"Beyond Good and Evil"

[Fenris Wolf]

I would have no problem beating someone to death with a hammer just because they were homeless, or had red hair, or wore funny shoes, so i can't really relate.

How annoying. Dr Lou is here trying to tell us he'd have no problem beating someone to death - with a hammer - because they wore... funny shoes?

Firstly, you cannot state something like that without ever having done it. Personally, I believe that anyone who ever has, or has seriously contemplated it, would not be making spurious comments in a forum about it. Strange how it usually comes from powerless geeks who spend most of their lives in a room on a computer. Compensating for that lack, perhaps? there is a huge gap between the thought of an act and actually carrying it out - talk to a few Vietnam vets and find out how big that gap is, and in that situation it was not only condoned but encouraged. Look at their eyes when they're talking about it. That is when you'll see the discrepancy between words and actual reactions.

No, Dr Lou. You think you might find it easy. Now let's see you get out there and do it. Until then, I'll just smile at you. And try to remember that no matter how many horror or war movies you've seen with the best special effects available, there is nothing... nothing... which will prepare you for the sight of a human skull smashed with the brains splashed all over your hand, or which can prepare you for your reaction to it. Yes, you might get used to it in time. Yes, you might learn detachment. But do not sit there and type in how you'd find it "easy" to kill a human, with a hammer, because they wore funny shoes. You merely look stupid.

As for this :

But even those like you and I, who would benefit most from a state of nature, still are benefitted by the current system.

Laughable. Always amusing to see housebound geeks who have rarely stepped outside their homes, let alone been anywhere outside their comfortable little western towns or countries, saying such a state would "benefit them most". Westerners in general would disappear from the face of the planet in short order should such a state of affairs come about - you'd go down to south east asians who've been carrying AK's since they were 8 years old. Middle easterners with ideas of immortality running through their minds and few thoughts of self-preservation. Rig workers with the muscle power to stand you on your head and break your silly necks should you even think of trying to shape up to them. Somalians with absolutely no compunctions in dragging downed enemies naked behind a jeep until they no longer have skin.

Afraid not. The best you could do is say you think you could learn that kind of detachment should such a situation arise, and should you survive long enough to learn it. And then, then, hope you never come up against anyone far bigger than you who wants that deer you've just spent the last week trying to figure out how to kill.

A state of nature favours both the biggest and the smartest. The smartest, though, had better be pretty damn smart and pretty damn elusive, because if they're not, then one day they'll find themselves cornered by someone far bigger, not necessarily smart at all, with a tree branch they'll use for clubbing your silly heads in because they want something you've got.

JPS :
I would say there certainly is a rational basis for morality. Looking at it quite simply, morality gives a rational being the best chance of both himself and his offspring of survival, provided that morality is generally accepted by the majority. There is your rationalisation.

However, this can not be said to be morality, as its possible for people to be mentally healthy and rational and still not accept society's moral standards.

You'll find most of them, like our examples above, will do so from within the comfortable confines of that moral society though, and never step outside those confines to prove their rejection of them.
Plant them in the middle of Cambodia during the 70's and 80's and see which of them relish the opportunity and which run screaming home. Actually, we wouldn't need to plant them. Simply tell them where this "natural state" exists and see which of them voluntarily go there.

 

[15ofthe19]

I've never taken a human life, so I cannot speak to the emotions that must arise from such an action. I hope I never have to experience said emotions.

I have killed hundreds of animals, and the range of emotions that come from that experience have surprised me at times. On my most successful day ever in the pheasant field, I think I bagged twenty birds. Cleaning them was really not much of a cathartic experience, so I don't have much to share about that. However, a few years ago when I killed a doe, I had a very powerful experience. I made a clean shot from about 275 yds and could see that she went down. As I approached her, I could see that she was still very much alive. The bullet had been a bit high, and severed her spine, but she was still breathing. Before I finished her, I felt a sense of sadness that she hadn't died instantly, that she had to suffer. This is the only deer I've ever shot that didn't drop dead right where they stood. Obviously I am a good shot, but sometimes they just don't die instantly, regardless of where you hit them. I've never had it explained by a vet, but I have always assumed adrenaline to be the cause for the fact that a large mammal can run 100's of yards before falling, even if the shot is perfectly placed just behind the shoulder.

So the point of all of this....

