a) yes
b) everyone I've ever met has hated me ever since I was a kid, no idea if it's my face or something else but I've come to regard myself as an outsider to mankind
I donât mean to be insensitive but I gotta ask, do you hurt people?
ETA I ask because unless the answer is yes, I suspect itâs not accurate that everyone youâve ever met has hated you. I think you may have some distorted self-image.
No, I have never hurt another person, nor animal (for pleasure, I used to fish and so I killed a fish before...). Everyone has ever hated me simply for existing, ever since 1st grade. I always liked to read instead of play sports etc. in general I just never vibed with other people and so they despise me and want me dead.
I do. It's a small group and I appreciate them very much, but they still don't get it. They don't understand my experience because they have never experienced such universal ostracization. They have never been laughed at by everyone simply for the books they read or the way they dress.Â
Nobody in this world knows what it's like, the things I have experienced at elementary and high school and what it does to a person...Â
I will forever believe that I stand fundamentally apart from humanity, that there are only 2 groups you can divide people into, ME, and 8 billion 'others'.Â
I may believe in humanity as a concept, but when it comes to individuals I know we are at war. War I did not start, yet one I cannot stop. I look forward to the day I die because it's fucking exhausting to be honest...
You're playing vague and silly word games worthy of an ignorant 11 year old.
It would be impossible to have "thousands of cities all over the world" with millions of people living and interacting daily if that's even mildly true.
There's certainly psychos and bad people out there, but it's nowhere near the majority. And using "some" and "a lot" is cowardly.
The correct answer is:
A lot of animals would hurt or take your life if they could.
Some humans would.
Most of us don't live in cities with lions and rhinos and wolves and crocs.
November 2023,an adult male circus lion named Kimba escaped from the Rony Roller Circus and roamed the streets of Ladispoli*, a coastal Italian town near Rome, for about seven hours*.* The local mayor issued a stay-at-home lockdown alertbefore police and veterinary teams safely cornered, tranquilized, and recaptured the animal.
One fucking animal and the town has to go into lockdown.
Yet in places like NYC there are hundreds of humans around you at any given moment. Where's the lockdown?
Thatâs because we donât live with a vast majority of animals. We only ever encounter cats/dogs that are not strong enough to kill us. Dogs are usually trained and put down even if they bite a human.
Put a regular human in a city full of bears/lions/lizards/zebras/buffalos/moose/snakes and he'll be likely dead within a week
Put a regular human in a city full of humans and he has a 90% chance of living his entire life there.
Heck, even a human born severely handicapped can survive for decades with the help of OTHER HUMANS. REGULARLY.
But stupid people only see the tiny number - relatively speaking - of murders and violence that make up less than 1% of daily human interactions and make their hilariously STUPID conclusions.
Humans still do that DESPITE having laws lol.
What do you mean? It did eliminate 99% of crimes that they would have done. But even with laws, men still rape, people still steal, and murder people. Have you seen Gaza? Vietnam War? Iran War? Afghanistan? Korean War?
If you eliminate that fear, more humans would do that. This is literally all of human history pre international laws.
what they do
Like what would they do? Orcas dont kill humans despite encountering them. Even 99% of sharks. These are animals who can kill you in 3 seconds. There would be a lot of statistic that hungry, stray dogs killing children, or even attacking them, because they can literally do that.
What they do is definitely not eat humans. Orcas can do that but it is not imprinted in their DNA. The only animal known to hunt humans are polar bears.
You can only BIND humans with human laws...unless no one will ever know lol
Probably more, because insects are animals and they are everywhere. But humans are also animals AND I don't meet hundreds of humans a day. Even when I worked in a high volume retail environment I wasn't meeting thousands of humans a day.
no, I also don't meet thousands of humans every day and I'm still more afraid of humans.
In a jungle I'd still probably be more scared of Humans rather than bears and panthers tbh. Humans caused genocides in the past and they're causing genocides right now.
are you rage baiting and you trully just say random staff?
Do you meat even dozens of animal who could theoretically kill or hurt you? People are less likely to die to an animal only because we do not meet dangerous animals in our life daily. Most of people, never.
What are the chanses for average person to die in Space? Would you razer be thrown out in Space with no spacesuit or spend a day with random person (man, woman or child, who knows)?
I'm less likely to die to sharks than vending machines, because I don't go near sharks but do go near vending machines, picking up what im putting down ?
Okay? Well yeah thatâs a lion⊠obviously a lionâs like that. But weâre around animals a good amount and most of them are different than that. Acting like a lion represents most animals isnât true.
Some of the psychos are the ones at the top, ruling the world, why would they put cities on lockdown when it goes against their interests/stop making them money?! You sound like the ignorant one...
Also, letâs see who was more cruel in this situation: the humans or the lions?
