOTHING to do with empathy for animals.
And it bas nothing to do with zoophilia, which has been studied more than your dumb ass realizes. The official conclusion is zoophiles are not just identical to pedophiles, they ARE pedophiles, and follow the same dichotomy: romantic delusion+empathetic, and sadistic rapist.
I said detected, not diagnosed.
It’s not detected via criminality either. Again, read the DSM before you pseud out. Most psychopaths are not even convicted murderers, they’re just unruly idiots.
What you are sounding more and more like, to me, is an edgy kid who fancies himself a psycho.
>it would be weird if people didnt enjoy killing
>raping animals isnt wrong *pfeh* its scaring normies that really makes you crazy
No psychopaths have no empathy for people, normal people are traumatized by killing other humans, and raping animals is wrong because they can’t consent.
Also, specifically read the dsm2, liberals replaced it with aspd “compassionately”. Psychopathy remains a hard fact in neurology, of course (neurology, unlike psychology, is a science)
https://neurosciencenews.com/psychopahty-neural-basis-18234/
While a psychopath MAY disobey rules without remorse or reason this is not how they are detected because many non-psychopaths do as well. Disobeying rules is a normal and often healthy behavior. A psychopath’s defining trait is severe paralimbic dysfunction resulting in, ahem, moron words
Not feeling bad when other people feel bad
Having to pretend to have strong emotions of their own
This is where normal personality variations cross the line and we want someone in the MRI to have a look so we can understand it better. If they’re just breaking the law they could also be an amateur philosopher and a psychopath in the military or working as a cop in chicago would just be normal.
Most importantly you can find good studies that show that animal empathy is not necessary for human empathy so people squishing lanternflies is NOT insanity and humans did not evolve to camly murder each other.
>It’s not detected via criminality either
I said disregard for society's rules. That's not the same as criminality.
I can't even get past your first wrong assumption, try understanding what I say before writing walls of text about your misunderstandings.
>There's no such thing as "good" or "bad." That's shit people make up.
Can you get any more moronic? There is a reason morals exist, and before you say something brain dead about animals not having morals,
is about humans
>There is a reason morals exist,
morals don't exist
unicorns don't exist, dragons don't exist, angels don't exist, perfect circles don't exist, and morals don't exist.
ideas don't exist.
>morals and ideas don't exist
This is the most tiresome thing anyone has said in this thread. Just because you can’t get laid doesn’t mean you need to come up with a reason why rape ackshually isn’t bad
Like most psychopaths you're incapable of self reflection and can't begin to understand other people
Not that you try
The idea simply doesn't occur to you
>taking pleasure in killing has been normal through the vast majority of human history.
not is has not you defective
people that didn't like killing animals starved.
even chimps enjoy killing animals. It's normal for any creature that hunts.
>people that didn't like killing animals starved.
you're fricking moronic and seem to have no concept of "chores"
I hate cooking but I do it anyway
True, it's a strange aspect of modernity that most people have never actually been hungry, or known the joy of working to relieve their own hunger. We get a little twinge in our tummies and go to the store for some food and feel like that was way too much work.
back in the day a person could probably go days without food on a regular basis, and experience real happiness when they finally killed some food. Might even throw parties and dance and feast.
>humans did not evolve to camly murder each other.
we did evolve to enjoy surviving a good battle. Though now our battles are loud enough and impersonal enough to scare the shit out of anyone.
years of more or less constant war
Yeah I can't imagine where he got that idea
>All those years, the soldiers keep coming back mentally fricked up and behave nothing like normal people
It's to the point where you could argue that not enjoying killing people, but becoming traumatized by it while acclimating was selected for as a mechanism of of meta-eusocialism, but not to the point where you could argue people don't mind or naturally enjoy it. The US army put a lot of time and effort into getting recruits to shoot back in their first firefight because before ww2 and nam, they didn't.
