Why do men want to kill?

This is a post that is about men wanting to kill everything that moves.

Women do not want to kill, they want to nurture. Or most of them do.

I am asking this question - Why do men want to kill?

Men cause wars because they want to kill.

I am sick and tired of it.

Hey catwhoknows, I have to state that I am a man and never had the urge to kill anything.

Ok well I have had the urge or in anger stated that I may kill someone, but never had tried it! some of us can control that drug called tostesterone!

And lets be fair, there are women who do kill.


edit to add
Do you really think that men kill for the pleasure of the kill or to advance themselves in the pecking order or for financial gain. In seriousness to your question, it cuold be related to the primevil instinct of wanting be the Alpha. Looking after your 'pack' is a big motivator and I suppose that if someone has to die better be from someone elses 'pack'. Making you and your group stronger.

[edit on 11/5/2010 by LestatG]

reply to post by LestatG


Most women do not cause wars, except Margaret Thatcher.

It is men who cause wars and do you know why I hate those men?

Because they send every son, except their own, to die.

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by LestatG

 

Most women do not cause wars, except Margaret Thatcher.

It is men who cause wars and do you know why I hate those men?

Because they send every son, except their own, to die.

How could women cause wars? There are far too few in power to make that assumption.
I'm sure women would cause just as many wars over resources and petty things as men would.

reply to post by catwhoknows


Ok but to be fair there is a relativley low number of women world leaders than men. If Thatcher was in power during the Iraq decision I am sure she would of sent them in. What about Merkell(?) Germany have forces fighting abroad dont they?

I think you may need to change the hate towards men, to hate for people with decision making power and authority.

Not that hate will get you far.

Maybe I'm sick of the overpopulated buzzards eating up extremely expensive animal feed.

Maybe I don't want other peoples dogs attacking my cattle.

Maybe I'm tired of stuff getting stolen from my property by thieves.

Animals attack things too.

Women attack women too.

You're preaching to the choir.

reply to post by hippomchippo


No, women would not do that - it is in men's genes to kill kill kill.

What about duck shooting season, deer hunting etc - I am sick to carry on.

Some women do that, but war is a male game - and stupid, because they die in heaps.

Also didnt Helen of Troy cause one of the biggest fights back in the day? In the past where women had more sway I am sure that there is examples of them causing wars and sending thier sons to their death. Its only that now men generaly hold the power, and I doubt that the soul purpose for war is simple blood lust.

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

No, women would not do that - it is in men's genes to kill kill kill.

What about duck shooting season, deer hunting etc - I am sick to carry on.

Some women do that, but war is a male game - and stupid, because they die in heaps.

You think women don't hunt?
Please, give it up, you can hate males all you want, but females are just as vicious as males.

reply to post by catwhoknows


Ok, can you tell me what the 'kill' gene is that we are supposed to have?

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

No, women would not do that - it is in men's genes to kill kill kill.

What about duck shooting season, deer hunting etc - I am sick to carry on.

Some women do that, but war is a male game - and stupid, because they die in heaps.

I'm scared to let a women get into a position of power over an army.

I remember what kind of drama wars women started when I was in school.

I think that men like to kill/fight because it is in our DNA, just as women want to mother. Think about it, it was only relatively recently that we became civilized and since evolution happens in steps, we have not lost some of our natural behaviors. In the wild, men used to have to hunt and sometimes we had to fight in order to spread our seed and thus DNA. Women on the other hand, looked for the best/toughest or most likely to survive mate to split her own DNA with.

These days, men have pretty boring lives with no outlet for the natural behaviors that are in our DNA. We no longer hunt for our food and we no longer have to fight each other to have sex or ward of enemies, at least most of the time. So, we find other outlets, such as anger, frustration, thrill seeking, drugs, etc...

Just my 2 cents.

--airspoon

And on a side note if you visit any major UK city on a friday or saturday night I am sure you will see how vicious and bloodthirsty the ladies can become!

reply to post by hippomchippo


I said women do not cause wars except that stupid woman Margaret Thatcher, who was the British Pirime Minister, who caused the Faulklands War.

Women are nurterers.

Men are destroyers.

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

I said women do not cause wars except that stupid woman Margaret Thatcher, who was the British Pirime Minister, who caused the Faulklands War.

Women are nurterers.

Men are destroyers.

I know what you said, that wasn't the problem.
But what you said is wrong, simply because of statistics, there have been so few female leaders, and yet we even have one who HAS started a war, you really cannot just say that women don't start wars, when all the evidence is to the contrary.

reply to post by catwhoknows


I see what point you are getting at, but thats why there is two sexes. The best teams and the ones that always win all offer different attributes to the common goal.

It would be redundant for both sexes to have the same qualities. I mean when you are nuturing the young and collecting berries and what not, who, if not men will hunt and protect the loved ones you are nuturing? If as you say women are incapable of these things then it stands to reason that you really need men as they can do the things you cant bring yourself to do or are incaplable of doing.

Do you understand what I am saying? It could be put down to a necessary evil.

Originally posted by LestatG
reply to post by catwhoknows

 

I see what point you are getting at, but thats why there is two sexes. The best teams and the ones that always win all offer different attributes to the common goal.

It would be redundant for both sexes to have the same qualities. I mean when you are nuturing the young and collecting berries and what not, who, if not men will hunt and protect the loved ones you are nuturing? If as you say women are incapable of these things then it stands to reason that you really need men as they can do the things you cant bring yourself to do or are incaplable of doing.

Do you understand what I am saying? It could be put down to a necessary evil.

There's also a very big difference between hunting and killing an animal for food, and sending out 100,000 troops to be slaughtered in a pointless war.

reply to post by hippomchippo


I do not hate men.

And some women hunt -ok I hate them.

And I hate men who only want to kill. That includes hunters and warmongerers.

But there are a lot of men and women who do not pursue that insane result.

Reno nutured the hell out of those children at Waco.

Cyanide and baked. On the bright side most probably were conscious as they baked to death.

This thread is pretty stupid.

I think there are more women hunters and fishers in town than men.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

I do not hate men.

And some women hunt -ok I hate them.

And I hate men who only want to kill. That includes hunters and warmongerers.

But there are a lot of men and women who do not pursue that insane result.

Yes...You hate hunters, I get that.
But you said women would not go to war because of their nurturing nature(heh), that is just blatantly untrue.