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 intended.to 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.
The defense I am using here history is that recorded human history is very short , and therefore suffers the problem of transcendence with the corresponding aberration of sign posts imaging what is seen.
We don’t know much before a few thousand years nor after. Therefore the time curve flattens out and intentions and plans become obfuscated.
Hence the prototype serving as future guide has a function albeit never with an imminent display of its true proportions.
For instance as far as prototypes go , it can be argued that Hilary Clinton is such, because she is the first serious female to occupy a position such marking a period of certain change demoted by mythical andfuturistic conceptions.
Now the question may be asked wether her motif is consistent with being a compensatory figure vested in a progressively failed idiom of romantic Rousseau-en predilection of post colonial to post modern concerns or if , she occupies a position of concern with opportunistic designs , or finally , her utilitarianistic primary central bastions in a tryptic centerpiece , calculated exactly in an arena of measures and countermeasures.
Wow, I see this old debate really took off in my absence. Talk about a blast from the past. Anyways, what you will find is those utilizing words like voluntary, cooperation, choices, options, responsibilities, and social contracts especially in a nation like the United States they use very deceptively in order to give off the appearance of freedom of choice even though when in reality none of it exists. Can’t face the music when your entire existence revolves around deniability. This is classic descriptionary deception in the usage of language. This is a favorite little thing westerners like to do especially when confronted with inconvenient realities. Instead of facing a subject directly or straightforward that tends to be inconvenient with accustomed conventional idealism we lie to ourselves by making it appear better with window dressing of a more likeable fictional facade. Also, you’ll hear people mention laws and protections of a so called social contract by even the lawyer himself Carleas but he is smart enough to know of all the loopholes and ways around them, right Carleas? 
Just because there are limits to freedom where things become determined doesn’t mean that there isn’t freedom.
Yeah, that’s not a vague statement at all, what exactly are you implying saying that?