If you were a psychopath...

[invert_nexus]

Man.
This whole thing is just getting lame.
I'm not really interested in debating the ethics of hunting. That is another matter altogether and one that I am not really interested in, seeing as how I am not a hunter.

So, I'll just comment on a few things and let the rest drop.

I take it you are the religious hunter

I am neither religious nor a hunter.
Frankly, all your religious talk is boring me as much as the hunter crap.

So hunting mammals, when you know they are aware, feel pain and are afraid to die, is no different than hunting humans.

It's quite simple, and you don't need religion to do it.
We are human. Yes. Humans are animals. And humans are apes (not monkeys).
These are 'obviouslies'.

In some sense, man cannot be said to be higher than the animals. Because evolution doesn't work that way. There is no 'top rung'.

However, we have the biggest brain. And we have the most refined mind.
Our mind is more powerful than the mind of animals on a grand scale. So much more powerful that there is not even a comparison between the two.

You'd equate the pain of an animal with the pain of a human?
The comparison is ludicrous.
The pain of an animal is in the moment.
The pain of a man is something that keeps on going. It is abstract. It is savored. It is understood in a way that no animal can ever understand.

When a deer gets shot with an arrow that doesn't kill it immediately (a bad shot), then the pain it feels comes from the arrow itself. When a man gets shot, it knows that the arrow is not to blame. That there is a human being our there with a bow that has just shot him.


Not only this, but man is unique in his ability to empathize as widely as he does.
Animals don't empathize over other animals. They hardly even empathize over animals of the same species let alone animals of other species. There are some instances of interspecies empathy, but these are generally in animals that have bonded together through one means or another. Dogs empathize with their humans, that sort of thing.


Man has a theory of mind. That is, he is aware that other beings have minds of their own. That they are lving beings with existences of their own.
Animals do not have this, for the most part.
Some chimpanzees have been shown to have some limited sense of mind. And some few other animals in even more limited ways. But for the most part, animals are severely deficient. In fact, it could be said that animals are psychopathic.

Because I believe that sociopaths also have a deficiency in their theory of mind. Not a complete absence, but a malformation.


Anyway.
I could go on and on about this. But all this is so blatant that the discussion is practically pointless. You either get it or you don't. And you obviously don't. You over-empathize.
Lost in abstraction.

How can anyone be a serial killer and not be a psychopath?

You are making a huge mistake.
Killers and psychopaths are not synonymous. I thought this has been made apparent long ago in this thread.

It's not the same as torturing an animal just to watch it suffer.

Hunting is not torturing an animal to watch it suffer.

People who are observers have no way of knowing the difference between sport hunters and serial killers because the actions are so similar.

Actually, there is a huge difference.
Hunting does not equal animal cruelty.



Meh.
This is just... pointless.
You don't understand a thing I'm saying.

 

[TimeTraveler]

You'd equate the pain of an animal with the pain of a human?
The comparison is ludicrous.
The pain of an animal is in the moment.
The pain of a man is something that keeps on going. It is abstract. It is savored. It is understood in a way that no animal can ever understand.

Mice can empathize too. Mice has similar brains to ours. So do dolphins and certain other animals. Apes, monkey, whatever you wish to call them are primates and have similar brains to ours. These animals feel pain like we feel pain.

When a deer gets shot with an arrow that doesn't kill it immediately (a bad shot), then the pain it feels comes from the arrow itself. When a man gets shot, it knows that the arrow is not to blame. That there is a human being our there with a bow that has just shot him.

Like I said before, there are certain animals that feel pain like we feel pain.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19125595.400&feedId=online-news_rss20


Not only this, but man is unique in his ability to empathize as widely as he does.
Animals don't empathize over other animals. They hardly even empathize over animals of the same species let alone animals of other species.

But they do empathize. Most humans don't empathize over their own species, so to say animals don't fully use their empathy, you are correct. The fact is however, they have empathy, at least some of them, just as some humans do.

