You may be referring to 'surplus killing' in some Mammalian behaviour. The idea though that the animal is killing for fun is anthromorphising its behaviour. Animals kill out of instinct, which is limited in any pragmatism. Most predators will kill based on the behaviour of its prey 'if it acts like prey I will kill it'. However, on the other hand I think It's silly to use the terms kill, murder and hunt the way animals do and apply it to humans. Animals don't really kill, they just live.... they don't live according to complex planning and typically live in limited social networks. The human who engages in the torture of animals is exhibiting psychopathology... as there is no logical reason for the behaviour, only a psychological one which is usually the product of mental retardation or their own past trauma. As pointed out before, those that engage in activities like high school shootings typically do so out of fear of their oppressors, 'they can't face the real bully so random people are easier targets'. In the case of the cat torture they can't face their own torturer so they will project their hatred onto the cat and obtain pleasure from causing it pain as they experienced pain.... the chain of trauma.What's wrong with racism? Logically speaking discrimination against perceived others is a biological imperative. Animals discriminate against their own species, take chimpanzees as an example, who are known to discriminate against and murder other chimpanzees. The problem that I see, is that you are divorced from logic and don't accept yourself as merely another form of animal.In the context of the genesis of the ONA if Myatt never grew up in Tanzania there may never had been an ONA....? Well not an ONA with a racist 'angle'....?
Sign In
Koetting and Incitement to Murder | Forum
ShovelFace
Mar 4 '22
ShovelFace
Mar 4 '22
You may be referring to 'surplus killing' in some Mammalian behaviour. The idea though that the animal is killing for fun is anthromorphising its behaviour. Animals kill out of instinct, which is limited in any pragmatism. Most predators will kill based on the behaviour of its prey 'if it acts like prey I will kill it'. However, on the other hand I think It's silly to use the terms kill, murder and hunt the way animals do and apply it to humans. Animals don't really kill, they just live.... they don't live according to complex planning and typically live in limited social networks. The human who engages in the torture of animals is exhibiting psychopathology... as there is no logical reason for the behaviour, only a psychological one which is usually the product of mental retardation or their own past trauma. As pointed out before, those that engage in activities like high school shootings typically do so out of fear of their oppressors, 'they can't face the real bully so random people are easier targets'. In the case of the cat torture they can't face their own torturer so they will project their hatred onto the cat and obtain pleasure from causing it pain as they experienced pain.... the chain of trauma.Why bring up the subject of school shootings when they make up such a small percentage of shootings in the USA? Why not explain to us why the concrete monkeys (niggers, shitskins, whatever you want to call them) are so much more predisposed to committing acts of violence?In the context of the genesis of the ONA if Myatt never grew up in Tanzania there may never had been an ONA....? Well not an ONA with a racist 'angle'....?
Are they more likely to be prone to psychopathy? If so, how is discrimination against them not a biological imperative?
The Forum post is edited by ShovelFace Mar 4 '22
Sabrina
Mar 5 '22
Thankyou for the reply and your long explanation, I appreciate it. The things you said does make sense, it's just one of those things for me that I'll have to keep entertaining it in my head and gain more insights until I can solidify it
I I disagree with your assertion that deviating from externally acquired moral standards is negative. In this world, where the vast majority of people adhere to such standards, what percentage of them live meaningful lives? Then you have to ask who defines what is meaningful, your masters for whom you conform, or you. What is meaningful is relative, just as morality is relative.I don't understand why do you label it as external and associate it with so much negative value. It's something I feel strongly about and happens to overlap with other people morals too. Not everything that is not antinomian is external or slave morality. And I don't mean deviating from the mainstream is negative at all. But yes you're right meaning is relative
Sabrina
Mar 5 '22
How do you know animals or chimpanzees are racist towards other chimpanzees? You're not providing any references. Even if they were, yes we are animals but we're an evolved form, we have achieved so much in technology and other aspects in our life through healthy competition. I don't think all this would be possible if we literally lived like animals and adopted animalistic values. I'm not disregarding that our instincts are animalistic, but what's the issue in living in a healthy evolved form of that? Correct me if I misunderstood what you were trying to say
