# In Light of the Zimmerman Verdict, a Modest Proposal



## elder999 (Jul 19, 2013)

Understand, this isnt really about the Zimmerman verdict at all-or gun control. Its only remotely related to stand your ground doctrine, something I agree with in principle, though not in some applications (New York has no self-defense law, per se, but manages to _mostly_ not send people to jail for defending themselves, like every other state, I suppose.) what this is about is _civility_

Theres a lot of moaning about the lack of civility in society today-in traffic, in political discourse, in the media, etc., etc., etc. Frankly, I think its a byproduct of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Amendment, and our ready-made media society: when you can broadcast your opinion to the world on Facebook, or Twitter, or _Martial Talk_, you begin to think (apropos of this post, dont forget) that *everyone* is entitled to it, whether they want it or not. So its _blah, blah, blah,*abortion*_ on Facebook, and _blah, blah, blah, *gun control* here.

Well, I might be entitled to your opinion. You might be entitled to express it. I might even be, occasionally, entitled to my own opinion, but I think a return to civility might be in order. In spite of my snarkiness, I miss informed debate, supported by facts, and I miss polite discourse. I long for the days when people could disagree without some sort of scorched earth, take no prisoners rule of engagement.

I also miss the days when idiots knew to keep their idiotic opinions to themselves.

There was a time when morons knew they were morons. Knew they had no business thinking about things like global warming-or anything scientific-never mind offering opinions as gospel. Knew they had no place in a discussion about the viability of the fetus, or abortion, especially if they were men. Knew they should just, well.sit back and have a nice warm cup of STFU.
Those days are about gone, of course, but we can bring them back. George Zimmerman has shown us the way. I propose a return to the code duello-to a simpler time when people knew enough to be polite to the other guy, because if they werent, wellthe other guy might *kill them.* :lfao:




			While thou livest, keep a good tongue in thy head-William Shakespeare
		
Click to expand...

 



* "*The code preserved a dignity, justice and decorum that have since been lostto the great detriment of the professions, the public and the government. The present generation will think me barbarous but I believe that some lives lost in protecting the tone of the bar and the press, on which the Republic itself so largely depends, are well spent."
*                                                    - Charles Gibson*

Click to expand...

 
That quote is taken from Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, a pretty serious history of the Lincoln cabinet, and a *very* serious study of the nature of politics. Prior to the eloquent words of Gibson, Goodwin writes, "Years later, reflecting on the Southern "Code" of dueling, Bates's friend Charles Gibson maintained that as wicked as the code was, the vulgar public behavior following the demise of the practice was worse still."  I don't think anyone can argue against the last sentiment given the putrid waste found on any news network..

Seriously. Do you think Rush Limbaugh would still be wasting air if he could  have been challenged-if even Sandra Fluke had been able to challenge him for calling her a slut? Do you think Olbermann would have lasted nearly as long on MSNBC if he could be legitimately shot (or stabbed, or beaten to death) for the bloviations that emanated from his vacuous pie-hole? Hed still be on ESPN, and Limbaugh would still be addicted to Oxy.:lfao:

Seriously. Here's what I propose: lets make idiocy a criminal offense-lets extend stand your ground to  clear your airspace.




First off, let's kill all the *idiots.*-el Brujo de la Cueva (that's me!! :lfao: )
		
Click to expand...


Next time I hear some moron talking about how there is no global warming, I stab them in the eye. Think a woman shouldnt have the right to choose? Well, go right ahead, but the minute you call a 3 month old fetus a child, Im bashing your head in with a rock. 

Tell me one more time about the wonders of the mythical-with powers rivaled only by the unicorn-free market economy, and Im gonna force feed you 20 lbs, of nickels, stab you in the chest, and drop you off of a bridge.

