Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Rite of passage


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#16    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:29 PM

View Postdougeaton, on 09 May 2013 - 11:36 PM, said:

We are a primitive species, cruel and capable of being kind at the same time....it is easier to be cruel, hence the way the world is today.  I still have to deal with this part of my insides everyday, I would think most do, or those who are aware....the others smile until one day they go postal and later did not know what happened.

doug

I don't think people are naturally cruel at all.  The cruelty comes from an addiction to power.  The only way you find that out is to kick the drug.


#17    markdohle

markdohle

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,750 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta area

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:23 PM

View Postpantodragon, on 11 May 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

I don't think people are naturally cruel at all.  The cruelty comes from an addiction to power.  The only way you find that out is to kick the drug.

The will to power is natural to mankind, so it part of our nature.  Our cultures mirror back our own inner life.

Peace
mark


#18    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 13 May 2013 - 03:17 PM

View Postmarkdohle, on 11 May 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

The will to power is natural to mankind, so it part of our nature.  Our cultures mirror back our own inner life.

Peace
mark

Fortunately, no, it's not.  But the only way you will find out is by comming off power --- not easy.


#19    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,506 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 13 May 2013 - 04:35 PM

View Postpantodragon, on 09 May 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:



I think the extreme concern for the likes of spiders and bugs is going a little OTT.  Also, it's kind of espousing a Christian ethic which I think is not ethical at all.  However, what I know of the native american wisdom I admire very much.
It's not extreme concern, it's just a general respect. If you don't have respect for the spider, why should  you have respect for the lizard, if you don't have respect for the lizard, why should you have respect for the bird, if you don't have respect for the bird why should you have respect for the squirrel, If you don't have respect for the squirrel, why should you have respect for coyote or dog. Respect for nature starts at the lowest levels. No death or discomfort when not necessary. It would say its not a Christian ethic. Christians don't seem to mind killing things at all. It's more of a buddhist and shamanic trait.

Edited by Seeker79, 13 May 2013 - 04:36 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#20    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,506 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 13 May 2013 - 04:42 PM

View Postpantodragon, on 02 May 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

Are you people for real?  This nonsense about “primitive sides”, “How we treat animals will also dictate how we treat one another”, and “empathy for animals” is a load of sentimental twaddle.  It is also completely out of touch with reality.

“Primitive” sides?  Don’t make me laugh!  Humans are appallingly cruel and brutal, but this has nothing to do with the remains of primitive behaviour.  That’s just a cop out i.e. an excuse to save people the inconvenience of having to take responsibility for their horrifying behaviour. (I have dealt with the reasons for the unspeakable behaviour of humans in other posts.  The cause is their addiction to power.)

The simple truth is that people can get away with cruelty to animals much more easily than to each other.  You don’t get sent to Death Row for beating a sloth to death, but you will if you beat another human being to death.  To avoid unpleasant consequences, therefore, exercising cruelty to other humans is done in more subtle, less open, ways.

Similarly, the notion that a child looses its cruel streak as it gets older because it is learning to “empathise” is nonsense: the child that is cruel to animals finds alternative outlets for cruelty when it gets older because it can’t get away with the same behaviour as an adult that it could as a minor.

So, the adult exercises cruelty by beating the wife or making the lives of his/her employees or coworkers an utter hell, or by waging war on the neighbours e.g. playing the radio or tv very loudly at all hours of the day and night, tethering an incessantly barking dog outside in the garden all day, mowing the grass or cutting logs with a chainsaw early on a Sunday morning, revving up the motorbike and riding it up and down the driveway for hours on end….etc.  So, cruelty isn’t all blood and guts, the psychological cruelty you ALL inflict on one another is far, far worse --- just look at internet forums, for heaven’s sakes!