You may be referring to 'surplus killing' in some Mammalian behaviour. The idea though that the animal is killing for fun is anthromorphising its behaviour. Animals kill out of instinct, which is limited in any pragmatism. Most predators will kill based on the behaviour of its prey 'if it acts like prey I will kill it'. However, on the other hand I think It's silly to use the terms kill, murder and hunt the way animals do and apply it to humans. Animals don't really kill, they just live.... they don't live according to complex planning and typically live in limited social networks. The human who engages in the torture of animals is exhibiting psychopathology... as there is no logical reason for the behaviour, only a psychological one which is usually the product of mental retardation or their own past trauma. As pointed out before, those that engage in activities like high school shootings typically do so out of fear of their oppressors, 'they can't face the real bully so random people are easier targets'. In the case of the cat torture they can't face their own torturer so they will project their hatred onto the cat and obtain pleasure from causing it pain as they experienced pain.... the chain of trauma.What's wrong with racism? Logically speaking discrimination against perceived others is a biological imperative. Animals discriminate against their own species, take chimpanzees as an example, who are known to discriminate against and murder other chimpanzees. The problem that I see, is that you are divorced from logic and don't accept yourself as merely another form of animal.In the context of the genesis of the ONA if Myatt never grew up in Tanzania there may never had been an ONA....? Well not an ONA with a racist 'angle'....?
The Forum post is edited by Sabrina Mar 5 '22
Sabrina
Mar 5 '22
That's because I brought up the subject of school shooting in the previous posts. And that wasn't his main point in his argument, that was just an example. I don't know what do you mean by concrete monkeys, are you referring to actual monkeys or humans? And I think violence is a broad term, the scenario I was specifically talking about was the torture of non threatening innocent animals. You don't think someone who engages with torturing an innocent animal is doing so out of emotional frustration and improperly handling their emotions? For me it comes off like some people will find a logical reasoning for their behaviour when it's just emotional outbursts underneath
You may be referring to 'surplus killing' in some Mammalian behaviour. The idea though that the animal is killing for fun is anthromorphising its behaviour. Animals kill out of instinct, which is limited in any pragmatism. Most predators will kill based on the behaviour of its prey 'if it acts like prey I will kill it'. However, on the other hand I think It's silly to use the terms kill, murder and hunt the way animals do and apply it to humans. Animals don't really kill, they just live.... they don't live according to complex planning and typically live in limited social networks. The human who engages in the torture of animals is exhibiting psychopathology... as there is no logical reason for the behaviour, only a psychological one which is usually the product of mental retardation or their own past trauma. As pointed out before, those that engage in activities like high school shootings typically do so out of fear of their oppressors, 'they can't face the real bully so random people are easier targets'. In the case of the cat torture they can't face their own torturer so they will project their hatred onto the cat and obtain pleasure from causing it pain as they experienced pain.... the chain of trauma.Why bring up the subject of school shootings when they make up such a small percentage of shootings in the USA? Why not explain to us why the concrete monkeys (niggers, shitskins, whatever you want to call them) are so much more predisposed to committing acts of violence?In the context of the genesis of the ONA if Myatt never grew up in Tanzania there may never had been an ONA....? Well not an ONA with a racist 'angle'....?
Are they more likely to be prone to psychopathy? If so, how is discrimination against them not a biological imperative?
Sabrina
Mar 5 '22
Ok so how would you apply this logic to torturing animals? If you see someone torturing an animal, you will excuse their behaviour? Or if you see yourself torturing an animal, you will not feel bad to do it to a being completely undeserving of it? I mean it would be reasonable for example if you unleash all that hate and resentment on your high school bully and torture him because he is more deserving of it since he was the source of your vengeance. But taking it out on a completely innocent being like an animal that had nothing to do with it?? Please make it make sense to me.