I suppose, of course, this isnt verycivilof me, but consider the service thats being done: within a year of this, thered be far, far less idiots around-I mean, lets face it, whos going to express such folderol, other than *idiots?* :lfao:

Sure. If one idiot can shoot another because of his own idiocy..(I mean, in an ideal world, George Zimmerman would have offered the kid a ride home in the rain. Bet he wishes he could have done that, but still..following him was pretty idiotic) it stands to reason that those of us who choose to go about armed can shoot idiots.after prudently and judiciously determining their idiocy is worthy of death, anyway:lfao:_


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 19, 2013)

elder999 said:


> I propose a return to the code duello-to a simpler time when people knew enough to be polite to the other guy, because if they werent, wellthe other guy might *kill them.* :lfao:
> ....
> 
> Next time I hear some moron talking about how there is no global warming, I stab them in the eye. Think a woman shouldnt have the right to choose? Well, go right ahead, but the minute you call a 3 month old fetus a child, Im bashing your head in with a rock.
> ...



Of course, _code duello_ does include the proviso that the idiot just might kill you, too...


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 20, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Of course, _code duello_ does include the proviso that the idiot just might kill you, too...



There is always a bigger bladder idiot then you out there


----------



## Big Don (Jul 20, 2013)

> _First off, let's kill all the *idiots*_


You can't do that, you would nearly depopulate the planet...


----------



## granfire (Jul 20, 2013)

Big Don said:


> You can't do that, you would nearly depopulate the planet...



and that would be a bad thing?


----------



## granfire (Jul 20, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Understand, this isn&#8217;t really about the Zimmerman verdict at all-or gun control. It&#8217;s only remotely related to &#8220;stand your ground doctrine,&#8221; something I agree with in principle, though not in some applications (New York has no &#8220;self-defense&#8221; law, per se, but manages to _mostly_ not send people to jail for defending themselves, like every other state, I suppose&#8230;.) what this is about is _civility_
> 
> There&#8217;s a lot of moaning about the lack of civility in society today-in traffic, in political discourse, in the media, etc., etc., etc. Frankly, I think it&#8217;s a byproduct of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Amendment, and our ready-made media society: when you can broadcast your opinion to the world on Facebook, or Twitter, or _Martial Talk_, you begin to think (apropos of this post, don&#8217;t forget) that *everyone* is entitled to it, whether they want it or not. So it&#8217;s _blah, blah, blah,*abortion*_ on Facebook, and _blah, blah, blah, *gun control* here.
> 
> ...


_

So you are proposing we enforce Darwin's law?_


----------



## Tgace (Jul 20, 2013)

Funny how nobdoy thinks THEY are the idiot.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jul 20, 2013)

I see what you did there..."let's return to civil discourse", unless you disagree with global warming or abortion. Then you are an "idiot".

Can I use the same rationale for people who debate police policy and procedure?

I also dont buy the "golden age" bit about the days when people with no knowledge kept their mouths shut.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire (Jul 20, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Funny how nobdoy thinks THEY are the idiot.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


I know I am an idiot plenty of times

But I usually also know to keep my mouth shut at that time....


----------



## Steve (Jul 20, 2013)

I am all for a return to civility.  I try to live by that and feel genuinely bad when I fail and let my irritation show.

But I think key to this is recognizing the difference between opinion and fact, and consider that things we hold to be self apparent may not be so to someone else.  For example, it is self apparent to me that an embryo is not a baby.  I recognize that for others, the opposite is true.  If we are going to be civil, we must first acknowledge that some things we consider  to be "right" or "just" are not these things n fact, but are simply our beliefs and our opinions. 

At the same time, we must all acknowledge facts to be just that, and be intellectually honest enough to honor facts as indisputable, and wise enough to distinguish a fact from an interpretation.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Jul 20, 2013)

Steve said:


> I am all for a return to civility.  I try to live by that and feel genuinely bad when I fail and let my irritation show.
> 
> But I think key to this is recognizing the difference between opinion and fact, and consider that things we hold to be self apparent may not be so to someone else.  For example, it is self apparent to me that an embryo is not a baby.  I recognize that for others, the opposite is true.  If we are going to be civil, we must first acknowledge that some things we consider  to be "right" or "just" are not these things n fact, but are simply our beliefs and our opinions.
> 
> ...



"Facts" change all the time though Steve. Look at Salt and BP lol! IMO this thread smells like a re-purposed "appeal to authority". 

