Interesting, Thought-Provoking Articles

[speters17]

Hello again totseans, it's been a while.

Anyway, I've got a few articles for you all; at least the ones interested in current events and the world. They're all by the same guy; he's lived in the UK, South America and Spain, so he's got a decent enough grounding to be able to write fairly insightful pieces on all kinds of stuff. Here are his articles so far;

http://www.domoreactnow.com/world/la...rit%C3%A1nicos

http://www.domoreactnow.com/justice/...cism-euro-2012

http://www.domoreactnow.com/god-bles...blican-riposte

They cover the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, racism at the 2012 Euros and the role of the queen nowadays, all topics which I've seen on totse before. Discuss! If you like them, please share wherever and to whoever you want, the more the better.

I'll update the thread with new articles, but if you like them then the general link for the writer is;

http://www.domoreactnow.com/joealdinho

Cheers

[burroughs]

I'm not familiar with the history of the Falkland Islands but that was an interesting article. British sovereignty has always confused me. What is the general attitude toward these territories in the homeland? I can tell you that despite being US Citizens, recently settled Puerto Ricans are considered outsiders just as Mexicans and South Americans.

[Idiosyncrasy]

Hey, it's speters!

[The Alchemical Man]

Read the second one, what the serious fuck?

[speters17]

burroughs: most british people either don't know about the islands or don't really care, but there are some that do. it's an interesting history, but basically the large majority of the islanders are actually from britain, not argentinian, because we systematically colonised them; the rest you'll have got from the article. basically of the people who do care, most (at least as far as i can tell) believe that the islands are ours, full stop, while some (including me) think that it's the islanders decision. one problem with the argentinian claim to the islands (and islanders) is that over the 70s and 80s, with the military junta and the tens of thousands of desaparecidos, there was no way we were going to turn them over. the one thing the article doesn't discuss is the current problem, with oil being discovered off the islands - something within me seems to say that argentina deserve at least a proportion of this. we got talking about this (me and the writer), and we got on to the subject of the resurgence of left-wing radicals in latin america, riding on a ticket of playing the 'victim' of the west. while this is still true in almost every case, they play on this and deliberately hold back the country in order to 'prove their point' and win votes. he's researching this now, so if and when he finishes a new article on it, i'll post it.

EDIT: also burroughs: just realised i forgot about your comment about puerto ricans. is it generally a sort of racism against all 'latin americans' on the part of the american citizen, or a result of the media portrayal of puerto ricans? i hear that in many places, puerto ricans are portrayed as effectively mexican 'job thieves' in the media. interested, as i don't get direct information about it just as i'm sure you don't about the falklands

idio: yes it is

alchem: in what way? agree, disagree or just crazy facts?

[speters17]

how i delete double post? been a while....

[Idiosyncrasy]

how i delete double post? been a while....

Ask one of us. We can take care of yours, mine, and your response.

[The Alchemical Man]

alchem: in what way? agree, disagree or just crazy facts?

I think it's insane that they can get away with jailing someone for being 'rascist', and even more so for saying there is no god.

[speters17]

ahh yes, i remember :P mr mod, please delete everything that should be gone?

alchem - the world is an insane place. stuff like this is happening every day, all over the world, in every country; it's just the scale and the level of insanity that changes.

[Gallows]

EDIT: also burroughs: just realised i forgot about your comment about puerto ricans. is it generally a sort of racism against all 'latin americans' on the part of the american citizen, or a result of the media portrayal of puerto ricans? i hear that in many places, puerto ricans are portrayed as effectively mexican 'job thieves' in the media. interested, as i don't get direct information about it just as i'm sure you don't about the falklands

He's referring to their status as "Americans." They are viewed to be just as much immigrants as people from Africa, Europe, etc, when they are actually U.S. citizens. It is a political issue, not a racial issue.

[speters17]

but do you think people generally recognise puerto ricans as different to mexicans/latin americans? i'm sure if you asked people about puerto ricans you'd get a political answer, but is that how people view it in their day-to-day lives?

