Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.quake.editing,rec.games.computer.quake.playing,rec.games.computer.quake.misc,rec.games.computer.quake.servers
Path: clanworld.com!news.millennianet.com!news.webspan.net!newsfeeds.sol.net!ix.netcom.com!dbongard
From: dbongard@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
Subject: Re: Quake, Violence, Guns, Constitution, et al
Message-ID: <dbongardEHArt4.Gp4@netcom.com>
Followup-To: rec.games.computer.quake.editing,rec.games.computer.quake.playing,rec.games.computer.quake.misc,rec.games.computer.quake.servers
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <5vf0bs$3n0$3@darla.visi.com> <01bcc0c6$a718a8c0$aa711fcc@default> <5vhaeg$6n5@news.enter.net> <01bcbd04$15545b20$e32d63c3@default> <5vhktn$9f7@news.enter.net> <341C5B22.9D579452@geocities.com> <MPG.e875093baedf9aa9896e7@news.inet.tele.dk> <34250624.B946EA9B@sover.net> <3425C542.E8BF1FE3@bscc.bls.com> <loop-ya023180002209971541460001@news.algonet.se> <3426EBB0.7C4FB9CE@sover.net> <342838E0.408D06E8@tip.nl> <loop-ya023180002409970243040001@news.algonet.se> <01bcc8bf$fac5b160$646464b5@JRS486.microtronics.com> <loop-ya023180002609970248450001@news.algonet.se> <01bccaa1$0484f8e0$646464b5@JRS486.microtronics.com> <01bccae6$6318f4c0$244837ce@pbcustomer> <dbongardEH92Lq.HH4@netcom.com> <loop-ya023180003009970106580001@news.algonet.se>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 01:22:16 GMT
Lines: 266
Sender: dbongard@netcom13.netcom.com
Xref: clanworld.com rec.games.computer.quake.editing:8678 rec.games.computer.quake.playing:20955 rec.games.computer.quake.misc:14794 rec.games.computer.quake.servers:4807

Thomas Weigle (loop@127.0.0.1) wrote:
: Dan Bongard wrote:

:> Typical bullshit. Any animal's "proper place" is whatever place it can
:> survive and reproduce in. The "proper place" of humans is where we are;
:> at the top of the food chain, with the resources of the entire planet
:> at our disposal and the use of every other animal to aid our personal
:> survival. 

: God, I hope you die a miserable death. 

You value animal life more highly than human life. Interesting.

: We are not gods.

I never said we were. We are not omnipotent, obviously, but we are
smarter and better at surviving, as a species, than anything else
on the face of the earth. We have the power to make any other species
serve our needs. Deer (for example) continue to exist because we
wish them to. 

: We could naturally do what you suggest above, but it sure as hell would
: make this place a far worse earth to live on for our great grand children. 

We _do_ do what I suggest above. Have you ever been eaten by an animal?
Ever build protective coverings for an animal using your own body 
parts? Ever moved out of your home so an animal could live there instead?
Of course not. You eat animals, use their bodies for clothing and
industrial goods, and force them to live elsewhere so you can have
a nice comfortable apartment and eat excessive quantities of unecessary
food. Do you hope you die a miserable death, too? Why or why not?

: Every living being deserves respect.

Pathetically hypocritical of you, unless:

(a): You never use antibiotics or anti-bacteriological/anti-virual drugs.
(b): You carefully step everywhere you go to avoid crushing ants
     or bugs underfoot, and never spray to remove insect infestations.
(c): You take no action to drive mice or rats out of your house when
     they adopt it as a home.
(d): You eat only chemically-prepared synthetic food.

... and a host of other things. But you don't. The fact is that you
don't give a rat's ass about life -- you just like cute little
furry animals and you don't like people who are mean to them. You
cover your own squeamishness with a false veneer of bogus morality
to make yourself feel better about your own hypocrisy.

The simple fact of the matter is that you have no qualms about 
using other living things to serve your own needs, and no qualms
about letting other living things die if doing so helps you
survive and thrive. But you have chosen to blindly draw a line
in the sand and say "it is wrong to kill things on this side of
the line, but fine to kill the ones on the other side of the line".
That's a load of nonsense.

: Especially if we take into account that we wouldn't be where we are
: if it wasn't for them. 