There are some instances of interspecies empathy, but these are generally in animals that have bonded together through one means or another. Dogs empathize with their humans, that sort of thing.

Yes, animals do empathize. Do you need proof?
http://www.onelife.com/
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2006/1793870.htm


Man has a theory of mind. That is, he is aware that other beings have minds of their own. That they are lving beings with existences of their own.
Animals do not have this, for the most part.
Some chimpanzees have been shown to have some limited sense of mind. And some few other animals in even more limited ways. But for the most part, animals are severely deficient. In fact, it could be said that animals are psychopathic.

Some animals, but not all.

Because I believe that sociopaths also have a deficiency in their theory of mind. Not a complete absence, but a malformation.


Anyway.
I could go on and on about this. But all this is so blatant that the discussion is practically pointless. You either get it or you don't. And you obviously don't. You over-empathize.
Lost in abstraction.

What right do you have to decide who over or under empathizes? People do or they don't.


You are making a huge mistake.
Killers and psychopaths are not synonymous.

I did not say killer, you were talking about "serial" killer, you know, like Jeffrey Dahmer. I've never seen a serial killer in prison, who they diagnosed and found NOT to be a psychopath. If you can name one serial killer who was completely normal, show me.

I thought this has been made apparent long ago in this thread.



Hunting is not torturing an animal to watch it suffer.



Actually, there is a huge difference.
Hunting does not equal animal cruelty.

How are you so sure?

Meh.
This is just... pointless.
You don't understand a thing I'm saying.


How are you so sure of all the stuff you say? God?

 

[heliocentric]

There are skills involved in hunting. Exercising your skills, and being good at them, can be a pleasurable experience.

There is no skill in taking a nature hike.

But, regardless, the issue is the nature of the kill.
Animal cruelty is a warning sign for various personality disorders.
Hunting != Animal Cruelty.


And. Yes. A murderer can also take pleasure in the hunt, but as long as he doesn't kill his victim or harm him, then there is no true problem involved.

I know people who take pleasure in sneaking up behind people and scaring them.

So?

I dont think you can really equate scaring someone from behind as a joke
with killing someone/something.
In any case the general point is as She_Devil stated earlier the psychopath is a social invention that on the surface seems to diagnose someone with a distinct lack of empathy and desire to engage in cruel activities.
However this label on closer inspection appears to be highly tenuous to say the least, as there appear to moral loopholes in which this social label apparently does not apply in relation to killing - hunting would be one, and certain instances of war would be another.

Then perhaps you are lacking in human empathy for you to fail to perceive a difference in murdering a human and hunting an animal.

I do see a difference, i just wouldnt (for example) take it to the extreme of saying the kill of an animal has no basis in immorality while a human death is entirely morally reprehensible.

A serial killer kills humans.

A serial killer also is not necessarily a psychopath.

Serial killer is an extreme example im using i suppose to get to grips with the psychopath, but a necessary example i feel to illustrate the offen hazy logic when defining those with cruel/unempathic tendensies.

Actually, I was speaking of artificial in terms of my earlier statements and quotes about custom and law. Many of our laws are ridiculously abstract and meaningless in empathic terms.

Agreed, drug laws spring to mind actually.

Hunting, per se, isn't a problem at all. There is the possibility for people to take advantage of hunting in order to satisfy cruel desires, but this is because of something in the person, not the act of hunting itself.

I think it does depend on the motivation yes, hunting for survival is one thing, hunting for fun i would take an entirely different view on - i would say it suggests that they may have a very cruel underlying pathology.

Also i feel your general point in regards to animals not being worthy of compassion due to their lack of reasoning ability to be highly erroneous.
Compassion isnt relative to cognative ability if it was wed treat the smartest humans the best while treating the less able (the elderly, the young, the disabled) the worst, in fact the complete reverse is true when we observe compassion towards humans.
Clearly for most compassion is an emotion that kicks in even more so when we observe that which is unable to fend for itself.
With this in mind i think your views relate more to arbitary specism that the logic youve used to support your views, unless of course you treat human beings via the same 'smartest = most in need of love/empathy' criteria.

