"Wild animals never kill for sport. Man is the only one to whom the torture and death of his fellow creatures is amusing in itself." James Anthony Froud

"Nothing is easier than to denounce the evil doer; Nothing more difficult than understanding him." Fyodor Dostoevsky

Why is everyone so critical of "man?" Humans like to hunt because it is part of their natural instinct when they did it to survive. A hunter today is simply getting in touch with that instinct and practicing his skills. One day he may have to hunt for food again.

Also my cat kills from pure instinct even when she is not hungry. She is very amused as she stalks birds.

I wonder what the purpose of these kinds of statements about "man" and the human race is? Is it a guilt trip of some sort? Humans are so horrible. They don't deserve to live on this earth?

And yet animals hunt and kill and slaughter each other all the time, mindlessly, never thinking about compassion or cruelty.

I am thankful that humans are self aware and compassionate enough even think these things.

that sounds good but its not true

ever seen a cat play with a mouse?

wolves kill for fun and leave the carcass

run from a tiger and see what happens

The fact we still have the death penalty shows man's ignorance and dysfunction.

I'm aware of the distinction but even so we're far from equal. Society is built around inequality: you promote the person who is better, you put the best leader in charge, you cooperate with people who are most capable. Our lives aren't so stable that the entirety of your success as a person is up to you but it is still a generally good measure.

You could say that we're born equal but that's an even bigger mistake. The family you're born into has more sway over your potential as a person than anything we've talked about here. Being born rich is almost good enough to buy you tutors who will make sure you don't stay dumb while being born poor often means schooling where everyone proceeds just fast enough that the slowest numb skull will be able to keep up.

And I haven't even touched on how expectations shape a person.

No no no. Not expected. Hoped. I'm foolishly optimistic so I always maintain that people may act better than I predict. My predictions aren't wrong often enough that it's even worth acknowledging the exceptions but denying people an opportunity doesn't fit my moral code.

Actually cats "play with their food" because it takes the mouse a lot of energy to try to escape while it takes the cat almost no energy to sit there waiting and then just stop the mouse. There's at least one level of I-know-you-know going on so the cat also looks disinterested so the mouse can't tell if it's paying attention or not, which again makes it use up energy faster trying to escape.

This is handy because a mouse so thoroughly exhausted you'd think it was going to have a heart attack doesn't exactly have the energy to try and bite and claw at the cat as it goes to eat it.

We can see the same thing on a larger scale with some "primitive" human groups than hunt animals by just casually following them to catch them. Most animals have poor endurance, especially at the peak temperatures of the day. Humans on the other hand only run into problems of the same severity after more than a day without water.

Australian Aborigines actually use the technique to hunt cats.

Well, you seem to resort to playing SEMANTICS!
Is there a difference between "expected" and "Hoped"? After all, you state: "My predictions aren't wrong often enough that it's even worth acknowledging the exceptions... (-- Not Hopes!)
I may appreciate your "moral code".. But that doesn't mean I agree with your approach!

Well if I let knowing what people were going to do stop me from giving them a chance to do otherwise I might as well go on a killing spree.

But so as to not focus on me quite so much: why should I be nice when I know nice isn't going to get the message across?

Just be yourself and be honest. I don't care if you are not "being nice." Being nice can be dishonest and phony.

Just be respectful and honest.

Exactly! (i.e. be Diplomatic!!!)

"Maintaining your COOL" is the most powerful Argument!!!

Nevertheless, knowing when to concede your defeat, doesn't deminish your intellectual abilities, but -- on the contrary -- raises your authority in the community...

P.S. Always double-check your message for typos, ommitions, etc. -- they prevent your message from being interpretted as intended!!!

Odd that you'd tell me to behave as I have been.

To me it would be disrespectful to make my message easier to swallow by watering it down as if you were children.

Shoku


Quite true, as I was attempting to point out in an earlier post.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, “men” have built tools, equipment, & machinery to suit the physical needs of men.

Obviously, most women, have mechanical difficulties using this equipment. This same mind set has continually pervaded even in the medical field.

Case in point – Propecha, for male pattern baldness. Before being ‘completely’ tested it was marketed. At one point questions of safety involving women who might become pregnant or who were pregnant were “Warned” not to even touch one of the pills.

Further testing of the pill indicated that its ingredients might affect the development of the penis of a male fetus. But it was more important to ‘relieve’ male pattern baldness, and put the responsibility on women, than it was to take it off the market. (and women accepted that responsibility – anyone care to guess why?)