We wouldn't be where we were if it wasn't for the sun, either.
Does that make it immoral to use solar panels? The rest of the
animal kingdom, as a whole, has, by competing with us, forced
humanity to evolve to where it is today. In that sense, they
got us "where we are today'. But any given animal you meet in the
woods hasn't done dick for you -- you owe it nothing. You may
want to refrain from killing it because of potential environmental
impacts, but that isn't a concern with most animals. You may even
want to help it, or feed it, or whatever -- it is your choice.
Eliminating a species is obviously wrong, if only because it may
have had an unknown and important role in the ecosystem. But
using a species to aid your own survival and well-being is completely
normal.

: These animals would be able to live pretty nice lives indeed 

What do you base your opinion on? When's the last time you saw a 
wild mink or cow? What makes you think they possess enough of a
mind to have a concept of a "nice life"? Why do I give a shit if
an animal has a good life? When you swat the mosquito that was
biting you do you stop and think "wait, maybe it is enjoying its
bloodsucking little life"? No, you swat it, because it is "only a
bug" and doesn't have nice soft fur and big, pretty eyes. Why is
a mink entitled to better treatment than a mosquito? Because it is
bigger? Smarter? Cuter? What insane form of morality tells you that
it is ok to kill small, dumb, and ugly things but wrong to kill that
which is big/smart/cute?

: if we didn't find their furs good looking on elderly ladies who got 
: laid too rarely in their youth, or if some heroes didn't find it good
: target practice to shoot them just to be prepared in case the commies
: come. 

Target practice and hunting are, to many people, fun. Being prepared
in case "the commies come" has nothing to do with it, despite all
your leftist delusions. Some people do keep guns to protect themselves
from criminals, or their government, or foreign invaders, but that
is unrelated to hunting. And some humans enjoy wearing fur. Nothing
wrong with that, since there is no shortage of mink.

: It has never been up to a single species to decide
: over life and death for an entire species until the humans came along.

Humans are the most intelligent species ever to walk the face of the
earth. Because of that intelligence our science eventually evolved to
the point where we had to be careful not to destroy ourselves. It
remains to be seen whether we will remain a stable culture, or fall
victim to overly successful evolution. But whichever is the case, we
got where we are "fair and sqaure", because we are better adapted
to life in general than any other species. Humans will never 
become extinct unless we render ourselves extinct, which is more than
any other species can say. We are the ultimate success story of
natural selection.

: We've managed to wipe some hundred animal species off the face of the
: earth forever in a few hundred years, just because we got filled up
: with hubris... 

Hubris had nothing to do with it -- in fact it is the reverse that is
true. Most extinctions were due to the fact that we did not realize
the extent of the damage we were causing, not because we were overly
egotistical and sought to rise above ourselves. Other species died
because (a) they are inferior and (b) we were not careful to keep
them alive. The very fact that we have accidentally killed so many
species is proof of my earlier point (for which you told me I should
die miserably) that we hold domain over the entire planet.

: Humans are no more important than any other creature. 

There is no such thing as an objectively important creature. The
entire earth could be annihilated -- the universe wouldn't care.
What matters is that humans _think_ they are important. If you saw
a wolf chasing a rabbit so it could kill it and eat it, would you
prevent the wolf from doing so? What about if it was chasing a human
for the same reasons? Just think of all the large predators who
could live longer, happier lives if they were allowed access to
the food supply that old folks' homes represent. Could you explain
why, under your insane "all life is sacred" theory, it would be
wrong to let a herd of lions eat a bunch of weak old humans? After
all, in the "natural" state of things old and weak humans would fall
victim to predators constantly...

: We like to think so, because it makes us feel somewhat more than mere
: apes, which is basically what we still are.

We are considerably more than "mere apes", in the sense that we can
accomplish anything that apes can, plus a hell of a lot more, and in
the sense that we are longer-lived, healthier, and more likely to
survive than apes. yes, humans are just another species of animal,
but we are the most successful animal. Do you fault a wolf for
killing a deer? Would you try to stop it? What about if it was 
trying to kill a human? 

: Had we truly been more civilized, had we come further in our evolution,
: we would've tried harder to make the earth a nice place for all the
: others as well.

Why? Humans are the only species in the history of the earth than has
actively tried to help other species. Do you think deer give a rat's
ass if humans live or die? Of course not. We could die, they wouldn't
care. They'd happily kill us themselves if they weren't herbivorous.