People don't idly want to kill people. They can learn reasons that are stronger than empathy, but there's still that discordance in their head that fricks them up a little. Animals have less of an effect, but the more human-like the animal is, the more of an effect they have. That's why every culture is basically obligated to depict livestock species as grand archons of evil, filth, and idiocy, vermin are artificially hated and depicted as unrealistically nasty despite most pest animals actually being quite cute, smart and friendly, and worldwide people settle on applying the most brutal farming the least respectable, easiest to dehumanize animals like chickens.
>you could argue that not enjoying killing people, but becoming traumatized by it while acclimating was selected for as a mechanism of of meta-eusocialism
true, but we've had like a few hundred years of not killing people wherever we meet them vs. a few million of presumably killing every strange human.
also as you point out we're actively removing killers from the gene pool and we still have enormous numbers of them doing it quite voluntarily either for fun or just because someone looked at them wrong.
regarding military training, you're right. They do have to overcome the reluctance to kill. But there's a selection bias there. If you have killed people, or really want to kill people, the military probably isn't going to let you join.
>All those years, the soldiers keep coming back mentally fricked up and behave nothing like normal people
in all those years, the soldiers WERE the normal people. It's a very modern development that you personally don't have to go kill people.
that's a luxury 99.999999% of your male ancestors never had.
Holy frick you are moronic and delusional. You shouldn't be allowed near children or animals.
>doesn't understand
>calls other people moronic
Thread hidden.
That's how it is for me, I spontaneously fear and loathe invasive species.
Especially plants though.
Oh, but I don't want to cause them pain, regardless of whether they can feel it, I just hate them and want them gone
>Have you ever noticed that once a species becomes invasive, everybody treats it like public enemy and think that it is fine to abuse and torture it
nope, i have never seen or heard of this happening
you are creating fictional scenarios in your head then getting angry at them
you are mentally ill
I can't believe the Anacostia has snakeheads. That's the N-tower side of Washington DC for those who don't know. Giant carnivorous air breathing demons from Asia. Stupid ass aquarium bros. Blacks will do anything illegal just cuz it's illegal. Even the ones with White ass reddit hobbies like fish keeping. They love to play gangster and deal in illegal fish. And if course the shitbulls. Goddamnit
That was really good. I kneel baitgod
You're one of those homosexuals who whines about people killing spotted lantern flies, aren't you?
While spotted lantern flies are not in my moral cirlce, the citizen crusade against them pisses me off because it shows that the kind of people who are obsessed with invasive species have no principles and bow to the boot
I think humans have a primal instinct to kill animals and eat them.
I also think you're dumb.
I'm taliking about them vilanizing and killing them for fun in painful ways though
because you imagine those aren't aspects of hunting and eating animals? So ingrained with the idea of the respectful kill that you can't imagine humans killing for fun or in ways that aren't quick or merciful?
what an interesting idea.
Minimizing the suffering of something you kill is the right thing to do though. Why wouldn't you want to minimise somethings suffering?
>Minimizing the suffering of something you kill is the right thing to do though.
this may come as a shock to you, but humans didn't evolve to do whatever bullshit you consider moral.
we evolved to kill animals. We evolved to enjoy killing animals. There's no reason to think we evolved to minimize suffering, in fact causing suffering is a normal, universal human behavior.
Some things that humans evolved to do are not good though. For example rape is not good.
>For example rape is not good.
it only matters if we worry about who has to raise the kids. In societies where kids are raised by everyone, rape is not bad.
a fair argument can be made that requiring every parent to raise their own kids is antisocial, and thus rape is good.
You take my caveman philosophy to it's logical conclusion and make me reflect on my belief choices. Thanks.
rape is not good because it allows men with shitty genes to spread them
if a man is so undesirable the only way he can reproduce is through rape, he shouldnt reproduce
Thats not how natural selection actually works. Should is irrelevant. If humans degenerate into a population of 5 million monkeys no one is left to care.
>Should is irrelevant
this is Hume's Guillotine.
There is no rational way to advance an argument from how things are to how they should be.
>rape is not good because it allows men with shitty genes to spread them
you assume women should have some choice in which genes are "good." Nature of course doesn't usually work that way. Rapey dudes have great genes as far as nature is concerned.