EDIT: another article coming tonight, on faith healing vs. medicine, i'll post when it's up

[speters17]

http://www.domoreactnow.com/health/f...on-vs-medicine

so here's the latest article. this was done on a very harsh deadline, and the strict word limit meant that he couldn't add everything in that he wanted to - he may do a part 2 of this article. also, there's a lot of stuff he wanted to put in, such as mother teresa refusing to allow hundreds of children access to basic medicine that would have saved their lives, instead telling them to pray for healing (they all died), but he didn't want to take too much of hitchen's work because he's doing a piece on him in a few weeks. there are also many more examples and some more argument, which will come in part 2 - consider this a draft, if you will.

discuss.

EDIT: sorry for the double post, couldn't really help it....

[infinityshock]

euro racial politics is good for some comic relief. i enjoyed reading about that jigaboo soccer player who publicly made death threats and neither it nor its team recieved any infractions yet fans of a pair of euro teams made simple monkey noises & offered refreshments in the form of a banana which resulted in penalties to the teams they favored. they werent even players and could just as likely been members of the opposing teams engaged in underhanded tactics to benefit the teams they actually favored.

[speters17]

it's obviously wrong that people are being racist in the first place, but can you really 'ban racism'? it's hard enough to justify imprisoning people for 'inciting racial hatred' - after all, no matter what you say it's the person who listened and decided to attack someone (for example) who committed the crime, not you.

[infinityshock]

it's obviously wrong that people are being racist in the first place, but can you really 'ban racism'? it's hard enough to justify imprisoning people for 'inciting racial hatred' - after all, no matter what you say it's the person who listened and decided to attack someone (for example) who committed the crime, not you.

there is nothing wrong with racism. its a perfectly natural instinct as well as supposedly protected by free-speech laws

[speters17]

just because something's natural, it doesn't make it right. murder, rape, incest are all seen in nature, but does that make them morally acceptable?

[sL1nG3r]

when man gave everything a gender he thought, not that he was playing, but that he had reached a valuable insight. it was only very late he realized he was in error. the illusion of moral thinking is the same thing: a misinterpretation of natural phenomena. one day the moral significance of our actions will have no more meaning than the sex of the wind or sun has today

[speters17]

you don't think humanity has an inherent morality, like all animals, from an evolutionary viewpoint?

[Cheese]

you don't think humanity has an inherent morality, like all animals, from an evolutionary viewpoint?

You're getting into something very, very fucking deep there. It's a question I've asked myself many times of late, and I'm having a hard time with an answer. Basically though, I do think we have a kind of inherent sense of right and wrong, but this is very basic, this is then built on by the law and further by reason as we develop. But, most people's sense of morality seems to have "over-developed", i.e. they've taken it too far.

For example, if you asked someone if it would be wrong to take the consciousness of a good man whose body is dying and put it in another live person, but who lacks a consciousness, I think they'd say it is wrong to do, but I disagree and this is what I mean by an "over-developed" sense of morality. I have other reasons for my position as well, but that's going off on a whole other philosophical tangent.

[speters17]

you can show that humans have an inbuilt sense of what we call 'morality' (it's a good refute to the religious argument of divine rules) but obviously different animals have different evolutionary needs, and so have different 'morals'. for instance, some animals think nothing of eating the weaker ones of their young, because they can only look after one, and so their 'morals' are different to better serve the survival of their genes.

i think you may be talking about ethics, as i feel that ethics are intellectual whereas morals are inherent. but don't quote me on that, i'm in a rush and can't think straight i'll hae a think about the good mind-bad body to good body thing though, interesting

[sL1nG3r]

we do not accuse nature of immorality when it sends us a thunderstorm and makes us wet: why do we call the harmful man immoral? bcus in the latter case we assume a voluntarily commanding free will, but this distinction is an error. and then: we do not call even intentional harming immoral under all circumstances; one unhesitatingly kills a fly intentionally, for example, merely bcus one does not like its buzzing, you punish the criminal intentionally and do him harm so as to protect ourselves and society. all morality allows the intentional causing of harm in the case of self-defense: that is, when it is a matter of self-preservation. but these to points of view suffice to explain all evil acts perpetrated by men against men: one desires pleasure or to ward off displeasure; it is always in some sense a matter of self-preservation.

Morality is nothing more than obediance to customs, of whatever kind they may be. customs, however, are the tradiotional way of behaving and evaluating. in things in which no tradition commands there is no morality. if an action is performed not bcus tradition commands it but for other motives(bcus of its usefulness to the individual, for example), even indeed for precisely the motives which once founded the tradition, it is called immoral and is felt to be so by him who performs it , for it was not performed in obediance to tradition. what is tradition? a higher authority which one obeys, not bcus it commands what is useful to one, but bcus it commands. what distinguishes this feeling in the presence of traditrion from the feeling of fear in general?

every morality is a tyranny against nature, and likewise against reason

[infinityshock]

just because something's natural, it doesn't make it right. murder, rape, incest are all seen in nature, but does that make them morally acceptable?

your anaology is irrelevant. murder, rape, and incest arent constitutionally protected.

[Krane]

you can show that humans have an inbuilt sense of what we call 'morality' (it's a good refute to the religious argument of divine rules) but obviously different animals have different evolutionary needs, and so have different 'morals'. for instance, some animals think nothing of eating the weaker ones of their young, because they can only look after one, and so their 'morals' are different to better serve the survival of their genes.

i think you may be talking about ethics, as i feel that ethics are intellectual whereas morals are inherent. but don't quote me on that, i'm in a rush and can't think straight i'll hae a think about the good mind-bad body to good body thing though, interesting

It sounds like you've ready a lot of Nietzsche books.

[The Alchemical Man]

you can show that humans have an inbuilt sense of what we call 'morality' (it's a good refute to the religious argument of divine rules) but obviously different animals have different evolutionary needs, and so have different 'morals'. for instance, some animals think nothing of eating the weaker ones of their young, because they can only look after one, and so their 'morals' are different to better serve the survival of their genes.

Maybe from a subjective point of view morals are real, but objectively? No. I'm a moral relativist, I think that morals are defined by the society one lives in. The only two things that are condemned in almost all cultures, past and present, are patricide and incest. Not rape, not slavery, not robbery, assault, murder. Just patricide and incest. So I refuse to believe that morals exist. Ethics totally exist, but that's a whole other argument.

[speters17]

Morality is nothing more than obediance to customs

i agreed with your self-preservation point, but then you didn't follow the obvious argument from there. morality is a matter of self-preservation and of the preservation of a set of genes similar to yours. all animals, including humans, kill animals from genetically dissimilar groups if it means that the unique genes of the first group will be replicated. humans, with very similar genes globally, generally don't feel like killing other humans, and that's where our morality regarding that issue comes from. same with nearly all issues. there is the argument that we have become intelligent enough to be able to consider morals apart from evolutionary theory, but originally morals came from there, and mostly still do. the 'customs' that you mention are customs because of this.

your analogy is irrelevant

i didn't say they were....i'm saying that just because something is seen in nature, it doesn't make it right from our sense of morals, whether or not our sense of 'morals' come from an evolutionary background (as most, if not, all, do) or from a purely intellectual one.

[speters17]

It sounds like you've ready a lot of Nietzsche books.

genuinely have not i have a lot on my reading list though

Maybe from a subjective point of view morals are real, but objectively? No.

You've just given two globally accepted human morals right there. But in any case, almost all cultures have the same rough set of morals, which include not killing, not stealing (given concept of ownership) etc. There are some that don't follow these as to the same extent as others, and many who have 'morals' that justify some of these 'unforgivable' things (such as murder) in various cases, such as in revenge for a murder committed by the first person. I believe this is different - retribution or punishment for breaking a moral does not always follow the morals itself, but is brought about by the fact that there are morals in the first place. Hundreds of people are put to death in America every year for all sorts of offences, and it is a matter of intense debate over whether it is morally and/or ethically wrong to do so.

EDIT: last double post i promise.

[sL1nG3r]

i agreed with your self-preservation point, but then you didn't follow the obvious argument from there. morality is a matter of self-preservation and of the preservation of a set of genes similar to yours. all animals, including humans, kill animals from genetically dissimilar groups if it means that the unique genes of the first group will be replicated. humans, with very similar genes globally, generally don't feel like killing other humans, and that's where our morality regarding that issue comes from. same with nearly all issues. there is the argument that we have become intelligent enough to be able to consider morals apart from evolutionary theory, but originally morals came from there, and mostly still do. the 'customs' that you mention are customs because of this.