_As with science, historical truth and facts will therefore change over time and reflect only the present consensus (if that). -EH Carr_


----------



## Steve (Jul 20, 2013)

Tgace said:


> "Facts" change all the time though Steve. Look at Salt and BP lol! IMO this thread smells like a re-purposed "appeal to authority".
> 
> _As with science, historical truth and facts will therefore change over time and reflect only the present consensus (if that). -EH Carr_



Is that a fact?  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## granfire (Jul 20, 2013)

You guys don't have the sense G-D gave turnip!


:angel:





:lol:

:lfao:


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2013)

Tgace said:


> "Facts" change all the time though Steve. Look at Salt and BP lol! IMO this thread smells like a re-purposed "appeal to authority".
> 
> _As with science, historical truth and facts will therefore change over time and reflect only the present consensus (if that). -EH Carr_



Nah, I should have waited until I was more awake-it's a feeble attempt at satire.

Of course, I really do feel this way, but I'd have been deaded long ago if it were to be.....:lfao:


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2013)

Steve said:


> I am all for a return to civility.  I try to live by that and feel genuinely bad when I fail and let my irritation show.
> 
> But I think key to this is recognizing the difference between opinion and fact, and consider that things we hold to be self apparent may not be so to someone else.  For example, it is self apparent to me that an embryo is not a baby.  I recognize that for others, the opposite is true.  If we are going to be civil, we must first acknowledge that some things we consider  to be "right" or "just" are not these things n fact, but are simply our beliefs and our opinions.
> 
> ...



Well, and then there's that 68 degree rule again-it's not facts or their interpretation that gets people into conflict. It's _truths_, which, while just as immutable as facts, are hardly the same for everyone. Things like: _right, just, belief,_ and, yes, sadly, even _opinion_ become one's _truth_-and nearly as set in stone and immutable as *fact*. 

In fact, some are going to insist that they are the same thing-that for a thing to be "true" it has to be "fact."

Of course, I'd never kill anyone for their facts. In my imagination, though, I've already killed hundreds for their "truth." :lfao:


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 20, 2013)

Once you people realize that I know what's best for us all and start listening to me things will be a lot smoother for everyone


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Once you people realize that I know what's best for us all and start listening to me things will be a lot smoother for everyone



Once these new rules are instituted, you'd be smart to make sure no one-especially *me*- ever has to hear you again, never mind "listen." :lfao:


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 20, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Once these new rules are instituted, you'd be smart to make sure no one-especially *me*- ever has to hear you again, never mind "listen." :lfao:



Don't worry there's a special place already picked out for the ones that need special training.  Its called Canada


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 20, 2013)

Steve said:


> I am all for a return to civility.  I try to live by that and feel genuinely bad when I fail and let my irritation show.
> 
> But I think key to this is recognizing the difference between opinion and fact, and consider that things we hold to be self apparent may not be so to someone else.  For example, it is self apparent to me that an embryo is not a baby.  I recognize that for others, the opposite is true.  If we are going to be civil, we must first acknowledge that some things we consider  to be "right" or "just" are not these things n fact, but are simply our beliefs and our opinions.
> 
> ...



It's also important to realize there's a difference between having the facts and having the understanding to interpret the facts.  And that expertise in one area does not equal expertise in all areas.  Look at the range of engineers of various stripes and PhDs who are sure that there were charges in the Twin Towers -- despite what the structural engineers who actually know what they're talking about say...  Or scientists of all sorts --except climatologists -- that have a firm opinion one way or the other on anthropogenic global warning.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> It's also important to realize there's a difference between having the facts and having the understanding to interpret the facts.  And that expertise in one area does not equal expertise in all areas.  Look at the range of engineers of various stripes and PhDs who are sure that there were charges in the Twin Towers -- despite what the structural engineers who actually know what they're talking about say...  Or scientists of all sorts --except climatologists -- that have a firm opinion one way or the other on anthropogenic global warning.




.....and you should just *see* the mental gymnastics entire platoons of qualified Christian scientists of various disciplines go through to reconcile the Genesis creation myth with known science. :lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 20, 2013)

Tgace said:


> IMO this thread smells like a re-purposed "appeal to authority".



