Have humans ever killed animals using just their bare hands (..and teeth)?

Alright. Perhaps education was not the best word to use.

Let's reformulate what I said, I'll admit defeat as far as education goes.

People who live in these states with small populations tend to have, how to say, "tougher" lives. Not necessarily more difficult, but, more based on survival than based on morality. A person who lives on a farm where the nearest supermarket or town is several tens of miles away is going to be primarily concerned with eating every day, and providing for a family. On the other hand, a person who lives in a city where survival isn't a big deal, will tend to have a greater sense of what is "right" and "wrong," because they aren't preoccupied with survival, and because they have a greater number of resources (including mental resources and knowledge, like libraries) and greater exposure to ideas about morality.

Which is why a representative democracy never accurately represents the population that it should.

Also, why do we have a Senate? You said, "The senate is where every state is equal to protect against the tyranny of the majority."

But democracies are BASED on majority rule. Why would you need protection against majority rule, when your system is based on it?

 

i think there is two totaly different conversations going on here! and yes you got me i did use a knife exept for the shell fish and fire for all ! the cat fish was easy! along with the salmon and trout ! it was the ground hog that was hard! tought little buggers they are! but when a man knows he needs fat he takes the oppotunity that is provided to him! for som reason every time i was scared and thought i was in trouble the suloition presented its self! there are many stories of indigenes pepoels eating raw meat raw orgens (please excuse my spelling!) i think i understand your point though man is desind for picking fruit? actualy i agree but we were also desind to use our minds to adapt to whatever situation is at hand! and to not treat me with respect soley because i am an omnivore leavse me to wonder if that person is worthy of the same! peace!!!!!

 

Yeah, there probably are even more than two conversations going on, lol.

Yeah, we were designed to adapt and to take opportunities. Which is why we started eating meat. Now, however, it's more of an unnecessary burden than it is an opportunity.

Also, I've been treating you with a fair amount of respect. I don't think you deserve it just for being an omnivore, but I haven't gone and cursed you out and humiliated you or anything. I give respect even to those who I don't think deserve it.

Regardless, only your decisions make you worthy of respect. My decision has the lives of animals in my mind, and I have sacrificed meat and other products to try and make the world a better place for all (including animals). Yours only has a self-satisfying fulfillment in mind, and nothing more than that. This is why I find it hard to respect you.

 

exactly! i've always thought this too

 

Again, i'm not sure i'd agree. The poorest americans(the ones who would be looking to survive) live in major urban centers, and not on the farms...

I think its closer to something like this:

The poor are the ones who are looking for help. You have the democrats who generally want higher taxes and higher social benefits. The republicans want less social benefits and lower taxes. A poor person will obviously want to be helped out by the state. The poor also tend to be the least educated. Blacks and latinos are generally more poor than white americans, and thus vote democrat more than republican more often. That is of course very simplistic

I dont think morality has anything to do with democrat or republican. Just because you want less taxes doesnt make you immoral..and just because you're anti abortion doesnt make you immoral..heck they'd argue they are MORE moral.

I think voting is mostly based on 2 things: socio economic status and social values.

Then nothing short of pure democracy will ever represent the whole population. Pure democracy = mob rule = no real freedom. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices in order to live a better life. Heck, submitting yourself to live under a government(hence giving up freedom) is a sacrifice.

ben franklin said it best: "Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." You need to respect the minority. This is why we have a senate that gives states equal rights, so their rights are respected

We aren't a democracy. We are a republic, a democratic republic to be more exact.

 

yes.... go noodling

 

However, in urban cities, even if you have less money, survival is a lot easier, because you can take shelter pretty much anywhere, and you have access to all kinds of food and drink. Out in the sticks, you have to grow your own food, or go to a supermarket. Let's say your vehicle doesn't work, and you have no food. You're kind of screwed then.

I agree. Not mentioning, of course, that blacks and latinos are probably inclined to vote democrat because there would be more benefits regarding discrimination, not to mention higher social security checks.

