+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: The Speakeasy (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=54)
+--- Thread: A Message from a Guildie (/showthread.php?tid=9514)
A Message from a Guildie - Harrisonized - 2009-03-23
Providence Wrote:I don't think you understand the idea of no-kill animal shelters, but maybe it's different where you live. At the Pawtucket Animal Shelter, we take in strays brought in by animal control/concerned people, rehabilitate them as best we can, get them spayed/neutered by a local veterinarian, and either find them permanent homes or a suitable animal sanctuary.1) I completely understand the idea.
2) There are indeed such shelters here. (In fact, most of them are no-kill.)
3) I'm saying they have limited or no use when trying to save entire populations.
Providence Wrote:Though you may not care much for animals (which doesn't make you a bad person), why shouldn't the government toss some money to give these animals happier existences?I do care for animals. I have quite a few cockateils (the result of breeding) and that's how I developed the idea that saving the dogs of Puerto Rico is impossible. Birds literally multiply, and I know dogs are pretty much the same. (If you've ever been to Taiwan and seen their stray dogs, you'd know how quickly they reproduce.)
No matter whether you agree with animal charity or not, the fact is that it's thriving in our modern society.
Just curious: in where do you base this idea, anyway
I'm not advocating killing them off. I'm saying that killing them off would be the fastest way to contain their growths. I'd rather leave it to nature to kill the dogs off (no human intervention at all).
The reason is that eventually, the dogs will just adapt and form a better relationship with people, much like seagulls you can see today thriving in the cities near a coastline.
A Message from a Guildie - KajitiSouls - 2009-03-23
Harrisonized Wrote:As I said, the two are different scenarios. You can't just cram them together and try force-solving them the same way.
It's really the same thing. I suppose what you're really trying to rely on is the fact that humans are a lot smarter than dogs.
Harrisonized Wrote:Hypothetically speaking, yes that does make sense. However, since you keep saying that humans are social animals, perhaps there is more survival value keeping BOTH me and you alive. However, if forced into a situation in which one MUST die, I'd say save yourself or I'll probably save myself and leave you for dead.
God doesn't play dice, and neither will I. There has to be a justification for why others should live in a hardcore survival situation.
And quite frankly, social animals we fail as, if there's only three of us. Especially if we're all males or females.
Harrisonized Wrote:Obviously, if you're talking about loved ones, that's a different matter. We're talking about strangers, people you're fighting for but don't know about. And obviously if you don't know the people you're fighting for, you don't love them. How do you love someone that you don't know? That point has never made sense to me.
You seem to be oblivious to incredibly strong feelings. Love is just the tip of the iceberg. Ever wonder what it feels like to be suicidal? You'll get a taste of motivation there; motivation that's stronger than survival instinct. Or how about if you have high degree tantrum RAGE?
This is something you can only truly understand once you experience it.
Harrisonized Wrote:Communism and socialism do not work well, because what ends up happening is that the government acts as a giant leech that saps people of their property. Peaceful example: people negotiate with each other to come to an agreement, in which case, nobody gets hurt and the issues are addressed.
Hello? Are we on the same page here? Of course those governments leech people of their property, that's part of what communism and socialism are. We're talking about how society trumps individuals, not the other way around.
Harrisonized Wrote:Fitness, the survival of an individual organism and it's offspring, should be prioritized, the society comes second. After all, would your society back you up? I would highly doubt it.
Usually society wouldn't back you up if society's people had no obligations to anything (including laws). Other than that, reality contradicts your views. Not saying survival of the fittest is obsolete, but that society plays an even bigger role that you'd imagine... or want.
Harrisonized Wrote:Governments send their troops into wars as pawns. Do they care if you die? To some extent, if they lose a high amount of people, However, should a casualty occurs, it's merely a mishap and you'll just become another statistic. Your government does NOTHING (except maybe send your wife and children cards but that's all).
Also, why should it be limited to societies? A person is a person, is a person. People are killing each other. Other people care about you? Nope. So why should you care about them.
If the government has to pay hefty wages to have soldiers, they'd better care if you die or not. I'd like to introduce something called army moral. Someone dies in your squad, you'll see the chain reaction of negative emotions, starting with the people who were friends with the dead person (or at least have relations in some way).