>Wauf: where rape is a good thing!
I didn't know there was such a crossover with /LULZ/ here, disappointing
You’re committing the naturalistic fallacy. Nature is full of blind cave animals that cant leave and countless other dead ends plus everything eats shit alive including herbivores whenever they run across baby rodents and birds. Is natural selection a path to superiority?
so true Reddit
biologists don't usually comment on your feelings
we will tell you that what you consider rape is normal in the animal kingdom to the point where consent is the weird idea, not rape.
>we will tell you that what you consider rape is normal in the animal kingdom to the point where consent is the weird idea, not rape
>source: WOMEN WON'T HAVE SEX WITH ME
this place really has turned to reddit with anonymity
you are anthropomorphising evolution
if rape causes you to create many successful offspring, then your genes aren't shitty. they are good.
>being commonplace in nature equates to it being good
And other moronic takes from Wauf
>being commonplace in nature equates to it being good
certain people aren’t gonna like this one…
This may come as a shock to you and everyone in this thread: Earthlings are currently evolving empathic ability, and there is immense evolutionary pressure behind it, so much so that it is a part of 'The Great Filter'.
OP, displaying empathic ability, has a very high chance to receive empathy, to the point where I have gone out of my way to make this post, in a thread I would otherwise usually have ignored.
Meanwhile, rape enthusiasts, such as
, enjoy the temporary shield that is anonymity on the internet, lingering about on the fringes of society, sleepwalking through their existence, mostly ignorant of the fact their brains would be bashed out were they to publicly vocalize their devolution around a civilized crowd (of empaths willing to do what need be done). Empathy only goes so far, you see, and cannot suffer the presence of such toxins, lest such deathly penchants spread degeneracy into further downward spiral.
Thus it is the militant empath that inherits the earth and spreads through the cosmos. The beings that seek to fully know and understand their environment, their brothers and sisters, and especially their enemies, eventually coming to the unfortunately dark conclusion that not all beings, not all thoughtforms, are compatible: that they, being most empathetic to even the plight of such evil beings, must take the responsibility upon themselves to waste no empathy on rapists and the like, understanding that such disgustingly incompatible hostiles cannot be survivably tolerated.
And to be clear to those who may not understand, by empath I mean a human with high enough IQ that they can realistically simulate themselves inside the experience of a target being, projecting their ego into the entity and gaining unexpected insights into the persona of that being, understanding the way they think. One need not be a serial rapist to understand that they should all be, at best, castrated and turned into slaves.
Good luck out there, good peeps
Basically this is how women think
They think this way because they have very low testosterone. Testosterone blocks a great deal of empathy, and also produces a great deal of violence and rape.
women don't have it and don't understand it. And that's fine. It's also why women don't run things.
>Earthlings are currently evolving empathic ability, and there is immense evolutionary pressure behind it
if only this were true
>by empath I mean a human with high enough IQ that
You are aware that fertility is negatively correlated with IQ and positively correlated with psychopathy, are you?
Evolution doesn't work towards a grand goal and has no direction. Genes that propagate themselves most effectively, not the morally "good" ones, are the ones that win out, and current selection pressures do not favor empathy.
holy fricking based, thank you for putting this is into words.
jesus why are you so cringe?
>muh empathy or we the empaths gon bash your head
just go kys cringe boy
Lol did it really take you that long to think of a response?
schizo moron why did you delete that reply and write it again an hour later lol fricking midwit
Cosmic new age shit is equally bs
>le all life is life
Humans are not animals and animals are not humans. We have rights, they have mercy.
Stop watching star trek ya wannabe yoda shit. Humans evolved empathy when they were still a medium sized monkey
>no i meant being vegan
Thats caused by being improperly socialized so you think chickens are humans
You're conflating empathy and sympathy.
>everybody
Even if your logic followed, you should already know this isn't true.
>What do you think?
I think you just wanted to post that pic.
Aren't you a little old to believe in fairy tales like evolution?
Don't look at old posts in the archive.
>Aren't you a little old to believe in fairy tales like evolution?
pill time!
