Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Yeh coz liek Satan tricked that rib woman into eating the magical knowing tree fruit so now all humans are evil.

/thread

At 2/26/08 11:17 PM, Musician wrote:
You don't see nearly as much violence in eastern culture.

Are you shitting me?
There hasn't been a place and a time when humans haven't been raping and murdering other humans. How learned could it be? From any corner of globe, you'll find this.
Except maybe Eskimos, because they couldn't afford to be attacking each other that much. Damn it must be hard as balls living there, not like some coconut tropical paradise where you just lean down and gather some crabs and mangos.

(as one would if they gave up an actual instinctual act, like sex).

Did you ever hear of Priests and Monks?
And even before you apply the argument that "well they would totally go for the sex", then I get to say "well they would totally go for the violence".
Would some random guy you take out of the woods just want to bang Pamela Anderson just like that? Maybe he'd be just as likely to fuck a girl than to whack her. I dunno.

That's not true at all, obviously there are some tigers that are stronger than other tigers, some dogs stronger than other dogs.

One good bite from a weak tiger can kill any strong tiger. The difference in strenght for wild healthy animals of the same species is probably not really relevant since the really weak ones just die on their own without even competing for dominance.
But when it does come time to fight for a territory or some poon, then animals get really really vicious and sometimes injure each other pretty badly. They're just usually smart enough to quit before they get seriously hurt :o

But yeah, if a lion had a gun, I'm pretty sure he would kill way more food than he needs and would also probably shoot at the other male lions constantly.

(atleast not often, nor do they intend to kill one another).

I'm not really sure they would know the difference.
Usually they tactics will involve intimidation rather than fighting because actual fighting just for some territory would be really suicidal.
They can't afford to fight seriously with each other unless it's a life or death scenario.

And animals live in colonies.. newsflash to you?

At 2/26/08 02:19 AM, carbanonzo wrote: Though looking historically at primitive tribes who are living in what could be described as a most "natural" state one can see they are quite peaceful. One example "They do not bear arms and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance... Their spears are made of cane." This is Christopher Columbus writing in his log speaking of the Arawak indians(Taken as a quote from Howard Zinn's " A People's History of the United States" a wonderful albeit terrifying read I would recommend to you all). Rudementary weapons speak to a rudementary understanding of war, why? Because war is hardly necessary. Though not to say that primitive societies were completely peaceful, however I would describe the minute skirmishes of Barbarians or Savages far less barbaric or savage than the mondern day wars that are waged. That involve massive bombings of the wars non-participants, chemical attacks, torture of the enemy etc.

1) I would be careful about basing your worldview strictly upon books like A People's History of the United States because they are written from a radical bias that allows them to throw truth and solid academic proceedures out of the window in order to push an agenda.

2) While some of the tribes Columbus came in contact with were peaceful you have to remember they lived on isolated islands where they did not have to compete for food and resources. Meanwhile on the Continents (N & S America) those natives tended to be VERY warlike; often attempting to commit things like genocide on enemy tribes. If you look to Africa and the slave trade, those were not white, European slave traders going up they Congo. Slaves were delivered to the Europeans by Africans who sold their prisoners of war into slavery.

3) "Rudementary weapons speak to a rudementary understanding of war, ..." Excellent piece of post-modernist intellectual psuedo-speak. However, you are wrong. Rudementary weapons speak to level of development, not level of pacificity. Furthermore, countries like the US with our modern means of bombing and going to war; really are making an effort to reduce the human cost of war. When we bomb we try to strike when targets will be least occupied. We no longer carpet bomb cities like in WWII; if we do carpet bomb its military units out in the open away from civilians.

At 2/26/08 05:16 AM, Boltrig wrote: Well males of any species tend to be quite agressive and will fight for territory / food etc. You can put humans into a civilisation but then they just set about 'civilising' the fighting.

Not just males; every Siberian Husky male I've owned or been around has been rather passive. On the other hand, the females of the breed have a reputation for being quite aggressive. In Lion prides the males tend to be actually pretty docile while it is the female lions who go out and hunt. In short if you look at the animal kingdom; females of any species can prove to be more aggressive overall.

