@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 :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 @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 @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