Also, I'm not sure if you were expecting this, but you just further explored why society wins and individuals don't. Long live big government and grandiose schemes!
A Message from a Guildie - Harrisonized - 2009-03-24
KajitiSouls Wrote:It's really the same thing. I suppose what you're really trying to rely on is the fact that humans are a lot smarter than dogs.No I mean that humans and dogs reproduce at a much different rate, their population size to area size ratios are different, as well as living space needed.
KajitiSouls Wrote:God doesn't play dice, and neither will I. There has to be a justification for why others should live in a hardcore survival situation.What do you mean by "playing dice"? These aren't random events... O_o
And quite frankly, social animals we fail as, if there's only three of us. Especially if we're all males or females.
Also, in capitalism, anyone can rise up to the middle class. That's the justification I have. If they fell, great, they can climb back up.
KajitiSouls Wrote:You seem to be oblivious to incredibly strong feelings. Love is just the tip of the iceberg. Ever wonder what it feels like to be suicidal? You'll get a taste of motivation there; motivation that's stronger than survival instinct. Or how about if you have high degree tantrum RAGE?The tip of your iceberg is the conscious mind, the other end is your id, where the instinctive motivations are hidden.
Yes, I have at one point felt love and at another point, had suicidal thoughts, another point rage, and I could say all of them are from the id and clouds my thinking. That's why I try to avoid that and try my best to think logically.
KajitiSouls Wrote:This is something you can only truly understand once you experience it.You're right on this. I have never experienced loving a stranger. So please elaborate on the point since you claim to have loved something or somebody you don't know, which is the equivalent to me, of loving nothing.
KajitiSouls Wrote:Hello? Are we on the same page here? Of course those governments leech people of their property, that's part of what communism and socialism are. We're talking about how society trumps individuals, not the other way around.Of course society trumps individuals. We are obviously not on the same page because I have already mentioned that. I'm saying though that society should not trump individuals and that's where human cognition is regressing it's own species. People back up others who have no intention to return such help.
Usually society wouldn't back you up if society's people had no obligations to anything (including laws). Other than that, reality contradicts your views. Not saying survival of the fittest is obsolete, but that society plays an even bigger role that you'd imagine... or want.
KajitiSouls Wrote:If the government has to pay hefty wages to have soldiers, they'd better care if you die or not. I'd like to introduce something called army moral. Someone dies in your squad, you'll see the chain reaction of negative emotions, starting with the people who were friends with the dead person (or at least have relations in some way).I acknowledged that they do care if you die "to some extent" but in reality, they do not care that much. They only care about the living soldiers because that's what they have to work with.
KajitiSouls Wrote:Also, I'm not sure if you were expecting this, but you just further explored why society wins and individuals don't. Long live big government and grandiose schemes!No offense, but you might as well join socialism if you support such societies being the grand schemes. Being raised in an American environment, I believe that governments should exist to server the people, not the other way around.
A Message from a Guildie - crewe127 - 2009-03-24
What about those poor dying rats in the streets of New York that are dying. They begin to become dependant on our leftovers, and we begin cleaning up more. Then what happens to our cute little rats? Well, once we help out these rats, I'll help the dogs.
A Message from a Guildie - Harrisonized - 2009-03-24
crewe127 Wrote:What about those poor dying rats in the streets of New York that are dying. They begin to become dependant on our leftovers, and we begin cleaning up more. Then what happens to our cute little rats? Well, once we help out these rats, I'll help the dogs.If we can ignore the mice, we can ignore the dogs as well.
What doesn't make sense to me is why is it moral to help the dogs while nobody complains when the little mice are ignored. Such hypocrisy! We need to stop the favorism towards dogs.
A Message from a Guildie - Takebacker - 2009-03-25
dogsruleu44 Wrote:How would you feel if you were going to die anyways?
dogsruleu44 Wrote:Very little is helpful
What a dumbass. We are going to die anyway, and if very little is helpful, why bother trying to help? It's like saying you should do the lottery since there's little to no chance of winning.
A Message from a Guildie - Providence - 2009-03-25
Takebacker Wrote:What a dumbass. We are going to die anyway, and if very little is helpful, why bother trying to help? It's like saying you should do the lottery since there's little to no chance of winning.She most likely meant that even the smallest acts of charity are significant.