Recreation Warning: You Will Probably Cry.

Animals and humans all have the capability of being monsters. It is wither or not we act upon our malicious desires. So since we have the capability are we not monsters?


"Everyone has the ability to be a monster...it's that deep part of ones soul hate and anger originate where your conscious can no longer decipher what is right and wrong." ~NeoNoodle

 

Human beings are the only creatures capable of understanding good and evil. That distinction cannot be made with other animals, especially animals without the capacity for self awareness. They act and perform based upon instinct and learned reactions. What trains them to do something out of malice or spite? I've never seen a dog maul something just because. Either instinct told it to, hunger, or fear- a learned reaction. Rabies is a brain disease that sets an animal's instinct on fire.

If everyone has a monster inside of them does that mean that we all are monsters? You already know the answer to that. Otherwise we wouldn't be having his argument.

I disagree with NN's assumption on what being a monster is all about. No longer being able to tell the difference beween right and wrong doesn't make you a monster, it either makes you a newborn or insane. A monster knows what is right and what is wrong and continues to do what is wrong (on an intensely moral level) for the sake of enjoyment, or perhaps the thrill, or even a sense of personal satisfaction.

~W

 

I did lazily dispute that right and wrong assumption.

This is just like trying to seperate human from animal. We all do things instictively and whether or not it's montrous depends on society views.

Point being...there are different things that would make people monstrous. Just because someone does something terribly cruel and laughs at it in the end doesn't make the person a monster.

Society teaches people right and wrong. If I trained my new dog not to jump on the counter and eat food and she does it...she knows it's wrong, but does it anyway.

If my girl's housebroken and she goes to the bathroom inside instead asking to be let out. Training tells her it's wrong.

My nephew used to like to jump on bugs that were outside and then laugh because he though it was funny. Did that make him a monster? Of course not.

People are trained just like animals to think a certain way. If that training some how goes askew or is unfinished we get people like the kittyburnerupper.

 

So humans are better for we can tell what good and evil is? That makes it worse for some of us knowingly commit evil.

Humans justify the act of killing for several reasons. For example when that person is in danger but it is still killing the person that tried to harm or kill. The person is still dead.

You should now know that I think humans are monsters. Some just don't act upon their desires but still having them makes them monsters. I am not surprised when someone acts in an evil way. We have this argument because some don't think humans are monsters which is fine we all have the right to think differently.

And yet biologically they are still human. So with that it is safe to assume that humans assume that there is humanity. Humans like to believe in and justify it because they can't comprehend the wrongful or insane act of another. Some are quick to assume that they are monsters. But they are only acting upon their desires.

 

Good and Evil are purely human terms. They don't exist outside of human culture. Animals don't worry about good and evil. Because we acknowledge the existence of an idea that we associate with ones actions we give it meaning. Arguing Humans vs Animals is moot because Animals do not understand (nor care) about the ideas of good and evil.

All humans are monsters? Do you look at your child when he's sleeping in bed at night and think of him as a monster? Of course you don't. I don't believe that your opinion of the human race is as bankrupt as you make it sound. What's the point of raising a family if all we're doing is breeding a race of degenerates?

Ah, now you are taking my argument out of context. All monsters are homo sapiens, but to be 'human' is another matter all together. One's humanity is different than simply being human being. We've debated this point before in the SMJ forum. The humanity that we have all come to agree with is the matter at stake here, and no matter how losely you chose to define that, you cross a border when you say that someone lighting an animal on fire for the pleasure of hearing it scream in pain has a firm grasp of what makes him a person, and that he is not a monster. What we know and how we act are all learned reactions, and when someone does something outrageous like that we label him a monster. It doesn't matter what he thinks, the entire experience is from our point of view, we're the ones making the judgement. Actions such as that cannot be condoned, thusly, due to his lack of symphathy, the ethical void he seems to have within him, and the disgust from the sick pleasure he derives from an act, we come to the conclusion that he is a monster, not a person.

Considering both Monster and Person are terms humans have made up to suit a situation or a person, one's personal stance on what it is, is unique to each individual, thusly, one's stance is as legitimate as the others.

...God, I'm hung over. Stayed out way too late drinking last night.

~W

 

Off topic but I can't help but point out a word that has two meaning that oppose each other.

I'm going to assume you're using "Moot" as in...

"Purely academic and not worth debating" and not as "open to disscusion and worth debating."
It's a wonder people are so confused by the english language.

But really isn't Human's vs Monster just as moot of a point as Animals vs Humans.

 

Humans are animals....

The "moot" point would be on everything really.

Clearly I do. The point is to understand your child has the capability to be a monster and even commit wrongful acts. Its the part of the worrying parent.

The point is try to teach a child to not act upon his or her desires. We have all wanted to harm someone for some reason. Even thinking it would make you a monster. Not acting on it is how you define yourself.

Not out of context at all. I just proved the fact that humans believe there is a humanity. I already stated the definition to a human being. Your previous points have all been on humanity not human. A human is bipedal primate mammal. Humans believe and hope for something more hence they came up with humanity.

I NEVER said "someone lighting an animal on fire for the pleasure of hearing it scream in pain has a firm grasp of what makes him a person." I said he is human. This is where you made the leap from me saying people believe in humanity/what it takes to be a person.

Biologically the guy who lit the cat on fire is still human. Just cause he acts what some would think of as a "monster" doesn't make him less human. Biologically he is human. People THINK there is a such thing as humanity and decide to label him as a monster. They try to justify his act by labeling him as a "monster".

I say he is human not the best of our species but chances are he will be remembered longer then those who do good acts.

Yep. As long as we understand why person and monster is created. Monster try to justify an act. Person creation of humanity.