Forum menu
And I'm just saying it generally isn't natural in the animal kingdom, which it isn't.
how is something that happens in nature not natural?
😈
double post
a) most probably - I don't generally piss people off too much. Apart from the wife, of course.
b) I initially thought yes, but then I was once offered a free "hit" on someone who at the time I thought really needed it, and I turned it down. My "yes" would have been the same person.
Let me help you Jon, because I get the impression English isn't your first language.
generally
adv.
1. Popularly; widely.
2. As a rule; usually.
3. For the most part.
And I'm just saying it generally isn't natural in the animal kingdom, which it isn't.
What do you mean by "generally isn't natural"? Define: natural. Shirley you just mean that it isn't common? It only needs one example of one animal regularly killing members of its own species, thus demonstrating that it's not anomalous, and you have yourself something that could be considered natural. The example I gave of the chimps is sufficient evidence to disprove your assertion.
The point is that it DOES generally happen in the animal kingdom. I'm not arguing semantics. Another example is Female Black Widows eat Male Black Widows after they mate. It happens all the time.
druidh - MemberBut murder is OK when it's the state that sanctions it, yeah?
Are you on your high horse again? 😆
Answer the questions! Stop being so anal FFS!
Why do you have to answer with a question?
🙄
It happens all the time.
No it doesn't.
Are you on your high horse again?
High Horses kill Low Horses in nature, you know.
No it doesn't
Erm..... have you googled "cannibalism in the animal kingdom"?
I'm guessing not.
have you googled "cannibalism in the animal kingdom"?
No I haven't, tell me about it.......is it something which most species engage in ?
Is it something which we generally find in nature ?
Are carnivores just as likely to eat their own species as they are other species ?
[img] 
[/img]
No, yes.
The only difference between a murderer and a hero is the opinion of their peers.
we could kill as we pleased without comeuppance? Then what would all the other laws matter really? cos you could just kill anyone that tried to enforce them. All laws would break down. I'd **** off to the hills on my bike, but I'd fall off and some twunt would come along and take my bike, and hey ho kill me in the process as there is no come-uppance anyway unless I killed hime/her first. Essentially, It'd be all about who has the best weapons and/or defenses - those who can afford them, but they would be overrun sooner or later by the numbers. A bit like a zombie movie. (that's a train of thought there...)
err a) no b) no
There are people alive because I can't afford a hitman
ooh yeah, you'd be so scary if you were rich 😉
Yes. Yes.
perhaps, Even if the laws were revoked, there would be the unwritten laws surrounding the sacredness of killing. (Who is to be forgiven, Commitalus[sp]) So laws regardless, just no consequence. Unless you count the brother of the man killing you being granted the right to kill you.
I am unsure you are aware of who a soldier works for.. or what that employers main concern of existence is.. So I will let you know.. Just because a Soldier isn't there to kill someone, he would be a fool to not accept the fact he might.stratobiker - Being a soldier isn't all about killing is it?
it's probably some psychological test so that those who answered b) yes, can be collated and sent back by SBZ to his head office.
You're going on my list, ernie_lynch.
There was a similar discussion about this on mumsnet the other day but in relation to rape. Someone said that if rape was not illegal and sex was offered to a man on a plate, whether the the other person was willing or even conscious ALL men would rape. I thought that was a pretty sad reflection on the interactions she must've had with men to date.