@realcaseyrollins

The criteria was stated, acting human here means "compassion to your fellow human"...

@georgetakei

@freemo @georgetakei That’s even worse. Is a narcissist an animal?

@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.

@freemo @georgetakei

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.

@realcaseyrollins @freemo @georgetakei The funny thing is we're all animals and it's people who think their intellect raises them above that are capable of some of the cruelest things.

@thatguyoverthere

Calling a human an animal isnt an insult, its a compliment. We wish we could rise to the level of most animals.

@realcaseyrollins @georgetakei

@freemo @thatguyoverthere @georgetakei Most people don’t see it that way 😂

@realcaseyrollins

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 @georgetakei

@freemo @realcaseyrollins @georgetakei I think most people usually think of themselves as greater than animals, but occasionally humility is found, sometimes just for a moment and that helps us appreciate our gifts a little more.

@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 @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 @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

@realcaseyrollins @freemo @georgetakei it is a religious one, but that doesn't make it correct. Love of God is not exclusive to humans, and I might even go so far as to say it's rare, even among the religious. Animals treat the things God gives them way better than we do.

@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 @realcaseyrollins @georgetakei Pride denotes superiority. It's one of the 7 deadlies for a reason.

@freemo @thatguyoverthere @realcaseyrollins @georgetakei
If it is Christianity or Judaism you are thinking of (again that is "if"), check out Genesis 1:26. Humans are the only ones made in God's image. If you don't put any stock in the Bible, no reason to put much stock in that statement. I often think that dogs treat us and each other better than humans do. That said, if I had to choose between my dog and my wife, suffice it to say a) there would be zero hesitation and b) I'd miss my dog terribly.

@CrashCarroll

Yes but it never claims humans are sjperior. Shepards yes, in some way resembling god yes, but never does it say superior.

@thatguyoverthere @realcaseyrollins @georgetakei

@darreninthenet I disagree on the compassion. He is worthy of compassion because without it we are no better than him. He just isnt to be seen as humanized ( a member of society). But compassion should always be universal... Tolarance I agree with you, we dont have to tolerate him.

@freemo @darreninthenet

Freemo is either ignorant or a closet asshole. A number of posts on his page appear to support right wing viewpoints although as subtly as possible.

@RodneyPetersonTalent Oh I have no intention of making it subtle..

I lean left but am decidedly close to center and am more than happy to adopt some right-wing points among my overall left-wing stance.

Points to you though for trying to weapoinize someone having opinions that dont 100% line up wuith yours as if people are trying to hide it, I dont hide it.

@freemo

Your stance on abortion is a fucking giveaway you piece of shit.

@RodneyPetersonTalent

You mean the part where I think all abortions should be free and tax paid? Or we just going to leave that part out?

A giveaway to what? That I have views that arent entierly in line with the left or the right? Yea no shit, im pretty vocal about being a left-leaning centrist... Good work there sherlock.

@freemo

10 week limit, that’s the giveaway. Plus you don’t even live in the U.S.

@RodneyPetersonTalent

So now not living in the USA means I dont have a right to have opinions on abortion law in wherever I live? Man you are all over the place ya nut job.

And yes the 10 week part, along side the free abortions and pregnancy tests for all, should be a dead giveaway I dont align with the right or left on this issue but instead have an opinion that adopts concerns of both sides... Ya know, exactly what I say I am, a left-leaning centrist....

You keep on truckin though, lol

@freemo @RodneyPetersonTalent First thing to acknowledge on abortion is it's not a trivial issue and neither side is obviously wrong.

Pregnancy and abortion is practically the divide by zero error of Western ethics.

Western ethics holds that if you have one person dependent on another, and the responsible person cannot provide, you transfer the responsibility to someone else. You cannot do that with pregnancy.

OTOH the West believes each person owns their own body.

So neither extreme works.

@mike805 @RodneyPetersonTalent

Agreed its a ethical dehlema where any solution will have some immoral imposition on someone. The only truely moral solution would be incubators.

My focus is to find a solution that minimizes the infringement on both parties.

@freemo @mike805 @RodneyPetersonTalent Forced parenthood is not moral either. A rape victim would be forced to have a child by their rapist.

@deegeese

No they wouldnt, I am not proposing making abortion illegal illegal in this thread.

If you mean in the case where abortion is illegal (unrelated to this thread by thats ok) then yea, you choose to prioritize the rights of the unborn child over the emotional trauma to the mother.. IT is one reason why any extreme on either side isnt a good one.

@mike805 @RodneyPetersonTalent

@deegeese @freemo @RodneyPetersonTalent Yes, it is not moral. Not good for the species either. Rape must have some reproductive value or men wouldn't do it (since it's risky) so forced parenthood from rape will make more rapists.

There is no answer on the abortion issue that will satisfy all moral constraints, so like with war, people are going to have to accept some sort of compromise as to what is permitted.

Also, Taliban attitudes toward women lose elections, as the Rs keep learning.

@mike805

Rape probably wasnt risky during caveman days.. or i should say, far far less risky. IF your stronger than the woman, without a society whats the risk? Only risk is the woman might kill you, which is a valid risk, but presumably minimal if the man is stronger (or with a group).

Perhaps thats the issue, we evolved that trait back when the risk was low and now that the risk is high our evolution hasnt fully caught up.

@deegeese @RodneyPetersonTalent

@freemo @deegeese @RodneyPetersonTalent Cultures where raiding, conquest, and capturing women were normal things for centuries (like the Middle East) seem pretty rapey.

Civilized places where rape got you hanged, less so.

Where rape was "safe" was during warfare. Within one's own tribe it has always had consequences. The Middle East has had a lot of warfare.

@mike805

Im not sure that tracks.. Seems like the correlation has more to do with womens rights and when they became defined (if at all) rather than specifically when rape was outlawed.

@deegeese @RodneyPetersonTalent

@freemo @deegeese @RodneyPetersonTalent Both the Soviets and the Japanese gave their soldiers explicit permission to rape during WW2. Other nations punished soldiers for it. There is definitely a cultural divide on whether rape during warfare is ok or not.

@mike805 That probably has less to do with culture and more to do with leadership.

@mike805 @freemo @RodneyPetersonTalent depends when a ‘person’ starts to exist. Ironically in the Bible it is at birth

@DaveFernig

Thats a complete non point for me and I think it only came up as a question at all to make a vain argument for abortion. While I do support abortion I dont think "when a human exists" is a meaningful or even useful question. The only question to ask is "When does this creature have thought, feelings, and can suffer or have desires" As long as the baby is capable of thought on any level IMO it is wrong.

@mike805 @RodneyPetersonTalent

@freemo @mike805 @RodneyPetersonTalent the other side of the coin is we know for sure the mother is sentient and her health mental and physical looms large in this equation