Post Reply
Page 5 of 57  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 57 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The reason for all animal cruelty and killing by humans
7 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2008 - 8:05AM #41
SkyWalker53
Posts: 2,235
[QUOTE=bluehorserunning;367197]That's an interesting idea; I'm not a daoist, and do not believe in the existence of separate male and female energies any more than I believe in gods.  I think I see what your point is, but I get incredibly frustrated with the idea that 'all women are imbued with female energy and are therefore x in personality, and all men are imbued with male energy and are therefore y in personality.' If you do want to think of it in terms of separate energies, we are all made up of a mixture of the two, male and female alike; males in general tend to have more of one type, females of another, but like our physical heights saying 'men are taller than women' is a gross oversimplification and leaves tall women and short men feeling like mutants.

Essentialism traps people in stereotyped roles whether they are actually suited for it or not.  I believe that there are people who thrive as homemakers; most of them are women, but some of them are men.  I believe also that there are people who thrive on the adversity of courtroom litigation; again, most of them are men, but some of them are women.  Neither role is inherently evil.  Both roles are 'unbalanced,' if you want to see them that way, but that's not necessarily a bad thing; what's bad is that (currently) the roles that men tend to thrive in are generally better paying and therefore confer more power.

People say that H. Clinton is being too masculine, that she's a B****, etc - but that's simply what a person has to do to survive in politics.  She's a good politician.  Why is a woman who enters a man's field, and does it well, seen as somehow twisted, 'unfeminine,' or aberant? 

Why is a man who talks about unity, diplomacy, and reconciliation seen as wimpy or 'unmasculine'? 

Forget rebuilding the world; why can't we just let people be who they are without telling them who they should be?  Men, at least, are assumed to be chosing homemaking due to their own natural preference when they go that way; why are women who choose the courtroom, the boxing ring, or the corporation seen as some sort of latter-day gold diggers trying to 'pass' as men?
(this can work to the male homemaker's disadvantage, to the extent that an observer feels that an essentially caretaking male is somehow a lower life form).[/QUOTE]

Science BH, you have completely left out science. There are biological hormones at play that powerfully affect our behavior. This is why the vast majority of all violence is of the male gender. It's not complicated and it has nothing to do with yin and yang "mystical energies". This entire society was created by the dominant (dominating) male gender, therefore it's constructs are violent, exploitative, competitive rather than cooperative. Males, due to the hormones affect on the brain, given the opportunity, seek to dominate anything 'weaker' (women, animals, other males).

Women in power are still caught within the confines of a male gender society, which I agree with mm, will have to be torn down and started over for this to change. We all want to see an end to violence, but that will not occur in THIS society which has it's origins in male gender violence and exploitation. Our species has lived for millions of years with the male gender controlling and dominating the female gender. Now imagine what could change if that dynamic were changed.

Biologically, the human female is not a war monger or inclined to violence, killing animals or humans. The females of all Great Apes are cooperative and possess the most empathy biologically. That is the human potential that has been subdued for millions of years overshadowed by the dominance of the male gender.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2008 - 10:30AM #42
Hmmmmmmm
Posts: 722
[QUOTE=SkyWalker53;367334]Science BH, you have completely left out science. There are biological hormones at play that powerfully affect our behavior. This is why the vast majority of all violence is of the male gender. It's not complicated and it has nothing to do with yin and yang "mystical energies". This entire society was created by the dominant (dominating) male gender, therefore it's constructs are violent, exploitative, competitive rather than cooperative. Males, due to the hormones affect on the brain, given the opportunity, seek to dominate anything 'weaker' (women, animals, other males).

Women in power are still caught within the confines of a male gender society, which I agree with mm, will have to be torn down and started over for this to change. We all want to see an end to violence, but that will not occur in THIS society which has it's origins in male gender violence and exploitation. Our species has lived for millions of years with the male gender controlling and dominating the female gender. Now imagine what could change if that dynamic were changed.

Biologically, the human female is not a war monger or inclined to violence, killing animals or humans. The females of all Great Apes are cooperative and possess the most empathy biologically. That is the human potential that has been subdued for millions of years overshadowed by the dominance of the male gender.[/QUOTE]

skywalker, what exactly do you think should be done to rectify the situation?
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2008 - 1:00PM #43
Gandalf_Parker
Posts: 1,188
[QUOTE=SkyWalker53;365713]you know what I love about the truth...it doesn't matter how you present it, it's still the truth.[/QUOTE]
It depends on your purpose. It can be used as a bait or branished like a club. Which one depend on if you want to bring people closer to the subject or make them pull away from it. But from what Ive seen it appears that the college age crowd rather likes the use-it-like-a-weapon approach. That can be effective when done in mass but its not so effective for creating the mass.