My argument isn't necessarily about how poor a person is, it's their mentality. A person who has lived on a farm their whole life and only knows that way of life, and only knows how to grow food and raise animals to help them survive, is more likely to have a conservative stance, whereas a poor person in a city is more likely to go out and get a social security check, and be liberal.

Well, both sides will always argue that they are more moral than the other. However, that's never the actual case. Also, I agree, morality isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue. Both parties are pretty far from the truth, IMO.

Aye, it's a sacrifice, but it's also a gain.

Pure democracy, in my opinion, can only be accomplished through a medium such as the world wide web, where, say, you could vote on major issues through a computer, and if you don't have one, you can drive to a government centre or library and use their computers.

Otherwise, yes, pure democracies turn into mob rule. But, representative democracies have that same problem on a lesser scale, and have other problems as well (such as not accurately representing the population). The problem with democracy is that anyone who is ambitious can gain power, even if they're completely immoral and a real jerk. Since good-natured people are rarely so ambitious, you end up with exactly what we have in America today. A government that is run by politicians that only care about themselves and their family (which is why Senators' sons never go off to war), and as long as they please a political party, they get tons of praise and admiration.

The whole "Democrat vs. Republican" issue itself IS an instance of mob rule. You're either with one of these mobs, or you're against both of them, in which case, you never get ANY say in the government because you don't agree with the majority.

Exactly. However, the Senate doesn't do anywhere near a good job of balancing out the power, because while every state has an equal say in ONE of the tiers of Congress, whatever that tier voted on will be automatically overruled by the other tier.

For example, say, 27 states vote for some issue, and 23 vote against it (In the Senate). In the House, say, you end up with something like 300 votes against it, and 270 votes for it (actual numbers would differ). Because the vote didn't pass in both tiers, it can only stay a bill; you know that Conjunction Junction song.

So in reality, that power isn't balanced at all. It's balanced in one part of Congress, but you need both parts to agree in order to accomplish anything.

So while the power isn't balanced, in addition to it not being balanced, it also throws off the accuracy of the population being represented. It's a flawed system, that LOOKS like it might work, but doesn't actually work.

 

Hikaru.... Bush won. He won the popular and electoral. You can state what if's all day, but that doesn't change the fact that he won. The states were uneducated? What proof do you have that the voters were uneducated? Show me.

DSLC. My name is not to be taken literally, I thought most people had enough sense to realize that. My main reason for being on these boards is to see the opposing opinions and arguments, and to see what people have to say. It's a good way to learn.

 

Yeah, he won, but the re-count was WAY too many votes different than the original count. It's OBVIOUSLY rigged. Many Presidents won their elections by rigging votes. Hell, look at Nixon, he had crazy mob ties to rig his votes, for example.

Bush won because he's got the system rigged, that's why. Even after he was elected, another national poll was done over whether people support the War in Iraq, and over 60% voted no. So, the majority does NOT favour Bush.

 

The War in Iraq is not President Bush. 60% do not support the war, but that is not Bush. Can you be sure that every voter who participated in the election took a part in the poll? If they did, then it is a valid poll. Otherwise, it does not reflect the voters.

People who refuse to accept their loss with dignity often claim to be cheated. Their is no solid evidence pointing to a rigging of the election. Give it up.

 

It's not a "loss" for me, I wouldn't have voted for Kerry. I'm not a Democrat. Liberal, yes, but not a Democrat.

Secondly, there rarely IS evidence of election rigging. But it's OBVIOUS that it was rigged in this case. The recount was MAD different than the first count.

 

It is only obvious if you want to believe that the winning candidate does not deserve to have won. In other words, if you believe it to be true, it must be.

 

Meh.

Regardless, I can't prove that the elections were rigged, even though it's obvious, so I'll concede this argument to you.

 

I think that humans must of survived by killing animals with their bare hands way back in the day. I'm talking like Stone age.. but i guess they might have used lil contraptions and Such, wich they couldof make out of rocks and sticks. But I don't agree with the whole eating meat thing. Like.. its biblical to do so, and The food guide says we "need" it to go on in life. but I dono... I think that if you have to coook it and use objects to rip it apart.. etc it shouldn't be eaten... But then Me and some friends have this Theroy that PLants have feelings... We are going to do an Experiment over the summer. and I will Tell everyone the results. So when i eat anything... i usualy feel bad anyways.. regardless

 

_ziggyfly, thanks for bringing the thread to it's original topic.

