Sociopath Community

Spatial Mind said: 

I was saying the other day how I want to become a vegetarian. Because I saw this....

 

  

 

Those eyes.

 

I also know, if I become a vegetarian, that won't stop the horror show and their death will be in vain, but not really.

 

With or without me in this world this horror show will carry on, while me quitting meat won't save any of them. 

 

Damn. Yeah, I was vegetarian from 5 to 16. I do think it may help in that at least you're not participating. I don't see the global balance shift anytime soon though, but it's a bit like saying "I'm ok with owning slaves because while I agree it's really bad I can't stop slavery anyway."

The Fallacy would be animal abuse and fighting a chimp could get deadly. A chimp has the strength of 2 men. That's 2 men okay ? If 2 men really try they can flip a car.

I don't think this is it.

Fighting a man can get deadly, too. Is it really animal abuse if the chimpanzee says he/she wants to do it? Is it human abuse if the human says they want to do it? I don't think so.

What about if we had some freak of nature as a human who had some over-developed muscles thanks to genetics that allowed them to absolutely dominate in MMA. Would it be OK to allow that guy to compete? Most of the top MMA people are genetically incredibly gifted, and no amount of training will allow the regular joe to compete with them. I'd still allow those freaks of nature compete.

I think it's just about where we set the bar. A chimpanzee needs to understand the rules of MMA though, no biting balls and blinding people (in this sense, women may get an edge in MMA).  That part may be difficult?

At any rate, I seem to be driven towards the frustrating logical conclusion that, in my world view, it is fine for chimpanzees to massacre humans in MMA.

AppleGenius said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

I was saying the other day how I want to become a vegetarian. Because I saw this....

Those eyes.

I also know, if I become a vegetarian, that won't stop the horror show and their death will be in vain, but not really.

With or without me in this world this horror show will carry on, while me quitting meat won't save any of them. 

Damn. Yeah, I was vegetarian from 5 to 16. I do think it may help in that at least you're not participating. I don't see the global balance shift anytime soon though, but it's a bit like saying "I'm ok with owning slaves because while I agree it's really bad I can't stop slavery anyway."

How did you start eating meat again ?

I remember one episode of survivor, one of the contestants was a lifelong vegetarian and he and 2 others won a feast. He ate meat and he said it was so wonderful.

As for slavery.

If that was going on I would keep slaves. They will know how to read and write and they would simply be my workers.

Some would say this is bad, and I agree, but if the world is that place and I'm in the position to keep them they would be in good hands. 

The Fallacy would be animal abuse and fighting a chimp could get deadly. A chimp has the strength of 2 men. That's 2 men okay ? If 2 men really try they can flip a car.

Fighting a man can get deadly, too. Is it really animal abuse if the chimpanzee says he/she wants to do it? Is it human abuse if the human says they want to do it?

If the Chimpanzee and the human agreed to fight, it would be in poor taste and the organization will lose billions of dollars from poor taste.

If the man knocks out the Chimp, his life will be ruined in many ways.  I think if a man won a fight with a Chimp it wouldn't be much of a fight, the thing would run in fear, but if it fights back the man will get ravaged. It might even break his neck.

The Chimpanzee is NOT a human. It's a wild animal. 

If you noticed, after awhile we never heard from Bubbles the chimpanzee again. Just looked it up, he's still alive. Anyway Michael Jackson couldn't keep Bubbles because he's gotten big and strong. The strongest in the pack will rule by force, that is their way.

If the Chimp were to willing do MMA, it would do it for a prize okay. It would fuck up the human is terrible ways, plus the conditions would be scary. It would HAVE to be a cage match so the Chimp can't go on a rampage and start kung fuing the crowd. Being in a cage with the savage animal, well, one doesn't simply walk out of the cage, there'll need a SWAT team to literally rescue the man. 

For Chimp would get it's prize while for the Human, the money would be more compensation than a payday.

What about if we had some freak of nature as a human who had some over-developed muscles thanks to genetics that allowed them to absolutely dominate in MMA. Would it be OK to allow that guy to compete? Most of the top MMA people are genetically incredibly gifted, and no amount of training will allow the regular joe to compete with them.