On the topic of childhood cruelty “switching off” when one becomes an adult (utter hogwash!), I recommend Montaigne’s essay: “Of Custom, and that we should not easily change a law received”.  Judging by this quote, Montaigne had a better grip on reality than that exhibited on this thread:

“I find that our greatest vices derive their first propensity from our most tender infancy, and that our principal education depends upon the nurse. Mothers are mightily pleased to see a child writhe off the neck of a chicken, or to please itself with hurting a dog or a cat; and such wise fathers there are in the world, who look upon it as a notable mark of a martial spirit, when they hear a son miscall, or see him domineer over a poor peasant, or a lackey, that dares not reply, nor turn again; and a great sign of wit, when they see him cheat and overreach his playfellow by some malicious treachery and deceit. Yet these are the true seeds and roots of cruelty, tyranny, and treason; they bud and put out there, and afterward shoot up vigorously, and grow to prodigious bulk, cultivated by custom.”  

As to “empathy for animals”, this is claptrap.  Where children might exercise cruelty by beating a dog to death, adults turn dogs into weapons with which to threaten other people.  The woods near where I live, a popular amenity for both walkers and dog-owners, are a case in point.  Walking there I have been mobbed by a pack of wolfhounds, teeth bared, low rumbling growls emitting from their throats, hackles up, circling me menacingly.  I was forced to defend myself with a stick.  When the owner arrived she attacked me (verbally): “How DARE you use a stick on my dogs!” she yelled at me, her face, disfigured with rage, inches from mine.  On other occasions I encountered a particularly large, black, bruiser of a Labrador which bared its teeth, snarling and barking viciously, getting dangerously and frighteningly close to me.  Again I was forced to defend myself.  The owner walked past me doing nothing to restrain her violent animal, nor saying anything to me.  During encounters with other ferocious dogs intent on removing chunks of my leg or amputating my fingers, the owners often blithely tell me “Don’t mind him, he’s just being friendly!”

So, despite protestations to the contrary, despite the apparent concern of owner for dog, owners don’t care a fig for dog or person; they are, in fact, just being cruel for the sake of it.  

Therefore, no, OP, I do not agree that “How we treat animals will also dictate how we treat one another.”  Cruelty has no boundaries.  If a person is cruel, then they are cruel to human and animal alike.  If a person is not cruel, then they are cruel to neither animals nor humans.

Furthermore, if the OP really is struggling with his “deep primitive side” and not merely shedding crocodile tears, then I suggest he concern himself less with his propensity for cruelty to animals, and take a closer look at how he is exercising cruelty towards other people.  Does the OP own a dog, I wonder………..?
You must live around some crappy people, when dogs misbehave where I live the owners usually apologize.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#21    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 13 May 2013 - 05:08 PM

A sudden and profound empathetic notion is viable. Stating otherwise is completely ridiculous.
Humans are social creatures, and although we are mainly concerned with ourselves it is not rare for some to think about other things.
This behavior is normal of a creature that "thinks" by design.
Just because people do not often think of other creatures possibly feeling pain or the such does not mean that they do not feel pain.
Nature is a part of reality and when one thinks about how nature is impacted by their own bad decisions, they also think about how to avoid hurting the same nature that keeps us alive.

From the smallest creature to the largest one, they all contribute to our current existence within this reality.

Ex:
Bacteria: Our stomach is line with bacteria in order for us to digest almost anything we ingest.
Ants: Ants help to keep plants alive and provide food for larger animals.
Spiders: Keep bug populations from growing to an overwhelming rate, as well as provide us with some of the most basic hunting strategies known to man.
Snakes: Keep rodent populations from growing to an overwhelming rate, as well as provide us with poisons/venoms we use in modern medicine.
Dogs: Provide us companionship that stimulates our social needs, as well as protect us from possible dangers that we may be unaware of.
Big cats: Keep the population of larger game animals under control so that we may hunt, but not have a deer in our living room every other day.
Large game: Keep our grains/plants reproducing themselves in order to maintain a freshness to them.

As you can see I can go on, and each time the animal will have a vital role within our direct reality which is natural. Claiming that having an empathy for these animals is "claptrap" or "hogwash" is disturbing. Remove any of the animals from my list and show me how they would not have a negative effect on our direct way of life.

Respect nature, it's inhabitants and it's ability to sustain your life and you won't have an issue understanding what the OP was talking about.

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.


#22    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:22 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 13 May 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

It's not extreme concern, it's just a general respect. If you don't have respect for the spider, why should  you have respect for the lizard, if you don't have respect for the lizard, why should you have respect for the bird, if you don't have respect for the bird why should you have respect for the squirrel, If you don't have respect for the squirrel, why should you have respect for coyote or dog. Respect for nature starts at the lowest levels. No death or discomfort when not necessary. It would say its not a Christian ethic. Christians don't seem to mind killing things at all. It's more of a buddhist and shamanic trait.

I take your point that this practice seems to be more in tune with eastern religions than with Christianity, especially with the Jains who take it (it seems to me) to extremes and, to a lesser extent, Hindus.    I am somewhat puzzled by Buddhism, however, because having traveled in countries where the state religion is Buddhism, I found little evidence of vegetarianism.  Perhaps it is the monks who are vegetarians rather than the general population.

Having said that, while Christianity does not forbid eating meat, there is a general ethic of “kindness” to animals (and to people) which, it seems to me, is a matter of belief rather than a principal fundamental to all humans.  Pagans, for example, as well as Native American Indians, while showing great respect for living things, would not hesitate about, say, killing insects.


#23    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:25 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 13 May 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

You must live around some crappy people, when dogs misbehave where I live the owners usually apologize.

People’s attitudes in your part of the world are very different to where I live.

Just recently I read in my local newspaper of a woman whose pet duck was savaged and killed by a dog.  She was in her garden with the duck one afternoon.  A footpath which is popular with dog walkers runs along the bottom of her garden.  A man was walking his dog along this path.  The dog was not on a lead.  When it passed the woman’s garden and saw the duck, it jumped the fence and savaged and killed the bird.  The dog’s owner witnessed his dog’s attack and did nothing to intervene.  Once the dog had dealt with the duck, man (and dog) continued the walk as if nothing had happened.  (The man was later identified and charged by the police.)

I used to live in a more remote area: a crafting community.  (Crofts are a type of small-holding.)  Typically in crofting areas, much of the pasture is unfenced and sheep and cattle roam freely (including along the roads).  Dog owners are very careful to keep their dogs under control.  Any dog caught worrying sheep/cattle can be, and sometimes is, shot on sight.

If I was an alien landing on earth to observe human behaviour for the very first time, perhaps I would wonder why it is that humans seem to have more concern for animals rather than their own species……

View PostxFelix, on 13 May 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:



Respect nature, it's inhabitants and it's ability to sustain your life and you won't have an issue understanding what the OP was talking about.

I certainly take your point, and agree with you, about respect for animals/nature.  However, it seems to me that respect is a different attitude altogether from empathy.

In the first place, I think that sentiment is often mistaken for empathy.  Thus people’s attitude to animals often inclines more towards emotionalism than to showing respect.  

Secondly, one can be respectful of animals/nature, without being emotional.  This, I believe, harms neither and is to their great benefit.   Respect for nature is very much part of Native American Indian culture and one that I very much admire.  In fact, it is typical of many such “native” cultures, including Australian Aborigine culture.   I think Native American Indians and Aborigines have an understanding of the natural world that “white people” generally do not.  I would suggest this stems from respecting animals rather than from “empathy” (i.e. emotionalism).

I watched the film War Horse last night.  While I did not think it as emotional as, say, Black Beauty, it seemed to me the emotionalism/”empathy” showed a lack of respect for the animals.  On the other hand, I find the attitude of the French to animals is generally much more respectful.  One film that comes to mind here is The Brothers.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users