Thanks MikeE, sometimes people tend to think their way is the only & absolute way.

I completely agree w/your statement too psilonaut. I don't think I've told you how eloquent you are, so allow me to do so.

& before you start jumping @ my throat, I am a vegetarian & my mother is vegan & I think that this lifestyle is not for everyone.

 

I'll be the first to admit that our system is not perfect. I dont know anyway to improve our government structure. I personally love our divisions.

Yes, we have the lowest of the low running our governments, but isnt that how it always is? It would be great if our system(or any system) actually represented the people without resulting in mob rule..but i think thats impossible. I think we would appreciate our system until we can find a better one. Very few countries in the world are as fortunate as America to be blessed with such a stable government that allows so many people to prosper under it.


p.s. thanks to whoever gave me bad rep for my first post..i must be doing something right

 

That's the thing. Humans never did stablely kill animals with their bare hands. Until we invented tools, we were nomads who walked the Earth eating berries, and we had a herbivorous diet, just like various apes. When we invented tools, then we started eating animals, slowly.

You know, when my friend's mom found out I was vegan, she said to me, "I'll stick with what it says in the Bible."

It's NOT Bibilical to eat meat, or at the very least, not to farm animals the way we are doing it.

In the Bible, it says, RESPECT ALL OF GOD'S CREATURES. Factory farming is hardly respect. The same with shooting/killing animals. It says that we should use them, but we should USE them, not KILL them. It's hardly respect at all.

And, the food guide is wrong. If you follow the food guide, you'll end up with both diabetes and cancer, and probably a few other things. Doctors have known that it's wrong for a long time, but they don't want to change it, because they make money when you get sick.

That's a good idea. What kind of experiment are you going to do? I'd like to hear about the results. =)

Pretty much. That's why I think we need to change our government, and find something that actually is better. Because right now, our America is no better than Hitler's or Stalin's governments. We still kill millions of innocents around the world for no good reason. But, you know the saying ... "It's not Fascism when We do it."

And yet, look at how inefficient America is! 2% of the population controls 90% of the money!

People say that we are fortunate just because we have a good economy compared to other countries, but if you took away just 50% of the currency from that 2% of the population, and distributed it amongst everyone, then most laypeople would be millionaires, and the billionaires would ... uh ... well, damn, I guess they'd STILL be billionaires, wouldn't they?

That's how messed up America is. All of us poor people are practically burning in Hell, we are being forced into a capitalist society and bred from birth to be competitive and to spite other people. Why is it that we need to compete with eachother for food and money? We can get along just fine!

I have this idea of a democracy that wouldn't fall under mob rule. It'd be a "technocratic socialist democratic" state. The government would only have the power of the Judicial and Executive branches, and the people would literally be the Legislative branch.

You go around America and set up computers at every government centre, and create online websites. People can log onto their computers, OR go to a government facility or to, say, a library, and use the computers for free.

On these computers would be software that will list every single bill and law and every issue that is going on in America, and EVERY person would have a vote. The bills that get majority votes are the ones that become laws. And, since legislators aren't making the laws, we wouldn't have the corruption in Congress that we do now.

It would be, in addition to being technocratic and democratic, a socialist state. Almost communist even.

It's really funny, people are like "communism and socialism are evil and democracy is better" but communism and socialism do not conflict with democracy in any way! You can have all three of them if you wanted! Communism and socialism, rather, are alternatives to CAPITALISM, which is derived from survival of the fittest, which doesn't protect people's rights because the people who aren't fit to survive are the ones that get screwed.

Each citizen would be required to have service to the state. You'd have to work, say, 4 or 5 hours, and that's about it. You could do any job you wanted as long as there was a demand for people who can do that job. The jobs that nobody wants to do (like garbage man) would be split up amongst the population. I.e. John has garbage duty on Monday, Bill has it on Tuesday, etc.

