>be human. >rape and conquer the earth. >calls himself the ruler of earth and an apex predator because?

>be human
>rape and conquer the earth
>calls himself the ruler of earth and an apex predator because…?
Humans are outnumbered by any other living sentient lifeforms. The Earth doesn’t belong to humans.

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    himself the ruler of earth and an apex predator because…?
    Because we can. Most of the other morons here can't pass the mirror test, many other humans included.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >implying
    The dinosaurs absolutely had proper government. They even had welfare programs for the poor dinosaurs who couldn't farm.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    do other animals have air conditioned rooms. No... I didn't think so.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Look up how ants and termites regulate temperature in their nests, moron.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Let's see if an ant can log on to his ant computer and reply to this post then if they're so smart.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >The Earth doesn’t belong to humans
    Whoever said the earth belongs to us humans? I never heard anyone say this.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      We claim the entire earth and it's species as Territory and no an*mal has succeeded in uprooting us from it.
      The only reason other apex predators exist is because humans like them.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Sounds like deep ecology brainrot. I’m all for conservationism but this is quite a few steps too far.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      there’s nothing factually wrong with OPs post
      you’re just reading into it
      unless you truly believe humans own the earth

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I read into *everything* because I’m a writer
        It’s not about whether something is factual or not it’s the sentiment behind it. Hume had a point.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          the sentiment “behind” it is purely a fiction of your mind made of misguided assumptions you hold to project whenever you need to feel righteous

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Just stop lying, anytime

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            He can't help it. People whose worldview is abstract and hyperreal (e.g. misanthropes, political extremists, religious fundamentalists, etc) have a tendency to accuse you of feeling/thinking the way they do, and then arguing against this imagined version of you, and then proclaiming themselves the winner of the argument by virtue of having met their own victory criteria. Just call it a day while you're still ahead.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >unless you truly believe humans own the earth
        You say this as if "humans own the earth" is a radical belief held by a tiny minority of bohemians à la Diogenes of Sinope

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Most people tend to be deluded by their narrow understanding of their World, yes.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You could've disagreed with me in a slightly less condescending way, but I'll take it. Now elaborate.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Now elaborate.
            That most people implicitly believe that humans rule the Earth? I'm aware that they do, but that doesn't make it less of a flawed assumption. It's conceit born of an arbitrary might makes right understanding of reality.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I really don't know how you would think humans don't rule the earth when they can exterminate entire species on a whim and nothing can do the same to them, except other humans.
            But I guess everything is possible when you invent convoluted alternate criteria like there being more animal (as a whole) biomass than human biomass on earth.
            P.S: Rule is based on might makes right.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Our uncivilised stone-age ancestors were smart enough to invent the concept of genocide AND use it to exterminate the Neanderthals and the North American megafauna. Even chimpanzees have been observed to engage in tribal warfare and organised killings of groups of rival chimps. Animals, therefore, have an innate understanding of "might makes right".
            >but that doesn't make it less of a flawed assumption.
            It's not a flawed assumption, because as things currently stand, nothing other than mankind is capable of challenging mankind's supremacy over Earth.
            >It's conceit born of an arbitrary might makes right understanding of reality.
            It's not arbitrary. What is arbitrary is the moral judgements you're making. Your ontological frame of reference is just as subjective as anybody else's, for your worldview is a social construct, but the common factor that every living being can agree on - especially the ones that don't concern themselves with things like ontology and socially constructed modes of thought - is that one ought to do what comes naturally.

            The way you law of the jungle homosexuals lump everything up into a 'hierarchy of being' is my problem, and even worse you base 'importance' on capacity for destruction. The very top still relies on the very bottom for it survival, dumbasses. If anything, humanity is arguably a lesser existence than most animals since they are fundamentally parasitic and thus offer very little in terms of ecological niche.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >The way you law of the jungle homosexuals lump everything up into a 'hierarchy of being' is my problem, and even worse you base 'importance' on capacity for destruction.
            That is not what I'm doing, though. I am clearly stating, that if any species has "rule" of this planet, it is the one with the most control and mastery of it. The king depends on the peasant, but he can order the peasant beheaded. There is no hierarchy. But there is a species clearly in control.
            >. If anything, humanity is arguably a lesser existence than most animals since they are fundamentally parasitic and thus offer very little in terms of ecological niche.
            Cool inversion, bro. I'm sure everyone cares about your eccentric value system.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >That is not what I'm doing, though.
            Saying we are "rulers of the Earth" is to only emphasize humanity's power, which has very little to do with its actual *value*.
            >I am clearly stating, that if any species has "rule" of this planet, it is the one with the most control and mastery of it.
            The only things we have mastered is the art of destruction. Destroying species, destroying the environment, destroying the atmosphere blah blah blah, you get the point. We'll finally be masters over a paved plastic landfill the size of the ocean and it won't even matter when its all dead.
            >The king depends on the peasant, but he can order the peasant beheaded.
            The King will die one day. The Monarchy might not even last the next generation. Does it prove the peasant was mightier in the end? Maybe. It doesn't matter because both the king and the peasants are just one aspect of a larger, interwoven network each. Immortality is an illusion.
            >There is no hierarchy.
            Might makes right is a presupposition of a hierarchy in nature to begin with.
            >But there is a species clearly in control.
            Even lions and wolves measure self-restraint in the sense they know not to overhunt lest they run the risk of losing their food source. Is destroying your own environment you depend on for your survival control in your eyes? Or is it simply pride and greed?
            >Cool inversion, bro. I'm sure everyone cares about your eccentric value system.
            You're bacteria bragging to the other organisms that occupy the gut you're the most superior because you're killing the host faster. It's amusing to me.