At 2/26/08 02:32 PM, SouthAsian wrote: I think the ability for humans to join together in combining forces to concentrate on hindering another hostile group is just innovation.

Two words: Army Ants

At 2/27/08 11:51 AM, TheMason wrote:

In Lion prides the males tend to be actually pretty docile while it is the female lions who go out and hunt.

except for the part where the male murders all the lion cubs of his rival while the females have to stand by and take it up the ass because they're weaker.

At 2/27/08 01:20 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 2/27/08 11:51 AM, TheMason wrote:

In Lion prides the males tend to be actually pretty docile while it is the female lions who go out and hunt.

except for the part where the male murders all the lion cubs of his rival while the females have to stand by and take it up the ass because they're weaker.

Lion: HONEY!!! WHERE'S MY DINNER!!!

As long as there are humans there will be war in some form. Its part of our basic instinct.

I really wish that war could be unlearned, but it goes back Further than Alexander the great's day

being hardwire war depends on the meme that a person is associated with, so far, most memes aren't going to die just to avoid war...

Red Meme; Egocentric: asserting self for dominance, conquest and power. Exploitive; egocentric.

Red meme individuals, mostly found in Arabic 3rd world countries, are very in favor of war. It's sort of an 'angst' or 'childish' logic. Like highschool kids.

Blue Meme; Absolutistic: obediently as higher authority and rules direct; conforming; guilt.

Conservative christian types, you can call them Neo-cons, but an analytical conservative or the blue meme establishes a very hard sense of 'right' and 'wrong' and is usually willing to go to war if they see a just cause.

Orange meme; Muitiplistic: pragmatically to achieve results and get ahead; test options; maneuver, includes libertarian types as well as more moderate republicans and 'capitalist' types. They're less willing to fight than blue and red due to the 'costs' of war, they are in a sense materialistic.

Green Meme; Relativistic; respond to human needs; affiliative; situational; consensual; fluid. Liberalistic, very much against war and rarely ever willing to go resort to violence. Strong Green meme beleivers beleive that war is almost never necessary, since they rely that individuals share the same green meme characteristics as them, and that expressing things through words will work towards avoiding conflict.

That's as far as humanity has come, there are memes before the red meme, but red, blue, orange, and green are mostly what dominate the western world.

"Only the dead have seen the end of war" Plato
"the heavens cannot brook two sons nor the earth two masters" Alexander the Great.

There will be war so long as humans remain divided by nations and driven by greed and fear.

I believe that we as humans must change two things if we are to abolish war and save ourselves from self induced extinction.

One we must end nationalism and establish a perfected pan-human global nation ( an ideal democratic state)

Two we must attain the philosophical wisdom and virtue to compete with one another but not escalate competition (with is the mother of progress) into conflict.

At 2/28/08 01:28 AM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: One we must end nationalism and establish a perfected pan-human global nation ( an ideal democratic state)

Two we must attain the philosophical wisdom and virtue to compete with one another but not escalate competition (with is the mother of progress) into conflict.

Neither of these is likely to happen soon.

Not that we would want them to - as ugly as it may soun, conflict is often the instigating force behind many of mankind's greatest achievements. Would we know as much as we do now about medicine if we weren't constantly blowing each other apart? The very same tools that we use to destroy one another often wind up finding more benign uses later on.

Besides, if you accept that we are descended from the primates, and primates constantly fight with opposing groups for resources, then we need to accept that infighting is probably more a matter of nature than nurture. Conflict is just our way of evolving as a race, though we are loathe to admit it to ourselves at times and placate our moral senses with the illusion that we can one day break the cycle with our superior intellect.

Tl;dr - Conflict is an inevitable and ugly part of the human psyche.

lol ? there's no question here, yes.
And guess what's the explanation (AGAIN) = Evolution

At 2/26/08 11:17 PM, Musician wrote:

At 2/26/08 09:52 PM, poxpower wrote: All animals are insanely territorial and they fight all the fucking time, but they're just so evenly matched that a fight to the death would kill both parties in most cases.
But they do fight each other really viciously.

That's not true at all, obviously there are some tigers that are stronger than other tigers, some dogs stronger than other dogs. In fact, dogs function in a social hierarchy, where the leader is the strongest dog in the pack. The fact is, even though animals are aggressive to each other, they are not lethally aggressive towards each other (despite being capable of killing each other) like humans are.

Dude, watch the Discovery Channel's Air Jaws. Not all of those kills or strikes on seals are for feeding. There is some suggestion that the Great Whites are killing seals for fun.

And if you don't think they're not capable of killing each other like humans, you need to watch more nature programs. Someone above pointed out that Lions will kill the cubs of a male whom they have just replaced. This is observed in dolphins, male dolphins will seperate a mother from her calf in order to gang rape the mom. Often times they'll kill the calf.

Furthermore, oftentimes the replacement of an old alpha male or female will result in death. This death will either be quick, violent and bloody or the displaced alpha animal will be pushed to the tribe/pack/pride/etc's margins and suffer a slow lingering death and/or are eventually picked off by predators.

Penguins will push and shove each other until one or more falls into the ocean to test for the presence of predators.

Well you can't be hardwired for way since war is way too recent for animals to have ever adapted to. What animals do is stick together in clans and viciously fend off other clans, sort of like... exactly what we do basically.

Well I'm not sure what you mean by animal clans, I've never really heard of them (I'm not denying that they exist just saying), but the big thing here is, they don't kill each other (atleast not often, nor do they intend to kill one another).

Dude, primates have been observed throwing stones and sticks at other troops who are invading their territory. If death does not result, it is because one side retreats. Nature is the ultimate state of war...

As long as there are limited resources and too many people in the world, there will be war. People only fight to defend things, whether it be their pride, lives, or their right to entertainment. Also, as long as there is religion and nationalism in this world, there will be war (people are a resource).

No competition is the driving force behind progress not conflict.

But you are right in that the above scenario is unlikely, still its are only hope.

At 2/28/08 08:11 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: No competition is the driving force behind progress not conflict.

Competition is the main driving force behind conflict.

However, competition is but one driving force behind progress (conflict being another). Competition over scarce resources led to the expansion of Imperial Japan in the first part of the 20th Century which led to WWII's Pacific Theater. Liebensraum (competition for territory/resources) was Hitler's justification for invading his neighbors. Basically you can pick any war and go backwards and you'll see just how wrong and just plain idiotic this statement was...

At 2/26/08 11:17 PM, Musician wrote: I agree thats part of why humans are violent (I put that in my post). I believe dehumanizing "the enemy" also plays a part in it (see picture).

You could have picked a better poster. I mean it does have the typical buck-tooth, monkey face of how the Japanese were portrayed at the time. However, it is refering to the atrocities that the Japanese comitted time and time again. (Unit 731, Korea, Bataan, POW camps...)

Humans were naturally created for war, yes. However, we have a need for survival that transcends this. The greater the desire to survive, the more powerful one generally becomes.

At 2/27/08 02:23 AM, poxpower wrote: Are you shitting me?
There hasn't been a place and a time when humans haven't been raping and murdering other humans. How learned could it be? From any corner of globe, you'll find this.
Except maybe Eskimos, because they couldn't afford to be attacking each other that much. Damn it must be hard as balls living there, not like some coconut tropical paradise where you just lean down and gather some crabs and mangos.

I actually addressed this:

"- According to studies, there have been a total of 292 years of total world peace in the last 5,600 years - this statistic threw me off at first, but even though this study is true, the fact is that war is still a relatively rare occurrence. Sure, it's true that there's usually a war happening somewhere in the world, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of states are at peace during this time. So we can really say that humans throughout history have been dominantly peaceful."

Did you ever hear of Priests and Monks?

Um. Just because they swear of sex doesn't mean they lose the sexual instinct. Ever heard of priests raping little boys?