>AIsloptard cumbrain believes his ancestor came from a rock
>Women are generally much more intelligent
That must be why STEM is full of women and kindergarten teachers are mostly men, right? Oh wait, real life isn't some Hollywood feminist cartoon.
I'm a layman so this may be the worst take in the thread but, I think empathy is a sign of higher intelligence in animals and is part of our evolution to be social creatures. Torturing an animal means you lack a certain mental barrier, it's a sign you could be dangerous to people. And it's generally shitty to not treat things how you'd want to be treated if you were in its shoes. This is the part where you pull out some disingenuous vegan argument. Anyway, you know when anons talk about "how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast yesterday?" it feels like torturers wouldn't be able to comprehend that. They can only think on the surface, not any deeper. Being able to understand feelings makes a social creature better at group bonding I think. Or maybe I'm talking out of my ass since Romans and shit probably bonded over torturing people.
I just don't like hypocrites. If you were being tortured, you'd b***h about it, so don't torture other things.
>Basically this is how women think
>They think this way because they have very low testosterone. Testosterone blocks a great deal of empathy, and also produces a great deal of violence and rape.
>women don't have it and don't understand it. And that's fine. It's also why women don't run things.
I'm confused. You equate high test to being a violent rapist but the actual point was about how high test makes us more logical. So which is it? Are we impulsive animals or are we smart leaders?
Wait, do you mean it in the sense that women don't run things because they're too pussy to stand up to violence or outcompete alpha males and it's got nothing to do with intelligence at all? That sounds moronicly feminist.
kek
men are on average much dumber than women. When you meet an intelligent male they're usually low test. Even highly intelligent males are distracted by high t.
women don't run things because they don't have the competitive and combative nature testosterone provides. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Intelligent people also don't run things. People that run things do like to think they're highly intelligent, but they're usually not.
being in charge is mostly just about balls. Leaders of men are generally dumb as toast. Women are generally much more intelligent, but lack the balls to be in charge.
If the most intelligent men among us are the ones running things then fricking hell men are moronic.
yes exactly
we've actually done IQ tests on CEO's, Politicians, and military leaders.
the people in charge are usually midwits or morons.
So are you low test or unintelligent?
>So are you low test or unintelligent?
A person can be both. Or neither. The dichotomy is a generalization.
When I say leaders are midwits, I mean they have IQ's in the range of 120. Which is a good 40 sd's above the board average I'd guess. To people here, Donald Trump is a very stable genius. To most people he's a moron, but he'd fit right in on Wauf. People like Musk, Bezos, Gates, Zuck, etc are so far above Wauf levels they might as well be gods. But IQ-wise they're nothing amazing.
Both it is
I'm not sure whether to call you misandrist or not
>I'm not sure whether to call you misandrist or not
I hate 99% of humanity regardless of gender.
You DO realize you're talking to someone who holds views like this
>Raping animals isn't wrong, it's breaking the rules that makes you a psycho
>Normal men enjoy killing people. You'd be weird not to. Empathy is a recent invention.
>Animals aren't conscious, they're sensate, they can't be tortured, it's just fun.
>No, pets do not date back 40,000 years. They date back 400. israelites invented them to drive down white birthrates.
>ALL fossils found in China are fake and it's part of a plot to destroy masculinity.
>Laws against murder and rape oppress men. Normal men rape. Rape is normal. Rape is good.
These are bugguy's real opinions. he is a 40 year old half hispanic college dropout who wishes he was a paleontologist. He dreams of his poisonous garden plants causing a local cat genocide. He also hates dogs, a lot.
he is absolutely insane and he larped as "his friend" to tell us he was a medicated schizophrenic and has been getting worse.
If you're a Wauf oldgay you'd recognize a lot of his quirks in MikeeUSA, who was last seen saying something like this this
>JEWS BANNED PEDOPHILIA TO DESTROY THE WHITE RACE MEN LIKE CATS MEN HATE DOGS I HATE DOGS DOGS RUIN MY LIFE CHRISTIANITY OWES ME A 8 YEAR OLD FRICKTOY. I HATE WOMEN!
