posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 02:09 AM
To start this conversation I will include the link that inspired the thread: On Sheep, Wolves,
and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
I know this has made its rounds so I will start with my points of contention so this thread can be rightly characterized as a rant on the subject.
1. The characterization of the wolf is a closed interpretation that serves the argument without outlining the logical flaws of the argument.
Given the parameters of the characterization outline of the 3 main characters in this story I can not self identify as any of them. I certainly can
not define myself as a sheep. I can sense danger and hostile intent and have no problem defending myself and others bent on being predatory in their
I can not self identify as a sheep dog because I am not obedient to a master.
I can not by his definition self identify as a wolf because while I am ruthless in my self preservation and extending that to my social group I do not
attack or act as a predator on humans but sheep are tasty. I was trained to be a warrior and hunter from a very young age. I was hunting at 7 years
old. We would always eat what we killed. Never harmed a human. I have taken plenty of sheep. That is why I hate this analogy.
It is wrong because it makes all wolves to be predators without consciousness or selectivity. Wolves keep humans sharp and capable of self defense.
Human predators should not be classified as wolves. Perhaps they should more appropriately be defined as werewolves.
As you can see the simplistic and limited nature of this analogy makes some of us kind of growl at it's limitations and conclusions.
02am2015-02-13T02:11:52-06:0002112America/Chicago11228 by machineintelligence because: Syntax challanges