            cont.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >and even worse you base 'importance' on capacity for destruction
            The way you framed my point is somewhat dishonest. The ability to destroy goes hand-in-hand with the ability to create. In a psychoanalytic sense, the destroyer is the polar opposite of the creator, and they are two sides of the same whole. If you can't create, then you can't destroy, and vice versa. Thus, those who cannot create nor destroy have no power over their environment.
            >The very top still relies on the very bottom for it survival, dumbasses
            Quite literally every philosopher who ever lived talked about this.
            >If anything, humanity is arguably a lesser existence than most animals since they are fundamentally parasitic and thus offer very little in terms of ecological niche.
            On the contrary - there is nothing noble about being taken advantage of by those stronger than you. In the state of nature, the predator-prey relationship is symbiotic, and there's something you're missing; r/K selection theory.

            Can you tell me with a straight face that an animal whose reproductive strategy can be summed up as "breed for the sake of breeding" is less parasitic than the animals who prey on it? The only difference in this case is that the victim of parasitism is mother nature herself, rather than a given species.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >The way you framed my point is somewhat dishonest. The ability to destroy goes hand-in-hand with the ability to create. In a psychoanalytic sense, the destroyer is the polar opposite of the creator, and they are two sides of the same whole. If you can't create, then you can't destroy, and vice versa.
            Now you're just playing stupid, infantile language games. The creation of various technologies and whatnot has only caused countless species to go extinct, soil to degrade, and the air to be less cleaner.
            >Quite literally every philosopher who ever lived talked about this.
            And you've evidently gleamed absolutely nothing from this, with no further understanding, or any attempt as such.
            >On the contrary - there is nothing noble about being taken advantage of by those stronger than you.
            A noble creature can exist in relative harmony to his environment and not cause countless issues for not only everyone else, but even himself. Imagine requiring so much hamburger meat that you inadvertently cause countless carbon emissions to exude into the air as a result.
            >In the state of nature, the predator-prey relationship is symbiotic, and there's something you're missing; r/K selection theory.
            >Can you tell me with a straight face that an animal whose reproductive strategy can be summed up as "breed for the sake of breeding" is less parasitic than the animals who prey on it?
            You don't understand jack shit. Rabbits breed far less when exposed to environments with a healthy influx of predators in the vicinity.
            >The only difference in this case is that the victim of parasitism is mother nature herself, rather than a given species.
            So you're blaming the rabbits for overbreeding and not the humans that destroyed their predators? Very interesting. Actually, I believe Earth itself to be in of itself a superorganism now that you point it out, and humans are akin to a virus.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >The creation of various technologies and whatnot has only caused countless species to go extinct, soil to degrade, and the air to be less cleaner.
            Thanks for elaborating on what I said. It saves me the effort of doing it myself. Make a note of the fact that your inability to parse my argument doesn't imply it's a bad argument.
            >And you've evidently gleamed absolutely nothing from this, with no further understanding, or any attempt as such.
            You're putting a lot of words in my mouth.
            >A noble creature can exist in relative harmony to his environment and not cause countless issues for not only everyone else, but even himself. Imagine requiring so much hamburger meat that you inadvertently cause countless carbon emissions to exude into the air as a result.
            I take it your issue is with industrial civilisations and not the human race as a whole? I can tell because you're dredging up that old meme statistic about how eating XXX pounds of beef is the same as LITCHRULLY burning YYY pounds of coal without actually commenting on the methodology the researchers used to come up with those numbers.
            >You don't understand jack shit.
            Says the guy whose worldview is tantamount to "*hits blunt* guyssss... what if we all just... like... stopped being mean to each other?"
            >Actually, I believe Earth itself to be in of itself a superorganism now that you point it out, and humans are akin to a virus.
            I also believe Earth is akin to a superorganism, but since you finally dropped the act and outed yourself as a misanthrope, I'll give you my thanks, because people like you only serve to strengthen my belief that all tree-huggers are duplicitous misanthropes who act all "peace and love"-ish but would celebrate if they heard the human race was going extinct.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    You are right OP, its just chauvinism.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    himself the ruler of earth and an apex predator because…?
    You wrote the reason one line above.