Not killing off your species isn't morality, it's basic instinct. Again, this is just nature, not morality. As an animal you should feel impelled to perpetuate the beauty of your species, and likewise do away with the ugly. Besides, that isn't really why you believe in morality anyway. What really is your reaction to someone in your presence? You see what is in it for you, and you take this effect as the intention behind the behavior, and finally ascribe the harbouring of such intentions as a permanent quality of the person being observed. Do you not see why it makes no sense to praise someone for being 'moral'? You praise someone for being moral, bcus you derive advantage from it. your motives stand in antithesis to your principle.

[speters17]

that's exactly what i mean - our 'morals' do not come from religion (obviously) or intellect, but are merely evolutionarily advantageous. the fact that we feel that killing someone is wrong is because our genes are close enough to that of the other person (everyone on the planet may have a common ancestor as little as 50 generations ago, if i remember rightly, due to the 'bottleneck' where only a few thousand humans remained at some point) that we know we would be preventing them from being passed on. however, your immediate genes (and so close family or friends, evolutionarily, as our 'friends' were always those in our clan and so had the same genes (not necessarily true now)) are more important to us - we will kill to protect them, or steal to feed them. what we see as 'morals' are actually those instincts.

one can and should be praised for being intellectually moral (thinking about a situation and making a decision on it as fairly as society sees possible) but our basic morals are purely selfish genes. but i wasn't praising anyone for being moral in the first place..?

[sL1nG3r]

i didn't mean you were literally 'praising' morality. but if that's what you meant than i agree

[Gallows]

that's exactly what i mean - our 'morals' do not come from religion (obviously) or intellect, but are merely evolutionarily advantageous.

That is a gross generalization. So with most traits, there is a lot evolutionary "noise" and "byproducts," yet in the case of morals, all genes pertaining to "morals" have been selected so that they give an evolutionary advantage? That is an absurd notion.

Furthermore, in some strange twist of events, you have justified racism in your attempt to condemn it. Racism is just an adaptation to allow individuals to allocate resources to others that are likely to have a similar genetic composition. In that sense, it is morally "right."

[speters17]

^

updated reading list:

http://www.domoreactnow.com/world/la...rit%C3%A1nicos

http://www.domoreactnow.com/justice/...cism-euro-2012

http://www.domoreactnow.com/god-bles...blican-riposte

http://www.domoreactnow.com/health/f...on-vs-medicine

the overall site - http://www.domoreactnow.com/joealdinho

[Gallows]

^

updated reading list:

http://www.domoreactnow.com/world/la...rit%C3%A1nicos

http://www.domoreactnow.com/justice/...cism-euro-2012

http://www.domoreactnow.com/god-bles...blican-riposte

http://www.domoreactnow.com/health/f...on-vs-medicine

the overall site - http://www.domoreactnow.com/joealdinho

I'm presently uninterested in reading your friend's thoughts on social issues, although I did read the articles a few days ago. I am interested in why you think reading a few books from your local bookstore gives you a sufficient understanding of evolution to apply it so broadly. Have you taken many classes on evolution? If I remember correctly from our last debate about evolution, you are an undergraduate in an unrelated field.

[speters17]

I am interested in why you think reading a few books from your local bookstore gives you a sufficient understanding of evolution to apply it so broadly. Have you taken many classes on evolution? If I remember correctly from our last debate about evolution, you are an undergraduate in an unrelated field.

evolution is not actually that difficult to understand. i wish i had some 'books from the local bookstore' to recommend to you, but alas, you'll have to find your own. almost every behaviour of any living thing has an evolutionary advantage - that's how they're still around. see? simple. if you want me to explain why creationism is retarded yet again (if i remember correctly, you're the 'world is 6000 years old' type christian - my apologies if not), maybe we could do it in another thread.

[infinityshock]

if youre going to post links it'd be helpful to provide a quick summary or a few-dozen word synopsis of whats in it 'cause i dont feel like clicking a link for that sake of clicking a link.

[Gallows]

evolution is not actually that difficult to understand. i wish i had some 'books from the local bookstore' to recommend to you, but alas, you'll have to find your own. almost every behaviour of any living thing has an evolutionary advantage - that's how they're still around.

Again, another gross generalization. You clearly don't understand the concepts of evolutionary noise and byproducts.

if you want me to explain why creationism is retarded yet again (if i remember correctly, you're the 'world is 6000 years old' type christian - my apologies if not), maybe we could do it in another thread.

You remember incorrectly. I have never defended the viability of creationism. In fact, our past conversations involved me trying to deepen your elementary understanding of evolution.

[speters17]

Again, another gross generalization. You clearly don't understand the concepts of evolutionary noise and byproducts.

obviously there are evolutionarily useless byproducts of evolution (that's the whole mechanism of evolution, the mutations aren't trying to improve a species' chances of survival, they're random), hence the word almost. these are almost always vestigial, not behaviours, because for all life (up until humanity became capable of comfortably living without having to dedicate their time to survival) any behaviour which didn't benefit the survival of a species would not survive. human males can have nipples, some whales have leg bone stumps, flightless birds still have wings. however, if humanity lacked the 'moral' or 'behaviour' we have that tells us not to go out and kill people, we wouldn't be around today; if animals that can only afford to raise one of their young didn't eat the others, the whole lot of them would starve and they wouldn't be around today. how about instead of trying to argue by attempting to discredit what i say, you provide an alternative theory or explain why and how all animals came up with their own 'moral' code intellectually.

[infinityshock]

obviously there are evolutionarily useless byproducts of evolution (that's the whole mechanism of evolution, the mutations aren't trying to improve a species' chances of survival, they're random), hence the word almost. these are almost always vestigial, not behaviours, because for all life (up until humanity became capable of comfortably living without having to dedicate their time to survival) any behaviour which didn't benefit the survival of a species would not survive. human males can have nipples, some whales have leg bone stumps, flightless birds still have wings. however, if humanity lacked the 'moral' or 'behaviour' we have that tells us not to go out and kill people, we wouldn't be around today; if animals that can only afford to raise one of their young didn't eat the others, the whole lot of them would starve and they wouldn't be around today. how about instead of trying to argue by attempting to discredit what i say, you provide an alternative theory or explain why and how all animals came up with their own 'moral' code intellectually.

morality is purely a human construct. if humanity didnt exist, there would be no morality

[speters17]

it depends how you define morality. if you say it's the 'feeling' that we shouldn't kill others, or steal, then that is common to all animals, but they just have a different 'morality'. intellectually, it's a human construct.

[infinityshock]

it depends how you define morality. if you say it's the 'feeling' that we shouldn't kill others, or steal, then that is common to all animals, but they just have a different 'morality'. intellectually, it's a human construct.

were you saying stealing and killing were common to animals? or it wasnt common to all animals? i hope you were saying it wasnt.

it isnt how i define morality, its how human society defines morality...that is the definition of morality. animals dont have morality...dont personify organisms and try to bestow on them that which they dont have. there is a psychological disorder for such a thing...projection. since you brought up animals...projection is a base reason why PETA, ELF, vegetarians, and all their defective ilk behave the way they do.

[speters17]

no, just saying that the human 'feeling' that we shouldn't kill humans is evolutionary, just as for some animals eating their young is customary to make sure the biggest and fittest survives and better passes on genes, for example. i didn't really word it well :/

animals cannot think intellectually about morality of course, but i don't think the majority of what we call our 'morality' comes from intellectual thought. the feeling inside that says 'i shouldn't kill people' is inherent in humans - nobody needed to tell you it, you just knew, even if you'd never thought about it.

projection as a psychological disorder is different to just personification and then you lost me. it's obvious that not all vegetarians are mentally ill and believe that animals are as intelligent as humans, for example.

[Gallows]

hence the word almost. these are almost always vestigial, not behaviours, because for all life (up until humanity became capable of comfortably living without having to dedicate their time to survival) any behaviour which didn't benefit the survival of a species would not survive.

There actually are vestigial behaviors. In order for evolution to occur, the frequency of alleles would have to change. If there is not an impetus for the change to occur, then the frequency will not change, even if certain traits are not advantageous. Many behaviors that are byproducts, noise, vestigial, etc are neutral and would not be affected by evolution.

how about instead of trying to argue by attempting to discredit what i say, you provide an alternative theory or explain why and how all animals came up with their own 'moral' code intellectually.

I'm not trying to develop a theory on morality. I'm trying to get you to stop making sweeping statements.