QFT.  

The idea that you can just kill someone for opening their "stupid" mouth is something our society has evolved beyond...hopefully.  That kind of society has existed, it's called the Dark Ages.  Humanity seems to flash back to that every once in awhile, especially when cynical old curmudgeons with power don't like what they are hearing and don't have internal fortitude to consider humility.  

So, lets be perfectly clear about what we're really discussing.  Violence.  Should violence or the threat of violence be used on people with opinions?  If you think yes, then I'm sure you love the fact that the NSA is spying on every snippet of electronic communication and that with the NDAA you can be tossed into a hole and forgotten.  

I'm sure almost everyone with a conscience is against the former even if they might consider the latter, because they recognize that these are the means to actually reach that end.  Which begs the question, why even consider that end?

"Words are wind."


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> QFT.
> 
> The idea that you can just kill someone for opening their "stupid" mouth is something our society has evolved beyond...hopefully.  That kind of society has existed, it's called the Dark Ages.  Humanity seems to flash back to that every once in awhile, especially when cynical old curmudgeons with power don't like what they are hearing and don't have internal fortitude to consider humility.



Nah. That kind of society has *always* existed-still does, really. The only reason it doesn't is because we have rules against it: society may have evolved beyond the idea that you can just kill someone for opening their "stupid" mouth, but most of its members clearly have not. Why not just let us have our way?



Makalakumu said:


> So, lets be perfectly clear about what we're really discussing.  Violence.  Should violence or the threat of violence be used on people with opinions?  If you think yes, then I'm sure you love the fact that the NSA is spying on every snippet of electronic communication and that with the NDAA you can be tossed into a hole and forgotten.



Yep. We've got one, why not have the other?

_Should violence or the threat of violence be used on people with opinions?_

You mean, it's *not?* :lfao:

As for the NSA-that's nothing new, John; it's really been going on all of our lives-since the early 70's or late 60's.

We never had a chance-we should at least have a chance to make stupid MF'ers STFU. :lfao:



Makalakumu said:


> I'm sure almost everyone with a conscience is against the former even if they might consider the latter, because they recognize that these are the means to actually reach that end.  Which begs the question, why even consider that end?
> 
> "Words are wind."



Actually not sure that I have a "conscience," so I can't speak for those who do-I'm truly neither against the former or the latter-less stupid people sounds like a better world to me, what do I care about means, when the end completely justifies them?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 20, 2013)

That society still exists today.  I've talked to killers that only killed someone because they "disrespected" them.  Or where saying "lies" about me.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> That society still exists today.  I've talked to killers that only killed someone because they "disrespected" them.  Or where saying "lies" about me.



You only get to talk to the ones _who got *caught*._


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 20, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Nah. That kind of society has *always* existed-still does, really. The only reason it doesn't is because we have rules against it: society may have evolved beyond the idea that you can just kill someone for opening their "stupid" mouth, but most of its members clearly have not. Why not just let us have our way?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



:bs::hb:

I have a better idea.  You don't like what someone says on the internet, kill yourself.

:seppuku:


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> :bs::hb:
> 
> I have a better idea.  You don't like what someone says on the internet, kill yourself.
> 
> :seppuku:



Goodness, John. I wasn't merely confining this notion to the Interwebs....I mean the guy who hacks me off on line at the grocery store. Or in traffic. Or at church. 

Seriously. "The Internet?"

And, kill myself? Really? Frankly, I have a hard time imagining doing so-even with my health circumstances, I have a hard time imagining things getting that dire.

You do know, of course, that most of what people say-in person, or on the Internet, really doesn't bother me at all...

n any case, which part of what I said calls for raising the "BS" flag?

People don't kill each other over "stupidity" because they fear getting caught. 

Society uses violence-and the threat of violence-to curtail man's natural violent tendencies.

Justified use of violence falls under amorphous and arbitrary rules in various jurisdictions.

Which part of what I said could possibly be BS?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 20, 2013)

elder999 said:


> And, kill myself? Really? Frankly, I have a hard time imagining doing so-even with my health circumstances, I have a hard time imagining things getting that dire.