This is because schizophrenics are NPCs. They essentially lose their souls and revert to being distilled essence of total fricking loser. Everything they say is the product of a man completely failing to live anything resembling a normal life until his already disordered brain simply gets stuck in a feedback loop and tears itself apart. Every schizo manufactured in a certain culture will act like every other schizo.
>inb4
No, I am not bugguy. But I am one of the people he copies because he wants to have a personality again. Sometimes, I make up shitty arguments to watch him repeat them back a month later (he did this ITT, but he's not conscious anymore so he isn't aware of it).
>But I am one of the people he copies because he wants to have a personality again. Sometimes, I make up shitty arguments to watch him repeat them back a month later (he did this ITT, but he's not conscious anymore so he isn't aware of it).
Schizophrenia
t. Bugguy in one of his more lucid personas
that would make sense
>it's generally shitty to not treat things how you'd want to be treated if you were in its shoes
it's a waste of energy to adhere to that when it involves something that can't reciprocate it.
>I just don't like hypocrites. If you were being tortured, you'd b***h about it, so don't torture other things.
there is no hypocrisy in the take that "animals are not humans therefore i don't consider their feelings"
The sign is a subtle joke. The shop is called "Sneed's Feed & Seed", where "feed" and "seed" both end in the sound "-eed", thus rhyming with the name of the owner, Sneed. The sign says that the shop was "Formerly Chuck's", implying that the two words beginning with "F" and "S" would have ended with "-uck", rhyming with "Chuck". So, when Chuck owned the shop, it would have been called "Chuck's Feeduck and Seeduck".
>we evolved to kill animals. We evolved to enjoy killing animals.
I don't know why people struggle with this fact. You can watch pretty much any predator and see it toying with its prey when it has the chance. The only reason it's considered a negative behavior in humans is because we have the intelligence to understand the suffering we're causing. But no one considers a cat to be "evil" for spending 30 minutes batting around a half-dead mouse.
I believe the one person having trouble with the concept is a vegan of the sort that believes humans didn't evolve to eat meat.
despite almost our entire archeological record being tools built to kill and butcher animals and probably people.
it's also very common for young boys to kill small creatures for fun
why boys do you think?
because it's been observed. this isn't me being sexist this is a known fact
>because it's been observed
no I know. I was curious what you thought about why it's boys and not usually girls. Learned behavior, something genetic?
>That must be why STEM is full of women and kindergarten teachers are mostly men, right?
I assume you're a man because you're not smart enough to parse the statement.
how about we say this instead:
>most men are very dumb. Much dumber than women. And women are pretty stupid too.
you'll have trouble with this statement as well because you think in absolutes and don't understand categories.
I simply don't see the value in it. empathy towards animals is self destructive
>empathy towards animals is self destructive
this
empathy for your family and your social group is an advantage
empathy for your food or your enemies and competitors is a serious problem.
>empathy for your food or your enemies and competitors is a serious problem.
this goes back to OP's supposition that the lack of empathy for animals is just a misdirected lack of empathy for an enemy.
I doubt OP is right, since we don't have to see animals as an enemy to not have empathy for them.
But it does raise the question of why we'd ever feel empathy for any animal or enemy ever.
Part of the reason is probably domestication of animals. That requires a bit of empathy for animals.
The other reason is probably strategic planning when hunting or fighting. We evolved to anticipate the actions and reactions of both our food and our enemies. And this requires the ability to get inside their heads. To imagine what they're thinking and feeling. And that means a bit of empathy even for those we plan to kill or subdue.
>autists attempt to understand how humans think
Limited empathy for animals is required for interspecies cooperation and subjugation AKA why we kept most of our intelligence instead of degenerating into leggier baboons.
But whatever autistic neo nazis need to believe to imagine there’s a reason they aren’t repulsive
PS: murder and war are not normal like fishing. Throughout all recorded history its been driven by emotions stronger than empathy and the people involved have always been remorseful and traumatized. Being a school shooter is not being a caveman chad. Everyone from every era would consider you a freak. Only now they call you mentally ill instead of possessed by animal spirits.