Gandalf  Parker
--
You dont get the birds to come closer by throwing the whole loaf of bread at them at once.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2008 - 4:06PM #44
solfeggio
Posts: 9,191
Ah, but Gandalf, which people are you talking about?  Are you referring to an educated group who would understand your references?  Or, are you aiming at the 'joe-sixpack' crowd whose basic feeling about cattle is that they can be used to make hamburgers?  Or, maybe, the people in-between, such as those thoughtful folk who are looking for answers and ready for a change?

Using the truth as a weapon?  I'm not sure to what you refer here.  You'll have to enlighten us.

Anyway, yes, of course the truth can be one thing to one person and another thing to someone else.  It is hard to pin it down unless you can find some common ground.

Where the rights of nonhumans are concerned, the ARA people are simply trying to bring out the fact that, if we take it as a given that sentient beings can feel pain and can suffer just like humans and, if we can also take it as a given that we as humans have a moral responsibility not to cause unnecessary suffering, then we should not do harm to the animals.

This would be a truism, then, wouldn't it?  We do have systems of moral theory, don't we?

We can get very basic, and realise that the truly just person does the right thing simply because he knows it is the right thing.  By the same token, we humans avoid doing the right thing because it is too painful.  We allow the suffering of animals because we cannot be bothered to endure the inconvenience helping them would require.

On the other hand, we might agree with Schopenhauer that our instincts direct every living being, human and nonhuman, and there is no more to life than the urge to satisfy our desires.  Nevertheless, this means that different wills will inevitably come into conflict, producing suffering for somebody, either human or nonhuman.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2008 - 5:06PM #45
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754
[QUOTE=SkyWalker53;367317]I can't believe it, mm really gets it!.... and BH is still caught up in her subjective image of herself.[/QUOTE]

yes, sky - you understand me so much better than I understand myslef.  Is that - what is it - level 10 empathy? reaching across the computer lines, now?  Will you offer to put the ghost of my great aunt Mary to rest for a mere 10K?

Why do you insist on repeatedly claiming that I deny that any general differences exist between the genders?

So, what's your problem, Sky?  Don't you know that you'll never be a true woman until you have four or five kids and spend 30 years of your life raising them?  Don't you know that birth control goes against your natural biological drive to procreate?  You're denying your essential feminine nature.  Bob Green is apparenly denying his natural masculine nature by not being a hunter and totally evil, but maybe you think that's ok since anything 'essentially masculine' is bad in your pov. 
Are you in line with that troll on the other thread, who thinks that Becca has testicles because she's 6' tall?  (or maybe Becca grew that tall to deliberately spite feminine stereotypes, too, and she's as much a  tool of the patriarcy as I supposedly am).

You must have been a queen bee in high school.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2008 - 5:10PM #46
solfeggio
Posts: 9,191
The ghost of your great-aunt Mary?  Just curious - but what's that all about?  Also, what is this American expression '10K'?
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2008 - 6:00PM #47
Gandalf_Parker
Posts: 1,188

solfeggio wrote:

Ah, but Gandalf, which people are you talking about?  Are you referring to an educated group who would understand your references?  Or, are you aiming at the 'joe-sixpack' crowd whose basic feeling about cattle is that they can be used to make hamburgers?  Or, maybe, the people in-between, such as those thoughtful folk who are looking for answers and ready for a change?


Well I think that most of my conversations tended to be with above average people. Meetings about animal management or humane missions involving large animal groups. My comments to SkyWalker were more geared to trying to get her to aim her comments more for the middle group. As far s joe-sixpack (cute reference) I luckily do not have to have many conversations in that territory.

Using the truth as a weapon?  I'm not sure to what you refer here.  You'll have to enlighten us.


Skywalker tends to use it like its a weapon. She bashes people with it. That isnt likely to create converts. Particularly when she bashes them with her "facts" that the other person is not ready to accept as facts yet.

Where the rights of nonhumans are concerned, the ARA people are simply trying to bring out the fact that, if we take it as a given that sentient beings can feel pain and can suffer just like humans and, if we can also take it as a given that we as humans have a moral responsibility not to cause unnecessary suffering, then we should not do harm to the animals.

This would be a truism, then, wouldn't it?  We do have systems of moral theory, don't we?

We can get very basic, and realise that the truly just person does the right thing simply because he knows it is the right thing.  By the same token, we humans avoid doing the right thing because it is too painful.  We allow the suffering of animals because we cannot be bothered to endure the inconvenience helping them would require.