Furtherore you seem to be under a bizarre delusion that kindness is
somehow a function of evolution. It isn't. Being nice to other 
species is not a survival trait, and nobody is evolving towards it.
Some of the world's most ruthless predators are some of its most
highly evolved species. Look at cats, for instance -- they will 
happily kill more than they can eat, they torture their food before
eating it, they make no effort to improve the lives of creatures
around them, etc. Apes fight territorial wars with other apes.
Some wasps lay their eggs in the living bodies of hosts to provide
food for their offspring.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is nothing in evolution,
or in human nature, that gives us the least imperitive (moral or
survival-related) to be nice to other species. And so we aren't;
we tend to be nice to species we like, like cute little dogs and
pussycats, and indifferent to animals we don't care about, like
cows, rats, and insects.

:> Exactly indeed. We (meaning people unlike yourself) need guns
:> to protect against the day when a fool like yourself votes the next
:> Hitler into office.

: Lame argument. Again.

The reason it sounds "lame" to you is that you feel safe and 
comfortable in your pathetic little middle-class white liberal
lifestyle. If an extremist dictator took over the country it 
probably wouldn't affect you at all, and a person like yourself
isn't likely to take action to save anybody's ass but his own, .
ll
:> If every adult man and woman in the country had a gun this country would
:> have 200 MILLION potential rebels if the government went to far. Even if
:> only one percent of them took action they would still outnumber the
:> conventional armed forces. That is easily enough to overthrow any tyrant.

: Pretty obvious that you missed the point. If every single one of you
: own a gun, it still won't bother the tactical nuclear weapons, or the
: F15s, much.

So? What is a tyrant going to do -- nuke every sqaure foot of the
country? In order to use nukes and the Air Force against the 
civilian populace of this country the government would have to destroy
the entirety of this country's urban and rural real estate, economy,
and industrial infrastructure. It might happen, of course, but
that is likely to be more than even the worst tyrant could force
the army to sacrifice.

You have raised an important point, though, in that things like
tactical nuclear weapons should not be in the government's possession.
They serve no morally justifiable military purpose.

: You think that 200 million handguns make a difference against the armed
: forces of US? I think you're wrong.

Obviously you think I'm wrong -- you haven't demonstrated a single
piece of clear thinking so far, so I'm not expecting you to start now.
The heavy weaponry of the US Armed forces is good for two things --
destroying a nation's infrastructure, and destroying massed military
forces. That makes it useless in a civil war situation where guerilla 
warfare is the standard means of combat. This is why we didn't accomplish 
dick against the Viet Cong.

: You'd be far better off sitting on your butts refusing to move.

Of course. Just like the civilian populace of Germany was, on an
individual basis, much better off sitting back, calmly letting
their rights be stripped away, and watching their fellow citizens 
fall victim to genocide. Most people have no sense of social
responsibility or morality. I am not interested in what is best for
me, if it came to that. I would rather die fighting than be forced
to look my children in the eye and say "I was busy saving my own ass
while the government killed off millions of my fellow citizens".

:> Trust has nothing to do with it. I know for a fact that you plan
:> on using your right to free speech to advocate stripping innocent
:> people of _their_ rights, but I still accept that you DO have a 
:> right to free speech. 

: The right to free speech is important. The right to free guns is not.

In your worthless opinion, yes. Historically speaking, weapons have
won people their freedom far more often than words have. In either
case the point is moot, since the second amendment is just as
important as the first. There is no clause in the second amendment
saying "this right is null and void if some dipshit named Thomas
Weigle comes along and says he doesn't like it." There is a process
for repealing and altering the Constitution, and it is a hell of 
a lot more involved than saying "This right isn't important."

: Besides, all it does is provide idiots, who shouldn't own weapons in the
: first place, with handguns.

That is equivalent to saying that the First Amendment serves no
purpose other than to give hate-mongering neo-Nazis and KKK members
a forum in which to spread their venomous opinions. Is there a
big downside to the second amendment? Of course; there are downsides 
to every amenedment. That doesn't mean you throw human rights out the
window.

Remember this free speech and the right to vote gave the world 
concentration camps and the German Nazi party. Guns gave us the
American Revolution and an allied victory in WWII.

-- Dan