>Limited empathy for animals is required for interspecies cooperation and subjugation
>Part of the reason is probably domestication of animals. That requires a bit of empathy for animals.
>the people involved have always been remorseful and traumatized.
it's a bit sad your generation hasn't had a war to fight yet. Most people are not traumatized or remorseful for killing strangers in battle. Or anywhere else for that matter.
Most people are traumatized and remorseful from killing strangers in battle. Always have been.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25577928/#:~:text=The%20Mesopotamians%20explain%20the%20disorder,during%20battle%20causing%20the%20symptoms.
Stop trying to spin murder and animal rape as normal, bugguy. Its not happening. Go water your deadly nightshade.
Having actually killed people in battle, and knowing hundreds of other men just like me, I know you're wrong. But if it makes you feel smart or safe or good to believe the way you do feel free.
I'll still be looking for real explanations, not ones tinted by your personal desires and hopes. Every time you feel like you've answered a question, you reach an intellectual dead end. You are an intellectual dead end.
>Having actually killed people in battle
Didn’t know bugguy was a larper
bugguy is less than half my age and lives in a country that hasn't gone to war since 1943
I am a US Marine and served in the Gulf War.
>I am a US Marine and served in the Gulf War
And an FBI contractor and a paleontologist and a sexual predator and a miner and a professional thread ruiner and a chubby chaser
sexual predators aren't allowed to work for the feds. Sorry to burst your moronation bubble.
Sure not on paper, but they get priority when recruiting
schizo stuff. The US is old fashioned. They won't even hire you if you have a side chick. Adultery is still grounds for firing. Actual crimes would get you tossed instantly.
Why was that the only one that rubbed you wrong
It's the only one that's completely untrue.
So you gonma water them nightshades or what
Chinese paleontology is extremely trustworthy btw
Oh you switched personalities again
>everyone that disagrees with me is one person
>if lots of people thought I was stupid I might have to consider the possibility they're right.
you have to know already most people simply don't fit your expectations. That's why you're here every day for decades on end trying to make sense of it all.
The schizo npc is really seething now!
ah yes, how will I ever recover?
You guys have daily threads about how you can't understand normie behavior. It's fun, and it's funny.
You do this in the hopes that other like-minded people will congregate here and reassure you that you're not crazy. I'm the turd in your living room. The normie in your batshit insane house of horrors.
Stop monologuing and get tackled and jailed for walking into the morrison with an assault rifle already
>get tackled and jailed for walking into the morrison with an assault rifle already
you jest, but one of the bigger problems we have here is people do tend to use the dinosaur bones as targets for shooting practice.
anyone who’s so up his own ass he feels the need to post not just his own face but the faces of his wife and kids on a Mongolian basket weaver site is not normal. Arguing with people for multiple days every few weeks about something of 0 importance on said basket weaving forum also isn’t normal. You wouldn’t know normie behaviour if it beat you across the face with its wiener
He posted his dog and her pups?
the anon asked to see my face and then spent the next 5 years pretending I'm crazy for posting it.
I haven’t been here for five years but the fact you actually did what he asked is pretty revealing
NTA but if you look for it it’s more like the sow and her piglets
>You wouldn’t know normie behaviour if it beat you across the face with its wiener
nobody seems to be disagreeing about how normies treat animals.
Even OP is just pointing out an obvious truth. Nobody denies it. Kids stomp on ants. Adults have a few beers and club nutria or spear feral hogs. This isn't news to anyone.
at least 95% of your problem is poor reading comprehension
you've spent the entire thread assigning opinions to "me" that I didn't say.
it's hard to understand people's motives when the only thing you have to go on is words,
and you can't read.
>why we kept most of our intelligence instead of degenerating into leggier baboons.
that ironically enough was caused by empathy for enemies.
no animal alive or extinct requires our level of intelligence and empathy to subjugate or kill.
