Humans Are Livestock

There’s a big difference between debt and overhead for one…

A person would much rather buy a house than take a loan for two…

And sometimes debt is not voluntarily assumed, sometimes liens are transferred inter generationally, as when predecessors die with extremely heavily mortgaged expensive property, with bleak outlook of payout in four or five generations or more, as in the cases of downward mobility. The overhead of course decreases dramatically, but there remains the caviat of the transfer of deed to never sell. All the families’ sum income is needed for this effort. The family is constrained to get along under horrendous circumstances, yet, there is no elements of whether this is feasible or not, since the mortgages are based on absolute ownership and control. The serfs and the Lords of the Middle Ages knew what this meant, in real terms.
The ruined aristocrats of modern times with titles but no money are also privy to this form of slavery to land and title.


I wouldn’t say humans are livestock, but more analogous to bees, insects, or worker drones.

Or even bacteria and viruses.

Honeybees are very successful and efficient. In one point - offspring / reproduction ( :exclamation: ) - they are even more efficient than humans.

We are virus, we are better than virus; we are plague and contagion, we are what cures it. We are symbiotic with all life around us and feast off of it as it feasts off of us. Energy vampires to actual feasting of flesh and blood, muscle and sinew. Welcome to the great circle of life.

Not sure how I missed your earlier comment, Jerkey, my apologies.

In US law, this generally isn’t possible. Most debt dies with the debtor, after the estate is exhausted. There are apparently rare cases where children have been found responsible for their parents medical bills, but that’s the exception. Even a clause in a will that says the heir can never sell a property will only tend to disinherit that person (and my recollection of property law is fading, but I believe many such clauses don’t even do that). So if a property is a net cost, the estate can sell it and wash their hands.

I’m not sure how it works in other countries, so it may be that in places where there are hereditary titles and estates, debt can also get passed down. I agree that’s a bad system, but I have to think it’s the extreme outlier.

Other countries could have broader inheritability of debt generally, and that too is a bad system and may be more common. But given that the US is among the most debt-friendly jurisdictions, with among the most indebted citizens, I think as a proportion of debt this is a small concern. I am open to correction though, if you know otherwise.

The only defense i could give to this sppearent naivete on my part,Carleas, is, that i am of dual national background.

That said, or admitted, the oversight to relevance to topic may be mitigated by raising the literal bar of interpreting the nature of debt away from the material to the metaphoric sense. In that manner of speaking, it is not as though a completely new form of language has to be invented, but what is sought after would ideally be more metaphoric, more rich in its potential ways of interpretation. This desirable way of communicating sees the old Continental and British ways of dealing with debt.

This is what early immigrants to the United States sought to escape. The ramifications de facto, debt, show a different story. Reparations to Native American and Black American people show a political capital owed to them within the language of a class form of depreciation of value. This form of debt is still outstanding, garnering interest, in spite of arguments contrary.

In this sense, at least for those improperly repaired, the debt can incite a nominal pre inflated value.

And that is not to say that the ground of such a defense purportedly rests on a purely elevating sense within its own formal rhetoric.
And to be totally honest, I did not appreciate this difference, until You pointed this out. However the connection in my mind
, at least, between the de facto and the dejure forms of interpretation, did not rise to the level identifying with earlier components of this argument.

And finally I do admit my obvious attempt to draw away a possible closed debate away from the realms of the insubstantive into the opinionated metaphoric analysis. The facts of the debate have been well settled, the winner declared. However facts do not always correspond to the interpretations given them, and in this sense, these can clear the air, or, obfuscate them.

In this debate, without going into particulars, there is an attempt for closurr, closure in the sense of making irrelevant the continuation of trying to create grey areas between the questions of, whether or not, humans are livestock.

This grey area would create a sense of irresolution, where. Such may not be needed, since there is always some leakage of information which I’m wrong hands, can develop further information, ultimately resulting in adjacent areas of misinformation.

This is why, at times the original source is needed to validate whatever spin happens to gain the upper hand in any newly formed conviction.

