U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-13-2016, 12:31 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,588,795 times
Reputation: 461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by look3467 View Post
All human beings have these four things in common.

1. Being born
2. Becoming aware of our intellectual abilities
3. Consequences due to decisions
4. Death

Animals
1. being born
2. survival instincts
3. No control over environment
4. Death

Only two things in common between the two: 1. Being born and 4. Death.

Blessings, AJ
Cannot agree with the above.

For 2 and 3 under "Animals" you need to put degrees into them to differentiate between animals and humans.
It is obvious humans has survival instincts and only some control over the environment.

ALL [normal*] humans will struggle to breathe if they are choked or prevented from breathing in some way and this demonstrate all humans has a survival instinct.
* except those who are fixed on their way to commit suicide or other perversions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-13-2016, 03:44 PM
 
25,740 posts, read 25,413,197 times
Reputation: 24351
I still don't agree that "beastly" means "evil."

We ARE beasts, or IOW, we are animals. Science knows this. We need to know it, too, and stop trying to separate ourselves in that way. Technologically may be the leader of the pack but scientifically it's still a pack. (So to speak.)

Acting like a beast doesn't mean being evil, unless you're being colloquial and by "beast" you mean in a negative way. But the word "beast" itself is not actually a negative word. We've just turned it into one in order to yet further separate ourselves from other animals. Its meaning today intimates the "grotesque" (as we see them) actions of animals, to further separate ourselves and to further make animals seem more gross, base and cruel than they actually are, hence, elevate us by comparison. Ergo when it's used to describe a human it's meant to imply something pretty horrific, even though the original meaning was not this. Farmers called their cattle, who might never perform an "evil"-seeming act in their lives but instead would gently chew cud and gently and obediently be led to be milked and would finally gently walk to the killing block, beasts. Their beloved gentle pets were beasts, the gentle herbivorous sheep were beasts, and so were their beautiful curried graceful prize horses.

Acts performed in order to eat and survive aren't evil. That doesn't make much sense to me. Animals doing what animals do isn't evil either. We didn't ask to be here, but we ARE here. We need to eat, we need to stop that guy with a knife from shanking us and stealing our wallet if we can, we need to work hard and support ourselves. I can't see how basic survival is evil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,588,795 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
I still don't agree that "beastly" means "evil."

We ARE beasts, or IOW, we are animals. Science knows this. We need to know it, too, and stop trying to separate ourselves in that way. Technologically may be the leader of the pack but scientifically it's still a pack. (So to speak.)

Acting like a beast doesn't mean being evil, unless you're being colloquial and by "beast" you mean in a negative way. But the word "beast" itself is not actually a negative word. We've just turned it into one in order to yet further separate ourselves from other animals. Its meaning today intimates the "grotesque" (as we see them) actions of animals, to further separate ourselves and to further make animals seem more gross, base and cruel than they actually are, hence, elevate us by comparison. Ergo when it's used to describe a human it's meant to imply something pretty horrific, even though the original meaning was not this. Farmers called their cattle, who might never perform an "evil"-seeming act in their lives but instead would gently chew cud and gently and obediently be led to be milked and would finally gently walk to the killing block, beasts. Their beloved gentle pets were beasts, the gentle herbivorous sheep were beasts, and so were their beautiful curried graceful prize horses.

Acts performed in order to eat and survive aren't evil. That doesn't make much sense to me. Animals doing what animals do isn't evil either. We didn't ask to be here, but we ARE here. We need to eat, we need to stop that guy with a knife from shanking us and stealing our wallet if we can, we need to work hard and support ourselves. I can't see how basic survival is evil.
Note my point stated earlier;

Now it is obvious the above instincts are embedded in the DNA of All humans.
Therefore ALL humans are animal-like and beastly.

Because all the above responses are fully instinctual and there is no moral [good or evil] elements, as such there is no association of good or evil with animals and beasts. So when the lion mauls or eats a human, there is no question of 'evil' at all.

Because humans with the above beastly natures has a moral faculty [as an exception], therefore it is appropriate to associate 'good' or 'evil' with humans.

Thus the OP,
ALL Human Beings are Potentially Beastly and Evil.
Note I did not assert Human Beings are Beastly and Evil rather I stated the term 'POTENTIALLY' beastly and evil.

Since it is an inherent potential, we need to be wary not to trigger this evil potential. This is why evil and violent elements in movies and other medias are banned, censored, rated [PG, etc.] to ensure they do not trigger those who potential are sensitive and vulnerable.

We do not simply label any one a beast or evil just because they have the potential to be evil. We condemned people as beastly and evil ONLY when the evil acts are committed.

Quote:
Acts performed in order to eat and survive aren't evil. That doesn't make much sense to me. Animals doing what animals do isn't evil either. We didn't ask to be here, but we ARE here. We need to eat, we need to stop that guy with a knife from shanking us and stealing our wallet if we can, we need to work hard and support ourselves. I can't see how basic survival is evil.
Agree the above in the normal circumstances is definitely not evil.

What is evil is
-when a group of humans feel insecure of their survival and kill the whole of the other tribe out of merely such perceived fear.
-note the Japanese started WWWII in the East because they felt insecure because their almost 90% hilly country lack natural resources to feed the expanding population.
-some people are driven by their extreme sex drive to rape, mass rapes
-any other evil acts when humans exceed the normal instinctual impulses.

Note my earlier post on how we define 'evil.'
http://www.city-data.com/forum/44739498-post100.html

The term 'evil' is more significant to motivate humanity to trace the root causes of the acts of evils and find solutions to resolve them.

Last edited by Continuum; 07-13-2016 at 08:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 11:12 PM
 
Location: Redding, Ca
1,240 posts, read 1,058,139 times
Reputation: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Cannot agree with the above.

For 2 and 3 under "Animals" you need to put degrees into them to differentiate between animals and humans.
It is obvious humans has survival instincts and only some control over the environment.

ALL [normal*] humans will struggle to breathe if they are choked or prevented from breathing in some way and this demonstrate all humans has a survival instinct.
* except those who are fixed on their way to commit suicide or other perversions.
Survival instincts in animals are such that animals do not look at their prey as committing evil, where as in humans, any harm to others is considered evil intent.

As for environmental control, animals have no sense of improving their surroundings. They use only what is available to them.

Where as in humans, the environment in which they live can be modified to suit their needs. High rise buildings, airplanes, use of fossil fuels etc.

IMO, there is absolutely no evil intent in animals, therefore no moral judgments of condemnation.

We, on the other hand make moral judgments based on good and evil intents.

Blessings, AJ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:05 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top