Except other humans.
we are highly intelligent and empathetic because of war, not in spite of it.
this Black person thinks roaches and rats and shit are his competition, kek what a sad little existence
>still can't understand and/or statements
I've literally got pets smarter than you
Wrong person frickface
>there are multiple bots and/or morons and/or esl 3rd worlders on Wauf
what a shock
>empathy for your food or your enemies and competitors is a serious problem
>roaches and rats are not food, so are enemies and competition
>you still don’t understand and/or statements
You already showed off how moronic you were in the last thread, you don’t need to convince people anymore
>roaches and rats are not food, so are enemies and competition
neither are rocks, did you think I meant rocks are your enemies or competition?
what about solar flairs, waterfalls, lamborghinis, or bouncy rubber balls?
do you see your mistake yet?
Are you a tard or a bot or an esl or a bouncy rubber ball?
You seem to have trouble with categories, a very common form of moronation on this board and an extremely rare one elsewhere.
Incel drivel
moron denial
Have sex
>Have sex
now that's a suggestion I never turn down.
Rocks and everything else you mentioned are not animals. Nor are they in any way related to the discussion since this is about feeling empathy for animals, namely invasive or pest species, as undeserving of empathy because they are competitors or enemies. You are staggeringly, overwhelmingly moronic
Nothing about my post indicates that it only includes animals or that it includes every animal.
you are stupid. You sound just like the same stupid person you deny being.
are rocks, cars and whatever other stupid shit you said enemies and competition? What else could you have meant if not animals, in a thread about the treatment of invasive animals
since you asked, I meant
1. food animals
2. people that are enemies
3. people or animals that are competition
if an animal is not food, or a person, or competition, then I wasn't talking about that animal.
let me know if you need more english lessons, I'm in a generous mood and have some time on my hands.
none of which are cars or rocks
>if an animal is not food, or a person, or competition, then I wasn't talking about that animal.
Which rats and wienerroaches are, since they steal and spoil food
>none of which are cars or rocks
yes, that was the point. I wasn't talking about cars, rocks, rats or wienerroaches
>Which rats and wienerroaches are, since they steal and spoil food
some people also eat them, so they're food as well.
not what I was talking about but fair enough.
people spend millions of dollars every year learning about rat and wienerroach behavior for the purpose of killing them. Which is the same reason we learn about our enemies and our food.
empathy isn't just a positive happy place.
part of the reason we evolved it is to understand the creatures we intend to kill.
In a primitive society playing with a weak animal can prepare you to take on a stronger one later, that's the same Orcas do to teach their kids, Amerindians did it too, and Africans still do it, the "right" thing is whatever brings you more benefits.
In more advanced societies like humans, in a hive-like social environment if everyone decides on something being bad then doing it, even if it brings a minimal benefit, will end up being a net negative so you won't do it.
Now if everyone decides they don't particularly care, then you can do as you please, if you think you benefit from it there will be no one to care enough to stop you
Empathy works with your kin only, anything that's bad for the rest is good for you and your tribe. The definition of "we" varies from person to person, but in general you only try to minimize suffering to "the rest" if there is literally NOTHING you lose from it
>I just don't like hypocrites. If you were being tortured, you'd b***h about it, so don't torture other things.
That logic only works if you're relying in someone else to be the arbiter of what's good or bad.
There is literally nothing other than humans to protect us humans if every other being decided to go against us at the same time, of course they don't because we'd win easily, but still, nature is a fair game and we're winning hard
Incel drivel
>The definition of "we" varies from person to person
with this I mean sometimes they include all animals on earth, or sometimes only a very small group of humans, but neither is wrong.
You can consider every being equal but have no empathy and torture them anyways, or you can consider treating everyone respectfully (according to your own definition of respect) even if you don't consider them equal
It's not so much killing them in more "fun" painful ways, it's about more efficient ways
Most hunting laws are about killing one or two animals with a gun/bow/whatev, very inefficient
But when something get designated "invasive" we can employ more efficient ways to kill: poison, blowing them up, running them over, etc
Because they aren't for food, it's culling a pest
The damage they would do to the ecosystem would be far worse than allowing them to run around