Therefore to my mind, the question of debt, although outmoded and substantially outmoded, retains its formal elements, and seeks validation with or by formal authority.

The material content will eschew no difference between class consciousness in one hand and literally substantive ideas by which such consciousness is figured.

So stripping away a less formal argument of contestable substantive ideas, may not imitate them, merely put them on hold. They are still there, but rendered ineffective.

That there always remains a leakage , of that I have no doubt, and the supposed doubt always arises, when the similarities overweight the exact originals.

Therefore, rather then supposing the two forms of debating being similar or distinct, could very well show an analogy between a proto argument of a split idea of convincing Trumpians of their weakness or ineptitude of developing a public persona of a misinformed bunch, more reactive than autonomous, more steeple livestock than human.

But what of the idea that livestock is essentially nothing to do with labor, and just gets used to produce milk and ultimately to be eaten?

I mean if the metaphorical path is chosen, a more apt metaphor needs to be used. Like humans as oxen and ox-cart-drivers.
(‘One law for lion and ox is oppression’ - Wild Bill)

Another way in which the divergence of the image in the metaphor from mr Ha’s meaning for it becomes apparent is in that cows are fed reasonably well so that the meat tastes right, whereas these cattle-like humans that really do exist a good (meaning large, not actually good) part of the word in the form in which it its meant, are fed, by cheap pricing and ready availability of suboptimal materials presented as great food, as badly as possible so that they become sick so that they must pay and ultimately get as a collective so sick, that a collective heath tax is imposed which cripples the haha-cattle-class even more and reduces more people to haha-cattle.

But the final argument in spirit of Carleas, that humans should be able to overcome these conditions and prove to be more than cattle or work-mules also goes for McDonalds - you can survive it and overcome your pitiful state and eat some raw fennel like I saw an opera singer do in the elevator.

Also someone in this room is going to to publish a booklet of mr Ha under the name “We are Livestock” and profit from his unrewarded work as he stews in the mud. But thats just good capitalistic taste.

I think the debate was lost because the metaphor wasn’t being scrutinized to begin with so the abysmal condition of livestock cant be examined now because humans have victimized themselves so evilly that even livestock must further suffer indignation added to injury and insult.

I do think the metaphore can be useful in light of evolutionary assumptions of current views, and the last few centuries are indicative toward those types views
But no one can set store by an issue, which has not been completely resolved, so the metaphore remains as figurative relatively speaking , as prompted by untimely propositions of hypothetical aims of understanding the constitution of the homosapian

The pre evolutionary hypothetical aims of natural selection ,primarily understood in material terms , , can be seen as a final dictate, or the earliest definitional aims of humankind
of presumed meaning embedded within the aims of human experience believed to be equally relevant,.

I think,both are significant, apart and inclusive as both: whether their interpretation appears at times contradictory, other times shadowing incrementally. In near perfect harmony.

The level of apprehension determines the substantiality of the interpretations regarding the aims of project Man, and in this way of seeing can be both: a sacred animal who lost his way, or merely sidestepping his own self realization, to cope with existential preoccupations dealing with the issues we are currently facing ;overpopulation, civilizational unhappiness and strife,and the unfortunate effects that scientific applicationswhich has changed the previous firm terrain of the planet.

But all this can pass away, including the downward devaluation of the role man plays in the natural design. Which, sorrily, has come down to individual, psychologically predisposed views of man being alone in the universe.

It’s equally possible we are not alone, and even in former times, others were here. Atlanticans, other civilizations may have precursors the planet. Billions of years stymie the lapse of maybe a million years of evolution. If we develop metaphors which are so relativistic as to demean the potential and categorically significant prior visions of meaning, we may undermine Nature’s ultimate goals for mankindd, and foreclose upon Nature’s own precedent , Her own aims in Her own need to become aware of Herself, not the other way around.

I think men can become as livestock, and through the will exert power to force others to subscribe to this notion, , Nature may not go along with it, and entertain other forms of creation.

I bring this back up because it remains pertinent to the points brought up since it was first posted. Please reconsider your arguments.

