Is killing a human being...

[Portillo]

Don't try and shift the burden of proof to me. You're the one who needs to prove that there is a difference and why we should value philosophy and or the internet.[technology]

Go shift yourself. What Im saying is that man has advanced dramatically on this earth. He and she has accumulated knowledge, technology and science. Yet, many people believe that humans are no more evolved than pondscum. Is there some confusion here?

 

[hiphophippy]

Go shift yourself. What Im saying is that man has advanced dramatically on this earth. He and she has accumulated knowledge, technology and science. Yet, many people believe that humans are no more evolved than pondscum. Is there some confusion here?

Physiological/biological difference? Yes. Requisition of knowledge and technology separate from genetic engineering hardly had to do with genetics, in all reality they probably are the biggest contributors to the devolution of the human race.
You've failed to explain Why that is relevant at all.

 

[Portillo]

Ive tried to explain it. Your just acting like a douchebag.

 

[Biovail]

Exactly. And now we know you know this, and everyone else should know this as well and then we can maybe stop having this argument trying to hide self-preservation/greed under the guise of some form of ethics/morality derived from the "inherent" qualities of the universe.

I said this 2 pages ago and my post was ignored. But anyway..

Go shift yourself. What Im saying is that man has advanced dramatically on this earth. He and she has accumulated knowledge, technology and science. Yet, many people believe that humans are no more evolved than pondscum. Is there some confusion here?

No, the problem is that people are stuck in the definition of "meaning". When most people say meaning, it implies intent to some extent. Nature has no intent. It just is. This is called nihilism and is a rather difficult (read: impossible) viewpoint form which to discuss the meaning of life.

 

[qwe]

Physiological/biological difference? Yes. Requisition of knowledge and technology separate from genetic engineering hardly had to do with genetics, in all reality they probably are the biggest contributors to the devolution of the human race.
You've failed to explain Why that is relevant at all.

the controversial study of psychohistory gives evidence that the human mind, only a couple thousand years ago, was entirely different than it is today. the farther back in time you go, the larger proportion of people have what we would today diagnose mental illness.

wisdom evolves on itself, we can trace the evolution of language. this isn't genetic change, only now (in this century) are we able to consciously direct our genetic evolution.

our minds changed, increased in sophistication/complexity and wisdom, along with the technology we produced, in a self-perpetuating upward cycle.

pondscum has become capable of recognizing what pondscum is, and changing the very nature of pondscum. pondscum has become capable of manipulating pain and pleasure... it's up to us to make the world a better place.

technology isn't devolution, and shouldn't be feared (unless those stuck with a frozen philosophy back in time, e.g. fundamentalists, gain control of that technology; then we're rather fucked, prophecies aren't the best way to decide whether to press the nuke button).

religion the bible makes a little bit more sense now, doesn't it early humans were literally psychotic by today's standards, which makes sense considering they lived in entirely different conditions and had yet to start accumulating (with accelerating return) what we today call wisdom/knowledge. it's all part of a pattern of accelerating growth. we have evolved mentally and spiritually, rather than devolved. so has our technology, which is just as much a part of humanity as our limbs...

 

[hiphophippy]

the controversial study of psychohistory gives evidence that the human mind, only a couple thousand years ago, was entirely different than it is today. the farther back in time you go, the larger proportion of people have what we would today diagnose mental illness.

wisdom evolves on itself, we can trace the evolution of language. this isn't genetic change, only now (in this century) are we able to consciously direct our genetic evolution.

our minds changed, increased in sophistication/complexity and wisdom, along with the technology we produced, in a self-perpetuating upward cycle.

pondscum has become capable of recognizing what pondscum is, and changing the very nature of pondscum. pondscum has become capable of manipulating pain and pleasure... it's up to us to make the world a better place.

technology isn't devolution, and shouldn't be feared (unless those stuck with a frozen philosophy back in time, e.g. fundamentalists, gain control of that technology; then we're rather fucked, prophecies aren't the best way to decide whether to press the nuke button).

religion the bible makes a little bit more sense now, doesn't it early humans were literally psychotic by today's standards, which makes sense considering they lived in entirely different conditions and had yet to start accumulating (with accelerating return) what we today call wisdom/knowledge. it's all part of a pattern of accelerating growth. we have evolved mentally and spiritually, rather than devolved. so has our technology, which is just as much a part of humanity as our limbs...