Wolf is right. You can't speak flippantly of taking life unless you've done it, and then, in most cases, you will never speak flippantly of it again. Having a .270 with a scope in your hands is a powerful feeling. You realize that you can visit death on something at a distance far enough away that that something was most likely never aware of your presence until it was too late. It certainly makes you think about your own mortality.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Fenris wolf you have no idea who you're talking to.
I've had human beings in my hands, causing them serious damage, and I've never felt remorse once. I've stomped people's heads into concrete, beat them with broomsticks, stabbed people with pens, twisted arms 3 times around, set dogs onto people, stoned people ... the list goes on. And I did these things for no reason. Just saw an opportunity to attack someone. I am not you.
The ONLY thing that has ever stopped me from killing people is the realisation that it could negatively effect ME. ie prison, etc.
If killing people wells up emotions in some people, thats them, not me.

I think you're hilarious.
"Nothing can prepare you for a mans brains on your hands" hahaha. So romantic.
Unfortunately its a load of shit. If you can't handle it you're a pathetic excuse for a human being. Thats not "normal", thats dysgenics popping scores of ned flanders all over this earth. Humans in their intended ecological niche can stomach it, if they can't they are swiftly culled.
These people haven't been being culled and have become the majority and now think its some "universal truth" that killing humans is a hard thing to do.
Bullshit. I could do it so fucking easily its not funny.
Like I said, you don't know me. I know the people you are talking about and think they're pathetic. Geeks who were picked on at school and fantasise about killing their bullies.
Thats not me and if you met me you'd know you were way off base. I've never been picked on, I have picked on.

15th of the 19th, shooting deer isn't comparable. I'd probably cry if I shot a deer.
Because those thoughts will fill your head like "what did that deer ever do to anyone? it was just struggling to survive" they're just inherently unoffensive. Of course they're hard to kill.
I'll assume when you look at a deer you don't feel hatred?
Well its not the same as me killing a human being. I might feel bad if I went around shooting babies, disappointed in myself at least.
Thats comparable to what you are doing and you're feeling bad because you're killing helpless innocent admirable creatures. You should feel bad.

Killing adult humans could not make me feel bad. I'm telling you. I know myself better than you chumps do so get over your lame ass cliches.
Its not like killing another human is some bizarre concept only a real freak could handle
Its natural, normal. Its a standard part of life for the animal our species is. We just stopped doing it. That doesn't mean all of us are weak little pansies who couldn't handle doing it anymore, just most of us. Some of us are still competent living organisms believe it or not.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

I'll ask you again, then.

Have you ever smashed a human skull in with a hammer because you didn't like their shoes?

Violence with purpose would not bother me. What you're describing here, though, is utterly pointless - and doesn't speak of any higher form of morality or lack thereof. It doesn't speak of intelligence, nor rationality. It speaks of little more than stupidity.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

No I haven't smashed someones head in because of their shoes. And I probably wouldn't.
My point was I can't relate to needing an extreme situation to not feel bad about killing someone.
You claim I would feel bad or couldn't handle it even though you don't know me and countless people through history have killed people without feeling remorse.
But you're so sure I'm like you and not like them. And for no apparent reason.

Whats stupid about it? Forgetting about law for a second (which does make it stupid to kill someone for no reason because you are risking your own ass).
How would it be unwise? Will their ghost come and seek revenge? Will their corpse pollute the soil making it infertile?
How is killing someone for no reason "stupid" exactly? I don't understand.

 

[jps]

JPS :
I would say there certainly is a rational basis for morality. Looking at it quite simply, morality gives a rational being the best chance of both himself and his offspring of survival, provided that morality is generally accepted by the majority. There is your rationalisation.

That may be a rational set of values, but there's nothing to justify calling it objective morality. For that, you would somehow need to demonstrate objectively that adhering to these values makes one virtuous and rejecting them evil.

You'll find most of them, like our examples above, will do so from within the comfortable confines of that moral society though, and never step outside those confines to prove their rejection of them.
Plant them in the middle of Cambodia during the 70's and 80's and see which of them relish the opportunity and which run screaming home. Actually, we wouldn't need to plant them. Simply tell them where this "natural state" exists and see which of them voluntarily go there.

That may be true, but the fact remains that there are mentally healthy people with a wide variety of moral values, which to me means that mental health can't be used to form a consistent set of values. Even if it were true that mentally healthy human beings had an inherent value system there would be nothing to connect to say that this value system was better or worse than any other, only that it was more healthy.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

I did not claim you "would feel bad or couldn't handle it" - I said you don't know what your reaction would be, you only claim to know, and further that there is a probability you might in fact get used to it after having done it. Spare me your straw men.