Viruses historically have been neutralized, and the ones which haven’t loose their power through diminishing potency through increasing immunity and resilience. No viral attack lasgs.dor ever and the ones that do go inside organs and hide. But subsequent attacks are met with increasing power and renewed strength.

And positive anti viruses win the dark night , of the soul.

Will someone challenge me on this one cause people may get the impression that I really believe in people are like animals. please get me off the hook. Much appreciated. If not, I disclaim any personal claim to this… or better yet, pls. Get me off this hook., by some affirming my disclaimer.

They have not. They have historically been overcome by a certain amount of the human population building up a natural immunity. That is not the same as neutralization. Any ‘power’ lost is the same ‘power’ lost in growing pot and gaining ‘strain immunity’ in continuously smoking the same pot over and over; similar grade pot of a different strain may get you even higher in comparison and relative perception, but is not any better due to this concept. Alongside of that is the ‘strain’ becoming cultured and civilized and losing potency. Over time, a virus overcome by the humanity paradigm of immunization does become civilized, cultured and loses its edge of being a danger to humanity.

They carry the same characteristics and personality differences as well as psychology of any other entity, singular or group.

The distinction may be said to be based on negligible criteria, and they may imply a developmental formation on either orthogenetic sources

If assumed an indefinite dormancy , then typing them into sub groups may become useless.

On above the cellular organization such typelessness, may in course, require as you said, the introduction of other maybe mixed strains.

Imputation to mass cognitive function into sub cellular groups, will eventually breed out disfumcfionally adaptive
types, breaking up the the types and forming proto types.

Maybe natures heroic attempt to overcome the hindrances to progressive cognitive development.

I could hardly resist must leaving your op. well enough there,
But could not for the very same reason, of showing the power to will having astounding downward historical dimensions.

If you refuse to actually converse about it, why bring it up?

It proves not just that humans are comparable to viruses, but also that they are comparable to livestock, born and raised on a wild game preserve called Earth, part of an energy farm for mortal/immortal vestiges. The sheer fact of the thought processes and perceptions being there for such proves that it is such as well as what we know of it as.

We are more than animals, ARE more than just livestock, but when push comes to shove, it is exactly what we still are, just the same as women being outnumbered by men become so much breeding stock when personality and character are pared and pruned away by necessity and prioritization and are still qualities preferred by most breeding stock males when they go to mate. Why breed inferior stock if we don’t want or need to? And, is that not what we are doing to our own species and we societally engineer ourselves and terraform beyond geological structures the building blocks of creation and our selves and whatever enemies we might encounter.

If you did not intend to prove this and intended instead to take it back as you did after so many pages, why embark upon this venture? Did you not know the double-edged nature of all things in existence? The damned if you do and if you don’t paradigm? The one upon which you have impaled yourself, hoisted by your own petard. Don’t ask questions you don’t want to know the answers to, someone will eventually come along to give you the answers, anyway.

Going viral was your original contribution to this challenge a few pages back. Since then, correlative material, has come up, and unless you want to supersede those, the funny thing can be wrapped up with its tragedy.

That there are current types of both the human and the animal kingdom is an unavoidable conclusion implicit in the title -Humans Are Livestock. Nothing new here, this is exactly what it takes to disengage a previous argument major.

The history does not pick and choose the element of cognition, and although it does apply systemically to both, it does not selectively to either.

Prototypes are developed to both but it further types and prototypes man with different formal qualifying factors, where as in the animal kingdom the shift is through an assimilation through quantification and generalization.

That this mode of trying to understand the thesis is counterproductive to a discussion on topic, typifies your response as reactionary. Meaning You are using primal defenses to your advantage by projecting their negativity, as if, it was my intention to do so.

As intentions go, my goal is based on trying to prove that humans were never become livestock, and admittedly that goal seeks to connect the final outcome of.prototypical generation through increasingly quantifiable
means of information transmission, through and through all types of living creatures.

History and prehistory still manifest and connect through other then literal modes of sign recognition.

Unless specified , there not be artificial limits set on the extent of continua between the two.