Thread: killing. instinct?

what would it take for you (as a human )to kil another human?
(this is not a post to recruit, don't worry.)

im just interested in other's breaking point's as individual's .. and the natural human instinct involved.

is it fair to say self defense is instinct.. or say protecting your home from a burglar. ? ?

say some one attacted your child in the street. would you go after thatt person for revenage?

it's natural for animal's to kill. but what make's us different from the other's?

I don't know, I've never done it :wink: I think killing is not so much an instict, in that it can be triggered by a stimulus (like [someone kills your child]=> [you kill him]). It's a culmination of things. But yea it's an intriguing question: what brings someone to the point where he/she would kill people?

true. i have never been pushed so far

It does not take much to kill. However, after it is done, it takes a lot to keep living yourself.

there's alway's a but!!1

so it takes a while to get over what we've done ...(see the but) .. but.. what about when we were all wearing those grass fig's and leaf's for clothes... ( not that last party i was at mind you ) ..

did we devolpe a sense of guilt?

Pendragon:

what brings someone to the point where he/she would kill people?

The fatted calf the human calls Politics.

The biggest mistake all of you make is attributing it to aggression and saying things like so:

It does not take much to kill

Much too simple, stupid. Kidding.

Its takes much to kill, let alone look another in the eyes while one kills him.
Notice the emphasis on air power.
Notice the emphasis on the hygienic- vicious 'warfare' using lasers and buttons.
Notice the emphasis on terms like 'collateral damage' so that pussiest can rationalize carnage.
Notice the emphasis on keeping killing palatable. Distant.

Every species on this planet is imbued with a resistance to killing its own- you'll find it in the piranha, the wolf, the sea lion all the way up to the pussiest mass of protein we call Man.

Those in power know about this resistance to kill one's own- they have it as well.
But they also know that power is Numbers and Mass.

This is why soldiers, security guards, the police force- in other words anyone who will have to kill in their work detail have to be conditioned.

And this is why every from of government seeks to lull this natural resistance to kill one's own with a lullaby of Patriotism, which of course is impossible without Propaganda and Politics.....

Why do humans on such massive scales kill their own?
Its not aggression, and nor is it protection or personal agenda- soldiers meet for the first time on that battlefield.

Humans kill while intoxicated on the triple P's- Patriotism, Politics, and Propaganda.
Poured and served by men in power, seeking mass and numbers to wield that power impossible without them.

Originally Posted by abraxas

Its takes much to kill, let alone look another in the eyes while one kills him.

It does not take much to kill. But it does take a lot to watch that person die. I have killed and I have sat and watched as the life faded from him. I sat and held him while his hand turned cold and clammy, I sat there and watched as his heart made its last beat, as he struggled for his very last breath. I did not kill out of aggresssion, nor because I wanted to

Sploitt:

Have you ever killed anyone? I doubt it. Now since I am probably the only person on the board who has, I think my statement has a little more fucking validity.

And you have of course.

Tell me, did the safeword he or she forgot rhyme with “loser”?
Or was this real...you know, like Shwarznegger gore?
Grrr....

I suggest you keep your inane theory's to yourself instead of spewing this nescient crap you came up with to make killing about some political brainfuck..

Perfect.
Now, for the politics of the social degenerate who like every last brainfuck in Columbine has tokenized murder.

Cause you know, killing isn’t killing unless you wax fag and romanticize the s-hit out of it.

Ain’t that right, “Sploit” or whatever other name you use on the net?

You know, the internet where the middle classed white, or the beleaguered, the shiftless wage slave, your average commoner of all race and genders loves to write about what he’s killed or maimed or domnated in some blog....

or dare I say FORUM?

Stupid cunt.

A killer’s a killer, not his propoganda.

Come on my precious French poodle oops Rottweiler.

I want to hear you barking.

Dreksus.

Show thyself.

Sploit,

It does not take much to kill. But it does take a lot to watch that person die.

And doesn't watching someone die follow from the act of killing?
Surely, you can abandon them to their death, but why kill if you don't want to suffer the consequences? How cowardly one would have to be not watch his prey die.

And as we are men. How can we not connect the act of killing to the act of dying. Only a lowly, primitive beast doesn't get the connection between life and death.


Therefore, what kind of killing is the easiest? The distant killing. The killing with a button. With a gun from across a football field. From atop a tower. The distance makes it easy. And yet, the physical distance is only half the story. For man has it within himself to cross that physical distance with his mind. To sit and watch one die in his mind rather than in the flesh.

The true distance that makes killing easy exists in the mind.

One kills monsters. Not men.
Demonization is the key.

Have you ever killed anyone? I doubt it. Now since I am probably the only person on the board who has, I think my statement has a little more fucking validity.

Because we can all believe you, right?
A killer never lies.


Abraxas,

Every species on this planet is imbued with a resistance to killing its own- you'll find it in the piranha, the wolf, the sea lion all the way up to the pussiest mass of protein we call Man.

This, of course, is a generalization. Many species are their own worst enemies.

Big Mouth Toads for instance will eat anything. They'll even try to eat toads twice their size. Killing both.

Dreksus.

Show thyself.

I'm here.

Drecksus:

This, of course, is a generalization. Many species are their own worst enemies.

Big Mouth Toads for instance will eat anything. They'll even try to eat toads twice their size. Killing both.

But show me one that did so out of malice.

The Big Mouth toad you likely saw on The Most Extreme, is so stupid he'll lunge without thinking and becuase of this, choke.
Rarely do animals fight to the death out of season (breeding) or when not defending property.
All lacking the definitive- delicous- malice of homicide.


To wit, isn't the sociopath intriguing? Preciely beucase he is rare.
Which means that what is common- and therefore easiest- is the civil and obedient.

The true distance that makes killing easy exists in the mind.

What you call the 'straightjacket', neocortex.

All species are programmed to at least recoil from killing of one's own-

“In conflict situations, this primitive, midbrain processing can be observed in the existence of a powerful resistance to killing one's own kind. Animals with antlers and horns slam together in a relatively harmless head-to-head fashion, and piranha fish fight their own kind with flicks of the tail, but against any other species these creatures unleash their horns and teeth without restraint. This is an essential survival mechanism that prevents a species from destroying itself during territorial and mating rituals.”- “Agresson and Vilonece", author Dave Grossman who’s based his studies on actual war experience.

Source: http://killology.com/article_agress&viol.htm

Morever, he’s shown that in World War 1 only 15-20 percet of soldiers actually fired their weapons.
The initial reaction of the soldier- unprepeared, or in other words unconditioned by those in power like I said- is to hide himself and not fight, let alone kill his own.
Killing his own is among the most common reasons for PTSD.

And as we are men. How can we not connect the act of killing to the act of dying. Only a lowly, primitive beast doesn't get the connection between life and death.

That's right Spoitty woitty- and only a moron would think his romancing the slooooooooooow death of his victim on a forum makes him a killer.

Know who I fear?
Not these Rice/Lee novel reading, movie watching Goths and peasents enamored of slaguther.
I fear the common Karachi thief who'd kill you for a melon.

But show me one that did so out of malice.

The Big Mouth toad you likely saw on The Most Extreme, is so stupid he'll lunge without thinking and becuase of this, choke.
Rarely do animals fight to the death out of season (breeding) or when not defending property.
All lacking the definitive- delicous- malice of homicide.

Quite right.
(I've seen the toad in several documentaries, actually.)
But you're right. And, in fact, toads, being amphibians, are VERY low on the scale of neural development. Their brains are tiny little things and don't have the structures necessary for true social behavior.

You know, of course, that if you remove someone's amgydallas (both of them) that they will no longer see other people as people. But rather as something akin to furniture.

Reptiles and amphibians are at this stage of development and walk all over each other as if they weren't even there. Only in a few circumstances do more social behaviors emerge. Mating, for instance. And also some primitive heirarchichal behavior in some species (monitor lizards, for instance). Very primitive. They are unable to form very large communities. And the communities that they do form are hardly communities at all.

"Rarely do animals fight to the death out of season (breeding) or when not defending property.
All lacking the definitive- delicous- malice of homicide."

Yes. But still a generalization. There are animals that do kill for arbitrary reasons. Most very likely don't understand the full consequences of their actions, but some do.
Chimpanzees, for instance. You've heard of the demonic ape theory?
But, of course, chimps are practically human.

I've also heard that Wolverines will go up and down the trap lines killing animals in the traps. Not for food. But because they're there. I've only anecdotal evidence for this, however. It could very possibly be a wive's tale.


Intelligence is a sliding scale. And only man possesses the abstract leap of mentality to really be able to enjoy killing.
Once he learns to evade the consequences, that is.
But, then again, some might relish the sweet torture of guilt after the deed.

Seen Ichi the Killer?

What you call the 'straightjacket', neocortex.

All species are programmed to at least recoil from killing of one's own-

“In conflict situations, this primitive, midbrain processing can be observed in the existence of a powerful resistance to killing one's own kind. Animals with antlers and horns slam together in a relatively harmless head-to-head fashion, and piranha fish fight their own kind with flicks of the tail, but against any other species these creatures unleash their horns and teeth without restraint. This is an essential survival mechanism that prevents a species from destroying itself during territorial and mating rituals.”- “Agresson and Vilonece", author Dave Grossman who’s based his studies on actual war experience.

Caught you in a bit of contradiction here.
Midbrain and neocortex are not quite the same.
However, in man the largest lobe of the brain is the frontal lobe and it has usurped nerve connections to all parts of the brain. It is this which gives us our power to distract attention.
To make our fellow man an alien monster.
A demon.
Infidel.
Victim.

The midbrain puts out recognition factors which ensure that a species knows itself. And gives it emotional cues to know how to deal with members of its own species. But our frontal lobe gives us the ability to override said programming.
With just the slightest sleight of hand.

Nothing up my sleeve...
I'm a murderer.
You are an object to be be manipulated and used. To be killed.

The prodigious swelling of our frontal lobe opens us up to insanity in a way that few other animals on the face of the earth are able to experience.
Lucky us.

Source: http://killology.com/article_agress&viol.htm

Killology.
Sweet.

Morever, he’s shown that in World War 1 only 15-20 percet of soldiers actually fired their weapons.
The initial reaction of the soldier- unprepeared, or in other words unconditioned by those in power like I said- is to hide himself and not fight, let alone kill his own.
Killing his own is among the most common reasons for PTSD.

Interesting.
I should imagine that the numbers were higher in WWII.
Why?
Because the political reasoning for war in WWII was far greater.
The demonization of the enemy was far more complete.
In WWI it was almost like a day at the beach. A bloody beach, but still a beach. They'd have nice little cease-fires over Christmas and meet in no-man's land to exchange gifts. This began to change towards the end of the war as the demonization of other began to occur. As war-weariness began to set in.

In WWII it started from the beginning. The old order of the old boys club generals were upset. It was a whole new ball game.

I fear the common Karachi thief who'd kill you for a melon.

Or for a cigarette.

Drecksus:

Caught you in a bit of contradiction here.
Midbrain and neocortex are not quite the same.
However, in man the largest lobe of the brain is the frontal lobe and it has usurped nerve connections to all parts of the brain. It is this which gives us our power to distract attention.
To make our fellow man an alien monster.
A demon.
Infidel.
Victim.

That's...what I'm saying.
You said:"The true distance that makes killing easy exists in the mind. "

I said: "What you call the 'straightjacket', neocortex"

Abstract being responsible for that villification, therefore distance, I'm pointing to what you called in some yesterwhen the 'straightjacket' (frontal lobes).

I'm expanding your intitial sentence 'the true distnacethat makes killing easy exists in the mind"

Into

"the true distancethat makes killing easy exists in the neocortex".

The midbrain has its ancient codes scratched out in cement, and the "human" brain evolves its sledgemmer to break it.
In other words-
"The midbrain puts out recognition factors which ensure that a species knows itself. And gives it emotional cues to know how to deal with members of its own species. But our frontal lobe gives us the ability to override said programming.

But, then again, some might relish the sweet torture of guilt after the deed.

And the most creative found that guilt in feces:
http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/flanagan.html

*chuckle*
Bob rules

Interesting.
I should imagine that the numbers were higher in WWII.
Why?
Because the political reasoning for war in WWII was far greater.
The demonization of the enemy was far more complete.
In WWI it was almost like a day at the beach. A bloody beach, but still a beach. They'd have nice little cease-fires over Christmas and meet in no-man's land to exchange gifts. This began to change towards the end of the war as the demonization of other began to occur. As war-weariness began to set in.

In WWII it started from the beginning. The old order of the old boys club generals were upset. It was a whole new ball game.

Actually- read his site.

The 'day at the beach' debuts in Vietnam after the culture has been desensitized (conditioned) with the violence on television and videogames so common after liberation movements.
The early 20th century was farily conservative, sexually and socially, and this refeclts on the battlefields.

I know what you are getting at- that the second war would have been more brutal becuase of the propoganda machanies perfected by Nazi-Fascinst authoritarianism.
I see your point, perfectly.

But I'm talking someting that can rid one's fear of death or lower one's treshold to commiting it or suffering it oneself.
You're pointng out the hatred of Other that has the illusion of fearless heroism that only resembles this fearlessness.

In order to have something like the first, the mind must be cultrued in a medium exposed to it to desentize it natural repugnace.

This is why serial killers are notorious for having been raised in cold, violent households. And now look at the difference between the tepid Amerian soldier who grew up in the suburbs, and the Palestenian mullah who grew up in blood.

Sploitty, on the other hand, grew up with his vagina petted by old ladies.

[edit]

Sploit:

Sorry it took so long for me to reply, but some of us can not waste our entire day at a computer.

I'm an oily anti-social pimple with way too much time on her fat hands, how's that?

On the serious- research?-

You can read psych profiles and studies and for that matter anything else that you want,

Think that's my only experience with death?
Oh? But that's beside the point.

What's really at hand is not the thread but
One: your posturing quips about killing someone
two: the assumption that comes with that: 'distinction'

Your kind- like a good patriarch- tend to look their nose down on those less experienced and assume the moral high-ground.

Which was irrelevant, spelled with double R- I made a general statement about warfare.
The personal is not warfare- I'd kill anyone that's crossed me without flinching if this were a Mann-ish dystopia with no laws.

You, moron, made it personal by attacking me.
I spoke of warfare.

[edit]

And who called who a brainfuck, brainfuck?
First?

Puerile, true, but should I quote you to you?

Out of respect for Insanity, who owns this site, call a truce by agreeing to what I've said or apologizing.

And the Drecksus can join in to rescue this thread back up to its philosophy.

Fine, truce. I have re-edited all posts and removed all flames.

MuHA-Ha.

That's one for Abraxis.

Drecksus, the floor is cleared. Enter dramatis personae...

Abraxas,

The midbrain has its ancient codes scratched out in cement, and the "human" brain evolves its sledgemmer to break it.

Ah. I get you.
Just so.

And the most creative found that guilt in feces:
http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/flanagan.html

*chuckle*
Bob rules

Now.. that.. is something else.
Ha!
The lifesavers dissolved in his own... (damned censorship...) feces.
Ha!
And the worst part is that he didn't even have the courage to eat it...

The 'day at the beach' debuts in Vietnam after the culture has been desensitized (conditioned) with the violence on television and videogames so common after liberation movements.
The early 20th century was farily conservative, sexually and socially, and this refeclts on the battlefields.

Ah. Yes.
Different kind of days at the beach though.
People went to the beach in the early 20th century as well, you know. They just wore those long cotton bathing suits so their knees wouldn't show.

What I'm getting at is that those who went off to WWI did so gaily. Like a grand adventure.
It wasn't until later that the fun was ground out of it.
The Christmas truce is an example of this. There was an event, unfortunately my brain is too addled at the moment to recall, which put an end to this. Some act of betrayal at Christmas and afterwards the enemy was the enemy and not a potential friend.
WWI was bloody and gruesome. Fighting trench warfare for a mile of blood-soaked mud.
Chemical weapons.
Biological agents.
The rules changed forever. But even so the generals were all educated in the same schools. They were friends. They married each other's daughters and sons to each other.

Hitler changed this by Total War. By taking the command from the generals.

I see what you're saying about Vietnam. It was like a day at the beach too. Sort of. Between treks through the swamp they'd have barbecues, drink beer, and smoke pot. Even some vietnamese poon-tang.
But. It was different in that there was no camaraderie between the two sides.
The VC were not eligible for friendship.
You didn't trade tobacco with them.
You killed them.
That's what they were for.
True. It was also because they were asian... But still.

But.
You know all this.
You've already said as much...

So.

But I'm talking someting that can rid one's fear of death or lower one's treshold to commiting it or suffering it oneself.
You're pointng out the hatred of Other that has the illusion of fearless heroism that only resembles this fearlessness.

And what would that something be, exactly?
The miserable thief is an outcast. He is not valued by society therefore he values society not a whit. Other than how he can take advantage. And if taking a life is the requirement to profit from a social exchange, then so be it.

The Japanese were notorious in their contempt for human life.
Overpopulation which lessons the value of the individual. We see much the same in all overpopulated countries, but few are as vicious as the Japanese were. They elevated killing to an artform. Reveled in it.

And. Look. Nobody cries for all the dead babies of Nan-king.
Poor, poor jews.


In places like India, this is translated into a form of surrender. So much life everywhere. Why bother striving? The ultimate ideal is an end.

In order to have something like the first, the mind must be cultrued in a medium exposed to it to desentize it natural repugnace.

This is why serial killers are notorious for having been raised in cold, violent households. And now look at the difference between the tepid Amerian soldier who grew up in the suburbs, and the Palestenian mullah who grew up in blood.

I think the science of profiling is still somewhat... faulty. Much of the FBI's ideal of serial killers came from a very small sampling. Don't recall the numbers at the moment. Something like 41. Of course, since the early days more and more have been added, but there is still much that is unsure about what really shapes the minds of those who become killers.

You always hear about the guy who grew up abused and was forced to have sex with his mother. But you never hear about the guy who grew up in perfectly normal home. But they still exist.

As to the American soldier. I think we're quite effective killers. We're beating their numbers soundly. Using technology, sure, but so what?

Drecksus, the floor is cleared. Enter dramatis personae...

And I've arrived. *bows*
Hee hee.

I've tendered a request to Sploit to detail his story of killing in some other thread. It should be here not there.
Details.

Oh yes......I'd relish this story of his killing.

Sploit, do tell.

I'll leave replying to last post for after.

I'm done writing replies to your threads. I do not need to justify myself to some 16 year old girl on the rag and pissed or to her alter-ego.

I can assure you that Abraxas and I are different people. Ask Insanity. He's owner. I'm sure he has access to the records.

Know what I've noticed about you?
You've touched none of the meat of this matter.
None.
Nada.
Zip.

But at least you're posting.

Hillarious.
He thinks I'm you.

I rule.

But at least you're posting.

Excellent point.

Yeah. That kinda ticks me off. If anything, you should be me.
But. I don't blame him. After all. You are the one that has disturbed him. So it's only right that he sees you more clearly than I.

Originally Posted by Abraxas

Pendragon:

what brings someone to the point where he/she would kill people?

The fatted calf the human calls Politics.

True, the vast majority of killing has been caused by politics. But still humans have to make the decision over and over again to pull the trigger and kill a fellow human, even if politicians ordered them to do it.

Originally Posted by Abraxas

Those in power know about this resistance to kill one's own- they have it as well.
But they also know that power is Numbers and Mass.

as Stalin said "one death is a tragedy, a thousand deaths is statistics". It's a sad thing, but I guess that's how humans work. That's why I think everyone who supports a war, even when it's a justified one, should be shown pictured of mutilated corpses. So they know what they actually support. So they know that the concept of 'ein frischen fröhligen Krieg' (-Wilhelm I) does not exist.

Originally Posted by sploit

It does not take much to kill. But it does take a lot to watch that person die. I have killed and I have sat and watched as the life faded from him. I sat and held him while his hand turned cold and clammy, I sat there and watched as his heart made its last beat, as he struggled for his very last breath. I did not kill out of aggresssion, nor because I wanted to

Man I don't know what to say..Must've been awfull..Did you fight in a war, or did you have to kill someone as a law-enforcer? On one hand I'm very much interested in this because I've never been in a situation anything like this. On the other hand, I'd understand it if this was a traumatic thing for you and you'd rather not talk about it.

Pendragon:

But still humans have to make the decision over and over again to pull the trigger and kill a fellow human, even if politicians ordered them to do it.

True, but time again they've pulled it for the good of thing called "Cause".
Which is a synonym for "Groupthink"

You realize one need not be anywhere near a group or its leader to be influenced by their thinking?

Man I don't know what to say..Must've been awfull..Did you fight in a war, or did you have to kill someone as a law-enforcer? On one hand I'm very much interested in this because I've never been in a situation anything like this. On the other hand, I'd understand it if this was a traumatic thing for you and you'd rather not talk about it.

*snicker*

Sploit goes:
It was.....it was.....so...traumatic. You've never been there so you don't know, thank your stars you've never known such horror.
I can't even bring myself to....to....talk about.
Watching my victim writhe, agonize, squrim, struggle, wince and wiggle in his agony slowly wasting from my hand into the Darkness of Abaddon, down into Oblivion.
The pain, suffering, torture by god! and his eyes, orbs, corneas, seeing apparatus....
They haunt me in my sleep.
Sweet Morpheus, deliver me to sleep away from all this horror, terror, shock, revulsion (a million more adjectives for effect) and dismay.

No. I can't.....I can't....even talk about it.


(and this is the guy who says killing is nothing. If it was, shut up about it)

How I hate the constructs and gloomy paroxysms that the modern man abjures from sacks of shit going immobile.
It makes people rise into a lectern where the bible is replaced by a vat of emotive responses and experiences which are used to reflect ones unique role in the scheme of things.
Though, this fucks up when the realization that the human nature (and this noticed when extracting examples from vast amount of individuals that are NOT westerner mind-fucks) doesn’t hold specific nor pedestal values when a person experiences the act of killing, takes place.

No one steps out from the laissez-faire; no one steps out from the neutral masses. And no one sure as fuck deserves to reserve the right to diminish or posture the element when the only view for the analysis comes from ambiguity and social roles.

The speculations and the aftermath of killing resemble a man doing sit-ups for two months then standing in front of a mirror and going “fuck yeah, look at my mood, morale and endurance-filled state, go me!”, or “oh the sorrow, I didn’t form pretty abs!”
Cynicism is not, in my mind, assignable to a whole variety of aspects, but to this one, it should be implemented into.

And by the way, having experiences with death is not akin to understanding the act of killing.
Something as miniscule as being someone who doesn’t notice what lip-gloss you’re wearing could choke you to death and eat your liver with fava-beans, just because you failed to attract attention with your shitty lip-gloss.
Being someone who doesn’t see a reason to help you to the hospital after you’ve broken your leg does not ensure he possesses total commitment when staring at a face-off resulting to death.
And standing in a pedestal after seeing someone die does not mean you would (or could) intercept, for example, a rape.

The way I see it, realization is the key to experiencing and understanding these ramifications.
The one who merely accepts the role of the killer is merely that; a killer.
The one who sees the complex structure and communications in the scenario needs not to even mention the speck of death.
There are sets of values and mindsets assimilated in the act, even though no one capable to in-depth research has ever studied in the field, which makes the following statement too obvious.

“The cashier: You know, I almost didn’t show up for work today, had a rough time yesterday; I killed a man.
A mother of two: *puzzled* (now running away, being scared and calling the authorities)*screech and/or faint*”

Here the obscure is misrepresented, misapprehended and stomped to the ground.

Unless of course the values appointed are ‘legitimate’, if that is the case, then the values appointed reek of sorrow, sympathy, loss and repenting.

An army man: Oh it was howwible, the killing… the bloodshed.
The girlfriend: I know, you’re safe now, no more awfulness for you, honey.

The truth is, I have never heard of anyone who could explore the act from an empiric point of view, since the identity of the lead-character is formed from subjective reality, from a symbolist-hell and from social progresses.

Now… the one who came from chaos and established, molded it to fit his needs -and paid attention during this- and then ‘capped some hardc0re niggaz’ is someone I’d like to… read about.

Originally Posted by goodgod3rd

what would it take for you (as a human )to kil another human?
(this is not a post to recruit, don't worry.)

im just interested in other's breaking point's as individual's .. and the natural human instinct involved.

is it fair to say self defense is instinct.. or say protecting your home from a burglar. ? ?

say some one attacted your child in the street. would you go after thatt person for revenage?

it's natural for animal's to kill. but what make's us different from the other's?

1. "is it fair to say self defense is instinct.. or say protecting your home from a burglar"

Protecting ones home could be done with alarms, cameras, security personell, fences, dogs, bars on the doors and windows ,etc.. etc. so that you would prevent having to kill in order to protect.

Self defense is another issue that would have to take many things into consideration. If you were approached by someone and they said they had a gun and threatened your life, you would have the right to prevent them from doing so and that prevention could include killing them if you could before they shot you. You could just knock the gun away, if you could and pick it up and call the police.


2."say some one attacted your child in the street. would you go after that person for revenage? "


Again it depends on what they were doing to the child and if they had a weapon. It also would depen if you also had a weapon. It would also depend on if they were caught and served time for kidnapping I wouldnt think I'd go after them if the children were unharmed.


3. "it's natural for animal's to kill. but what make's us different from the other's?"


Many animals do not kill, like bees and many other insects. We have a brain that controls our emotions so that we also can reason with our brains so that way humans don't use instinctive behavior like animals.

well , i don't know what happened between spliot and the other two...

but i disagree with Abraxas:
killing is not all about politics.. sure some of it is.. surely.. but when somone mugs and kill's... well that is nothing to do with politics...

i'd also like to know spliots story, but i won't ask him.

i agree wth him.. you can't know anyting about killing until you really have..and i respect him fo telling us that he did kill somone.

killing instinct.. you say anuimals have a proctive instinct.. as ot not destroy there own kind? then why do murders do it? thats really what i mean.. murders/attatckers..rapists. why do they kill? is it there're instinct? or is it just there personaliity.

police are defenders of the peace. they kill to protect. that is not wat im talking about...
army .. sure that is "poltics" but again.. more ofeten its to protect.

i would kill.. if i had to . surival. but i never want to. but i would.

Goodgod3rd had a lot of interesting questions about killing, but the one statement he made was clearly false"

"it's natural for animal's to kill. but what make's us different from the other's?"

The fact is that mammals have an inhibition against killing. In rut, males will often fight each other for territory, but it rarely ends in death. The object is not to kill the contender but to show who is dominant.

Also, it is generally always enough to show placting, submissive behavior when threatened. The dominant male is then satisfied and backs off. It cuts away anger real quick.

Who says we are different? We are not. Many of the male mammals in rut are erbivoires. We are part carnivor. We have the hunting instinct bred into us thru millions of years of pre-human biological evolution as hunter-gatherers. That is why we like to hunt, and those who do not, even so, love sports in which they chase leather encased balls (the "game"). But we are social animals and behave towards each other much same as herd erbivoir animals.

For example, if a suspect flees from the police, the police get into a sort of hunting frenzie which is very dangerous. It requres a lot of special training so they can control this trait. Otherwise, every caught fleeing suspect would end up beaten or shot to death. Yet, a person will only very rarely get seriously harmed by refusing to fight when confronted. It is not in our nature to want to harm who is submissive. We do not normally like to kill peaceful people, women and children---although people can be conditioned by their environment into doing so, as we all know!

Also, can you imagine how difficult it is to get used to operating on people? Imagine yourself with a scalpal and you have all this skin, this flesh in front of you which you must slice through. It is a lot tougher to cut through than you can imagine, also. It is enough to make the blood drain from a normal person's head. It is an ability that has to be acquired through training. It is normally abhorrent to us.

charles brough
http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
_________________

Originally Posted by charles brough

For example, if a suspect flees from the police, the police get into a sort of hunting frenzie which is very dangerous. It requres a lot of special training so they can control this trait. Otherwise, every caught fleeing suspect would end up beaten or shot to death.

I've never heard about this special training, source?

About the source, this is what I remember:

I lived in California then when police had been filmed beating suspects several times. In one police backed television documentary on the situation, the problem was dealt with in depth. The statement was made in the film that it had to be emphasized in police training for the men to control this tendency. I have every reason in the world to believe this, but I do not claim to know of any source which has studied the training manuals and proceedures of police departments across the nation.

charles

Originally Posted by goodgod3rd

what would it take for you (as a human )to kil another human?
(this is not a post to recruit, don't worry.)

im just interested in other's breaking point's as individual's .. and the natural human instinct involved.

is it fair to say self defense is instinct.. or say protecting your home from a burglar. ? ?

say some one attacted your child in the street. would you go after thatt person for revenage?

it's natural for animal's to kill. but what make's us different from the other's?

If you forget what others have told you all your life, yes, then you will kiil, and will come no remorse. But why would you kill... would you kill if you are angry? isn't anger a cultural concept?...

I would only kill to save myself or others that I care about. I would try to restrain someone first. If I felt my life was in danger trying to do so, then yes..they are dead. I would need good reason. Killing even without remorse is not without it's consequences.

I don't think I could kill out of angry. Probably only out of self preservation or protecting another. Its not something I would want to ever have to do.



Richard Vasseur

i don't think anyone can say what they could or could not/ would or would not do when it comes to using leathal force, humans do not always think of the consequences so our emotional response could be delayed till after the deed is done.

Originally Posted by wallaby

i don't think anyone can say what they could or could not/ would or would not do when it comes to using leathal force, humans do not always think of the consequences so our emotional response could be delayed till after the deed is done.

I agree.

To what extend our responses depend on our biology and not on our cultural knowledge?

What if the person becomes consumed by hatred... And all sense of control is lost, only animal is left. Killing would become natural then if you ask me...

Some people don't get angry, and it is those people that can have this "problem". It is said that the devil is the man you least expect it from, this qoute was meant for the man who kill he's fellow man... 8)

Anyways :P , just remember to insult somebody is better than kill somebody, so if you're so angry you know what to choose

hmm,..killing!!
killing someone is just like killing ALL PPL,, and keeping someoen alive also like keeping all ppl alive,..it's a matter of ure satisfaction anyway,..what does really satisfy ure desite? mortality or what?
if i had to think..id really first think in the rilegion punishment view..

This debate - this little war - is to be applauded with all respect, especially to those who prove herein to most deserve it. May there be more conventions like this one. Abraxa and acolytes: bravissimo. For all the candor, sometimes it's difficult to distinguish who the good and bad guys are in here. But: there is indeed a very important difference between right and wrong and good and bad, and, we are obliged to know the difference (though of course, we don't have to...)

Take note that for all of the usages of the word kill and killing, the word 'murder' is used only once (according to my best count).

Indeed, there is a generally unrecognized, unacknowledged, vast difference between killing and murder which is not particularly emphasized - though it is most likely understood, it is generally unspecified - in the ongoing exchange.

Indeed, this consortium is altogether too unusual - exactly the opposite (and perhaps inversely proportional to and) of unnecessary, avoidable (co-specific/human vs human) violence.

As I have specified before, the Seville Statement rejects any biological imperative for perishing co-specifics. Whereas, fighting and war as learned behavior can be normalized as very entertaining and recreational, as long as the fans aren't endangered (A non sequitur of course. An oxymoronic audience mentality... Refer TV's electronicoliseum)

Thank you, Ladies & Gentlemen.
May we share the world together in peace.
(Of course, we don't have to...)

http://forums.delphiforums.com/subedai

All Things Bright & Beautiful All Creatures Great & Small
All Things Warm & Wonderful The Lord God Made Them All.

Please find herein a partial list of some relevant resource material for anyone who wishes to pursue this thread's (googdgod3rd's) paramountly important, relatively neglected and/or misunderstood isssue, furthermore. It's some of the copy I researched while writing NOMADS, CIVILIZATION & WAR: A Brief History of the EuroAsian Horse People. Eight out of ten partial chapters - sans illustrations - of which may be found at the above provided URL, which you may have to click on more than once, to get through the commercial pop-ups that seem to have taken up (missile envious?) residence there, between the referenced URL, and, the Reader (may only draw her or his own conclusions?)

Some of the issues of willfull destructive human aggression (ethology) is accounted for in the following anthological collection of resource materials - followed by a partial list of motivations.

THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN DESTRUCTIVENESS - Eric Fromm

THE ART OF WAR - Sun Tzu

ON WAR - Karl Von Clauzewitz

ON AGGRESSION - Konrad Lorenz

ON KILLING - Lt. Col. Grossman

ON VIOLENCE: The Code Of Denial & Silence;
The Normalization Of Betrayals Of Oaths Of Public Office
- K.B. Robertson

AN INTIMATE HISTORY OF KILLING:
Face To Face Killing In The 20th Century
- Joanna Bourke

THE BATTLE FOR HISTORY - John Keegan

THE ABUSE OF POWER - Theodore Draper

TO END WAR - R. Pickus & R. Woito

THE RIDE OF THE SECOND HORSEMAN - R. L. O’Connell

A HISTORY OF WARFARE - John Keegan

DUPLICITY, INTRIGUE, BRUTE FORCE & INTIMIDATION:
The Male Sexist Oracle. The American Way - K.B. Robertson

WOMEN IN WAR - Shelly Saywell

THE CAUSES & PREVENTION OF WAR - Brown

THE DECLINE & FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE - Edward Gibbon

THE FIRST CASUALTY - Phillip Knightly
(‘In times of war, truth is the first casualty’. - Sen. H. Johnson, 1917)

THE MASK OF COMMAND - John Keegan

THE RISE & FALL OF GREAT POWERS - Paul Kennedy

THE OUTLINE OF HISTORY - H.G. Wells

GENGHIS KHAN - Harold Lamb

THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S - Taylor Caldwell

POLAND - James Michener

The I CHING - author(s) unknown.

THE KORAN (Quran) - Muhammed
The TORAH & TALMUD - author(s) unknown
The BAGHADVAD GITA - author(s) unknown

THE ROYAL HORDES - E.D. Phillips

HISTORY OF THE MONGOLS - Bertold Spuler

VIOLENCE & CRIME: In Cross National Perspective
- Archer and Gartner

THE GOOD WAR - Studs Terkel

THE DIALECTIC CYCLE - Cyclic Pendulum - OF HISTORY - Friedrich Hegel

THE PELOPONNESIAN WARS
The Self Destruction Of The Greek State By Civil Wars - Herodotus (& standard references.)

DESCRIPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD: The Travels Of Marco Polo
- Marco Polo, translated by William Marsden

THE TABOO AGAINST KNOWING WHO YOU ARE - Allen Watts

THE VOYAGE OF THE BEAGLE - Charles Darwin

THE COMPETITIVE IMPERATIVE - K.B. Robertson

ANTI VIOLENCE STATEMENTS: Suppression Of Great Minds - Albert Einstein

THE HISTORY OF THE MINOANS - Standard reference sources

SOLDIERS - John Keegan

THE POLITICS OF EXPERIENCE - R.D. Laing

THE YASA - Genghis Khan (As translated by Rashid al Din.)

THE DISCOVERERS - Daniel J. Boorstin

THE DESCENT OF WOMAN - Elaine Morgan

THE ASCENT OF MAN - J. Bronowski

THE NAKED APE - Desmond Morris

OUR ORIENTAL HERITAGE - Will Durant

THE TABOO AGAINST KNOWING WHERE IT'S AT - K. B. Robertson

THE FIRST HORSEMEN - Trippet

THE LOOM OF LANGUAGE - Frederick Bodmer

THE SOURCE - James Michener

THE CIVIL WAR - National Geographic

POLITICAL TERRORISM - Grant Wardlaw

NUEROLINGUSTIC PROGRAMMING - Richard W. Bandler

OPERANT CONDITIONING, BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
& (so called) PSYCHOMOLECULAR RESTRUCTURING
- Standard informational resources

WORLD WAR II - John Keegan

CIVILIZATION & ITS DISCONTENTS - Sigmund Freud

THE TERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE - Robert Ardrey

AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH - Neil Postman

RUNNING FROM SAFETY - Richard Bach

EXTRAORDINARY POPULAR DELUSIONS AND THE MADNESS OF CROWDS
- Mackay

THE ART OF MISSING THE POINT: When You Can’t Afford To Catch On
- K.B. Robertson

“*GEORGE ORWELL’S (1984) PREDICTIONS ARE RIDICULOUS.”
- *Time / Life Publishers (*1/1/’84 Feature Article)

BRUTE FORCE, THE MALE SEXIST ORACLE: The American Way
- K.B. Robertson

WINNING THROUGH INTIMIDATION - Ringer

THE UNDECLARED WAR AGAINST AMERICAN WOMEN - Susan Faludi

A MOVEABLE VIETNAM: A Continental Misunderstanding - K.B. Robertson

THE ART OF BEING - Fromm

THE SANE SOCIETY- Fromm

ON BEING HUMAN - Fromm

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE - Goleman

TRANSFORMING A RAPE CULTURE - Buchwald, Fletcher & Roth

CONSPIRACIES, COVER-UPS & CRIMES:
Political Manipulation & Mind Control In America - J. Vankin

THE ART OF LOVING - Fromm

THE CONQUEST OF HAPPINESS - Bertrand Russell

THE UNREALITY INDUSTRY
The Deliberate Manufacturing Of Falsehoods And What It Is Doing To Our Lives - Mitroff & Bennis

HOW REAL IS REAL?
Confusion, Disinformation & Communication - Watzlawick
“...let us go down and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” - Genesis 11:7 (Refer, 1984 <NewSpeak> by George Orwell)

25 YEARS OF CENSORED NEWS - P. Phillips

AGAINST OUR WILL: Men, Women & Rape - Susan Brownmiller

BATTERED & BULLIED WOMEN MAKE BETTER PANCAKES & BURGERS
- K.B. Robertson

ESCAPE FROM FREEDOM - Fromm

THE UNDISCOVERED SELF - Jung

THE INVISIBLE (‘What?’) WAR: A War Of Perception
K.B. Robertson

THE CONQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES
- K.B. Robertson

WHY KAREN SILKWOOD WAS MURDERED - Author unknown

MEMORIES, DREAMS & REFLECTIONS - Jung

MAN AND HIS SYMBOLS - Jung

MAN FOR HIMSELF - Fromm

THE ARCHTYPES & THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS - Jung

WAR and ANTI-WAR: Survival At The Dawn Of The 21st Century
Alvin and Heidi Tofler (Authors of FUTURE SHOCK and THE THIRD WAVE)

THE JUDICIAL, JOURNALISTIC & ROGUE CIA INSPIRED
CODE OF SILENCE IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY:
A Memorial Of The Murder Of Corine Christensen In 1986
- K.B. Robertson
__________________________

Contingencies:
The fastest growing violent crime in the U.S.A. is the physical abuse of women and children - incuding rape - by adult men.
The generalised causal motivation of this includes the pillaging methods and rewards of the following compendium:

Empowering and gratifying self via disempowering others.
Aka, 'one-up-man-ship',

'put-down' power mongering,

'Gotchaism',

'recreational sado-masochism',

'brinks-man-ship'.

The easy expediency of destruction.
Refer, Nietzche's 'Will To Power',

'Blaming The Victim',

A psuedo-socialized 'competitive imperative'.

Defensive aggression (second guessing a non aggressive motivation as being aggressive; then initiating aggression, based on that false premise. "Limitless are the numbers of apparently correct conclusions that can be based on a completely false premise". - Heraclitus).

Generating a falsely founded offensive to place others on the defensive.

Vainly burdening others with something to deny, and to further explain that which is already understood.

Pretending you don't understand or hear something, when you do.

Acquiring security for self by needlessly generating insecurity in others.

Cheap thrills.

Malevolently using a minimum amount of words to delberately burden others with a maximum amount of explanation.

Expansive - improvised & innovative - artforms of waffling, flip-flopping, placeing and keeping others on the defensive.

Labeling a firm indictment as a 'reverse confession' is a firmly established 'New Age', crazymaking example. Refer abuses of 'Verbal Judo', Orwellian 'DoubleThink', 'Quackspeak' and 'Ingsoc'.

Ego-syntonic (conscienceless) narcissm.

And, in the court-recorded words of mass woman murderer, Ted Bundy:
'To get my rocks off'.


(Draw your own conclusions?)

Constructive criticism, corrections and/or contributions are welcome.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/subedai

Originally Posted by goodgod3rd

what would it take for you (as a human )to kil another human?
(this is not a post to recruit, don't worry.)

That's what you think.

If God didn't make little green apples and the Przhewalski ponies with and upon the grassy steppes of EuroAsia, and the spoked wheeled, horse drawn coaches of the chariot empires, Mr. DaBob, then, yer sigs may be getting too long.

Yes. It does seem that goodgod3rd underestimates her or his self.

As a much needed trend, this thread may never end.



Namaste.

Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff

If God didn't make little green apples and the Przhewalski ponies with and upon the grassy steppes of EuroAsia, and the spoked wheeled, horse drawn coaches of the chariot empires, Mr. DaBob, then, yer sigs may be getting too long.

aaa... well anyways, I shortened them. Less spaces and stuff.

Originally Posted by goodgod3rd

what would it take for you (as a human )to kil another human?
(this is not a post to recruit, don't worry.)

im just interested in other's breaking point's as individual's .. and the natural human instinct involved.

is it fair to say self defense is instinct.. or say protecting your home from a burglar. ? ?

say some one attacted your child in the street. would you go after thatt person for revenage?

it's natural for animal's to kill. but what make's us different from the other's?

I am almost sure that defending your home, familly or any other precious person/object is a natural instinct . You can see a lot of different emotions when you talk to somebody about something he or she likes. If you talk to a mother about her child in a verry offending way she wil stand up for her child. If you would thread her child she wil defend it what ever it takes. Most people won't let go what they realy want without a fight.

People even have gone mad because of the lose of something precious. Animals fight for their meal, children, territoria etc, but so will humans when they realy need to.

What makes humans different from animals when you talk about killing is: morale. We know killing is bad and we will not do it without regretting it.