 

[TimeTraveler]

See, I think the problem invert is having is that invert wants us to try and figure out what people are thinking.

There is no way to know how people are thinking. The only thing we have is behavior, and what people are doing, and how they are acting.

Sport hunting, is just one of those social activities, which make some people uncomfortable, and it's obvious why that is. Some people are uncomfortable even eating meat, you think people are going to all be comfortable hunting?

So these terms mean nothing, and no you cannot assume all hunters are going to fit into a box, or that all sport hunters fit into a box, you have to know that persons lifestyle, you have to truly know the person. Sport hunting is one of those activities which will make people take note of it, because the person likes shooting stuff, mammals, etc. People don't even like other people to have access to guns, sport hunting is just the kind of behavior that some people find morally unacceptable.

The only thing people know for sure, is a persons behavior. Not some psychobabble. Terms like psychopath and sociopath are completely empty because they do not connect with behavior, these are terms used by psychologists who want to study people who behave in certain ways. It's not about what people think.

You can think about killing all day long and no one cares until you start actually doing it. So if you don't want to look like a killer, perhaps it's wise to not make it a habit to go and kill stuff in your free time. People are going to judge you by what you do and thats just how it is.

 

[heliocentric]

btw TimeTraveler, invert_nexus stated that he isnt religious in his post, just thought id mention as you allued to him believing in God in your last paragrapth. You really need to stop skim reading people's post mate

But yeah, you are what you 'do' ultimately not what you think, i think id agree with that, although it is (theoretically) possible i suppose to have a sociopath/psychopath who never lets his mask drop so to speak and never engages in any harmful activities.

 

[invert_nexus]

I dont think you can really equate scaring someone from behind as a joke
with killing someone/something.

Nor am I trying to.
I'm equating the act of sneaking up on somebody with the act of sneaking up on an animal.

In any case the general point is as She_Devil stated earlier the psychopath is a social invention that on the surface seems to diagnose someone with a distinct lack of empathy and desire to engage in cruel activities.

Psychological convention, actually.
And, she's not the first to mention it.

hunting would be one

We're just going to have to disagree here. It's fairly obvious that neither of us are going to bend on our viewpoint.

I'm not going to discuss hunting further.

Also i feel your general point in regards to animals not being worthy of compassion due to their lack of reasoning ability to be highly erroneous.

Well. I'll just say this one last time.
Hunting does not equal animal cruelty.
I said there is no reason to feel remorse for the deer you've killed. I did not say there is no reason to feel compassion for the animal. However, I don't feel that you should display the same level of empathy towards the animal as to a human.

And it's about far more than 'reasoning ability'.
The mind of man is far too complex to fit under a 'reasonable' label.

Abstraction is the greatest leap of man's mind. Not reason.

With this in mind i think your views relate more to arbitary specism that the logic youve used to support your views.

Animals are programmed to find their own species interesting and other animals only marginally so.
This is evidenced by the ease at which we can identify different members of our species. Their facial features and other characteristics allow us to tell them apart with ease.
The same cannot be said for other species. They 'all look the same'. At least, more effort must go into telling them apart.

Even wasps are able to tell each other apart from facial features.

It's a biological fact of life.

TimeTraveler,

The only thing we have is behavior, and what people are doing, and how they are acting.

You do realize that you've just said the same thing three times in a row?

Interesting behavior.

 

[heliocentric]

Well if you dont wish to discuss hunting any further fair enough, its a very interesting topic for me at least.
I guess i just cant really find much logic in the idea of empathy as it relates to cognitive ability, since i would (personally) treat someone severely handicapped - to the extent of not being much smarter than a lower mammal, with the same compassion and empathy i would extend to a genius.

Nice talking

 

[invert_nexus]

I never mentioned IQ nor intelligence.

Man's mind is more than that.