Don't be a *****.  Society has moved on and now has rules against killing other people for being idiots, however, you can always kill yourself in the presence of idiots in order to make a statement.  I propose that we start a website called suicide tube where people can end it all in public.  Can't handle global warming deniers?  Can't handle 9/11 truthers?  Blow your brains out, that'll show those idiots.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Don't be a *****.  Society has moved on and now has rules against killing other people for being idiots, however, you can always kill yourself in the presence of idiots in order to make a statement.  I propose that we start a website called suicide tube where people can end it all in public.  Can't handle global warming deniers?  Can't handle 9/11 truthers?  Blow your brains out, that'll show those idiots.
> 
> [video]
> 
> ...



No, really-it's quite impossible, just as it is for most of my kind. I can't kill myself-except, perhaps, should my physical suffering get too great to bear. In which case, I'll simply take a nap, and not wake up.

I like your idea, though-it has merit. 

If only there were some way to make money from it.......:lfao:


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2013)

elder999 said:


> No, really-it's quite impossible, just as it is for most of my kind. I can't kill myself-except, perhaps, should my physical suffering get too great to bear. In which case, I'll simply take a nap, and not wake up.
> 
> I like your idea, though-it has merit.
> 
> If only there were some way to make money from it.......:lfao:



Pay per view!! It could work!!!


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2013)

"Society uses violence-or the threat of violence-to curtail man's natural violent tendencies."

Seems to me that this echoes some of your ideas, John......just sayin'.....:lol:


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 20, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Nah. That kind of society has *always* existed-still does, really. The only reason it doesn't is because we have rules against it: society may have evolved beyond the idea that you can just kill someone for opening their "stupid" mouth, but most of its members clearly have not. Why not just let us have our way?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We don't already?  What happens to an academic with a dissenting viewpoint?  Or a politician who doesn't toe the party line well enough?  We may have "evolved" beyond outright killing them -- but I know an academic who participates online essentially in disguise, going to very great lengths to protect his/her identity even in places that I cannot possibly believe that he/she would have any realistic concerns about their colleagues finding out, let alone identifying them.   (Out of courtesy and respect for their concerns, I'm not identifying whether or not they're on this forum, or even using specific descriptors.)



> Actually not sure that I have a "conscience," so I can't speak for those who do-I'm truly neither against the former or the latter-less stupid people sounds like a better world to me, what do I care about means, when the end completely justifies them?



Oh, joy...  A self-admitted psychopath with intimate knowledge of nuke science.  That's never played out badly on TV...

Though I could certainly handle fewer stupid folks.  Every cop with more than about an hour on the street would love to have a "stupid in public" or "too stupid to breathe" charge available.  Summary execution for the latter doesn't sound too terrible...


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Oh, joy...  A self-admitted psychopath with intimate knowledge of nuke science.  That's never played out badly on TV...



:lol:

I'm not a psychopath.....I have some tendencies, though....I'm likely one of these.... though I am, _for the most part_, harmless....


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 20, 2013)

elder999 said:


> "Society uses violence-or the threat of violence-to curtail man's natural violent tendencies."
> 
> Seems to me that this echoes some of your ideas, John......just sayin'.....:lol:



I'm not sure humans are naturally violent and aggressive. In fact, cross cultural studies show the opposite. Of course this doesn't matter if the society you are born in raises violent and aggressive children. A person has to swim in the water they are born.

Either way, it would be an improvement if people who couldn't handle someone's contrary words and would rather see the idiots die, would simply kill themselves. The insistent whining about other peoples idiocy and what to do about it would finally end.

And Forrest Gump would be correct, "stupid is as stupid does."

I can live with that.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I'm not sure humans are naturally violent and aggressive. In fact, cross cultural studies show the opposite. Of course this doesn't matter if the society you are born in raises violent and aggressive children. A person has to swim in the water they are born.



Naturally violent and aggressive for sure. 

We are, after all, just naked apes.

Apes are violent and aggressive. Always? No. 

