taking the statement ” Living things are born with a destiny…born to be predator…born to be prey”
is very backwards-thinking. first, it is the trick of making the actual question part of the premise: “living things are born with a destiny.” so in order to debate the second, you must accept the first. very, very old ploy of rhetorical criticism.
and then the speaker is telling SOMEONE ELSE to accept that they must be prey or they must prey on others. they are negating the live and let live principal.
(while complaining, i might add — that my objection goes under not allowing others their “opinion”)
the speaker is trying to create a universal truth, yet this ‘truth’ does not apply to the speaker. if someone told a person they are destined to be prey — you would tell them to jump in a lake. or at least i would. any sensible person would. the one accepting that would have to be down-trodden anyway and in a state to “accept their fate.” yet the speaker, the one setting down the “rule” — is outside of their own universal statement. any exclusion on a universal, invalidates it — it is automatically proven NOT universal and therefore incorrect.
incidentally –this particular pattern or idiom is where dictatorships come-from, and the perception that the maker of the law is above the law. and that goes with a social caste and ladder that believes that power gets to do whatever it wants.
which apparently includes announcing that every living creature on the earth has it’s fate determined and that rabbits should not even run from the dog, because gee wiz the dog gets to do whatever the heck it wants. because it was BORN into a higher station.
terrible, terrible stuff. destiny is a comforting thought — but it’s not a very productive thought in this sense, and basically THIS type of statement is used to seal the nails on the coffin for the person that has already been downtrodden to huge amounts. that is if they decide they are prey. if they decide they are to be ‘predator’ then becomes a huge almost psychotic shift and change in behavior, the beginnings of uprisings and wide-spread violence. when you abandon a live and let-live principal, society falls apart.
so not only is that statement incorrect, deceptive, and manipulative. It is dangerous. otherwise i wouldn’t have gone up against — would not bother to take the time.
also give me a friggin break — refuting that statement does NOT mean that i don’t accept others “opinion.” this statement is a statement of law. and it is a false statement. the day i stop objecting to crap like this, is the day i will hang up my hat.