Of course more tests indicated that there was no risk of women handling the pills - but it never came off the market.



I have a better suggestion – Attempt to even define ‘racism’. I think that might be more reflective of the idea you are trying to get across.

Something I might object to is your use of “cultural views.” The one and only thing that binds a nation of people are imagined values, which can swiftly change through the use of propaganda – specifically from the upper levels of elitists, politicians, and high priced mass marketing campaigns. So "culture" with regards to a whole society, exists only on the basis of the most successful propaganda.

We are a society inundated with sub-cultures and even they have levels.

Basically, the greatest cultural divide in the world is the one that exists between the sexes.



I think you may need to revisit your statements above, especially with regards to your last sentence. I don’t see the point you are trying to make. Is the meaning of “we” referring only to specific people and specific reasons or are you, in fact, making class & gender distinctions?



On a human level even ethically, equality is limited only to specific needs and the expectations which follow the fulfillment of those needs. As Stokely Carmichael pointed out in the late 1960's - we don't need laws to tell us we are 'free', all people are born free, we only need laws to remind those who forgot. Freedom cannot be given - it can only be denied.

Feminism was never about “Equality” – it has always been about “choice” and the freedom to make choices on an equal level with regards to gender.

Since the modern feminist movement began (early 20th century)many philosophers - often women - have pointed out the 'hidden' factors which oppress women in almost all societies. One of the most profound factors which prohibit the realization of feminism is the very language we all speak.

I agree except for one thing:
"Feminism was never about “Equality” "

That's exactly what it was about when women were burning their bras and such. It was a huge mistake but hopefully people have learned from it.

To be exact, it was/is about "Equal pay for the equal work"!

They thought they could just get that and then the differences would fade away once they made as much money. Most of the significant ones probably would if we no longer had any bias for whether men or women supported household bank accounts but the equal pay thing turns out to be something you'd have to flat out enforce for a few generations to keep it from sliding back.

Actually burning the bra was symbolic of removing the shackles "that bind" freedom was the point - Women KNEW they were equal- it was men who denied it. That was the point of bringing up Stokely Carmichael idea as related to the freedom of Black People.

Forcing inequality is about limiting people's choices. In essence inequality is about the 'denial' of freedom of choice, the denial of rights. Women have not chosen to go into the workforce with unequal pay - that was a condition which was applied by men.

There is absolutely no doubt that thousands of articles written about the feminist movement will portray the movement as being about equality. Here we must define what ‘equality’ means. What conditions exist under which ‘equality’ is a natural state? If, for example, we use physique to demonstrate a natural inequality between men and women, then we must ask the question – in what way does a man’s physique give him greater status OVER a woman?

I know a great number of naturally effeminate men and at lease as great a number of very butch women.

The truth is, when it comes to the differences between the sexes the greatest difference is the imagined superiority of men over women.

Throughout my life men and some women will immediately take offence at this kind of conversation. The very act of pointing out the disparity between the imagined differences and the real ones is automatically considered “anti-male” or “man-hater” words. This is simply not true, what stimulates the offensive reflexive is the threat to male dominance contained within facts of the matter.

When any battle is fought in the name of equality, it is a battle against the oppression of freedom.
If women are not paid for their work on an equitable scale to men, it is not because of a “naturally occurring” inequality, it is because men have not ‘given’ women the same freedom to hold the same job for the same pay.

Just because females have not declared an open state of war on half of humanity, (men) doesn’t mean they have accepted their role as inferior to men in any way. Both sexes know such a war would be ridiculous, but while women understand that we are social creatures and will have to find a way to get along as we proceed side-by-side, men, on the other hand, take the lack of aggression as the feminine concession to the inferior nature of their sex.

In the end women fight – not for the equality they know exists but, for the same freedom of choice with the expectation of similar outcomes to those of men.

Very well put.

I always struggle trying to explain that women do not want to be men. We love being women, we just want to be considered equal at the human level to men. Which like Redy said, is the same choices with the same possibility of results.

Just to play the Devil's Avocate here...

Shouldn't (for example) an employer have the freedom to choose whomever he wants for a particular job and/or pay them whatever he wants to pay them? If we force him into paying someone more (or even less for that matter) than he wants, aren't we then forcibly impinging on his "freedom of choice"?

<ducking and covering>