This is why I also don't understand school shooters, why would they target people that had done no wrong to them? Why don't they just shoot the specific person who caused all that pain and suffering to them? It shows how irresponsible you are with your emotions
ShovelFace
Mar 5 '22
I never said racist, I said discriminate. Discrimination in nature is a biological imperative that is critical to survival. For example, if an antelope does not discriminate against a cheetah, it's going to be its prey. But to be more specific with regards to our debate, in-group preference occurs between members of the same species, even non-human ones:
How do you know animals or chimpanzees are racist towards other chimpanzees? You're not providing any references. Even if they were, yes we are animals but we're an evolved form, we have achieved so much in technology and other aspects in our life through healthy competition. I don't think all this would be possible if we literally lived like animals and adopted animalistic values. I'm not disregarding that our instincts are animalistic, but what's the issue in living in a healthy evolved form of that? Correct me if I misunderstood what you were trying to say
You may be referring to 'surplus killing' in some Mammalian behaviour. The idea though that the animal is killing for fun is anthromorphising its behaviour. Animals kill out of instinct, which is limited in any pragmatism. Most predators will kill based on the behaviour of its prey 'if it acts like prey I will kill it'. However, on the other hand I think It's silly to use the terms kill, murder and hunt the way animals do and apply it to humans. Animals don't really kill, they just live.... they don't live according to complex planning and typically live in limited social networks. The human who engages in the torture of animals is exhibiting psychopathology... as there is no logical reason for the behaviour, only a psychological one which is usually the product of mental retardation or their own past trauma. As pointed out before, those that engage in activities like high school shootings typically do so out of fear of their oppressors, 'they can't face the real bully so random people are easier targets'. In the case of the cat torture they can't face their own torturer so they will project their hatred onto the cat and obtain pleasure from causing it pain as they experienced pain.... the chain of trauma.What's wrong with racism? Logically speaking discrimination against perceived others is a biological imperative. Animals discriminate against their own species, take chimpanzees as an example, who are known to discriminate against and murder other chimpanzees. The problem that I see, is that you are divorced from logic and don't accept yourself as merely another form of animal.In the context of the genesis of the ONA if Myatt never grew up in Tanzania there may never had been an ONA....? Well not an ONA with a racist 'angle'....?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4371377/
You can do more research on the subject yourself. However, the real question is why you choose to neglect that this is a natural tendency in humans? Every sane individual, who is not heavily conditioned to resent their own in-group as is the case in most of the Western world today, prefers to associate with their own kind. Not only do they prefer to associate with their in-group, they're also bias in their favor. This is natural. People have tried to claim that it's merely a psychological construct, and even if it were that would still make it valid, yet they neglect the fact that biologically-speaking the deviation in heterozygosity between perceived subspecies of animals are usually smaller between that of perceived human races. In short, the genetic variation between a chihuahua and a German shepard is far lower than the variation between an Middle Eastern Mongoloid and a European Caucasoid, and yet you like to disregard that fact, which is also easily observable, due to your feelings and your ideology? So who's the irrational one?
Now let's get to the subject of human accomplishments, in all honesty, there is no equivalence, there are a few civilizations who have contributed the most with regards to what is perceived by you to be humanity. There are others who have contributed almost nothing. If you look at the history of Southern Africa, my ancestors were sailing across the seas while the Bantu tribes that killed off the natives were still living in huts, running around half naked.
Obviously I don't mean every non-white did not contribute, the Chinese were working on firearms at the same time as the European nations, India, the Middle East, and North African societies have produced their fare share of wonders. But at the same time none of these societies are equivalent to one another.
Let's say the Arabs or the Berbers inhabited Germany, would they create the same culture? What about vice versa, if the German volk inhabit your land, would they have given rise to the same culture? The answer is no, because there is an inherently different quality between perceived subspecies, or races, of humans. There is almost as much variation between the perceived subspecies of humanity, as there are between each individual in the world, so I see no reason not to acknowledge this fact.
The Forum post is edited by ShovelFace Mar 5 '22
ShovelFace
Mar 5 '22
I don't consider blacks humans, so therefore you could say I was referring to apes. The definition of what constitutes a human is also arbitrary, and in the original definition of the word it did not include them. Just as the original definition of what constitutes white did not extend to Eastern or Southern Europeans.