I'm not saying that technology makes people stupid or knowledge. I'm just an advocate of loose eugenics as I'll call it. Definitely things like population control ect. I'm not making a statement about technology like that at all.

I simply like people to break away from objective morality, I see it as a critical step in humanities future. I've personally decided that human evolution in a way that we can develop and implement new technology and culture is a good thing. But it's a personal decision that I generated and understand to it's axioms. It is not a set of shoulds and should nots. Morality especially in it's objective form is a ridiculously ludicrous system that is one of many left over brainfarts of ancient consciousness.
To many people are focused on understanding human consciousness when it is not something anyone can understand, it's something that can only be overstood. And when someone overstands it it can or cannot make the world a better place.

If you've ever been around a group of people who overstand that ethics and morality are bullshit constructs that people used to deceive themselves into thinking that their objectified opinion isn't an act of selfish self righteousness you'd probably know it's pretty damn great. Especially if you're trying to get something done.


"Ive tried to explain it. Your just acting like a douchebag."

I've asked you why man. That's pretty much the most important question in philosophy, if you can't break your shit down to the axioms then well maybe you need to think about it more or if you can't take being asked why perhaps you should find something else to do with your time.

 

[Biovail]

I'm not saying that technology makes people stupid or knowledge. I'm just an advocate of loose eugenics as I'll call it. Definitely things like population control ect. I'm not making a statement about technology like that at all.

I simply like people to break away from objective morality, I see it as a critical step in humanities future. I've personally decided that human evolution in a way that we can develop and implement new technology and culture is a good thing. But it's a personal decision that I generated and understand to it's axioms. It is not a set of shoulds and should nots. Morality especially in it's objective form is a ridiculously ludicrous system that is one of many left over brainfarts of ancient consciousness.
To many people are focused on understanding human consciousness when it is not something anyone can understand, it's something that can only be overstood. And when someone overstands it it can or cannot make the world a better place.

If you've ever been around a group of people who overstand that ethics and morality are bullshit constructs that people used to deceive themselves into thinking that their objectified opinion isn't an act of selfish self righteousness you'd probably know it's pretty damn great. Especially if you're trying to get something done.


"Ive tried to explain it. Your just acting like a douchebag."

I've asked you why man. That's pretty much the most important question in philosophy, if you can't break your shit down to the axioms then well maybe you need to think about it more or if you can't take being asked why perhaps you should find something else to do with your time.

This works great if you're the only person on earth. But following what you've said thus far, I don't see how any of this would work for a group of people. You can't have a functioning society unless they all agree with/believe in some set of common morals. It seems like you're suggesting that everybody live for themselves because that aligns with evolution. But that isn't the case. Morals exist in the first place because they are beneficial to society. Morals allow people to work together, which is when society thrives.

I agree that many morals people live by today are outdated and many could be improved on or forgotten. But all you've been doing so far is ranting about shit currently doesn't work.

