@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.

@freemo @realcaseyrollins @georgetakei morals are a human concept. Justification for violence is not something animals seem to need. They don't ask whether or not they should do something at all, so I think it's hard to say they are morally superior, but that also kind of brings up an interesting idea. Do human morals do anything to curb our animalistic tendencies or just force us to be more creative to justify violence?

@thatguyoverthere

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.

@realcaseyrollins @georgetakei

@freemo @realcaseyrollins @georgetakei tell that to someone who's had an extra drake or 2 in with their ducks.

@thatguyoverthere

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...

@freemo have you not been reading what I wrote. The whole point is that we are animals, and our moral code does fuck all to stop us. I'd argue anyone who wants to commit an immoral act will find a way to justify it within their own plastic morality code.

@thatguyoverthere

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.

@freemo I don't know man. Rape is not moral. They don't have remorse for being rapey. They don't care if raping kills the duck. They don't even care if they're raping a female.

@thatguyoverthere

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.

@freemo I see it in person and have had to save ducks from being drown before. I've also seen them attack ducklings, even when there's only one male. I raise these animals and I while I don't "speak duck" I do think I can communicate with my animals a little bit. I think it's funny how much people anthropomorphize animals instead of just embracing their own animal aspects.

If you read the post all the way through you might have seen that I have said I don't think morals stop us anyway. If you want to believe the ducks are consenting to having their children murdered and put at risk of drowning for kicks go on.

@thatguyoverthere

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).

@freemo I had no idea you were an expert on water fowl. How often do you interact with ducks out of curiosity?

A purely female flock is no problem at all. A purely male flock I have heard is not bad either although I have no direct experience so I can't say. It's when you have both but don't have something like a 1:18 ratio of males to females that things get bad.

@thatguyoverthere

> 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.

@freemo :shrug: you really do seem to be an expert at just about everything. pretty amazing sir. Anyway, like I said the ratio matters. One drake is great. More is messy and cruel.

@thatguyoverthere

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.

@freemo I don't read and archive your every post

@thatguyoverthere

Probaby a good reason not to make assumptions then.

@freemo what assumption did I make exactly?

@thatguyoverthere

Im not going to play that game.. your tone was apparent and implied:

> I had no idea you were an expert on water fowl. How often do you interact with ducks out of curiosity?

> you really do seem to be an expert at just about everything. pretty amazing sir.

Seems obvious to me this was meant sarcastically and in a mocking tone. So you assumed going in I had no expiernce raising ducks (the assumption) and even went so far as to mock the fact that I did.

@freemo this went off the rails so much further back homie

@freemo @thatguyoverthere are you high or just brain damaged? Jesus fuck dude.

@pwm

Nah, just the only person in the conversation who an see past the normal human box we frame everything in.

@thatguyoverthere

@freemo @pwm lmao this is what we call pride sir

@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.

@freemo wat? I didn't say I have "superior" understanding of ducks or claim to be an expert at anything doc. I said I raise them and have the opportunity to regularly observe their behavior, and that I have in the past had too many male ducks. I asked your expertise after you started talking about stress indicators and the like. You are a real mother fucker sometimes the way you try to twist everything into a contentious debate where you come out the victor for absolutely no damn reason it's just so weird. Like I came into this conversation actually kind of supporting your view, and somehow this has been twisted into a competition I never wanted to be in. It happens damn near every time I join a conversation you are in.

@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 ok I'm imagining things

@thatguyoverthere More like projecting... but call it what you will.

@freemo I guess technically I disagreed with you first but it spiraled into a really unpleasant conversation as it often does.

You said most people look at themselves as below animals, and I said I think usually I think they think they are above them (which was my original point and yours anyway, you contradicted yourself here as far as I can tell since you seemed to be of the mind that people are in fact animals inspite of the common idea that calling someone an animal is an insult).

Anyway you are exhausting. maybe just go on without me

@thatguyoverthere

> I guess technically I disagreed with you first but it spiraled into a really unpleasant conversation as it often does.

If you find it unpleasant then dont engage, do yourself a favor. I myself am not so emotionally sensitive to a respectful different of opinion. So for me there is no antagonism or issue that you dont intentionally bring yourself. The nature of my conversations are going to usually be direct, and frank. If you dont like those sorts of philosophical/scientific conversations then feel free not to engage. Likewise if you are going to see disagreement as confrontation. Otherwise if you want to be in the convo feel free, thats on you.

> Anyway you are exhausting. maybe just go on without me

Right thats how it should be... you leave when the conversation has no more interest to you.. let those who are still interested and energized by the discussion carry on with whoever is left...

What you shouldnt do is complain about how "tired" you get staying in a conversation you have long since lost interest in... just walk away... silently, and politely, thats how conversations should be.

tldr: you dont need to stick with a public debate until the very getting the last word in... if it interests you, share, if it doesnt walk away, just dont turn it into a shit show that your upset cause you got tired of a conversation and it wouldnt end when you can just walk away.