And even before you apply the argument that "well they would totally go for the sex", then I get to say "well they would totally go for the violence".
Would some random guy you take out of the woods just want to bang Pamela Anderson just like that? Maybe he'd be just as likely to fuck a girl than to whack her. I dunno.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

One good bite from a weak tiger can kill any strong tiger. The difference in strenght for wild healthy animals of the same species is probably not really relevant since the really weak ones just die on their own without even competing for dominance.
But when it does come time to fight for a territory or some poon, then animals get really really vicious and sometimes injure each other pretty badly. They're just usually smart enough to quit before they get seriously hurt :o

Yeah but there is no "quitting" in war. Most carnivorous animals show submission to their opponent when they lose (example: dogs show their stomachs), or run away. The idea of war is to kill the opposing side (at least on one side, some times the other side is being purely defensive, but if this was the case with animals then there would be more examples of animals killing animals).

But yeah, if a lion had a gun, I'm pretty sure he would kill way more food than he needs and would also probably shoot at the other male lions constantly.

I disagree, I think lions and other carnivours have a natural instinct against habitually killing their own species (infanticide excluded, that's a different subject).

I'm not really sure they would know the difference.

maybe not consciously, but their instinct probably subconsciously guides them not to kill one another.

Usually they tactics will involve intimidation rather than fighting because actual fighting just for some territory would be really suicidal.
They can't afford to fight seriously with each other unless it's a life or death scenario.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying here. could you please clarify.

And animals live in colonies.. newsflash to you?

I always imagined most carnivores to be nomadic, not sedentary.

At 2/29/08 07:03 PM, Musician wrote:
I actually addressed this:

I didn't say "war".

I don't understand what you're saying here.

You're saying that people who never have sex ever still have sexual instinct, I'm saying people who are never violent still have violent instincts.

Yeah but there is no "quitting" in war.

Viet-Nam?

The idea of war is to kill the opposing side (at least on one side

People in a war don't want to kill the other dudes, that's stupid. People want to gain political powers, religious territories, or whatever. There is a way because the other dudes don't want to give it to them for free.
You won't find some dude randomly deciding that it's time to kill the eskimos for fun. They have nothing up there, we don't want their shit, so no one attacks them.

99,9% of people don't want to see other people die if they can avoid it. That puts us way above animals, who don't give two shits wether or not other animals die and how their die.

I disagree, I think lions and other carnivours have a natural instinct against habitually killing their own species (infanticide excluded, that's a different subject).

so "infanticide" doesn't count?
haha I see how it works now

maybe not consciously, but their instinct probably subconsciously guides them not to kill one another.

like humans

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying here. could you please clarify.

What don't you understand? It's plain english. Animals don't fight each other when they don't have to.

I always imagined most carnivores to be nomadic, not sedentary.

no, they have territories.
Sometimes they will follow their food source around, but in that case they only become nomadic out of necessity because the herbivores/ bugs move around for various reasons.
Otherwise, they stay in their territory and attack other animals who try to move in on it.

At 2/29/08 08:07 PM, poxpower wrote: I didn't say "war".

Ok, then I'd disagree with your statement. I think humans have been killing each other only since they've developed technology. Rape is different from killing by the way, seeing as it actually is a survival instict (the need to spread ones genes).

You're saying that people who never have sex ever still have sexual instinct, I'm saying people who are never violent still have violent instincts.

First of all, just what violent instincts are you referring to? Are you implying that a human must every once in a while instinctually perform a violent act? Sex is a basic human need, even if you're a priest, you have to have some sort of sexual outlet (like masturbation), if you don't have a sexual outlet, you're body will force you to (nocturnal emissions). So if violence really is performed instictively, what exactly is the outlet of a Buddhist priest in India?

Viet-Nam?

Clever, but I'm not talking about war as a whole, I was reffering to the individual situations in a war. When the lions fight, they fight for dominance. When the soldiers fight, they fight to kill, and therefore won't let their enemy escape in the way that a lion might.

People in a war don't want to kill the other dudes, that's stupid.

Doesn't that contradict saying that contradict your assumption that violence is instinctual?

People want to gain political powers, religious territories, or whatever. There is a way because the other dudes don't want to give it to them for free.

Yes, those are all ideological issues. Wars spawn from intelligence, and not instinct.