The gulf between a retard's mind and the mind of a deer is far wider than that between the smartest and the dumbest human.
On a completely different level.
No comparison.
At all.

 

[Oniw17]

Also i feel your general point in regards to animals not being worthy of compassion due to their lack of reasoning ability to be highly erroneous.

Why can't they just be not worthy of compassion because you don't feel compasion for them? Does there have to be a reason. I have no loyalty to animals, just like I have no loyalty to someone who I've never met. Why should we create extra emotions?

 

[invert_nexus]

Good point there.

Which brings up another aspect of the human mind. It's ability to rationalize... unnecessarily.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Why can't they just be not worthy of compassion because you don't feel compasion for them? Does there have to be a reason. I have no loyalty to animals, just like I have no loyalty to someone who I've never met. Why should we create extra emotions?

No one is saying you should feel extra emotions. No one is saying you should feel compassion for animals which don't feel compassion for you.

However, if you have a dog, and that dog is willing to defend you, you should be willing to defend it, even if it's a dog and it's less intelligent.

No one is telling you that you have to try and feel emotions you don't have. Just respect the emotions of others and try to understand the reasoning behind them. Animals express empathy and compassion, and it's expressed through behaviors. Humans and dogs evolved together, helped each other, and it's part of the evolutionary process.

Evolution sometimes is co-evolution where multiple species evolve together for the benefit of mututal cooperation. And it works, because now the dog's survival as a species is far more secure than some of these other animals which are going extinct.

 

[Oniw17]

However, if you have a dog, and that dog is willing to defend you, you should be willing to defend it, even if it's a dog and it's less intelligent.

Yes, but I think they were talking about hunting. Probably hunting animals that you don't know.

 

[madanthonywayne]

I have to disagree with that ideal. As evidence that most don't have such magnificent consciences, I submit that we have laws and rules by the gazillion, and we're adding more and more all the time.

Just imagine, if you can, that all rules, laws and law enforcement were to just disappear overnight. Scary fuckin' thought, ain't it? So ...where's this marvelous thing called "conscience"? Ha! The laws are our conscience, and nothing else. Don't over-play that silly concept of conscience.

Baron, I know you like being cynical and having a low opinion of humanity, but you're just wrong here.

Sure, some people are not restrained by conscience, but most are. When you're shopping, do you shoplift whenever no one is looking? A stranger insults you on a deserted street, no one else is around, do you kill him? You see an attractive female, you're horny, no one is around. Do you rape her?

Most people behave honorably in most situations even when there is little chance of them being punished. If this were not the case, we would all be living in brutal dictatorships because this would be the only way to maintain order.

 

[invert_nexus]

TimeTraveler,

Missed your post.
Not much to miss really...
You really don't say much except for repeating yourself again and again.
Let's see here:

You bring up research on mice empathy. Yes. I know about that. And have never said that mice don't feel empathy.
You misunderstand.
What I said was that mice don't empathize with humans.
They empathize with each other.

Next, you provide a couple more links to 'prove' that animals empathize.
The links seem completely random and irrelevant.
Maybe you could explain why they are relevant?

What right do you have to decide who over or under empathizes?

Why do you bring up 'rights'?
I can decide anything I want. Do you deny that I can do this?
I state that you over-empathize because you seem to have difficulty determining where to stop empathizing. You've lost your practical grounding.

I did not say killer, you were talking about "serial" killer, you know, like Jeffrey Dahmer. I've never seen a serial killer in prison, who they diagnosed and found NOT to be a psychopath. If you can name one serial killer who was completely normal, show me.

Well. I meant serial killer.
And 'not normal' doesn't mean 'psychopath'.
There are specific behaviors which are necessary to diagnose the disorder, you realize?

Hunting does not equal animal cruelty.

How are you so sure?

Because hunting is generally about killing the animal quick, as I've already stated.
For instance, when bow hunting, you shoot the deer in the chest right behind its front legs.
This drives the arrow right through the deer's heart and drops it practically instantly.
This is a good kill.