That's because I brought up the subject of school shooting in the previous posts. And that wasn't his main point in his argument, that was just an example. I don't know what do you mean by concrete monkeys, are you referring to actual monkeys or humans? And I think violence is a broad term, the scenario I was specifically talking about was the torture of non threatening innocent animals. You don't think someone who engages with torturing an innocent animal is doing so out of emotional frustration and improperly handling their emotions? For me it comes off like some people will find a logical reasoning for their behaviour when it's just emotional outbursts underneath
You may be referring to 'surplus killing' in some Mammalian behaviour. The idea though that the animal is killing for fun is anthromorphising its behaviour. Animals kill out of instinct, which is limited in any pragmatism. Most predators will kill based on the behaviour of its prey 'if it acts like prey I will kill it'. However, on the other hand I think It's silly to use the terms kill, murder and hunt the way animals do and apply it to humans. Animals don't really kill, they just live.... they don't live according to complex planning and typically live in limited social networks. The human who engages in the torture of animals is exhibiting psychopathology... as there is no logical reason for the behaviour, only a psychological one which is usually the product of mental retardation or their own past trauma. As pointed out before, those that engage in activities like high school shootings typically do so out of fear of their oppressors, 'they can't face the real bully so random people are easier targets'. In the case of the cat torture they can't face their own torturer so they will project their hatred onto the cat and obtain pleasure from causing it pain as they experienced pain.... the chain of trauma.Why bring up the subject of school shootings when they make up such a small percentage of shootings in the USA? Why not explain to us why the concrete monkeys (niggers, shitskins, whatever you want to call them) are so much more predisposed to committing acts of violence?In the context of the genesis of the ONA if Myatt never grew up in Tanzania there may never had been an ONA....? Well not an ONA with a racist 'angle'....?
Are they more likely to be prone to psychopathy? If so, how is discrimination against them not a biological imperative?
ShovelFace
Mar 5 '22
I already answered your question in my post on slave-morality and master-morality. Psychology is a fairly recent soft science with a lot of potential, although its full of bias due to overrepresentation of a certain group that skews a lot of the research. So you'd think that every time somebody doesn't conform to your slave-morality they must have some form of psychologically illness, or have emotional problems. But let's look at this from a rational point of view, who's the one having the pavlovian response to someone else's beliefs? Is that you or the one you claim to be emotionally unstable?
That's because I brought up the subject of school shooting in the previous posts. And that wasn't his main point in his argument, that was just an example. I don't know what do you mean by concrete monkeys, are you referring to actual monkeys or humans? And I think violence is a broad term, the scenario I was specifically talking about was the torture of non threatening innocent animals. You don't think someone who engages with torturing an innocent animal is doing so out of emotional frustration and improperly handling their emotions? For me it comes off like some people will find a logical reasoning for their behaviour when it's just emotional outbursts underneath
You may be referring to 'surplus killing' in some Mammalian behaviour. The idea though that the animal is killing for fun is anthromorphising its behaviour. Animals kill out of instinct, which is limited in any pragmatism. Most predators will kill based on the behaviour of its prey 'if it acts like prey I will kill it'. However, on the other hand I think It's silly to use the terms kill, murder and hunt the way animals do and apply it to humans. Animals don't really kill, they just live.... they don't live according to complex planning and typically live in limited social networks. The human who engages in the torture of animals is exhibiting psychopathology... as there is no logical reason for the behaviour, only a psychological one which is usually the product of mental retardation or their own past trauma. As pointed out before, those that engage in activities like high school shootings typically do so out of fear of their oppressors, 'they can't face the real bully so random people are easier targets'. In the case of the cat torture they can't face their own torturer so they will project their hatred onto the cat and obtain pleasure from causing it pain as they experienced pain.... the chain of trauma.Why bring up the subject of school shootings when they make up such a small percentage of shootings in the USA? Why not explain to us why the concrete monkeys (niggers, shitskins, whatever you want to call them) are so much more predisposed to committing acts of violence?In the context of the genesis of the ONA if Myatt never grew up in Tanzania there may never had been an ONA....? Well not an ONA with a racist 'angle'....?
Are they more likely to be prone to psychopathy? If so, how is discrimination against them not a biological imperative?
