3 ms·

>By your own standard, you don't deserve to live. Correct. This is something I say myself in the comment, if you bothered to read carefully. >You condemn Wash

>By your own standard, you don't deserve to live. Correct. This is something I say myself in the comment, if you bothered to read carefully. >You condemn Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Truman, because they killed people. And then you come out with the above sentence. You're a bit self-inconsistent here. False. I don't condemn any of those people (not because they killed anyway), I point out your own hypocrisy, and that of most people, when they worship those mass killers, and oppose Ted because he killed 3 people. >Kaczynski didn't deserve to live, because he didn't kill nearly enough people. Because he was stopped short, and because he, like many of us, had delusions of convincing people peacefully. >Eagles. Cats. Whales. Seals. Snakes. They all do this. They kill their own number 7 times per year ? I call bullshit. And if it's true, it doesn't change anything.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> I point out your own hypocrisy, and that of most people, when they worship those mass killers You're sure free to tell me what I think. You should stop, because you're not very good at it. > They kill their own number 7 times per year ? I call bullshit. You don't think a cat kills 7 birds and/or rodents a year? They've put cameras on cats' collars. They're far more deadly than just 7 kills a year. You don't think a seal eats 7 fish a year? I don't have research from seal cameras, but I'd be astonished if they ate that little. And most of all, you don't think a whale eats 7 plankton a year? Or do plankton not count? > And if it's true, it doesn't change anything. It destroys your statement that "There is no species on earth that kills its own number 7x+ times each year." And it destroys the logic that depends on it. So, you think killing animals is immoral, and you want to kill all the humans (except perhaps the Jains) because they kill animals. So, what are you going to do? Kill all the eagles because they eat fish and rabbits? Kill all the seals because they eat fish? Kill all the Venus Flytraps because they eat flies? Kill all the whales because they eat plankton? I don't see any possible way for you to have a consistent position here. I'm done with this conversation. I leave you the last word, if you want it.
- Banana699 4y ago
  >You're sure free to tell me what I think You mean you don't view any of those 3 people I mentioned as heros? Ok, This still doesn't change anything, unless you're radically anti war in a way very few people are, there is someone you idol who killed far far more than Ted can ever dream of. >You don't think a cat kills 7 birds and/or rodents a year I concede this point, see my reply to your sister comment for why its just a bad phrasing of what I meant to say. I give an alternative phrasing there that better makes my point about why humans are uniquely evil. >It destroys your statement that ... But doesn't make a difference beyond that. >I don't see any possible way for you to have a consistent position here Here is a very consistent position for you : I want to destroy all sentient life or remove sentience from it, whichever is easier\faster. Failing the ideal goal of doing that to all life, a lesser goal is to do it to all humans, because : (1) they are my own species, their evil and immorality is more my responsibility than the evil or immorality of other species. (2) they have the tools and awareness to be not evil and moral, unlike most animals, and yet choose evil and immorality. (3) their number and power are unparalleled and far beyond anything on earth now, so their evil and immorality is a huge proportion of all evil and immorality.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    And so another suicidal terrorist sect will be born. I am flabbergasted that you lack the selfawareness to realise you are part of the very evil you decry. Not in the suicidal way, thinking that you need to be destroyed allong with all others, but in the way that instead of choosing to oppose evil, you choose evil and then claim that evil is inevitable, and then complain noone is opposing evil. I confess I also sometimes lose faith in humanity and my own powerlessness to change things at a sistematic level. And in those times I basically think that "Thanos was right" but if I were ever given that kind of unlimited power i would probably rather use it to make the problems be nonissues rather than erase sentience. Destruction often feels easier to achieve, yet once one has the power to achieve destructive effects at a certain scale, nondestructive effects at the same scale are equally achievable. You are at the very small scale of murder (individual action) and proselitising murder (convincing others). At that same scale you can attempt any other individual action and attempt to convince others of anything else.
tsimionescu 4y ago
> They kill their own number 7 times per year ? I call bullshit. You think an eagle can live for a whole year while eating less than 7 other animals? If not, then there's a simple calculation: if each eagle in the world survives for at least 1 year, and each eagle needs to kill 7+ other animals to live for that 1 year, then all the world's eagles combined must kill 7+x their numbers every year. Not to mention that a blue whale gobbles up hundreds of millions of other organisms every time it feeds.
- Banana699 4y ago
  It was a mistake to phrase this in relative terms. Here's another, better, formulation : while non-human animals kill n times their number per year, their number isn't 8 billion. So the total damage done is far far less than humans, enough to deserve a qualitatively different view. And while non-human carnivorous animals kill their prey purely by hunting, which is 'fair' and limited in a sense, humans kill animals by cowardly and genocidely herding them and breeding them to be docile. This scales far more horribly : a predator can't kill a certain percentage of its prey before it becomes hard to find a prey, reversing the trend, while humans can simply breed more prey and use horrible industrial farming techniques to kill far more than any predator species, with 0 risk or consequences. And while obligatory carnivores like eagles or whales literally can't survive without killing their prey, humans are equal parts carnivores and herbivores, we can survive equally well on plant diet and non-meat animal produce. We choose to kill for no reason but pleasure.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    Cats are the most active hunters for pleasure doing so far more often than humans. I am not even entirely sure that herding is uniquely human.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

