Now I am wondering what happens if one pack is hunting something that ends up crossing into another pack’s territory. Do they continue the hunt or give up because it’s now the property of another clan? 🤔
argument is that they agreed on those boundaries and only wolves respect those. they did not set up a state to enforce those borders so no other animal cross them.
They are still animals, and those territories aren’t analogous to modern states
I feel your argument is implying that people subject to borders created by other are equivalent to animals being subject to borders created by other species. As as humans are just animals we do not subject birds to our human borders only other humans if we are to accept your argument birds are nots subject to borders created by wolves only borders created by wolves. I don’t see how this is any different what humans do?
The whole point of your argument is to try justify why territories created by one species is not analogous to territories created by another species?
The wolves “agreed upon those boundaries” by fighting each other. Humans agreed on our boundaries by fighting eachother. Only that us humans have democracy so everyone gets a say not just whatever wolf happens to be in charge of any particular pack. Would that not make human boundaries a more equitable situation than that of wolves?
The wolves don’t have a state enforcing those rules. only the wolves are subject to those rules they made up.
Meanwhile, some humans made up human borders, and force all humans to abide by those rules. I never consented to those boundaries, yet the state will use violence to enforce them.
Furthermore, human made borders do often include infrastructure like fences and walls that will stop other animals from traveling freely.
I did not miss ur point its just that I outlined why your point is not in fact the point u believe it to be.
The wolves don’t have a state enforcing those rules. only the wolves are subject to those rules they made up.
The wolves have a pack that enforce those borders against other wolves. U have a nation that enforces those borders against other people. Same thing. Only the humans are subject to those rules.
Meanwhile, some humans made up human borders, and force all humans to abide by those rules. I never consented to those boundaries, yet the state will use violence to enforce them.
Some wolves made up those borders and force all other wolves to abide by those borders. Most wolves never consented to those borders yet a pack of wolves will use violence to enforce that border upon other wolfs> .
Furthermore, human made borders do often include infrastructure like fences and walls that will stop other animals from traveling freely.
That’s a pointless distinction that only works as well as you are willing to maintain the parallel of human seeking to cross a border as another species to those that are enforcing the border. Given that almost all animals that are not subject to the wolves borders are lesser species than the wolves that’s a wildly telling statement about how you view people seeking to cross your borders.
No idea why you are being so intentionally stubborn.
A handful of wolves set up those rules and are the ones who enforce those rules against wolves.
They do not build a state that forces all creatures, even the ones who were not involved in those decisions to follow those rules. Or makes the forest critters pay taxes to finance the violence that upholds said borders.
The Wolves borders are more akin to you and your neighbours respecting each other houses, it is rude to come in uninvited into someone’s house. You don’t violate those rules because it would upset your neighbours and bring social consequences of them being upset.
The human example would be the same example but in a police state, where besides social consequences, you have to fear the state using violence against you if you violate those rules. Not ones agreed upon by your neighbours, but by power structures beyond your control.
Not agreeing with you is not called being stubborn its called a different perspective. You will find that almost everyone in the world has a different one and ur underhanded frame shifting techniques to changes those perspectives doesn’t work on everyone.
I have given a clear argument for why ur implication of all animals is a stupid comparison either provide an argument against said points or shut up with that point.
So what if all my neighbours and I get together and make a decision that we don’t want people from the neighbourhood over coming into our neighbourhood let’s calk the group of neighbours and I a pack A and call the neighbourhood over pack B. Then pack A patrols our neighbourhood to ensure pack B doesn’t come into our neighbourhood. Ohh shit that’s literally what the fucking wolves are doing.
Rules, morality, the law all if it doesn’t actually exist its all a fucking social construct upheld by he who holds the monopoly in violence. The state holds the monopoly on violence it has that monopoly on violence because it was given to them by a majority of the population of a nation (that’s called democracy). If you don’t like it you can campaign to change it or become the monopoly on violence and go do a coup (good luck with that). The monopoly of violence is the only law that actually exists and it is the very same law that governs us as what governs wolves. We are just smart monkeys who have abstracted this violence away and hidden it behind a facade of rules and laws and moral arguments.
You pay tax cos failing to do so will result in violence upon you at the hands of those who demand tax. You by accepting the social contract have consented to play by the rules so that the violence may be enacted against those that may threaten you. The state will use ur tax to enact violence against people coming into ur house and fucking up ur shit just that ur house happens to also include the entire society cos u don’t live in an isolated environment outside of everyone else in ur society.
The lines they are drawing are still imaginary and don’t exist in the physical world.
more important, those lines are made for wolves and respected by wolves.