 

[nAON]

the controversial study of psychohistory gives evidence that the human mind, only a couple thousand years ago, was entirely different than it is today. the farther back in time you go, the larger proportion of people have what we would today diagnose mental illness.

wisdom evolves on itself, we can trace the evolution of language. this isn't genetic change, only now (in this century) are we able to consciously direct our genetic evolution.

our minds changed, increased in sophistication/complexity and wisdom, along with the technology we produced, in a self-perpetuating upward cycle.

pondscum has become capable of recognizing what pondscum is, and changing the very nature of pondscum. pondscum has become capable of manipulating pain and pleasure... it's up to us to make the world a better place.

technology isn't devolution, and shouldn't be feared (unless those stuck with a frozen philosophy back in time, e.g. fundamentalists, gain control of that technology; then we're rather fucked, prophecies aren't the best way to decide whether to press the nuke button).

religion the bible makes a little bit more sense now, doesn't it early humans were literally psychotic by today's standards, which makes sense considering they lived in entirely different conditions and had yet to start accumulating (with accelerating return) what we today call wisdom/knowledge. it's all part of a pattern of accelerating growth. we have evolved mentally and spiritually, rather than devolved. so has our technology, which is just as much a part of humanity as our limbs...

It's an interesting enough area of study.. but how do examine the psychology of someone who is long dead? And even if you could, how could you analyse all the social norms and constructs of that time, to see in what context their minds worked?

 

[panic in paradise]

theres different kinds of animals and animal conscious experiences. There are reptiles who have very patterned behaviors that have been very effective at survival, who knows if they "feel" jack shit. I would think mammals have a way more social and emotional experience of life. I'm just a jackass though.

I think killing a cockroach would be very different than killing a human being. The biggest difference is what and how you kill the thing, and the other being what is being destroyed as far as conscious experience.

I think the reptilian behavior you are trying to identify is adaptability, reptiles arent necessarily cruel...Neither are rodents but some of us have a phobia of them.
_________

There is less of a relation to a roach or another animal on an intellectual or emotional level so it is easy to feel their existence and presence in our life has little or no value and have no real emotion themselves so they are of lesser value in the world. Where do we get our morals, morals are derived from ones ethics, which are in great part based on knowledge gained through experience and how that experience is processed, and related to our surroundings. Although the relations we build with animals and inanimate objects can become as powerful as those for another human life, it is easy to begin holding onto or hoard possessions because of the relation established with them due to a lost 'sense of identity', or "ego", looking for somewhere to attach itself.

Why do we feel more of a relationship with other species?

Why do some feel more of a relationship with us?

Id guess because of their intellect and sense of and display of emotion, the temperament of domesticated animals is what I am trying to say, this interests me very much considering reincarnation.

Here is an attempt to count and add up all the animal species amongst us ;-) I feel very strongly that we are not here to judge their place but to with our particular mental ability as humans to help create a more harmonious & balanced life for the rest of us.

Animals: estimated 3-30 million species
|
|--Invertebrates: 97% of all known species
| `--+--Sponges: 10,000 species
| |--Cnidarians: 8,000-9,000 species
| |--Molluscs: 100,000 species
| |--Platyhelminths: 13,000 species
| |--Nematodes: 20,000+ species
| |--Annelida: 12,000 species
| `--Arthropods
| `--+--Crustaceans: 40,000 species
| |--Insects: 1-30 million+ species
| `--Arachnids: 75,500 species
|
`--Vertebrates: 3% of all known species
`--+--Reptiles: 7,984 species
|--Amphibians: 5,400 species
|--Birds: 9,000-10,000 species
|--Mammals: 4,475-5,000 species
`--Ray-Finned Fishes: 23,500 species
::source::

Australia has a lot of critters, not sure what this means.

 

[rickolasnice]

If you didn't kill life how would you live? Who here eats vegetables, fruit or meat? Who here takes anti-biotics?

I believe that the more intelligent the animal / life form (including plants and humans) the more life it has.

Are some people honestly saying that if you HAD to kill either a cockroach or a person you'd struggle with the choice?

 

[hiphophippy]

If you didn't kill life how would you live? Who here eats vegetables, fruit or meat? Who here takes anti-biotics?

I believe that the more intelligent the animal / life form (including plants and humans) the more life it has.

Are some people honestly saying that if you HAD to kill either a cockroach or a person you'd struggle with the choice?

I'd probably kill the person, it would be easier.

