Actually, we're pretty much expected to indulge them. A bit of a vague statment, but no-less descriptive than ideas of 'controlling' them? Its not about property. its about area, an area that an animal considers to be its own... if you don't understand ASK, don't state 'what I am telling you' because this is getting boring. If you think the idea of area doesn't tie into self-defence go and find a bear, sit in an area that it considers its territory and see how excited the bear gets. You could of course counter this this with "we're not bears" and require me to explain that bears and humans are both animals and the instinctual components that drive bears are also present in humans... I didn't ask for an explanation of that construction - I aksed you why you wanted to share that information That's nice. Perhaps if you had killed, you would know if you have the 'ability' or not - or perhaps be fit to place yourself 'above' others on the basis of that criteria. I'll admit that I have not had to defend my 'area' (read: property but not as in posessions) but my comments are based on my understanding of the animal kingdom which I have studied (and been a member of , as HUMANS ARE ANIMALS ) I have said nothing specifically about property. Unless you mean property as in home-area and whatever items constitute that area. I feel that you are mistaking my points here, perhaps because in several posts we have not discussed the ideas that I set out in my original post, merely quibbled definitions. I don't see how comments on self-defence even come into the value of human life, nor do I consider that debating and commenting on instinctive reactions has anything to do with the concept of the 'value' of human life (you didn't specify how this value is expressed, and doing so would likely be off topic) Address the topic. My contention is that the current definition of 'reasonable' is an innapropriate construction that doesn't accomodate for the human instinct.