Killing someone for no reason is stupid due to the fact that if humans were designed to do so, we wouldn't be here very long. You speak of nature, Dr Lou, quite often. But here, you're speaking of something against nature and claiming it to be some thing we merely "don't do anymore". Sure, it's natural for humans to kill. For a reason. You know, like ridding the earth of idiots who would hammer someones skull in because they didn't like their shoes...

"But you're so sure I'm like you and not like them" - What is "like me", exactly? Why don't you elaborate for me?

 

[Fenris Wolf]

That may be a rational set of values, but there's nothing to justify calling it objective morality. For that, you would somehow need to demonstrate objectively that adhering to these values makes one virtuous and rejecting them evil.

I didn't call it objective morality. I gave you a rational basis for morality to exist in reply to :

The problem is that there is no rational basis for morality

That was all.

 

[jps]

I didn't call it objective morality. I gave you a rational basis for morality to exist

I see, I misunderstood.
I agree to a point then, there can be a rational basis for a given moral system, as long as it has its foundations in one's personal preference.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I did not claim you "would feel bad or couldn't handle it" - I said you don't know what your reaction would be, you only claim to know

I claim to have a better idea of what my reaction would be than you do. Seems pretty fair to me.

Killing someone for no reason is stupid due to the fact that if humans were designed to do so, we wouldn't be here very long. You speak of nature, Dr Lou, quite often. But here, you're speaking of something against nature and claiming it to be some thing we merely "don't do anymore". Sure, it's natural for humans to kill. For a reason

I'm at the point where I realise any reason I come up with will be irrelevent, arbitrary, purely existing to make sure I fullfill my ecological role. That ecological reason being of importance. To ensure humans are distributed over territory in a manner that is not so congested so as to deplete eco-systems of resources and inhibit biodiversity.
With this, and the current state of the planet in mind, I think there is damn good reason to kill someone for no reason.

"But you're so sure I'm like you and not like them" - What is "like me", exactly? Why don't you elaborate for me?

I assume from your posts that you are like people who think killing a human being is a big deal. Am i wrong? I might be.

I do not think it is a big deal, neither did countless other individuals through history, nor countless societies through history, nor early homo-sapiens.
Other species, similar in ecological niche to the niche we evolved for, such as lions, hyenas and chimpanzees(and countless others) also have no qualms about killing rivals from other groups. I'm sure each killing had its "reason" to the individual committing it. But that reason is not significant nor important. The fact the killing occurred is all that really matters.
I'm fairly confident nature is a-ok with people killing people for any arbitrary reason they care to come up with.
This behaviour would not send humans extinct, it didn't send us extinct did it? It isn't sending lions, hyenas or chimps extinct.
There will always be strong groups who survive the conflicts and manage to breed.

 

[Xev]

Fenris:

Laughable. Always amusing to see housebound geeks who have rarely stepped outside their homes, let alone been anywhere outside their comfortable little western towns or countries, saying such a state would "benefit them most".

And so on. Do you have a point? Or is this some diversion between t.v and porn?
The "Somalis with guns" are an interesting case in point. They thrive because fat westerners give their country shitloads of aid. They then fight over that aid. Should those fat westerners stop, the somalis would likely tear each other apart in pointless struggles. Witness Mugabe.

The state of nature favors stupid individuals who bind into clans. It does, however, select for a certain type of disposition.

Rarely stepped outside their homes? Amusing. Not only have I been homeless, I've been homeless at an age while you were still busy worrying about your zits. I've fought, I've stared down men twice my size and I beat the shit out of my own mother one day when I was tired of being slapped around by her.
What have you done? Fantasized about being some Randian superhero?
The problem with attacking strangers personally is that...well, you don't know them, thus your attacks are often bound to be way the fuck off
Moron.
Nature selects for disposition and brawn just so much as brains, perhaps more. Your attempt to play "macho man amongst the weakling intellectuals" fails for this reason - not even strength is universally favored.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Charisma is favoured in this social species(chimps too), charismatic people favoured by the strong, the strong favoured by the charismatics.
The most charismatic people can form the strongest clans. In the end it is strength being favoured. But being a social species it is the group that follows the laws of nature, the individual following the laws of the group. Physically weak individuals can be successful in the humans natural politics, yes. Being soft however, could not work.