 

[Paulymorphone]

This may be somewhat askew from the topic at hand, but I think any person should have the right to end their life if they want to...not as a result of a temporary emotional pain but of a long term desire to no longer live. I don't think euthanasia should solely be available for people with debilitating terminal illness. This is kind of sad....but I'm so addicted to opiates that I don't want to live without them. Does anyone else think that suicide should be someones own right, and not prevented by everyone whenever you try to end it. in Hong Kong, due to the large number of tall buildings and easy roof access, the majority of suicides there are from jumping off buildings, however in the US, theres only like a 2% rate of that, and 50sopmething percent of suicides are by firearms, aka guns. I met a guy who shot himself in the head and lived, no brain damage either, just a raspy voice from the damage he did.

 

[Paulymorphone]

Oh on another note, there is one person in my life I have fantasized about killing many times. My father's cunt of a wife. They are totally miserable together, but they're so financially invested and getting older that I think it's just convenient for them to remain together. I havent spoken to her since 2006, and I haven't seen my father for a few years, no holidays or anything. When I talk to him on the phone he always says he will come visit soon, but it's just an empty false promise. Killing his wife would be too kind for her however, id like to fire blanks into her head and then kick her in the face, she deserves the miserable life she and my father share....death would be too kind.

 

[panic in paradise]

I'd probably kill the person, it would be easier.

"Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.“
.... Jesus said.

Luke 9:58

 

[freddy47]

Ive tried to explain it. Your just acting like a douchebag.

Looks like someone can't handle the hard questions 8)

 

[hiphophippy]

"Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.“
.... Jesus said.

Luke 9:58

Actuallly I think he probably said something like this "Neden herkes sadece rahatlamak değil mi? Allah bir, ne yaparım ne umursamıyor" which was written down and translated a few hundred years later to this "Cur non quisque iustus relaxat? Deus est unus, quid mihi de" and or this "Γιατί δεν καθένας απλά να χαλαρώσετε; Ο Θεός είναι ένας, ό, τι μου έξω από το" then this "Warum kann nicht jeder einfach nur entspannen? Gott ist eins, alles, was außerhalb meiner"
then probbably to this "¿Por qué no todos pueden simplemente relajarse? Dios es uno, fuera de todo lo que mi" and kind of finally to English.

 

[panic in paradise]

Actuallly I think he probably said something like this "Neden herkes sadece rahatlamak değil mi? Allah bir, ne yaparım ne umursamıyor" which was written down and translated a few hundred years later to this "Cur non quisque iustus relaxat? Deus est unus, quid mihi de" and or this "Γιατί δεν καθένας απλά να χαλαρώσετε; Ο Θεός είναι ένας, ό, τι μου έξω από το" then this "Warum kann nicht jeder einfach nur entspannen? Gott ist eins, alles, was außerhalb meiner"
then probbably to this "¿Por qué no todos pueden simplemente relajarse? Dios es uno, fuera de todo lo que mi" and kind of finally to English.

... I think youre right!

šumma awīlum
īn mār awīlim
uḫtappid
īn šu
uḫappadû

English

If a man
the eye of a son of man
destroys
eye his
they will destroy.

 

[Foreigner]

No... killing a human is no different than killing anything else. Humans place too much importance on their existence, or too little. The planet, and the universe, do not blink when a human dies. That doesn't mean you aren't supported and loved. It means your ego is not part of the equation.

There are no real hierarchies in the universe, which means ladders of importance are irrelevant ego constructs.

 

[hiphophippy]

No... killing a human is no different than killing anything else. Humans place too much importance on their existence, or too little. The planet, and the universe, do not blink when a human dies. That doesn't mean you aren't supported and loved. It means your ego is not part of the equation.

There are no real hierarchies in the universe, which means ladders of importance are irrelevant ego constructs.

Claps

 

[Portillo]

Looks like someone can't handle the hard questions 8)

No I just didnt like the way he responded.