The government would own businesses, and if citizens volunteer to work at those businesses, the government could appoint managers of those businesses (to oversee other citizens working for those businesses and to make sure the workplace is fair and friendly), and could appoint volunteers to work there. If there are no volunteers, then the government could call on multiple citizens to work there, and the job would be split up amongst several citizens.

Currency would be obsolete. Free public transportation would take you wherever you need to go. You wouldn't have to pay for goods with money or energy credits. You could go to the store, and, within a reasonable alloted amount, TAKE whatever you wanted. People could literally have anything they wanted, and as long as they do jobs that benefit society (as the government would require them to do), there would be no need to buy things.

I'm sure my ideas have flaws that need to be worked out, but I think my idea is better than a capitalist democracy.

 

Who would run this ideal government? When a government has that much power, corruption almost always follows.

When everybody gets everything they need by being a simple garbage man, why motivation do you have to be a doctor? Why spend all that extra time and effort to become a doctor when you can do something easier and get the same payment?

If your answer is "in the ideal country with the ideal government, the people would want to excel," then you are living in a dream world. Some things, although ideal, are not feasible. All it takes is one leader who wants more power for himself, to manipulate the system and strip the people of their freedoms.

 

That's the thing. The government wouldn't have power.

That's not entirely true, but let me explain:

The government would be akin to a labour union. Everyone works together, and some people lead the others, because they are better at leading. There wouldn't really be any corruption because everybody would be in control. There would be people who are diplomats and go to other countries, but we wouldn't necessarily have a single grand leader. I personally like the idea of a council as the head of the executive branch, but that council wouldn't have legislative powers; those powers would belong entirely to the people.

The government's "power" would only extend so far as enforcement of the law, and for extreme situations, we'd need to appoint a person (or better, many people) to handle crises.

Because you wouldn't get payment. There would be no payment.

Also, it's very simple. Remember how I said, the jobs nobody wants to do would be delegated out? It works both ways. Let's say that everyone wants to be a garbage man, and nobody wants to be a doctor. The government would send out a national call for people who want to be doctors, and train people to be doctors (free of charge, since currency would no longer be an issue). Out of the countless millions in this country, I'm sure there would be many doctors anyway. Being a doctor for 4 hours a day is probably less physically demanding than being a garbageman. If there are too many garbagemen, then you have to do something else. You LITERALY have to do something else, because there would be no garbage to pick up, and if you don't do your 4 or so hours of work, there would be penalties.

If people can be whatever they want, some jobs will not have enough people, and some jobs will have too many. The government fixes this problem by regulating it. You would apply for the job you want, and if you are declined because there are too many of these people, you would just get a different job. Maybe, if you wanted to be a surgeon, and got denied, you could be a physician instead, or perhaps a nurse, or a gynecologist, or proctologist, or whatever.

And heck, the great part is, you could move anywhere you want across the country. Eventually, free public transportation anywhere through the country would be set up, and you could easily arrange moving or travelling with the government. You could, say, be a doctor for 2 years, then go on a 3 week vacation across the country. For those 3 weeks, you might do random small jobs, instead of being a doctor. See what I'm saying? Most of those crappy jobs like waitressing or garbagemanning would end up being taken by travellers anyway. And, if you still wanted to be a doctor, you could just "import" into a hospital near where you are travelling, and do services there instead.

Screw that, in the ideal country, people want to live life, and chill out and have a good life. This is how we'd let them do that.

Also, our leaders would have no individual power. It would be best to create large councils (made up of several hundred members) to handle emergencies, but in non-emergencies, bills and legislation would be introduced and voted on by the entire population, and then the executive branch would enforce that legislation, that's all.

There are also many similar ideas at http://www.technocracy.org/.

Edit: Last time I was at technocracy.org I didn't read enough into it. I'm there again now, and I'm really liking the ideas they are saying. However, I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about government. =P If you would like to talk with me privately about these ideas, send me a PM, or feel free to start a new thread quoting these posts on a more appropriate board, and then tell me where. =)

Back to the humans not using their teeth and claws to catch animals ...

 

oops..done