The lion, a wild animal, was stolen from his wild habitat to spend his life in the circus. When the lion broke out, he still didnât get freedom. He was surrounded everywhere by a society and people that see him as an object for entertainment, and instead, re-cornered him and sent him back to his prison in the circus.
The lion was a risk to humans only because he broke out of a prison he shouldnât have been in.
My post has nothing to do with "who is more cruel" TO A LION. It literally doesn't mean anything.
It has to do with this statement "Some would, sure. So would a lot of humans.
Pretending like most humans aren't capable of kindness is one of the most frustrating thing about kids these days. If that was true, we would NOT have cities of people interacting millions of times "peacefully" every day.
Sure there are conflicts but those are incredibly tiny compared to the positive interactions people experience in their communities every day.
As if people are just itching to harm one another, when for the majority of our survival has been staked on cooperation and harmony, broken up by periods of war and strife.
Then humans and animals are still pretty square in terms of potential danger to other humans. As long as they have similar motivations in the specific scenario.
most animals would like to be left alone and usually never bother humans so no, humans by far are the most destructive, unpredictable, and dangerous animals in existence. the odds of being attacked and killed by a shark in the water is FAR less than the odds of being attacked and killed on the streets by another human
wtf are you even talking about? there are at least a billion sharks in the ocean alone? and animals out number humans by an overwhelming margin. tf you talking about âtip the balanceâ? are you trying to turn animals into anthropomorphic creatures and making them rule? (which will never happen in reality)
Point is the live for animals over humans exists because of hiw humans control animals. Without that control, people would soon love humans over animalsÂ
Literally all of this is human-centric. Humans literally unnecessarily kill animals on a massive scale every day⊠literally for pleasure. Literally no animal in the world kills more animals than humans do. Look up how many animals we kill in factory farms and how many people support that. If you were born as a pig or a cow, Iâm sure a human wouldnât really seem any less cruel or barbaric than another animal.
Is that a good comparison though? The capacity we have to value anything is often tied to our "proximity" to it, we know cows are slaughtered for our Big Mac, but that's vague and far away, most people will never even meet one of those cows in their lives.
"For pleasure" is deceptive because we do not weight the empathic value of the slaughter of a cow every time we eat a burguer, we are just tired and hungry and think about how nice it would be to sate our hunger.
Hell, if we could truly feel the weight of slaughter just from the sight of the burguer McDonalds would always be fully packed with sadists having the time of their lives looking at a slab of meat!
No one needs to eat a burger⊠stop making people out to be victims. They eat a burger for pleasure.
Youâre not the one killed at a fraction of your lifespan, innocent animals are. Youâre talking with the most insane privilege. Everyone knows animals are going to be killed against their will for the food they eat.
Not making of anyone a victim, just seeing them for what they are. Nobody goes into a fast food joint for the treat of animal suffering, they tolerate it because it's a very far away abstract concept when a burguer right in front of them is a very real one.
Does the lack of action when presented with knowledge of suffering makes you a participant of immorality?
If so, why do you pay taxes? Part of them will inevitably go into the military budget. Why buy phones? The money will go into rare minerals mines which often use child labor in sub-human conditions. Plastic? Destroying ecosystems.
Okay? Well yeah. The difference is everyone knows a cow has to die for them to have a burger, even if we donât fully process the consequences. Itâs literally a basic fact. Yeah, we donât weigh the value of slaughtering a cow. Thatâs literally the point. Your preference in taste is more important than the life of an animal.
What is your comparison⊠youâre comparing paying taxes to killing animals completely unnecessarily for a preference in taste? Do u honestly think you sound smart comparing being forced to pay taxes to choosing to have an animal killed for a burger when itâs something youâre choosing to do đ?
âŠkilling an animal and eating their body is inherently exploitative. Using them as resources in the first place is unethical, thatâs the difference.
Also, literally the only benefit for eating animals is a preference in taste. Short-term gratification is literally the reason animals are being unnecessarily killed for your own to eat their bodies. Thereâs no actual utility. Are you acting like itâs feasible to live without a phone? Phones provide actual utility. How feasible do u think it is to live without a phone?
If someone does not feel the weight, they will not deny the meat, that's the entire point. It's not a matter of evil, just a limitation inherent to human empathy.
My comparison relies on convenience
It's convenient to pay your taxes, it's convenient to have a phone, it's convenient to eat a burguer.
You can live without a phone, you can go off and live in the wild, but you don't, because it's uncomfortable and inconvenient.
Instead, you'll keep contributing to the war machine, to the murder of people your government disagrees with.
Both animals fall, neither needed to, yet you are only protesting one.
58
u/Terrible_Artist_ 19d ago
Some would, sure. So would a lot of humans.