On the other hand, we might agree with Schopenhauer that our instincts direct every living being, human and nonhuman, and there is no more to life than the urge to satisfy our desires.  Nevertheless, this means that different wills will inevitably come into conflict, producing suffering for somebody, either human or nonhuman.


So far it seems like I agree with you. Im all for avoiding suffering in animals. But I am druidic, and a meat eater, and have been involved in large animal management projects. For all of those reasons it would be a hard sell to get me all of the way to no-killing/no-eating. Im still trying to get a feel for whether or not that means that my presence in this forum is out of place. Im not one to try and push a forum in a direction that the regs or host do not feel is appropriate.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2008 - 6:12PM #48
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754
[QUOTE=solfeggio;368293]The ghost of your great-aunt Mary?  Just curious - but what's that all about?  Also, what is this American expression '10K'?[/QUOTE]

sky is claiming to be psychic.  Psychics are notorious for scams where they convince people that some restless ghost - or bad karma - or whatever - needs to be quieted with an infusion of cash (K= thousand; 10K implies $10 thousand).

Gandalf-
you're totally forgetting the part where sky fabricates better than half of her 'facts' from scratch.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2008 - 7:16PM #49
SkyWalker53
Posts: 2,235
[QUOTE=solfeggio;368185]Ah, but Gandalf, which people are you talking about?  Are you referring to an educated group who would understand your references?  Or, are you aiming at the 'joe-sixpack' crowd whose basic feeling about cattle is that they can be used to make hamburgers?  Or, maybe, the people in-between, such as those thoughtful folk who are looking for answers and ready for a change?

Using the truth as a weapon?  I'm not sure to what you refer here.  You'll have to enlighten us.

Anyway, yes, of course the truth can be one thing to one person and another thing to someone else.  It is hard to pin it down unless you can find some common ground.

Where the rights of nonhumans are concerned, the ARA people are simply trying to bring out the fact that, if we take it as a given that sentient beings can feel pain and can suffer just like humans and, if we can also take it as a given that we as humans have a moral responsibility not to cause unnecessary suffering, then we should not do harm to the animals.

This would be a truism, then, wouldn't it?  We do have systems of moral theory, don't we?

We can get very basic, and realise that the truly just person does the right thing simply because he knows it is the right thing.  By the same token, we humans avoid doing the right thing because it is too painful.  We allow the suffering of animals because we cannot be bothered to endure the inconvenience helping them would require.

On the other hand, we might agree with Schopenhauer that our instincts direct every living being, human and nonhuman, and there is no more to life than the urge to satisfy our desires.  Nevertheless, this means that different wills will inevitably come into conflict, producing suffering for somebody, either human or nonhuman.[/QUOTE]

Everything Solf said is spot on. And let me add, truth will always hit ignorant conditioned minds like a brick. Hence the expression, "shock me with the truth". Face it, animal cruelty is not something anyone wants to hear about and they don't want to know they are contributing to it with their consumerism.  They are already on the defensive, so you may as well let the truth hit the fan. The information about what humans do to animals is shocking, upsetting, and disturbing to say the least.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 19, 2008 - 7:23PM #50
SkyWalker53
Posts: 2,235
[QUOTE=bluehorserunning;368283]yes, sky - you understand me so much better than I understand myslef.  Is that - what is it - level 10 empathy? reaching across the computer lines, now?  Will you offer to put the ghost of my great aunt Mary to rest for a mere 10K?

Why do you insist on repeatedly claiming that I deny that any general differences exist between the genders?

So, what's your problem, Sky?  Don't you know that you'll never be a true woman until you have four or five kids and spend 30 years of your life raising them?  Don't you know that birth control goes against your natural biological drive to procreate?  You're denying your essential feminine nature.  Bob Green is apparenly denying his natural masculine nature by not being a hunter and totally evil, but maybe you think that's ok since anything 'essentially masculine' is bad in your pov. 
Are you in line with that troll on the other thread, who thinks that Becca has testicles because she's 6' tall?  (or maybe Becca grew that tall to deliberately spite feminine stereotypes, too, and she's as much a  tool of the patriarcy as I supposedly am).

You must have been a queen bee in high school.[/QUOTE]

I see you're still at it BH. You're still caught up in your self defensive image of yourself. You have an opportunity to understand both the origin and solution for violence in your species and you are self defensively tossing it off because you have been conditioned to think empathy and cooperation is weak (female); violence and domination are strong (male).
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 57  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 57 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook