A more appropriate name would be Hunter. Get him a dog. dj
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:36 AM, [email protected]<[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm pretty sure that it is simply life that 'breeds' violence. I mean > I have never seem anything dead attack anything else. Fictional > zombies not-withstanding. > > On a personal note, my 13 year old had his first taste of death the > other day. That'st right a cat(the female one) got a hold of one of > his hamsters. Hamster is no more, and the cat has subsequently been > renamed 'murderer' by my young boy child. > > On 20 July, 13:10, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: >> Maybe knowledge breeds violence? In the unlikely case that a man has >> not been introduced to religion or politics, would he still have the >> same propensity to kill as the modern man? Maybe, but the reasons >> would be fewer, say for perceived territorial infringement, or >> protection of family and food. >> >> I am sure that early man, before being saturated with media, politics, >> religious dogma, and over-population, was a much more peaceful animal. >> A person's conscience seems to dictate activity ranges, and today's >> man has had his conscience mezmerized by over-information, over- >> breeding, over-indulgence, etc. Unfortuately I cannot forsee a >> reversal in this trend short of some global catastrophe that wipes out >> a large number of the human animals that inhabit this rock. >> >> Many can speculate as to what breeds violence but, in my opinion, a >> healthy conscience precludes any unsolicited violent activity. I think >> a good question to ask is 'what causes the deterioration of a healthy >> conscience?'. Unfortunately, I think there are too many answers to >> that question. >> >> On Jul 18, 6:42 pm, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > A common belief today is that religion breeds violence. Isn't this >> > like saying politics is violent? I read the below today, and it gave >> > me food for thought, particularly that last sentence: >> >> > "Some kill because their faiths specifically command them to do so; >> > some kill though their faiths explicitly forbid them to do so; and >> > some kill because they have no faith and hence believe all things are >> > permitted to them. Polytheists, monotheists, and atheists kill. Men >> > kill for their gods, or for their God, or because there is no God and >> > human destiny must be shaped by gigantic exertions of human will. They >> > kill out of pursuit of universal truths, and out of fidelity to tribal >> > allegiances; for faith, blood and soil, empire, national greatness, >> > "socialist utopia", capitalism, and "democratization". Men always seek >> > gods in who's name they may perform great deeds or commit unspeakable >> > atrocity, even if those gods are not gods but "tribal honor", or >> > "genetic imperatives" or "social ideals" or "human destiny" or >> > "liberal democracy". Then again men also kill on account of money, >> > land, love, pride, hatred, envy or ambition. ... The truth is that >> > religion and irreligion are cultural variables, but killing is a human >> > constant"(*) >> >> > (*) David Bently Hart, _atheist delusion_ pg >> > 12http://www.librarything.com/work/book/47946437- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
