Trump knows what he’s doing when he calls his enemies “vermin” in his speeches and online. He’s dehumanizing them. This has happened to my community twice in my lifetime: once during World War II, and again during the pandemic. It is so dangerous, and Trump knows it. He’s preparing his base to do things that you can’t do to other humans, only to subhumans. Be warned. Be vigilant.
@georgetakei To be fair it is no worse than what the left has done to him. They have called him that and worse.
That said I dont particularly mind dehumanizing someone who doesnt act human (compassion towards their fellow man)... So dehumanize away, at worst ill judge you on who you target (as im sure Trump is targeting anyone who doesnt support him it is that aspect that speaks against him for me).
The criteria was stated, acting human here means "compassion to your fellow human"...
@realcaseyrollins @georgetakei
All humans are animals.. So yes, but not for that reason.
Are we talking about a narcissistic who is incapable of caring but tries to act compassionately, or one who does not **act** compassionately.
But yes if a narcissist intentionally embraces not having compassion rather than trying to logically enact compassion (regardless of if they feel it) then they would not be part of human society and thus dehumanized in that sense.
Are we talking about a narcissistic who is incapable of caring but tries to act compassionately, or one who does not act compassionately.
I wasn’t making a distinction between the two because you hadn’t initially.
@realcaseyrollins @georgetakei
I didnt make the distinction because it was implied we were talking about how a person acts, no one cares nor can even determine a persons internal state.
Calling a human an animal isnt an insult, its a compliment. We wish we could rise to the level of most animals.
@freemo @thatguyoverthere @georgetakei Most people don’t see it that way 😂
I think you might be surprised, most probably do.
Remember last time the argument about murder, you thought most people would think it was because "they were human" but in the poll only a single person (I suspect you) voted for that option.
I suggest you may have a view of what most people think that isnt accurate due to the environment you were raised in perhaps (nopt that it was a bad environment just that you were taught principles that arent in line with most peoples views).
@thatguyoverthere @realcaseyrollins @georgetakei
Depends on what you mean by greater. I think most people would think themselves intellectually superior to animals. But I'd imagine most people do not find humans morally superior to animals.
Nah morals are a universal concept, even animals have them. At least most animals. Any creature that can expiernce suffering and happiness and can identify these qualities in other animals has morals on some level.
I see no reaason that is a contradiction to them having morality.
@thatguyoverthere I suspect you are suggesting that because they act like an asshole when their horny this somehow means their entire species lacks morals all the time? Oh man, wait till you find out about humans...
First off im talking about morals (actions which are compassionality motivated) not moral codes (A codified set of rules intended to express compassion by following them).
Second, yes thats my points, animals like humans have morality. The fact that they sometimes dont always follow it doesnt change the fact that it is there.
1) how do you know its not consensual? you are assuming rape, but do you speak duck? I'm pretty sure a duck looking at a BDSM couple might likewise assume its rape when its not.
2) humans rape all the time. To assume the existance of rapists means an entire species lacks morals under all circumstances is a huge leap.
So no, you saw them beign sexually rough, to the point of putting others at risk, but have no way to know if the female ducks wanted to be in that situation or were happier for the environment.
I'd argue the best way to tell objectively is to look for happiness and stress behaviors. Take a duck in a purely female environment and they will demonstrate more stressed and less happiness than a duck explosed to it. Id argue this is a strong indicator the duck is conscenting to the behavior in some sense (in that, despite everything they want to be in that environment and thus moral for them).
> I had no idea you were an expert on water fowl. How often do you interact with ducks out of curiosity?
About 15 years raising them, though I dont currently.
> A purely female flock is no problem at all.
No problem to raise them sure. But to claim they are at their happiest is a whoe 'nother ball of wax. I'd argue they arent as we see an increase stressors in all female flocks.
I never claimed to be an expert on this, in fact I explicitly said I dont like the term. But ok if your amazed by the fact that I raised ducks for 15 years thats cool. I have talked about it before, I was a volunteer for 15 years at "The great vally nature center" where I was responsible for caring for all the animals there and was often the only person responsible for it. That included ducks, chickens, goats, and a few other animals.
And yea the issue isnt if more drakes are "messy".. the discussion is about how much of a stress response the females show, which is ultimately the only way we could begin to measure morality, if the animals care about the stress they put others through.. If the act of rape or even death is a situation the females **want** to be in (due to biology) then it isnt immoral to do it.
The fact that females, despite the apparent abuse, do not show stress indications, and in fact they willfully will remain in such a flock after the incidents shows, or at least strongly hints, at consent. If there was lack of consent then females would leave the flock.
Nah, just the only person in the conversation who an see past the normal human box we frame everything in.
@thatguyoverthere IRonic since I was saying that to mirror your own statement.
> I think it's funny how much people anthropomorphize animals instead of just embracing their own animal aspects.
Suggesting you had some superior understanding of ducks. You even went so far to talk about expertise.
@thatguyoverthere You are the only one imagining a competition here.. **You** are the one who challenged my expertise and demanded what it was.. Prior to that I had no desire to measure who was the greater expert, I still dont.. that was all you and now your crying foul... way to go.
@freemo @thatguyoverthere @georgetakei Fair point but plenty of people are mad that the most ardent supporters of #Israel, including many in their government, are calling the #Hamas terrorists “animals”. They didn’t seem to take that as a compliment then.
@thatguyoverthere @freemo @georgetakei The idea that we’re more than animals is a religious one, I think. I’m a #Christian and don’t see a reasonable non-religious reason for believing that people are more than animals
@thatguyoverthere @realcaseyrollins @georgetakei
Not to mention it never says they are superior to animals in any way. It does describe us as being shepards over them and a few other passages that make a distinction between us and animals. But none of it, as far as I know, directly denotes superiority in any way.
@freemo @georgetakei That’s even worse. Is a narcissist an animal?