There would have been nothing stupid about forming a clan a hundred thousand years ago, xev. It would be suicide not to. I'm sure while most people in clans were mindless about it, some would have understood the gravity of the clans importance and calculatedly worked themselves into good position. And the only people that didn't form clans or even try would have to be very stupid indeed.

I don't attack people for no reason, in that it doesn't seem that way from the outside. Like someone will call me a fuckhead or something first.
The sense in which it is for no reason is that I never get angry. I'm an uncannily calm individual that can't be offended. My temper did not provoke any act of violence I ahave ever committed. I can hate a person, but not in an angry way, just a way that i would like to hurt them. I would never mistakenly attack someone who doesn't deserve it. Most people do happen to deserve it.
An excuse to kick the shit out of a loser is an excuse to kick the shit out of a loser.
Animal cruelty is honestly the only thing that can make me angry. Even someone physically hurting me doesn't make me angry, it is again just an excuse to attack. People I like have knocked me out and I didn't retaliate. And it wasn't because they were tougher than me or anything. But rather because I wouldn't enjoy hurting them and so I didn't. I have no beef with being beaten that would cause me to seek justice whenever it happened.
While I always say it is normal for humans to kill others, I admittedly could not say that I am normal. I think humans are supposed to get angry with other humans and kill them in violent rages. The thing is they aren't supposed to have this ingrained taboo/ fear of harming people. Thats less normal than me.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

Fenris:
And so on. Do you have a point? Or is this some diversion between t.v and porn?

Nay, this was the result of boredom. Point being, I find it rather ridiculous for soft western products to claim they'd do so well if society was suddenly to revert to a natural state, based solely on their experiences of "fighting" inside such a weak society to begin with.

The "Somalis with guns" are an interesting case in point. They thrive because fat westerners give their country shitloads of aid. They then fight over that aid. Should those fat westerners stop, the somalis would likely tear each other apart in pointless struggles. Witness Mugabe.

And? Wasn't that viciousness, compared to the lack of it in fat westerners, precisely what I was talking about? Westerners have very little idea of what viciousness and the law of survival actually is. Here in this thread, though, we have some claiming they know all about it, based on their experience of fighting the local street toughs in Sydney or Michigan. You cannot say how well equipped you are to survive in a primitive state when all you have is experience of being tough within these boundaries. You can only compare yourself to other westerners. Kind of like the featherweight champion of the world claiming he's the toughest boxer in history, when he's never come up against anything even remotely like Muhammad Ali.

The state of nature favors stupid individuals who bind into clans. It does, however, select for a certain type of disposition.

Actaully, the state of nature favours the more intelligent individuals who form into clans. The stupid ones not assimilated into these societies don't generally last long.

What certain type of disposition?

Rarely stepped outside their homes? Amusing. Not only have I been homeless, I've been homeless at an age while you were still busy worrying about your zits.

Hmm.. now let's look at this for a second. My "zits" were of concern to me when I was about 14 or 15, at which point you weren't even born. The image of a nappy-clad Xev crawling around the streets with a bottle of Night Train is rather humorous, but... I don't think so.

Don't try to compare your experiences to mine, Xev. I'll only laugh at you, and your credibility is getting low enough as it is.

I've fought, I've stared down men twice my size and I beat the shit out of my own mother one day when I was tired of being slapped around by her.

That's nice, so have I (although I never bothered to beat up on my mother). Now try it against those Somalis I mentioned instead of against some poor widdle western white boy. Let's see how tough you are when some primitive black guy in Somalia twice your size and having fought all his life decides he'd like to have you when he encounters you in a dark alley in Mogadishu. Go walk the back streets of Manila alone at night armed only with your nasty stare and a knife, and see if you make it back to your hotel without being humiliated in several nasty ways, if you make it back at all. Real world Xev... it's out there, and westerners have no idea.

What have you done? Fantasized about being some Randian superhero?

You know better than that.

The problem with attacking strangers personally is that...well, you don't know them, thus your attacks are often bound to be way the fuck off Moron.

This coming from you? Credibility bottoming out...

Dr Lou chose to type in a bunch of words about how tough he is. His choice. That being the case, he's going to have to learn to deal with derision. This is the internet. You can't prove a thing, you can't show it, and it looks like stupid braggadocio. Capische?

Nature selects for disposition and brawn just so much as brains, perhaps more.

Yes.. I said that.

Your attempt to play "macho man amongst the weakling intellectuals" fails for this reason - not even strength is universally favored.

Please, be a good girl then and show me how what I've said is an attempt to play macho amongst the weaklings? Remind me who it is who talks of bending arms around three times (is that possible? without twisting the damn thing right off?) and stomping heads? Not to mention various individuals who phone each other to arrange meetings where they might go at it one on one in other threads. Wrong tree, Xev. Go bark up another one.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

bending arms around three times (is that possible? without twisting the damn thing right off?)

I didn't think so either. But yes it is. I just slowly twisted it an inch at a time to see how far it could go. And it got around 3 times before I could tell it was going to snap so I stopped.
The guy could have got out of it at any time by singing the first few lines of the creed song "with arms wide open", that was the deal, but he wouldn't.

Its not even that I'm tough, I'm 5'11" 180, and there are plenty of people that could destroy me.
My point is I have a mindset that can handle violence, and many people don't.
I was responding to you giving your pathetic spiel about how hard it is to kill people with "once you put your hand into a pile of goo, you'll know what to do!" bullshit and that I "don't know what my reaction would be". Its a load, it assumes killing people is an outlandish act that only the bizarre could stomach. Which is not true. Its just a normal activity that jesus declared indecent and a population of mindless idiots believed him, urged on by their own fear of death.
My point was not that I am skilled at bashing peoples heads in concrete, but that I can handle it.
Which you challenged so don't blame me for correcting your false accusations.

 

[John Connellan]

I feel that u are a bit like me in some sense Lou. I have taken from many of your posts that one thing u don't like is cruelty to animals. I always feel that animals such as kittens which go about their day to day activity without affecting us but end up getting blown apart by a halloween firecracker is just terrible. I often feel very little for humans when they die (esp if I don't know them) but when I hear a story about a bag of screaming puppies that were flushed down somebodies toilet, it makes me sad thinking about what these animals were thinking of us in the few seconds before they died. They must have known we were not killing them for food!

Most people will laugh at the stories I presented above but when one someone they once knew in school gets crushed by a bus they might go into depression. Not me.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Exactly, I feel humans are on a level playing field where practically anything goes. Its not even a matter of what I "feel" it just is the case.
I don't think cruelty to humans is comparable to cruelty to animals. Cruelty to animals is just inherently far more dispicable.
This doesn't mean I'm against any human ever harming an animal. Respectfully dispatching of one for food is fine. And I expect to be killed by a predator myself one day(I'm going to make sure of it).
But the violence inside all of us, is intended for other people. Thats why we are the way we are. But something happened where we became civilised and forced to tolerate eachother. And then we started taking out our frustrations on animals.
Its like if a lion wanted to challenge you for its position at head of the pride. It would be misguided, displaying a pointless behaviour, and thats what people are doing right now.
But its just more sickening. The wierd ways in which people hurt animals are making animals experience levels of both physical and mental suffering to degrees nothing was ever intended to experience. We could never make eachother suffer like that.
A human that has been set on fire will never understand the terror an animal that has been set on fire would experience.
Understanding abstract concepts softens the blow. Just thinking "holy shit I can't believe that guy set me on fire, what a maniac" while we burn is a comforting aspect we take for granted. I don't even like to think of what it would be like for an animal.
As cruel as nature is, there are heaps of things that make the cruel situations that arise less horrible. A wildebeest being torn apart by wild dogs goes into hypo-volemic shock and the adrenaline of running from its attackers would naturally make it not really feel the bites.
But people can and do come up with unusually cruel ways to do things. If we strap down an animal and cut it to pieces it won't have adrenaline or go into shock it will just be terrified and in horrible pain.
With all this in mind, our history of animal abuse, and the flippant attitude people have to animal abuse along with how 'terrible' people think human suffering is it has admittedly made me bitter at people in general and even an innocent person suffering will make me say "who gives a shit", its just so insignificant in the scheme of things considering what animals go through.
Actually its equal to a lion killing another. You know, thats not that depressing to me, when a lion kills another. Both lions understood the situation. If a human used some tool to cause that same damage to a lion that a lion would cause another lion it would be dispicable. The lion would have a completely different mindset, it would be confused and terrified and just flat out suffering.
People doing whatever to people is akin to the lion fight. Even if what they are doing is much more horrible than a lion fight. As humans we have an understanding of a broad range of horrible things we can do to eachother. Nothing will truely come as a surprise. Its all fair as far as I'm concerned.
And we can also understand why an animal would kill us, so we really do have the responsibility to just come to terms with the fact that we can never be victims in the true sense of the word. Not like we can victimise other animals.
If people just said human cruelty and animal cruelty were equally bad I would have a problem, whats really irritating is most people think human cruelty is worse. That just really blows my mind.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

I was responding to you giving your pathetic spiel about how hard it is to kill people with "once you put your hand into a pile of goo, you'll know what to do!"

It's not a pathetic spiel. Until you've been there, anything you tell me of your reaction to it is pure surmise on your part, and you're blind fool if you can't see that. But for you to admit that one salient fact would destroy your carefully crafted self-ideal of being a hardass, so I won't hold my breath waiting.

Its a load, it assumes killing people is an outlandish act that only the bizarre could stomach.

No, it doesn't assume anything of the sort. More strawmen.

Its just a normal activity that jesus declared indecent and a population of mindless idiots believed him, urged on by their own fear of death.

Yes, I imagine before Jesus came along people just wandered around slaughtering each other because the guy they just passed had the wrong hair colour.

Idiot.

My point was not that I am skilled at bashing peoples heads in concrete, but that I can handle it.

We're not talking about bashing people's heads into concrete. We're talking about you smashing someone's skull in with a hammer. You're basically saying that because you've been in a fight before, you know you could cut someone's throat without feeling anything. In a word? Bullshit. Maybe you could. But you won't know until you've done it. Quite a simple concept really.

Which you challenged so don't blame me for correcting your false accusations.

You've done nothing but deny your unsubstantiated claims vehemently and throw up strawmen in return.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Using the term "strawman" alot doesn't make your lame argument any less lame. Despite a large portion of sciforums believing it does. And 'unsubstantiated' Do you want me to provide a source on why I feel like I could handle killing someone? From reuters maybe? Fucking idiot. You're so versed in forum discussions that you don't understand what having a conversation is and what the limitations of such a situation are.
unsubstantiated, thats fucking hilarious.

Yes, I imagine before Jesus came along people just wandered around slaughtering each other because the guy they just passed had the wrong hair colour.

If you were to address the point I was making and try to argue against it you would say "I guess before jesus people were just killing people for no reason" but the thing is yes they were.
They would make up reasons, and they would be just as arbitrary as not liking someones hair colour. You can't actually pin-point why people want to kill eachother, they don't even know, they just walk towards eachother feel less and less comfortable and then say "what are you looking at". Its just fighting, its what we are likely to do when we come accross a stranger. Before jesus very much so. And these fights would have often ended in death because it could be gotten away with.
Think about what is really preventing people from killing eachother today. Really think about it, and even though we are brainwashed to think killing is wrong we would still do it if we thought we could get away with it because its in our instincts.

We're not talking about bashing people's heads into concrete. We're talking about you smashing someone's skull in with a hammer

Whats the big difference? If I was born 5000 years earlier and got into those head slamming situations I probably would have thrown in the extra 4 or 5 head slams it would have taken to kill the guy and I would have walked away without giving it a second thought. If I had a hammer on me i would have used that.

You're basically saying that because you've been in a fight before, you know you could cut someone's throat without feeling anything. In a word? Bullshit. Maybe you could. But you won't know until you've done it. Quite a simple concept really.

Fine, am i allowed to say I'm really really really close to 100% fucking certain that i could?
I mean I'm pretty qualified when it comes to predicting how I would react to situations. I can atleast give an educated opinion on the subject, surely. Taking the mindset I have into account and previous experiences etc etc, taking my life experience and understanding of my self into consideration I would say that assuming I could kill people without feeling anything is a fairer prediction to make than predicting I would feel something. I have seen no indication in the history of myself that would lead me to believe that me caring would be a possibility in this scenario, and countless indications that suggest me not caring is the more likely thing to happen.
Perhaps your argument shows that there is some tiny outside chance I would be surprised and have some strange unlikely 180 in personality if I killed someone.
But from the indepth understanding I have on the subject of me, I would say the most reasonable assumption to make is that I would NOT feel bad about killing someone.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

Using the term "strawman" alot doesn't make your lame argument any less lame.

The best way to avoid being accused of strawman arguments, Dr Lou, is to stop using them. Until you do, I'll continue to use the term. I might say "I didn't say that, actually... " once in a while, just for variation.

Actually, this is pointless. I just looked at the sig in your profile and started laughing. See if you can figure out why.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Because its hilarious?