Look at our closest primate relative, though, the chimpanzee-watch them at play,.they destroy things, just as humans do......violent fun.



Makalakumu said:


> Either way, it would be an improvement if people who couldn't handle someone's contrary words and would rather see the idiots die, would simply kill themselves. The insistent whining about other peoples idiocy and what to do about it would finally end.



Whining? What whining? :lfao:

Nope. Much better if we could kill a few idiots off-it would be far more productive, anyway....:lol:

(Still puzzled at how you can advocate anarchy and disagree with this?)


----------



## Big Don (Jul 20, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Once you people realize that I know what's best for us all and start listening to me things will be a lot smoother for everyone



The beatings will continue until morale improves!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 20, 2013)

Eh, Bonobos are just as close to humans as Chimps and their solution to organizing society is more fun, IMHO. **** for peace.

Also, I wouldn't classify myself as advocating Anarchy. I think we have anarchy a plenty in our society now. The Rule of Law is a myth. The reality is that whoever has the might and/or the gold makes and breaks the rules. That is effectively anarchy.

I prefer real order over the "anarchy" we have. 

Anyway, the kill the idiots idea. AKA, this person is stupid, therefore "we" should do X to that person. In other words, here is your ancient recipe for tyranny. It's the idea that another somehow has the ability or the right to control another person's life. Such a "lovely" thought. So, I say that all of the people who feel like this need to get over it and handle their own lives or just kill themselves. 

The world would be freer, happier, more intelligent and more reasonable because all of the real idiots who think they can judge others and run their lives would be gone.

And it would dissolve the government...lol.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Eh, Bonobos are just as close to humans as Chimps and their solution to organizing society is more fun, IMHO. **** for peace.



Actually, bonobos may be closer-and they *are* chimps. They even, apparently, organize their society the same way-just with more ****ing. It's one with aggressive male dominance, characterized by violence, aggression and even-like regular chimpanzees-hunting smaller primates.



Makalakumu said:


> Also, I wouldn't classify myself as advocating Anarchy.



Ri-iiight.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 20, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Actually, bonobos may be closer-and they *are* chimps. They even, apparently, organize their society the same way-just with more ****ing. It's one with aggressive male dominance, characterized by violence, aggression and even-like regular chimpanzees-hunting smaller primates.
> 
> 
> 
> Ri-iiight.



So, bonobos hunt other monkeys. Big deal. We should be asking if they kill idiots.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> So, bonobos hunt other monkeys. Big deal. We should be asking if they kill idiots.



Hey dude, you're the one who offered them up as a "better model" of primate society because of their "make love not war" tendencies. I just pointed out that you were WRONG, and that they're just another primate-LIKE US.

In any case, I'd say that the other monkeys who get near bonobos qualify as idiots....:lol:

Seriously, how do you figure that someone who doesn't want government of any sort (as you've posted) isn't an anarchist?

And how do you reconcile your hatred of government coercion-when one of the things it coerces us from is our natural, God given violent tendencies- against advocating against simply killing idiots, when it's just what all of us want to do? Including, I might presume to add, *you.*


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 20, 2013)

Bonobos aren't monkeys.  The fact that they hunt them only shows that they eat other tasty species.  Big deal.  Their intraspecies behavior is still opposite your assertion that humans evolved to be violent and aggressive and that chimps give us a clue into our evolutionary past.

In any case, humans aren't monkeys, bonobos, or chimps, and their behavior overall might not have anything to tell us about the "nature" of humanity.  What we do know about a humans ability to learn is that culture imprints very easily upon the brain.  Some cultures are more violent than others.  This might have been a successful strategy for survival at one time, but as humans begin to have the ability to communicate on a mass scale and as they grow closer and closer together, this violence seems to be losing some of it's effectiveness as a successful survival strategy.  Simply put, violence causes too much chaos to allow people to prosper.  