> I point out your own hypocrisy, and that of most people, when they worship those mass killers You're sure free to tell me what I think. You should stop, because you're not very good at it. > They kill their own number 7 times per year ? I call bullshit. You don't think a cat kills 7 birds and/or rodents a year? They've put cameras on cats' collars. They're far more deadly than just 7 kills a year. You don't think a seal eats 7 fish a year? I don't have research from seal cameras, but I'd be astonished if they ate that little. And most of all, you don't think a whale eats 7 plankton a year? Or do plankton not count? > And if it's true, it doesn't change anything. It destroys your statement that "There is no species on earth that kills its own number 7x+ times each year." And it destroys the logic that depends on it. So, you think killing animals is immoral, and you want to kill all the humans (except perhaps the Jains) because they kill animals. So, what are you going to do? Kill all the eagles because they eat fish and rabbits? Kill all the seals because they eat fish? Kill all the Venus Flytraps because they eat flies? Kill all the whales because they eat plankton? I don't see any possible way for you to have a consistent position here. I'm done with this conversation. I leave you the last word, if you want it.

Banana699 4y ago
>You're sure free to tell me what I think You mean you don't view any of those 3 people I mentioned as heros? Ok, This still doesn't change anything, unless you're radically anti war in a way very few people are, there is someone you idol who killed far far more than Ted can ever dream of. >You don't think a cat kills 7 birds and/or rodents a year I concede this point, see my reply to your sister comment for why its just a bad phrasing of what I meant to say. I give an alternative phrasing there that better makes my point about why humans are uniquely evil. >It destroys your statement that ... But doesn't make a difference beyond that. >I don't see any possible way for you to have a consistent position here Here is a very consistent position for you : I want to destroy all sentient life or remove sentience from it, whichever is easier\faster. Failing the ideal goal of doing that to all life, a lesser goal is to do it to all humans, because : (1) they are my own species, their evil and immorality is more my responsibility than the evil or immorality of other species. (2) they have the tools and awareness to be not evil and moral, unlike most animals, and yet choose evil and immorality. (3) their number and power are unparalleled and far beyond anything on earth now, so their evil and immorality is a huge proportion of all evil and immorality.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  And so another suicidal terrorist sect will be born. I am flabbergasted that you lack the selfawareness to realise you are part of the very evil you decry. Not in the suicidal way, thinking that you need to be destroyed allong with all others, but in the way that instead of choosing to oppose evil, you choose evil and then claim that evil is inevitable, and then complain noone is opposing evil. I confess I also sometimes lose faith in humanity and my own powerlessness to change things at a sistematic level. And in those times I basically think that "Thanos was right" but if I were ever given that kind of unlimited power i would probably rather use it to make the problems be nonissues rather than erase sentience. Destruction often feels easier to achieve, yet once one has the power to achieve destructive effects at a certain scale, nondestructive effects at the same scale are equally achievable. You are at the very small scale of murder (individual action) and proselitising murder (convincing others). At that same scale you can attempt any other individual action and attempt to convince others of anything else.

tsimionescu 4y ago

> They kill their own number 7 times per year ? I call bullshit. You think an eagle can live for a whole year while eating less than 7 other animals? If not, then there's a simple calculation: if each eagle in the world survives for at least 1 year, and each eagle needs to kill 7+ other animals to live for that 1 year, then all the world's eagles combined must kill 7+x their numbers every year. Not to mention that a blue whale gobbles up hundreds of millions of other organisms every time it feeds.

Banana699 4y ago
It was a mistake to phrase this in relative terms. Here's another, better, formulation : while non-human animals kill n times their number per year, their number isn't 8 billion. So the total damage done is far far less than humans, enough to deserve a qualitatively different view. And while non-human carnivorous animals kill their prey purely by hunting, which is 'fair' and limited in a sense, humans kill animals by cowardly and genocidely herding them and breeding them to be docile. This scales far more horribly : a predator can't kill a certain percentage of its prey before it becomes hard to find a prey, reversing the trend, while humans can simply breed more prey and use horrible industrial farming techniques to kill far more than any predator species, with 0 risk or consequences. And while obligatory carnivores like eagles or whales literally can't survive without killing their prey, humans are equal parts carnivores and herbivores, we can survive equally well on plant diet and non-meat animal produce. We choose to kill for no reason but pleasure.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  Cats are the most active hunters for pleasure doing so far more often than humans. I am not even entirely sure that herding is uniquely human.