They aren’t forcing the other animals to comply.
Now I am wondering what happens if one pack is hunting something that ends up crossing into another pack’s territory. Do they continue the hunt or give up because it’s now the property of another clan? 🤔
They tag team it?
no idea.
They are wolves they are killing other animals if they want to sometimes simply for the fun of killing them. Whats ur argument here?
argument is that they agreed on those boundaries and only wolves respect those. they did not set up a state to enforce those borders so no other animal cross them.
They are still animals, and those territories aren’t analogous to modern states
I feel your argument is implying that people subject to borders created by other are equivalent to animals being subject to borders created by other species. As as humans are just animals we do not subject birds to our human borders only other humans if we are to accept your argument birds are nots subject to borders created by wolves only borders created by wolves. I don’t see how this is any different what humans do?
The whole point of your argument is to try justify why territories created by one species is not analogous to territories created by another species?
The wolves “agreed upon those boundaries” by fighting each other. Humans agreed on our boundaries by fighting eachother. Only that us humans have democracy so everyone gets a say not just whatever wolf happens to be in charge of any particular pack. Would that not make human boundaries a more equitable situation than that of wolves?
I think you missed the point.
The wolves don’t have a state enforcing those rules. only the wolves are subject to those rules they made up.
Meanwhile, some humans made up human borders, and force all humans to abide by those rules. I never consented to those boundaries, yet the state will use violence to enforce them.
Furthermore, human made borders do often include infrastructure like fences and walls that will stop other animals from traveling freely.
I did not miss ur point its just that I outlined why your point is not in fact the point u believe it to be.
The wolves have a pack that enforce those borders against other wolves. U have a nation that enforces those borders against other people. Same thing. Only the humans are subject to those rules.
Some wolves made up those borders and force all other wolves to abide by those borders. Most wolves never consented to those borders yet a pack of wolves will use violence to enforce that border upon other wolfs> .
Furthermore, human made borders do often include infrastructure like fences and walls that will stop other animals from traveling freely.
That’s a pointless distinction that only works as well as you are willing to maintain the parallel of human seeking to cross a border as another species to those that are enforcing the border. Given that almost all animals that are not subject to the wolves borders are lesser species than the wolves that’s a wildly telling statement about how you view people seeking to cross your borders.
No idea why you are being so intentionally stubborn.
A handful of wolves set up those rules and are the ones who enforce those rules against wolves.
They do not build a state that forces all creatures, even the ones who were not involved in those decisions to follow those rules. Or makes the forest critters pay taxes to finance the violence that upholds said borders.
The Wolves borders are more akin to you and your neighbours respecting each other houses, it is rude to come in uninvited into someone’s house. You don’t violate those rules because it would upset your neighbours and bring social consequences of them being upset.
The human example would be the same example but in a police state, where besides social consequences, you have to fear the state using violence against you if you violate those rules. Not ones agreed upon by your neighbours, but by power structures beyond your control.
Not agreeing with you is not called being stubborn its called a different perspective. You will find that almost everyone in the world has a different one and ur underhanded frame shifting techniques to changes those perspectives doesn’t work on everyone.
I have given a clear argument for why ur implication of all animals is a stupid comparison either provide an argument against said points or shut up with that point.
So what if all my neighbours and I get together and make a decision that we don’t want people from the neighbourhood over coming into our neighbourhood let’s calk the group of neighbours and I a pack A and call the neighbourhood over pack B. Then pack A patrols our neighbourhood to ensure pack B doesn’t come into our neighbourhood. Ohh shit that’s literally what the fucking wolves are doing.
Rules, morality, the law all if it doesn’t actually exist its all a fucking social construct upheld by he who holds the monopoly in violence. The state holds the monopoly on violence it has that monopoly on violence because it was given to them by a majority of the population of a nation (that’s called democracy). If you don’t like it you can campaign to change it or become the monopoly on violence and go do a coup (good luck with that). The monopoly of violence is the only law that actually exists and it is the very same law that governs us as what governs wolves. We are just smart monkeys who have abstracted this violence away and hidden it behind a facade of rules and laws and moral arguments.
You pay tax cos failing to do so will result in violence upon you at the hands of those who demand tax. You by accepting the social contract have consented to play by the rules so that the violence may be enacted against those that may threaten you. The state will use ur tax to enact violence against people coming into ur house and fucking up ur shit just that ur house happens to also include the entire society cos u don’t live in an isolated environment outside of everyone else in ur society.
I mean as far as I know, we also let other animals cross our borders. I have yet to see someone deport an animal cause it crossed a country border
Not when we build fences and walls.
they exist in piss