yeah, heard about it mem!.. pitiful.

And I think it's high time we, as a culture, abandoned the idiotic notion that 'morality' is a universal constant.

And I think it's high time we, as a culture, abandoned the idiotic notion that 'morality' is a universal constant. </font>[/QUOTE]Morality may not be a universal constant.

But on this planet, with regards to humans beings, honour/morality is just good manners.

Lose that, and our society will destroy itself far quicker than it is currently doing.

That tiny peice of moral fibre, that litte itsy-bitsy grasshopper on our shoulder, whatever the thing telling us what is right and wrong in a given situation (odds are on the brain [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) is what prevents me from randomly throwing a brick at my neighbour's head, and typically what stops another from setting a kitten on fire.

Let's be realistic, the idea of right and wrong may only be "figments of our imagination", but it sure is convinient ain't it? I wouldn't like to contemplate the alternative.

I couldn't agree more. Morality is social convenience, designed by the strong to suit the strong, and enforced upon the weak (by various means, violence and intimidation being two of the most common).

The bone I have to pick is with the morality of current so-called 'democratic' nations, which encourages non-violence, equal-rights (when you can tell that all are clearly NOT equal just by looks alone) and the overall domestication of the wild, animal vitality of our species. Saying that violence is imprudent or non-constructive in a given situation is totally different to saying it is morally wrong. Our current moral 'norms' appear to be a result of slave indignation against violent oppression... going all the way back to Jewish enslavement in Babylon. I think it is imperitive that our moral codes are restructured to once again encourage vitality over tameness.

For instance, I would physically punish these young kitty-killers, not because they hurt a defenseless kitten, but because they were trying to excercise rights beyond their social station. The licence to inflict pain belongs to those at the top of the hierarchy, not the dregs at the bottom. In essense these boys were trying to 'synthesise' social power by torturing these kittens. If these boys were 'naturally' powerful they would have no need to torture kittens, they would 'pick on someone their own size' instead. They should be reminded of their low 'natural' station by physical force if necessary.

I agree.

Heh. Right on man. Well, I'm using the university library computers right now and they are closing up for the evening, so I've gotta go. S'been swell chattin' widcha [img]smile.gif[/img]

<span style="color: lightblue">If someone hurt either of my two cats, I would do much worse things to them than that.

I am not quite sure I understand what you're trying to say. I prefer to avoid having a knee-jerk reaction, but it seems to me that you're saying we need to bring more violence back to society (encourage vitality)and that equal-rights are bad. You also mention people needing to be reminded of their "station".

So, if you come across a guy in a wheelchair who is trying to overcome his disability and make himself the equal of a non-wheelchair-bound person (not that they aren't already equal), you would be within your rights to beat the crap out of him to "show him his place"?

Likewise, if you and I were to meet and I realized I was bigger or stronger than you, I could beat the bejeezus out of you and you wouldn't have a problem with it?

When you say "For instance, I would physically punish these young kitty-killers, not because they hurt a defenseless kitten, but because they were trying to excercise rights beyond their social station. The licence to inflict pain belongs to those at the top of the hierarchy, not the dregs at the bottom," you mean to say that torching a kitten is fine, so long as you're strong enough?

There will always be someone stronger, so from *their* point of view, anyone below them wouldn't have the right. They themselves wouldn't have the right, if viewed by someone stronger than them... So who is the final authority? Is the world's strongest man the only one with any rights?

I certainly hope I am misunderstanding your point, because it certainly *seems* that you are saying only the strong should have rights and anyone with any sort of disadvantage should be beat down and kept in their place.

Edited to remove excessive vitriol and sarcasm....

[ 01-26-2005, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: Arnabas ]

That's very sad. Unfortunately people are evil and have destructive nature. For me I think it's easier to hurt a human being then an animal.

Or perhaps it's the "strong's" desire to help the "weak", in this case the kitten.
To use their higher position in the hirearchy for good rather than these barstards did, sure they may be f**ked up, but i don't care, there are certain acts that are not appropriate, i don't care for what reason it occoured, (well i do care as it would be good to fix the cause at the source) but i don't like it happening, and as a society we have come up with a law against "cruelty to animals" and as there is no major financial benefit from such a law i believe it was put in place for the purpose of stopping acts like this that are just shearly "wrong".
I believe there is such a thing as "wrong" and we should be developed enough as a society to decided that, and this is wrong by all definitions, weather these kids have reasons is not relevant, the thing is they did it, they crossed a moral/legal guideline for no real purpose, and they should be punished, and i have to say if i had a rifel and i saw this happening i would defend the weak, the simple truth is the kids were in the wrong, and they deserve to be punished, hopefully by the proper authorities, but what is the gurantee that they will be?
there was obviously a witness from this report, all i'm saying is if that witness had have been me... well, defend the weak, and as these kids got pleasure from abusing the weak i would take pleasure in defending, and obviously pelasure in abusing the weak (the kids) but not without reason.