The Forum post is edited by ShovelFace Mar 5 '22
Zakkary
Mar 8 '22
I think the previous posts were exploring reason and purpose. When it comes to beliefs, well you can believe whatever you like....? There will generally be a pavlovian response to the irrational and/or inconsistent... however it's all opinion at the end of the day... and I appreciate that my opinion is not necessarily worth excrement to you.... which is.... why we're here I guess....? To traverse the sewers of thought......
Mod
Sabrina
Aug 3
I never said racist, I said discriminate.
Discrimination doesn’t always entail racism. Why are you making the connection that just because chimps discriminate within their own species then it somehow means racism is valid within the human species?
I never said racist, I said discriminate. Discrimination in nature is a biological imperative that is critical to survival. For example, if an antelope does not discriminate against a cheetah, it's going to be its prey. But to be more specific with regards to our debate, in-group preference occurs between members of the same species, even non-human ones:Sure, that’s all fine and dandy except your analogy doesn’t work here because an antelope and a cheetah are 2 different species dependent in a predator-prey system. However, in humans, you cannot discriminate one another because we’re considered one species and are not going around eating people. We are however going around killing, murdering, raping other humans where we should discriminate against such type of individuals but not discriminate in the sense you may be hinting such as race because rapist murderers pedophiles exist in every race.
In your example of chimps discriminating within their own species, they do it for territory, food supply, competition, mates, power. They are known to be violent and kill members even within their groups and not just in between groups. However, all this doesn’t somehow translate to racism in the human species.
In bonobos who are known as the less violent sibling of the chimps, they mostly use cooperation as a survival strategy within groups and sometimes between groups compared to chimps who mostly use competition and struggle. Neither is greater or less, both are advantageous in different situations/environments. Bonobos are also very commonly known to practice bisexuality including homosexuality, but I don’t see you making connections like “Bonobos are bisexual therefore homosexuality is ok in humans.” We also share the same percentage of our genome with both Bonobos and chimpanzees.
Nobody’s neglecting homophily. I tend to surround myself with people that are similar to me in terms of personality, common interests, and values. For others it’s perhaps political beliefs. In your case, it is race. Sure you’re perfectly valid to surround yourself with white people as much as you want, but what I have an issue with is when you try to justify your race is superior with scientific racism. Just because you like to surround yourself with white people which is understandable given you grew up in an environment like South Africa which has a very dark history of racism and still does. However, that doesn’t translate to the white race being superior, and the rest of the world has caught up to this fact and understands that racism is not advantageous and beneficial anymore in our current society. If we killed off Einstein for being a Jew, much of our science would’ve been undiscovered or taken a long time to rediscover.You can do more research on the subject yourself. However, the real question is why you choose to neglect that this is a natural tendency in humans? Every sane individual, who is not heavily conditioned to resent their own in-group as is the case in most of the Western world today, prefers to associate with their own kind. Not only do they prefer to associate with their in-group, they're also bias in their favor. This is natural. People have tried to claim that it's merely a psychological construct, and even if it were that would still make it valid
yet they neglect the fact that biologically-speaking the deviation in heterozygosity between perceived subspecies of animals are usually smaller between that of perceived human races. In short, the genetic variation between a chihuahua and a German shepard is far lower than the variation between an Middle Eastern Mongoloid and a European Caucasoid, and yet you like to disregard that fact, which is also easily observable, due to your feelings and your ideology? So who's the irrational one?
According to human genome sequencing, there’s a 99.9%
similarity in our genome across all humans worldwide accounting for only SNPs
(Single-nucleotide polymorphism). So, there’s only a 0.1% difference among all races. However non-SNP
variation accounts for more variation so the number 99.9% is a gross simplification,
but this is what we have so far since human genomics is a new field.