99,9% of people don't want to see other people die if they can avoid it. That puts us way above animals, who don't give two shits wether or not other animals die and how their die.

I don't think animals are really capable of caring. I doubt they understand the concept of death. So when they don't kill each other, it's not because they don't understand: "hey we shouldn't kill each other, this way we can benefit our own race", it's because they are instinctually inclined not to.

so "infanticide" doesn't count?
haha I see how it works now

No, infanticide does not count because it's not an act of violence for the sake of violence. It has another driving reason behind it, that one being the need to spread their genes.

like humans

Lol, last time I checked we kill off our own species more than any other species in the world. Personally I hold the belief that humans aren't inclined in one way or another, and that society makes them lead towards or away from war.

What don't you understand? It's plain english. Animals don't fight each other when they don't have to.

What do you mean "when they don't have to"? I don't think an animal needs to be the leader of the pack, that doesn't mean there aren't squabbles over who should be the leader.

At 2/29/08 11:43 PM, Musician wrote:

Ok, then I'd disagree with your statement. I think humans have been killing each other only since they've developed technology.

Why do you say that?
Monkeys kill each other and I assume that the first chance he got, the guy who invented the spear jammed it up his rival's ass.
I mean, it's not a matter of belief, that's just fact. Cavemen built weapons to use against animals and obviously each other when that came up. No idea how you could prove they didn't fight each other at any point in time :o

First of all, just what violent instincts are you referring to?

raping, killing, punching, shooting someone. I mean, there's degrees, but it sure feels damn good to hit shit with a baseball bat. Sometimes that tihng is someone else's head.

Are you implying that a human must every once in a while instinctually perform a violent act?

no

So if violence really is performed instictively, what exactly is the outlet of a Buddhist priest in India?

You never saw any Kunf-Fu movies? Those guys also got pretty mad some times, hitting each other with brooms and shit. Besides even if 10% of the world's population wasn't ever violent in any way, I could still say that humans are violent. But probably only 2-3 dudes never got mad EVER. Jesus got mad btw.

When the soldiers fight, they fight to kill, and therefore won't let their enemy escape in the way that a lion might.

Soldiers will accept surrender and retreat. Often.

Doesn't that contradict saying that contradict your assumption that violence is instinctual?

No. We want to fight, but people don't want to kill. We can stop it because we're smart. Animals are hella stupid, they don't give a shit if they kill you or anything.

So when they don't kill each other, it's not because they don't understand: "hey we shouldn't kill each other, this way we can benefit our own race", it's because they are instinctually inclined not to.

Like I said, most animals don't have the means to kill the other animal without practically sacrificing themselves.
Shit, elephants will stomp lions to death the first chance they get if the lions get too close. Animals want to survive way more than they want to pick random fights for their dinner.

No, infanticide does not count because it's not an act of violence for the sake of violence.

Animals don't do any violence for violence's sake. Neither do humans. In fact "doing something for violence's sake" doesn't even make any fucking sense. Doing it for fun makes more sense, and last I check "fun" isn't "violence", so you'd be doing it for "fun's sake".

Lol, last time I checked we kill off our own species more than any other species in the world.

my point was that animals are violent killers and you seem to think they're really cudly and can do no harm.

Personally I hold the belief that humans aren't inclined in one way or another, and that society makes them lead towards or away from war.

"war" isn't something you can have an instinct for. It's like saying we have a "car" instinct. That's stupid. Humans are VIOLENT. If you combine that with a couple more factors, then you get a war.

What do you mean "when they don't have to"? I don't think an animal needs to be the leader of the pack, that doesn't mean there aren't squabbles over who should be the leader.

They need to pretty much like you need to not live with the bare minimum.
For many animals, the only way to make sure they get to fuck, have kids and first dibs on food is to be the alpha male. It's a question of survival. In the case of lions for instance, getting cast out of the pride sucks ass because now you have to get your food yourself and it's really fucking hard to catch a zebra.
So yeah obviously others will challenge it and so they fight. What the hell would you do if some dude was going to steal your house? DO YOU HAVE TO LIVE IN A HOUSE? JUST BUILD ANOTHER ONE.