A poor kill entails having to follow the blood trail and hoping the animal doesn't get away to die off on its own somewhere.

Animal cruelty is about torturing the animal. Skinning it alive. Beating it. Stabbing it in non-vital areas. Etc.

Hunting does not equal animal cruelty.
Period.

Yes. Hunting can be cruel. Depending on the hunter. I've never said that all hunters are good hunters. Nor have I said that no hunters are cruel.
But, hunting in general, is not cruel.

How are you so sure of all the stuff you say? God?

Yes. That's right.
God.

Happy?

This whole god tangent you've gone on is inane.
Even more inane than getting stuck on hunting.

However, if you have a dog, and that dog is willing to defend you, you should be willing to defend it, even if it's a dog and it's less intelligent.

Now you're just going of on even more inane tangents.
I've already specifically mentioned that some interspecies empathy occurs, especially in animals that have built up social bonds. I've even given the specific example of dogs...

I don't see why I should even bother replying to you as you obviously don't read my posts.

 

[theoneiuse]

hahahaha at the end of the day all of you are soft skin humans that bleed
dont worry i love yall
when they invented you guys were you soposed to have brains
i need answears for my report

 

[Bowser]

I suppose our best bet is not to bond with those things we intend to eat. I enjoyed the diversion into hunting and its morals. What kind of personality works in a slaughterhouse or a butcher shop? Are they psychopaths that have no empathy with critters? I couldn't do it, but I enjoy their products.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Baron, I know you like being cynical and having a low opinion of humanity, but you're just wrong here.

Sure, some people are not restrained by conscience, but most are. When you're shopping, do you shoplift whenever no one is looking? A stranger insults you on a deserted street, no one else is around, do you kill him? You see an attractive female, you're horny, no one is around. Do you rape her?

Most people behave honorably in most situations even when there is little chance of them being punished. If this were not the case, we would all be living in brutal dictatorships because this would be the only way to maintain order.

Baron is right. People are restrained by law not conscience. Thomas Hobbes said the same thing and he was right. People don't steal because it costs more to pay the fine or go to jail, not because stealing is wrong or feels bad. Why would it feel bad to steal food if you are hungry? Property has nothing to do with morality, it's a completely legal construction with no ethical basis.

 

[Sauna]

deleted

 

[Baron Max]

Sure, some people are not restrained by conscience, but most are.

Do you have any pertinent facts to back up that claim, or are you just saying it?

Sure, some people are not restrained by conscience, but most are. When you're shopping, do you shoplift whenever no one is looking? A stranger insults you on a deserted street, no one else is around, do you kill him? You see an attractive female, you're horny, no one is around. Do you rape her?

You're equating "social training" with "conscience". Over time, society has "trained" its members to behave and to follow the laws and rules. That's not "conscience", MadAnthony, it's basic fear of the consequences of ones actions. If there were no consequences, we might well kill the stranger or rape the woman ...there certainly have been human societies that did that very thing in the past. Or are you proposing that "conscience" is a modern human invention??

Most people behave honorably in most situations even when there is little chance of them being punished. If this were not the case, we would all be living in brutal dictatorships because this would be the only way to maintain order.

Try doing some indepth research into some of the rougher parts of major cities in the USA where gangs run free and the cops stay the hell away for fear of being killed. The gangs, the violent men/boys, have learned, yes, LEARNED, that there is little chance of being caught and punished.

Another thing that you should consider ...mob violence during riots, etc. People will do most anything during a riot because they know they're "protected" from punishment by the sheer volume of numbers. I.e., they can't and won't arrest everyone. So the violence can be horrific. Conscience?? Where'd it suddenly go?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

If that were true the basic standard of the law would never be exceeded in terms of morality or ethics, which is demonstrably not the case. People voluntarily restrain themselves from all sorts of doings that the letter of the law would allow.

You're equating "social training" with "conscience". The fear of punishment is a apt detterent for most people.

Baron Max