[infinityshock]

no, just saying that the human 'feeling' that we shouldn't kill humans is evolutionary, just as for some animals eating their young is customary to make sure the biggest and fittest survives and better passes on genes, for example. i didn't really word it well :/

it is neither a 'feeling' nor evolutionary. it is a socially ingrained belief followed with threat of criminal prosecution that affects the homicide rates. if anything the social norm of considering killing a negative trait is harmful to human evolution as it prevents a basic survival instinct from manifesting. there are many examples of individuals who have refused to defend themselves from a deadly threat and instead allowed the fellow human to remove them from the gene pool due to their misplaced beliefs.

you are grossly misinformed if you think that some animals eat their young to 'make sure the biggest and fittest survives and better passes on genes.' there are countless reasons why animals eat their young and it is based on nothing more than instinctive hard-wiring in the behavior patterns by their DNA with no reasoning or higher thought involved whatsoever.

animals cannot think intellectually about morality of course, but i don't think the majority of what we call our 'morality' comes from intellectual thought. the feeling inside that says 'i shouldn't kill people' is inherent in humans - nobody needed to tell you it, you just knew, even if you'd never thought about it.

morality has nothing to do with intellectual thought. one only has to look at the social norms in several different societies, american society especially, in multiple geographic areas to realize there is little to no intellectual thought process involved. morality is based on what the society and a majority decides is going to be the 'normal' way of behavior that govern the day to day lives of its members and their interaction with each other

the feeling that says 'you shouldnt kill people' is not inherent in humans, it is socially ingrained into the behavioral patterns of the members of a society.

projection as a psychological disorder is different to just personification and then you lost me.

look it up. too complicated for me to get into in a thread

it's obvious that not all vegetarians are mentally ill and believe that animals are as intelligent as humans, for example.

and you proved my point.

anyone with the mental faculties to observe an animal then comes to the conclusion that animals are as intelligent as humans should be considered to have a serious mental deficiency.

[speters17]

it is neither a 'feeling' nor evolutionary. it is a socially ingrained belief followed with threat of criminal prosecution that affects the homicide rates. if anything the social norm of considering killing a negative trait is harmful to human evolution as it prevents a basic survival instinct from manifesting. there are many examples of individuals who have refused to defend themselves from a deadly threat and instead allowed the fellow human to remove them from the gene pool due to their misplaced beliefs.

you are grossly misinformed if you think that some animals eat their young to 'make sure the biggest and fittest survives and better passes on genes.' there are countless reasons why animals eat their young and it is based on nothing more than instinctive hard-wiring in the behavior patterns by their DNA with no reasoning or higher thought involved whatsoever.

rubbish. just think about it mate, all cultures have roughly the same moral codes even though some don't have any process of law at all, and if you people with no knowledge of societal retribution whether murder is wrong, they'd still say yes (eg. young children)

you seem repeatedly unable to understand what i'm trying to say - i know there are no higher intellectual thought processes in most animals, and none as high as humans. but if animals just ate their young because they were hungry, they'd eat all of them, wouldn't they? just because they don't know why they feel like doing it, it doesn't mean they therefore are just randomly eating their young.

by 'you lost me', i meant you were being retarded, not that i didn't understand the words you were saying.

and lastly, again you fail to understand. i'm saying not all vegetarians believe that, a tiny minority do. you even quoted my fucking sentence!

[Po-ru]

I have something thought provoking for you. As most of you know, Walt Disney was a racist. Most of all he hated jews. Considering the prior stated fact, I doubt very much so that it's a coincidence that the majority of villains in Disney movies have massive noses.

[sL1nG3r]

all cultures have roughly the same moral codes

no, they really dont. i thought we went over this, there is no right or wrong, the nazis didn't think it was wrong to kill, one example

[speters17]

no, they really dont. i thought we went over this, there is no right or wrong, the nazis didn't think it was wrong to kill, one example

the nazis are not a culture. and in any case, they did believe it was wrong to kill humans, but thought of jews, gypsies, gays etc. as sub-human, less than animals even.

[sL1nG3r]

the nazis are not a culture. and in any case, they did believe it was wrong to kill humans, but thought of jews, gypsies, gays etc. as sub-human, less than animals even.

does that chamge that they were humans? obviously people who believe it wrong to kill other humans have been taught to think that way. there is no inherent feeling, only foundless belief and fear of pain. naturally a fear of pain can only result in a morality of consideration for other humans, as they are most easily related to.

also, how can you say nazi germany wasn't a culture? what about ancient rome with gladiators and killing humans for sport? there are lots of cultures that practice human sacrifice and the like and here you are saying everybody believes it's wrong to kill