Culling Humanity

[poddster]

What group would you start with?

[amber-eyed-girl]

The arrogance of those who believe they have the right to kill animals for no reason but for their own ego is beyond belief.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@poddster wrote:

Has anyone thought that there may be occasions when a cull of any type could mean the survival of the species, including humanity?

---

Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot all spring to mind. They not only thought about it, but put those thoughts into practice, and while their aim  may not have been strictly survival of the species, I'm pretty sure they rhought it would improve the gene pool.

[carbon-proksi]

---

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:

The arrogance of those who believe they have the right to kill animals for no reason but for their own ego is beyond belief.

---

As far as i can deduce, this thread is about the culling of humans by other humans, not humans culling other species.

But, in response to your statment, when you say "is beyond belief", what do you actually mean by this phrase?

For i interpret this to mean you either cannot or you struggle to comprehend\understand\acknowledge that some people have a moral code that says it's ok to kill other species simply for sport

( i am not speaking of people who kill other species for food, for the vast majortity of species on earth do kill and eat other species for sustenance, so i have no objection to how life operates in that regard, other than whoever created life seems to me to suffer from some inner dysfuction\inadequacy to design life that requires the killing of other life to live)

[amber-eyed-girl]

If you read my posts in this thread, you will see what I mean.

I do not understand how a human can think it is ok to take an animal's life purely for sport. I understand it for a useful purpose, food, clothing, or for the benefit of the animal (illness) or the group's benefit (a cull).

That is where the discussion led to humans taking animal lives, a distinction between a cull, and for other reasons.

[poddster]

Would the same rules apply if the animal was a human ?

[amber-eyed-girl]

Reread my posts for an answer to that question, I believe I have exhausted my thoughts on this topic 🙂

[carbon-proksi]

---

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:
If you read my posts in this thread, you will see what I mean.

---

I did read your couple of posts. I saw nothing in them that offered data to answer my question to you.

I asked because i noticed a discepancy that i sought  to increase my understanding of.

You said this...

---

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:
I know a great deal about it.

---

...which is in reference to humans hunting other species, but then later on you said this...

---

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:
The arrogance of those who believe they have the right to kill animals for no reason but for their own ego is beyond belief.

---

...and that to me means you do not know "a lot" about the subject, or at least you are self deluded into thinking you know far more than you actually do know..

To me, expressed quite clearly when you added...

---

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:
I do not understand how a human can think it is ok to take an animal's life purely for sport.

---

Continuing...

i also interpret you are pro Eugenics, though at this time it is unclear to me if you would personally paticipate in any Eugengic(culling) actions or you just believe it is a justifiable human behavior and you would either publicly express approval or not interfere as Eugenic Cullers murdered other human beings. For you also said these things...

---

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:
Sports hunters could be hunted for sport. Repeat.
Sports hunters was my group, to be hunted for sport, so by sports hunters. Wouldn't matter who hunted in that scenario.
Vic, look to the question posed. That is what I am answering. My group, if there is to be one, are those who themselves hunt for no practical reason..

---

In conclusion, given my previous list of speculated attibutes of Eugenists, it seems to me you see no problem in people killing other people for sport. For you appear to me to advocate "Sports hunters" be given free reign to hunt and kill other "Sports hunters."

Apparently you have strong issues with humans "thrill" killing other species, but you have no problem with humans "thrill"killing other human beings.

It seems to me that your solution to things you do not appove of is to wipe them off the face of the earth, and to me, that sure looks like a Eugenics mentality.

It seems to me the many wise people throughout history were\are correct in observing how dangerous ignorance is.

For it has been stated by many and in many different ways that some humans destroy what they fear or do not understand or are different from themselves or they do not agree with the other.

---

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:

That is where the discussion led to humans taking animal lives, a distinction between a cull, and for other reasons.

---

That may be the actuality of this thread, but i remain convinced the thread topic is humans culling other humans, not your beef with people killing other species.

~smiles and chuckles ~ see what i did there,  "beef", "people killing other species"

[ladydeburg]

Leaders of countries that should be culled, weeded out, expecially the despots in Africa and South east Asia, I wouldn't have a problem with that, they destroy the economies of the country, civil wars break out and they kill their citizens, their country fails and millions starve, put some middle Eastern countries on that list too.

[icyfroth]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@poddster wrote:

Has anyone thought that there may be occasions when a cull of any type could mean the survival of the species, including humanity?

---

Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot all spring to mind. They not only thought about it, but put those thoughts into practice, and while their aim  may not have been strictly survival of the species, I'm pretty sure they rhought it would improve the gene pool.

You're very good at bringing up other nationalities She-el and being all holier-than-thou in your British arrogance.

I notice you didn't bring up how British investors saw to it that whole regions of America were cleared by death or displacement of the indigenous Indian population.

Then to imported their own white slaves, the convicts they needed to accomodate, to work on the tobacco and cotton plantations. Until the source of convicts dried up and they brought in black slaves from Africa to take the convict's place.

How they starved the Irish off their lands to seize the land  to make way for their sheep and wool production.

How they solved the problem of the Irish who fought back, by transporting them to the "new" land of Australia, under most brutal conditions. The "new land" where they'd used similar practises as they did in America to drive the indigenous population off their lands, also by death and displacement.

How their used the convicts in a form of white slavery to open up the land for cultivation.

How they let 144, 000 Boer women and children die of starvation in the concentration camps at Bloemfontein to bring the Boer resistance fighters to heel.

http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/women-children-white-concentration-camps-during-anglo-boer-war-190...

Want to talk about human culling? That "springs to mind" for me.

[vicr3000]

Icy

We culled the natives here in Aus as well. It was only about 1929 or 1930 that the last 'hunt' occurred.