For the heterozygosity being smaller between a chihuahua and a German shepherd
compared to individuals from 2 different race, I honestly couldn’t find a
consensus on one number from what I’ve read. But Fst value for humans typically
ranges from 5%-15% (0.05 - 0.15) which is a low genetic variation between
different human populations. The FST value for dog breeds is typically reported
to be around 25% (0.25). So no, from what I’ve read, there is more variation
between dog breeds than between human races. As you correctly said, most of the
genetic variation that does occur, 85% of the variation is within races than in
between. Such variation includes like genes such as the LCT gene that metabolises milk making
you lactose tolerant. There are genes for protection from infectious diseases,
genes that determine your blood group, height, genes for hereditary diseases
such as sickle cell anaemia, cystic fibrosis etc. There is no gene that codes
for how Race A is more superior to Race B in a godly sense. So, I don’t really
see your point on what you were trying to prove when you yourself admitted that
there’s much more variation within races than in-between.
But let us assume you are correct regarding there being more variation between
different subspecies of dogs than between races of humans. There is
significantly more genetic diversity within Africa than in any other region. On
average, two randomly selected individuals from Africa will be more genetically
different from each other than two randomly selected individuals from Europe.
Meaning if you randomly pick a European and African, they would be more
genetically similar than if you randomly pick 2 Africans. So shouldn’t you
refrain from heaping all Africans under one race umbrella “Blacks”? If you
really cared about variation between races and really cared about science, then
surely you wouldn’t make gross generalisations and lump all africans as blacks if you wanted to be consistent
with your beliefs on races. I’m sorry but this and your other statements on blacks being more predisposed to violence shows that your beliefs are more
rooted in racism than it is on science.
To shed more light in this, the explanation for the above example on why a
randomly chosen European and African may be more genetically similar than two
randomly selected Africans is due to the history of human evolution. This makes
sense because Modern humans evolved in Africa, but some subpopulations migrated
to other regions such as Europe, Asia, and Polynesia where they developed
distinct phenotypic traits influenced by their environments. As the small groups of humans travelled out of Africa, they carried with them a limited set of genetic variation. So variation is at its most in populations in Africa.
The Forum post is edited by Sabrina Aug 3
Sabrina
Aug 3
Races are not called subspecies but rather populations. You’re using words that emphasise things that aren’t there. Sure you could call different races of humans as subspecies if we lived in isolated regions and bred only within our community for thousands of years to make evolutionary changes in our genes. But the reality is that we do not live in isolation, and we fly around too often and interbreed with each other. We’re all a massive genetic mixing pot. And that’s actually a good thing because the more variation there is, the better we are fit for survivability.The answer is no, because there is an inherently different quality between perceived subspecies, or races, of humans.
I don't consider blacks humans, so therefore you could say I was referring to apes. The definition of what constitutes a human is also arbitrary, and in the original definition of the word it did not include them. Just as the original definition of what constitutes white did not extend to Eastern or Southern Europeans.As I said given that our species modern humans originated in Africa, I’d argue Africans with no mixing are “more human” compared to a European or Asian. Because as the sub populations migrated out of Africa, we interbred with other species (also argued as subspecies) of Homo called the Neanderthal and Denisovans. So most europeans or asians have a small percentage of Neanderthal and Denisovan dna in them.
I already answered your question in my post on slave-morality and master-morality. Psychology is a fairly recent soft science with a lot of potential, although its full of bias due to overrepresentation of a certain group that skews a lot of the research. So you'd think that every time somebody doesn't conform to your slave-morality they must have some form of psychologically illness, or have emotional problems. But let's look at this from a rational point of view, who's the one having the pavlovian response to someone else's beliefs? Is that you or the one you claim to be emotionally unstable?No it has little to do with master-slave morality and more to do with some humans taking advantage of vulnerable non-threatening beings. The same way you’d label someone as a pedophile that takes advantage of innocent children, similarly I label someone who takes advantage of innocent non-threatening animals as an animal abuser. Such type of humans are weak, incapable of mastering their own emotions and takes their emotions out on other vulnerable beings to give them a false sense of power, control, and sick gratification.
Also apologies for the random late response
The Forum post is edited by Sabrina Aug 3
Zakkary
Aug 16
Pragmatism shall be the whole of the law..... delusions of grandeur are for .... the impractical.... and deluded ....'become a living God'.... a God with the iQ of a fish....? swimming on a frozen lake.....