 No.

We're smart enough to know it's just not a good idea to fight Chimps. 

Spatial Mind said: 

How did you start eating meat again ?

I didn't feel it was important to me to be vegtarian anymore. I felt physically better after eating meat again.

If the Chimpanzee and the human agreed to fight, it would be in poor taste and the organization will lose billions of dollars from poor taste.

If the man knocks out the Chimp, his life will be ruined in many ways.  I think if a man won a fight with a Chimp it wouldn't be much of a fight, the thing would run in fear, but if it fights back the man will get ravaged. It might even break his neck.

Hmmm, fair. Yes, if it's about the money, then it boils down to what is profitable. I would imagine that being able to hold a tournament between chimpanzees and humans would be highly entertaining to the world, though, and thus likely profitable, guaranteed that it is reasonably safe. But I do see how it could become a PR disaster, too, so maybe it's a bad idea. Yeah, maybe this is the right argument to make.

The Chimpanzee is NOT a human. It's a wild animal. 

Fair. Biologically, yes, but from a social perspective it can be a much harder line to draw. I think that line can be drawn and it could be that chimpanzees shouldn't be, socially, treated like people, but it's a very biological argument.

If the Chimp were to willing do MMA, it would do it for a prize okay. It would fuck up the human is terrible ways, plus the conditions would be scary. It would HAVE to be a cage match so the Chimp can't go on a rampage and start kung fuing the crowd. Being in a cage with the savage animal, well, one doesn't simply walk out of the cage, there'll need a SWAT team to literally rescue the man. 

For Chimp would get it's prize while for the Human, the money would be more compensation than a payday.

Chimpanzees, like men, can be conditioned. I could also argue that there are men who act extremely aggressively. We would put as a pre-condition that only those chimpanzees that know how to fight fair can participate. They need to pass some mental tests, etc, to ensure safety of the participants.

 No.

We're smart enough to know it's just not a good idea to fight Chimps. 

Do you think it'd be a smart idea to fight a man who is genetically superior to yourself? Would that be fine?

AppleGenius said: 

 

Do you think it'd be a smart idea to fight a man who is genetically superior to yourself? Would that be fine?

Genetics won't determine the outcome. For example if someone with poor genes (whatever that may be) trained hard, they would most likely mash whoever has the supposid superior genes who trained less.

If both parties tained hard there'll be other variables that will determine the outcome of the match.

But if you're asking if I would fight a man who is physically, mentally and tactically superior to myself, that would depend on the situation. 

I'd go down fighting if the guy attacked me, and if it's MMA, like many guys, I'd think I'd do it for a price, but when I put some thought into it. No. Uneven match. I'd literally have to Fuju dust the opponent then have my boys join me the perform a beat down. 

Spatial Mind said: 

Genetics won't determine the outcome. For example if someone with poor genes (whatever that may be) trained hard, they would most likely mash whoever has the supposid superior genes who trained less.

Highly doubt it. The guy with the superior genes would have to put minimal amount of work to beat the average joe. There were people in my class that, no matter how hard they trained, I'm pretty sure they'd never beat me in a 100-meter dash, for example.

You could say the same thing about women vs men, btw, so I think if you're willing to accept that, then you should also accept that "chromosomes won't determine the outcome."

If both parties tained hard there'll be other variables that will determine the outcome of the match.

Hmmh, yes, but this also applies to men and women in sports. So now I'm not sure if, after all, men and women should be lumped together.

But if you're asking if I would fight a man who is physically, mentally and tactically superior to myself, that would depend on the situation. 

I'd go down fighting if the guy attacked me, and if it's MMA, like many guys, I'd think I'd do it for a price, but when I put some thought into it. No. Uneven match. I'd literally have to Fuju dust the opponent then have my boys join me the perform a beat down. 

I was more interested in the argument.

After all the retards get their way the NBA will be like cyberpunk trannies vs chimps, 600 foot snakes slithering all over the scoreboards 

Tryptamine said: 

After all the retards get their way the NBA will be like cyberpunk trannies vs chimps, 600 foot snakes slithering all over the scoreboards 

lmao. But we agree that would be awesome right?

AppleGenius said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Genetics won't determine the outcome. For example if someone with poor genes (whatever that may be) trained hard, they would most likely mash whoever has the supposid superior genes who trained less.

Highly doubt it. The guy with the superior genes would have to put minimal amount of work to beat the average joe. There were people in my class that, no matter how hard they trained, I'm pretty sure they'd never beat me in a 100-meter dash, for example.

You could say the same thing about women vs men, btw, so I think if you're willing to accept that, then you should also accept that "chromosomes won't determine the outcome."

If you look at what makes up a chromosome, then genes are 1/3 parts of that. Men and women have the same genes.

In sports, they pick the best of the best. Most men and women don't make the cut. By that measure, it's it obvious that men are more athletic ?

If both parties tained hard there'll be other variables that will determine the outcome of the match.

Hmmh, yes, but this also applies to men and women in sports. So now I'm not sure if, after all, men and women should be lumped together.

If she's good enough to make the cut, then she should. NHL had a female goalie once. She wasn't a superstar but it happened.

But if you're asking if I would fight a man who is physically, mentally and tactically superior to myself, that would depend on the situation. 

I'd go down fighting if the guy attacked me, and if it's MMA, like many guys, I'd think I'd do it for a price, but when I put some thought into it. No. Uneven match. I'd literally have to Fuju dust the opponent then have my boys join me the perform a beat down. 

I was more interested in the argument.

 Well I'm not going to argue that I'd beat the Batman. 

Spatial Mind said:

If you look at what makes up a chromosome, then genes are 1/3 parts of that. Men and women have the same genes.

In sports, they pick the best of the best. Most men and women don't make the cut. By that measure, it's it obvious that men are more athletic ?

They are, but then it seems like stating that biological men are better is not a counter-argument to letting trans women enter female competition. Instead, the counter argument is a matter of principle, that is, we should draw the line at biology, but there is no fundamental reason to do so beyond it being perhaps "beneficial" to the sports community.

If she's good enough to make the cut, then she should. NHL had a female goalie once. She wasn't a superstar but it happened.

That's great.

 Well I'm not going to argue that I'd beat the Batman. 

I'm drawing an analogy between batman and chimpanzees. If the argument boils down to biological superiority in sports, then either chimpanzees and batmans should compete with us regular joes, or neither should. Batman, here, would be someone blessed with good genes.

That is, it boild down to: Should batman be in a different sports category from you, or the same?

Chimpanzees are the future of MMA.

AppleGenius said: 

Spatial Mind said:

If you look at what makes up a chromosome, then genes are 1/3 parts of that. Men and women have the same genes.

In sports, they pick the best of the best. Most men and women don't make the cut. By that measure, it's it obvious that men are more athletic ?

They are, but then it seems like stating that biological men are better is not a counter-argument to letting trans women enter female competition. Instead, the counter argument is a matter of principle, that is, we should draw the line at biology, but there is no fundamental reason to do so beyond it being perhaps "beneficial" to the sports community.

Make no mistake, I never said men are better, I'm saying they are more athletic than women. 

The fastest and strongest people in the world are men. We are generally larger and have more muscle mass, and thicker bone structure. Men and women are built differently. 

If she's good enough to make the cut, then she should. NHL had a female goalie once. She wasn't a superstar but it happened.

That's great.

 Well I'm not going to argue that I'd beat the Batman. 

I'm drawing an analogy between batman and chimpanzees. If the argument boils down to biological superiority in sports, then either chimpanzees and batmans should compete with us regular joes, or neither should. Batman, here, would be someone blessed with good genes.

That is, it boild down to: Should batman be in a different sports category from you, or the same?

Chimpanzees are the future of MMA.

A closed circle. 

For now you're getting your way. It might not be men vs monkies, or joe vs. Captain America, but you got actual men smashing records in female sports.

Personally, I'm cringing at that. I'm by no means a feminist, but I honestly think I have women's best interests at heart more than you do.

For every dude that qualifies for a women's team, an additional woman won't make the cut. tbh that doesn't upset me at all cause I don't find women's sports that interesting. Now watch this line drive. *Swings club and smashes golf ball into the distance*