    >Humans are outnumbered by any other living sentient lifeforms.
    Not individually, I'm pretty sure the only set of species that individually outnumber humans are cattle and other domesticated animals.

    >The Earth doesn’t belong to humans.
    It does in as much as Humans are the only species with a proper concept of "belonging". There is no one contesting it, so by default, humans can self-assign rights.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Regardless, who "owns" anything is not question of numbers.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Regardless
        moving the goalposts

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >because
    many of us can't deal with the idea that we are not the most important thing in the universe. It's why we invented religion.

    We are just one of a long line of lifeforms that happens to exist at the moment. Our current form will either eventually die out or evolve into something else. This bothers many stupid people so they invent stories about how they and their species, nation or tribe or culture are the ultimate eternal thing.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe you might evolve into a heterosexual for once. Anything can happen.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >humans can't deal with the idea that we are not the most important thing in the universe, so we invented gods more important than us
      another brilliant example of 10 trillion IQ fedora logic

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >so we invented gods more important than us
        Ah yes, bearded white men in the sky that resembles a muscular fit human emblematic of a culture's geist, or how about when the God of all of existence incarnated as a man?

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Humans are the only terrestrial animal who has control over natural phenomena and technology to rule the Earth over.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    We'll probably be able to shoot the asteroid out of the sky by the time next one comes, assuming Black folk don't burn down the last white neighborhood

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >That "meme"
    This is the kind of midwittery 90-100 IQ type shit a redditor comes up with and thinks he's smart
    Dinosaurs (if they even existed the way the system you injected a israelite cum vaccine from and told you the holocaust is real told you they did) would be considered rulers of the "Earth" because biologically they arose to become the apex form of life of their time; against all selective pressures, and brutal gene warfare against all other life, to become the greatest. That's true rule. Ordained by Mother Nature and the Gods; of which there is no higher order above the Gods. But there's no evidence """"""dinosaurs"""""" even existed the same way there's no evidence there was a super deadly virus that was going to kill everyone that you had to go into lockdown for for 2+ years. You're just stupid

    >phonegay
    >phone .jpg ID
    >pointless homosexual questions
    >zoomer high school tier angst thoughts
    I'm not even going to acknowledge what you said. Just have a nice day, you vaccinated fricking idiot sub-human

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >rape and conquer the earth
    >calls himself the ruler of earth and an apex predator because…?
    my guess is the raping and conquering
    that is the rule of the jungle after all
    "natural" rights are just as manmade as the concrete roads we paved over habitats with

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >that is the rule of the jungle after all
      The rule of the jungle is competition *and* symbiosis you spastic. Lions don't occupy ecological niches of a crocodile, nor could either exist without the zebras and wildebeests.

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      destroying a thing is proof you couldn’t control the thing and yourself
      absolute control over things is the ability to control them without their knowledge
      this can be done through media, propaganda, educational institutions, economy, etc.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      not if it would rather die than obey you, then you can only leave it or destroy it

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Humans are outnumbered by any other living sentient lifeforms.
    First, define sentient.
    Second, it's wrong. Humans outnumber all species of wild vertebrates on Earth. Even most domesticated animals are outnumbered by humans, with exception of chickens.
    Unless you are referring to animals like mosquitoes or something, that can outnumber humans, but again, you must define what means to be sentient, because mosquitoes are definitely not.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    himself the ruler of earth and an apex predator because…?
    Because according to the law of the jungle, might makes right. It's literally and unironically that simple. The strong and the clever reign over the weak and the dull. It's always been that way, it always will be that way, and no matter how hard humans try to pretend otherwise, they still practice the law of the jungle, albeit in an abstract and hyperreal way. Read Baudrillard and Deleuze and you'll get what I'm getting at.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Civilized man came up with might makes right, not nature.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Our uncivilised stone-age ancestors were smart enough to invent the concept of genocide AND use it to exterminate the Neanderthals and the North American megafauna. Even chimpanzees have been observed to engage in tribal warfare and organised killings of groups of rival chimps. Animals, therefore, have an innate understanding of "might makes right".
        >but that doesn't make it less of a flawed assumption.
        It's not a flawed assumption, because as things currently stand, nothing other than mankind is capable of challenging mankind's supremacy over Earth.
        >It's conceit born of an arbitrary might makes right understanding of reality.
        It's not arbitrary. What is arbitrary is the moral judgements you're making. Your ontological frame of reference is just as subjective as anybody else's, for your worldview is a social construct, but the common factor that every living being can agree on - especially the ones that don't concern themselves with things like ontology and socially constructed modes of thought - is that one ought to do what comes naturally.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Forgot to tag this post (

          >Now elaborate.
          That most people implicitly believe that humans rule the Earth? I'm aware that they do, but that doesn't make it less of a flawed assumption. It's conceit born of an arbitrary might makes right understanding of reality.

          )

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The earth was created for humanity. Dinosaurs were created by Nephilim giants for the purpose of warfare

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *