someonecompletelyrandom

The "strong" should have a moral obligation not to abuse those weaker than they are, and to use the power they could physically exercise over another responsibly, with self control, reason, and rationality.

It's not a Christian thing. Unless you have absolutely zero morals (and altruistic behavior arises naturally, not as a result of religion.) then showing restraint and not beating the living shit out of another person, weaker or stronger, male or female, shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp. This kind of violence almost always arises as an emotional reaction. The girl in this video pissed the little cuntfaced wannabe gangster fuckwad off and he reacted like the immature little waste of cum that he his because he couldn't control his emotions. Nobody is out there "handicapping" physically imposing people, telling them not to react certain ways, not to use their strength. Nobody has to. It's a commonly held belief throughout most human cultures that to act violently and aggressively is reprehensible. To act violently and aggressively at those who can't defend themselves is seen in an even more negative light because the aggressor is usually not seriously threatened physically, thus the action of attack is unnecessary.

People frown on the strong abusing the weak because they have morals.

Sansa Stark

Why don't you ask him about the black men who beat him up at a gig

Unknown Soldier

What gig was that? I guess he must have mentioned it on MB.

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History

Janszoon

Yeah, I vaguely remember him using as a justification for his racism at some point a while back.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Unknown Soldier

I can remember him about a year ago commenting on a gig he went to, where he got out of his head and proceeded to do "Sieg Heils" before he blacked out or something, maybe this was the same gig.

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History

Scarlett O'Hara

So he's now racist, sexist and unsympathetic?

__________________

anticipation

idk man, it seems like you could make that claim for just about any mentality that humans exhibit, tendencies towards violence, manipulation, greed, anger, abuse, etc. the norm isn't all that "moral" in reality, at least in my experience. humans are a perverse and constantly morally devolving species to be quite honest, and it's nothing to be ashamed about for having a different viewpoint. we are not at all "moral" in one absolute way, especially not leaning towards logic naturally or intrinsically. yes we may have cognitive problem solving skills and a capacity for emotional development, it is rare that we see other species develop the same type of moral codes just by their nature. i just think that our social and communicative relationships influence our morality more than our DNA, no matter how much pseduo-geneticists would like to deny it.

Neapolitan

Why your analogy doesn't work:

1. cheetahs and gazelles don't congregate together
2. cheetahs and gazelles don't engage petty arguments
3. gazelles don't wind up cheetahs by calling them "dumb ass"
4. gazelles don't slap cheetahs
5. cheetahs don't pounce on gazelles because that's how they want to settle an argument

It's just odd in a thread that deals with a guy beating up a girl. They're ok to ask if you were pursuing them as philosophical questions, but I can't see proporting them as theories to defend the violent behaviour of lil Reese.

__________________

someonecompletelyrandom

Well, there are a number of good arguments for altruism arising as an evolved trait on the genetic level, but I do understand your point. Really, it's hard to gauge, as there really isn't any animal more intelligent than us. That's our thing. It seems likely to me that the reason we've come up with advanced codes of law and morality on the group level is precisely because we're genetically hardwired to, but I'm no anthropologist or evolutionary biologist. However, it really doesnt change things. Even if what we call "morality" evolved soley at the group level, and acknowledging the fact that all of our definitions of morality vary, I still would make the case that a reasoned, rational morality based on non violence and being civilized is beneficial to our survival as species. I would also assert this as being superior to most religious moralities as it isn't based on superstitous and petty restrictions which don't withstand critical thought.

In any case, I wouldn't say religion is necessarily the origin of rooting for the underdog, which I guess was HHBH's original assertion. Protecting the defenseless goes back to hammurabi's code and certainly spans holy books the world over. I think it's a reaction evolved very early on in the most primitive groups. Cooperation is key to group survival, after all. We've never been a species to disregard the weak amoung us. We've used and usurped the weak by asserting dominance in positions of power and leadership, but generally not abandoned them. I'd say this is a trait we have in common with our ancestors, as many of our cousins display altruism.

hip hop bunny hop

??? When did that ever happen?

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.