HOLY ***** Knife killing

"andy" · 25 May 2006 at 23:25

harsh on the taxpayers yes

why should we pay to keep the scum alive

SidewinderINC · 25 May 2006 at 23:26

Dj_Jestar said:
There is no insult, if you can't understand that one simple sentance, you need to study up. Not in any part of that sentance does it say one or the other.

Next scape goat reply please.

ok, how about this one from your sentence which is here

Naivity in it's purest form, is those who think they are "above savages."

i think i am above a savage = i am naive
i don't think i am above a savage = i am a savage or below

Dj_Jestar · 25 May 2006 at 23:26

MoNkeE said:
Oh-ho-ho! So now you've gone from being specific to individuals to generalising the entire race? I still think you're wrong.

I still can't see how every single person on this 'lil planet can be classed as savages. I think you're damned right loopy.

-RaZ

Oh right, so you've never had a fight then? You've never raised a hand against anyone?

These are all classed as uncivilised acts, therefore you, sir, are guilty of being a savage.

Caged · 25 May 2006 at 23:27

MoNkeE said:
It was a bit of sarcasm directed at the fact he felt the need to point out I made a spelling mistake

-RaZ

My mistake, I thought it was nerd rage.

Dj_Jestar · 25 May 2006 at 23:27

SidewinderINC said:
ok, how about this one from your sentence which is here

i think i am above a savage = i am naive
i don't think i am above a savage = i am a savage or below

English 101 for you:

Option 1:

Naive + a Savage.

Option 2:

Savage.

got it yet?

Nitefly · 25 May 2006 at 23:27

Phnom_Penh said:
Only because we are bound by the rules of society.

This may just be IMO, but thats a really silly way of viewing things.

iCraig · 25 May 2006 at 23:27

Phnom_Penh said:
Only because we are bound by the rules of society.

I don't think so, a lot of people live quite happily outside society, and they don't go around ripping each others heads off.

Actually, it can be the social net that drives people to be savage, money, poverty, drugs etc

If our government collapsed I can't see old ladies wipping out cleavers and going on killing sprees can you?

Dj_Jestar · 25 May 2006 at 23:27

Nitefly said:
ROFL

Just keep posting, its hillarious

Glad to be of service.

MoNkeE · 25 May 2006 at 23:28

Dj_Jestar said:
Oh right, so you've never had a fight then? You've never raised a hand against anyone?

These are all classed as uncivilised acts, therefore you, sir, are guilty of being a savage.

Christ, that really is a bit over the top. People are generally much volitile when they're younger, and I've had possibly 3 fights in my entire life. The last one was 3 years ago, and I'd never dream of getting in a fight now. Does that not mean that I've reformed and am no longer a savage? Even then, naming myself a savage is a bit extreme - what if the only fights I've been in have been to restrain someone from causing harm to another? Does that make me a savage for thinking of the welfare of another?

-RaZ

benjo plz. · 25 May 2006 at 23:29

Nitefly said:
This may just be IMO, but thats a really silly way of viewing things.

Tell that to William Golding

.

iCraig · 25 May 2006 at 23:30

Dj_Jestar said:
Oh right, so you've never had a fight then? You've never raised a hand against anyone?

These are all classed as uncivilised acts, therefore you, sir, are guilty of being a savage.

Ahaha, no, that is guilty of him losing his temper.

Saying that makes him a savage is waaaaaay overboard.

benjo plz. · 25 May 2006 at 23:33

iCraig said:
I don't think so, a lot of people live quiet happily outside society, and they don't go around ripping each others heads off.

Actually, it can be the social net that drives people to be savage, money, poverty, drugs etc

If our government collapsed I can't see old ladies wipping out cleavers and going on killing sprees can you?

You say that, yet it is society that creates the social norms about murder etc which most of us conform to. Of course there are those who will deviate from time to time, either because of abnormality/maladaption or they do so out of cognition. If there was no society, there would be no social norms. So we would be savages. Go and read Stanley Milgrams 1963 paper, or atleast a synopsis of it.

MoNkeE · 25 May 2006 at 23:35

Phnom_Penh said:
You say that, yet it is society that creates the social norms about murder etc which most of us conform to. Of course there are those who will deviate from time to time, either because of abnormality/maladaption or they do so out of cognition.

Well if the definition was created with such social norms, is it not safe to say they're not important to think about when directly comparing us to savages? If that makes sense. And if I'm not wildly missing what you're getting at

-RaZ

benjo plz. · 25 May 2006 at 23:39

MoNkeE said:
Well if the definition was created with such social norms, is it not safe to say they're not important to think about when directly comparing us to savages? If that makes sense. And if I'm not wildly missing what you're getting at

-RaZ

Ok, heres a better way of putting it, society teaches us that murder is wrong. What if there's no society.

Messiah Khan · 25 May 2006 at 23:41

Hmm.. This is my old uni. Ive walked out of the union many times. It really rams it home when something like this happens somewhere you know very well.

As for this whole savage argument, I would have to agree with Monkee on this one. Yes we are all animals in a sense, but many of use(Most I would hope) are able to live within and outside social rules without attacking each other for no reason. I would not class myself as a savage.

MoNkeE · 25 May 2006 at 23:43

I find it quite difficult to picture to picture humanity without a form of society, as even going back thousands of years, there's always been an alpha male for example who'd be respected by the rest; sort of a leader. I know that's completely dodging your question, but I think humanity has society so programmed into its way of working, that it's impossible to think of us without it.

However, if I were to go to the extreme and pretend there was no society, then yes, the potential to be savages would be there. You wouldn't need to worry about attacking on sight for something you wanted, as if you won, who would punish you? But I still don't think it's A) Guarenteed, or B) a worthy argument.

-RaZ

yer_averagejoe · 25 May 2006 at 23:44

Phnom_Penh said:
Ok, heres a better way of putting it, society teaches us that murder is wrong. What if there's no society.

Then we're savages? And your point being what?
The fact is, there is a society. Therefore we are not savages.

Nitefly · 25 May 2006 at 23:45

Phnom_Penh said:
Ok, heres a better way of putting it, society teaches us that murder is wrong. What if there's no society.

Out of curiosity, do you do phillosophy or phychology?

Because it figures

benjo plz. · 25 May 2006 at 23:47

Nitefly said:
Out of curiosity, do you do phillosophy or phychology?

Because it figures

phychology

. Still havent got round to replying to the replies I got on this thread about depression

.

iCraig · 25 May 2006 at 23:48

yer_averagejoe said:
Then we're savages? And your point being what?
The fact is, there is a society. Therefore we are not savages.

Exactly, when we were cavemen and didn't have much society, I'm quite sure we were savages, killing each other without consquence.

But we are not savages in the year 2006.