That said, I think you are mistaken to think that I would want to put to death all of the idiots around me.  That would make the world a very lonely place and my bonobo nature needs some sweet loving from time to time.  :ladysman:

And some tasty animals of a species other than mine.  :rofl:


----------



## granfire (Jul 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Bonobos aren't monkeys.  The fact that they hunt them only shows that they eat other tasty species.  Big deal.  Their intraspecies behavior is still opposite your assertion that humans evolved to be violent and aggressive and that chimps give us a clue into our evolutionary past.
> 
> In any case, humans aren't monkeys, bonobos, or chimps, and their behavior overall might not have anything to tell us about the "nature" of humanity.  What we do know about a humans ability to learn is that culture imprints very easily upon the brain.  Some cultures are more violent than others.  This might have been a successful strategy for survival at one time, but as humans begin to have the ability to communicate on a mass scale and as they grow closer and closer together, this violence seems to be losing some of it's effectiveness as a successful survival strategy.  Simply put, violence causes too much chaos to allow people to prosper.
> 
> ...



I do believe the term was _primate_...
our close relatives are commonly referred to as apes...Gorillas, chimps, Orangutans...Bonobos...
They - Chimps - are rather cunning when it comes to hunting their other close relatives of the various primate species, commonly referred to as monkeys. They hang out with the band, make friends with them, and then BAM, snatch a critter, rip it to pieces and off they go. 
Reminds me of another discussion, where a lady proclaimed that humans are a) not superior to animals, or rather some (many) times inferior to them....


----------



## elder999 (Jul 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> That said, I think you are mistaken to think that I would want to put to death all of the idiots around me.  That would make the world a very lonely place and my bonobo nature needs some sweet loving from time to time.  :ladysman:
> .  :rofl:



I don't know what you _want_. I only know that the notion of killing idiots out of hand isn't in conflict with your ideas of anarchy-er,, _self-regulating, non-governmental society_. At least, you haven't identified how it is, other than to say that you don't like it.....:lfao:


----------



## elder999 (Jul 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Bonobos aren't monkeys.



*You* called them "monkeys." I never did. :lfao: 



Makalakumu said:


> The fact that they hunt them only shows that they eat other tasty species.  Big deal.  Their intraspecies behavior is still opposite your assertion that humans evolved to be violent and aggressive and that chimps give us a clue into our evolutionary past.



No. Their intraspecies behavior is the same as other chimpanzees-just with lots more sex, of all kinds, for all kinds of reasons.



Makalakumu said:


> In any case, humans aren't monkeys, bonobos, or chimps, and their behavior overall might not have anything to tell us about the "nature" of humanity.  What we do know about a humans ability to learn is that culture imprints very easily upon the brain.  Some cultures are more violent than others.  This might have been a successful strategy for survival at one time, but as humans begin to have the ability to communicate on a mass scale and as they grow closer and closer together, this violence seems to be losing some of it's effectiveness as a successful survival strategy.  Simply put, violence causes too much chaos to allow people to prosper.



There are, in fact, all kinds of "_violence_." Once you recognize this, you realize that the violent prosper-and others prosper _because of the violent._


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 21, 2013)

Nope. You're wrong and have proven yourself stupid for disagreeing with me. Prepare yourself accordingly. Lol.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Nope. You're wrong and have proven yourself stupid for disagreeing with me. Prepare yourself accordingly. Lol.



Well, hell,Johnny-if you're feeling froggy, go ahead and _jump._ 

I haven't killed anyone since....well,it's been quite some time......been looking forward to it, though. Do you really want to go to *that* corner with me? :lfao:

Who's the _stupid_ one, now? :lfao: (I am *so* not "lmao" right now, btw.)


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 21, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Well, hell,Johnny-if you're feeling froggy, go ahead and _jump._
> 
> I haven't killed anyone since....well,it's been quite some time......been looking forward to it, though. Do you really want to go to *that* corner with me?
> 
> Who's the _stupid_ one, now? :lfao: (I am *so* not "lmao" right now, btw.)



Actually, I only said "prepare yourself accordingly."  And you might not have said "Monkey" but your article did it for you.  :lfao:

I'm not going to threaten you, Jeff.  Only governments do that.  :lfao:


----------



## Big Don (Jul 21, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Well, hell,Johnny-if you're feeling froggy,






Weirdo...


----------

