Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 129 of 129
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: Is violence natural behaviour for a Human Being?

  1. #101  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    If that disapoints you... check out my more recent emotion based comments.

    YOU DISAPOINT ME skeptic!!! 1000 yrs??? thats a drop in the ocean of time... what can we learn from that? I already conceded the dark ages was a dark place... that society's history for you. Not man's evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    meditation, self awareness, observation, life experience... and sure, check the data, see what can be gleaned from it. Either way, no matter what you think, it's a subjective opinion.
    A science forum is no place to cling to a subjective opinion.
    I think people wouldn't pillage there neighbours because there neighbours would have nothing that they didn't have. Everything needed would be supplied by nature, such is the profound beauty of evolution.
    Evolution does not mean everything needed is supplied by nature. It means if an organism manages to get what is needed from nature, it survives and passes on its genes, and if not, it doesn't.
    Who? I do not know. What? my free will and ability to discriminate made me judge. What do you suggest? I surrender my judgement? what is this bible class? I know we'r simply discussing behaviour, and the causes of behaviour is the key point i'm interested in.
    It's not a bible class it's a science forum. Yes, you should surrender your opinionated judgements in favor of a dispassionate judgement of facts.
    Yes, the lion is scared that the young from another male will give his own young less chance for survival. Everybody knows that the lions are cowardly right? that stereotype has existed for ages. The female are braver than the males, but the fight in packs, and have the paternal instincts. probably a bit like female homo sapiens! And as we discussed earlier, the lion is a more deadly animal than the human... it's a predator... we are not. See australopithecus... no k9's.
    I'm pretty sure the lion has no idea he is giving his own young more chance for survival. He is simply following his instincts which tell him to kill the cubs.
    I'm happy to have a science discussion, but it won't change my subjective opinion, in fact I think alot of it is sick and i'm worried if I keep reading the so called data.. It might infect me.

    Why have a science discussion if you have no intention of changing your opinion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I changed my opinion long time ago, from a subjective judgement to and objective judgement of facts. It's just that you interpret it as subjective because it doesn't conform to your subjective opinion.

    What facts did you present which is likely to affect my judgement?

    you'r sure about what a lion thinks... but that sums up... well. I wont say.

    don't put words into my mouth... Evolution has provided all that is needed for survival... we look like we'r going to exploit that beyond repair... but thats our choice. Evolution made us able to make our own choices not just based on primative instincts but also on intelligent consideration of facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    He pointed out that groups of chimpanzees war against each other. Humans share the trait, so presumably the chimp/human common ancestor also did. We may owe our initial split from chimpanzees to willful rivalry and attempted genocide, when we could have remained "one people". In that case, our/their urge to discriminate accelerated evolution by promoting artificial diversity. My point is that our evolution would not have happened as it did without violence between groups.

    Of course now we can redefine what it means to be human beyond "not them valley-people" or "not them bug-eaters". We've been trying nicer definitions for some thousands of years already.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What facts did you present which is likely to affect my judgement?
    A number of facts have been presented by me and others to indicate that homicide happens among primitive peoples and has happened in prehistorical times, and has been decreasing with advancing civilization. This is not likely to affect your judgement, because your mind is already made up.
    you'r sure about what a lion thinks... but that sums up... well. I wont say.
    It would take quite a bit of reasoning ability, even scientific knowledge, for a lion to understand that he will eventually sire some cubs, let alone the effect that killing some other cubs would have on his cubs. This reasoning ability has never been demonstrated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What facts did you present which is likely to affect my judgement?
    A number of facts have been presented by me and others to indicate that homicide happens among primitive peoples and has happened in prehistorical times, and has been decreasing with advancing civilization. This is not likely to affect your judgement, because your mind is already made up.
    you'r sure about what a lion thinks... but that sums up... well. I wont say.
    It would take quite a bit of reasoning ability, even scientific knowledge, for a lion to understand that he will eventually sire some cubs, let alone the effect that killing some other cubs would have on his cubs. This reasoning ability has never been demonstrated.
    I've made some comments that 'people are not naturally violent' violence is a consequence of pathology etc... People have interpret those comments in their own way and naturally i've got a load of comments in return pointing out the savagness of history. To be honest, none of it is new to me harold, except i'd never heard of austrapolitichus thingy magiggy.

    To be honest I was a little appalled by the over whelming opinions that violence is natural and essential etc. it's all fair enough, but i was disapointed with the lack of people suggesting violence doesn't have to be part of our nature, dedo is one example of a person who agreed that violence is supposed to be a learned trait in this day and age... she sounded like a psychologist too, so that gives me some hope.

    My issue is that, apart from providing very little evidence, you're facts are not all necesarilly facts... yet they are enough for most of you guys to form you're own pretty adamant opinions on it all. Though I fully accept homocide happened in the past, thats never been in question by me. Yes, my mind was made up on that before this thread began. I don't live in a bubble.

    I really dont think you can proove to me with your 'facts', that there were more homocides in the years 10,000 to 9,000 BC... but please, if you can, then do so. As for a higher rate of homi=ocide during the dark ages... Absolutely!!! that's what i've been trying to comunicate, that since people started trying to take over the world, to take over nations, our inate natural ability to be violent, aggressive, even our inate tribal instinct has been developed and encouraged by the war lords... Thats my opinion, but I base that on all i've learnt throughout my life, even what i've learnt in this thread.
    yes in more recent times, the level of authority and control within society, the more advanced media between the authorities and masses, has had it's effect and I would agree we are seeing a reduced level of violence from say, 500 to a 1000 years ago. I wouldn't intend to dispute that. I would assume, an educated guess, that the violence of those times was part and parcel of the agenda of powerful people who had long term plans to develop the world, particularly society. I'd also be optimistic that those guys back then had an ultimate plan and it was for the good of all, and maybe the reduced levels of violence lately is the begining of those plans coming to fruition... hopefully!

    But admit it you guys! considering how much we know, how much ability we have and potential each and every one of us has to control our environment and understand it... We really don't need war or violence anymore except in self defense do we? it's just barbaric and savage, and we really don't need to be that anymore. that's not an opinion, thats a fact. Not matter what skills we developed in the past, we have no excuse to use them unecesarily today, accepted?

    About the lions... I look at big cats chilling out and staring across the plains in africa and I see the look in their eyes, and I think to myself... they look very thoughtful! I have little doubt they are able to reason about the need to/consequences of, killing cubs whilst they are young. This is lions though, they are proper predatora living in very harsh environments, not pretenders like us lot. I don't know if your implying it's purely instinctive for them? perhaps it might be, perhaps they learn it as they grow up and witness the lion kings doing it. Anyway theres no point us getting into that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    One more thing I'd like to say... Human kind is so complex with such an amount of variety. The potential is within us for ANYTHING, any kind of behaviour we want, we can act like lions or sloths or anything else we can witness. So given such complexity, it's very hard to define human nature as this or that... all we can say is, perhaps it should be this, and it should be that, and shouldn't be this and shouldn't be that..

    And all I can say is... perhaps we shouldn't be indulging in the violent side of our nature anymore... not in an army or in civvy street. people can learn to overcome instincts, we'r trained to do it all the time. |for me personally, I've never felt the instinct to hurt somebody for no reason. I felt the instinct to hurt people for not all that good a reason except that I felt they deserved it...but usually it isn't to hard to overcome such an urge using logic.

    I personally wouldn't mind if life was more dog eat dog, i think its boring how it is at the minute... but if somebody pisses me off, and i hurt them... I will be locked away for defending myself and they who disrespected me, would walk free. But if a nation wants to steal some oil they will go and murder thousands and face no punishments by the same laws that would punish an individual. Thats the double standard that irritates me. The whole human race has to breath in the toxic fumes of warfare, and struggle to get by in an economic down turn when we could all be that much more comfortable.

    That kind of violence, is backwards. that's my opinion and it would take a very strong argument to change my opinion on that... no amount of science could change my ideas on that.

    If human nature is tribal warfare... the it was a terrible idea to make our tribes so large and well developed!we should have kept the fighting and killing on a individual scale... fighting the war of some imbred, power hungry general is a perversion of those tribal instincts. IMO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    What is your hypothesis? What sort of evidence would tend to support your hypothesis, and what sort of evidence would lead you to abandon the hypothesis?

    I don't think you have a scientific hypothesis at all. I think you have just come here to expound upon your humanist political views.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    My hypothesis is that "Humans do not like to be violent, they only do it when necesary for the own survival/prosperity"
    Also: "Man does not like War"

    Evidence to support are things like:the fact that the millitary need to dupe, to fool, to trick young soldiers into enrolling, not to mention groom them on computor games and videos from a young age.

    Evidence to disprove my hypothesis could be: a study of a child who is raised by loving parents and has all the essentials he needs to be healthy and content. If after recieving no exposure to ideas of violence from things like the media and previously conditioned people, he still claims he has an urge to go to war and give his life for his country... then I will say, ok violence is natural.

    But lets be honest... I don't have the means to test my hypothesis, so there isn't muh point me wasting ages trying to think of good ways to do it.

    I'm hear to learn, to discuss things with people who like to be intellectual... you know in the mainstream, chat rooms etc are full of people trying to be cool and aloof, not to mention peadophiles... it's nice to speak with people who like to try and put their minds to things.

    If I was going to gather evidence etc, i'd put it in a report, not on this website. The fact is this is a chat forum where I can speak to people who understand the scientific ways of thinking, or thats the theory. I dont see the harm in expressing my opionions or anybody else expressing there own. I doubt if many of us here have the means to scientifically analyse everything we consider.

    As for humanist politics... I don't know, what does that mean? and why do you imply its a bad thing? I'm just as much concerned for the rest of the organisms on this planet and the planet as a whole, as I am for humans... humans are the problem, not the victim (as an entity that is).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    QFY

    As to why violence is 'natural'?

    I would offer three lines of 'evidence'.
    1. Our closest relatives, the chimps, engage in human-type violent behaviour, including inter-tribal wars and homicide.
    2. Violence is ubiquitous among human societies. If it was merely learned, we would expect many tribes not to have learned it, and that is not the case.
    3. Mock violence is ubiquitous among small boys. Play fights and the like. We know that play is one technique used by children to learn what they must know for adulthood, so play fights are also preparation.

    However, that is not to say that people enjoy war. Most people do not. There are always a few psychopaths and otherwise insane types around, but most people do not. If you want to say "Man does not like war", I agree it is true for most men.

    And yes, even if violence is partly innate, a big part of violent behaviour is learned. And what can be learned can also be unlearned. Which brings me to the reduction in violence.

    Prof. Steven Pinker made a substantial study of violence in history. This is not 'once over lightly'. This is a major work of study. He found that human violence has been reducing - not just from the Dark Ages - but from the earliest days. His summary of his findings are shown in this lecture.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

    I
    would suggest you take the time to watch it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    All science aside, you harbor the Moralistic Fallacy, which you outlined yourself:
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I think good behaviour is natural and common... bad behaviour is the perversion of our nature.
    Thus, you make your moral convictions a priori to the condition of the natural world.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is a clearly established fact that violent behaviors are part of a larger set of natural human behaviors. The single largest reason for this is the adaptive value of violence, the evolutionary advantage it provides in many scenarios. Research on violence from the evolutionary perspective conclusively establishes violence as natural behavior. Furthermore, genetic research supports the notion that violence-based adaptations are indeed subject to evolution due to genetic components, and it shows the weakness in the notion that this ‘defective’ piece of culture and society is merely taught, something that can be removed from society by removing things that teach violent behavior.

    In the following statement, you express the moral fallacy by linking ‘natural’ with what is desirable or good. You also make a generalized conclusion comparing ‘primitive’ societies to ‘advanced’ societies based on a single tribe as portrayed by a documentary.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Speaking of isolated people, you guys have seen bruce parry's series called 'tribe' right? I remember one isolated tribe in south america, they have NO violence whatso ever within there comunity. When some of the young tribe members go to so called civilisation (the nearest city) in order to get an education and a different way of life (mo money!) they then witness and become involved in violence and drugs and sex.

    That for me, indicates very strongly, that 'natural' people from 'primative' cultures are not violent by nature. It is societies where people want control and power and money, where violent behaviour florishes.
    While I have not seen this documentary, I concede that such a tribal culture is feasible. However, research on tribes will sufficiently refute your generalized claims. In general, tribal, ‘primitive’ peoples are not noble, non-violent savages. You’ll find that the lack of violence in a community will serve to prove the rule rather than denounce the idea that violence is part of human nature (i.e. Either, factors known to give rise to violent behavior in human beings are missing for one explainable reason or another or factors that reduce violent behavior are present, or both scenarios are simultaneously operating). This does not make non-violence common or natural.

    While it is tempting to use the isolated example above as proof of a generalized claim, an exercise better known as Inductive Reasoning, using one specific example for such an operation produces unfounded, often fallacious claims when the thinker is under influence of biases. You are exhibiting biases that maintain your belief that violence is controlled by merely social factors, a behavior that is merely taught. At times, you concede to ideas about violent tendencies, but then you later revert or seemingly fail to understand what the fact implies about your own belief. Throughout this thread, you are either refuting disconfirmation of your preconceived notion about human nature or failing to understand the disconfirmation, while you unquestionably accept ideas that fit your preconceived notion, that violent behavior is an unnatural, learned behavior that can be erased using social intervention. Namely, posts by dedo, which express the idea that “violence is a learned behavior”, are met with affirmation and acceptance by you. This is concisely known as a confirmation bias. Another bias complicating your reasoning is the Availability bias, thinking that what most easily comes to mind is common, which allows your mind to justify fallacious inductive reasoning claims since the only specific cases you pay attention to, and accept, are the only cases available to you through the filter of the confirmation bias. Where I quoted you about the documentary is my primary example of your engagement in fallacious reasoning.

    In sum, research has revealed that violence is common and has genetic components. This grinds with your moral belief that “good behavior is natural and common” and the converse for bad behaviors. You consider violence bad, and therefore determine that it cannot be natural and common. This reasoning is guiding your interpretations. Ultimately, the evolution of your belief about this topic is being severely retarded by factors outside of the science on the topic; you are being held back by fallacious logic, and that’s it. I strongly suggest reconsidering the claim that I pointed out as the Moralistic Fallacy. It is not logical. It is naïve.
    Last edited by TheDr.Spo; August 21st, 2012 at 04:09 PM. Reason: Paragraphs needed more separation, appeared to run together
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I spent ages on a reply then I had to renew the connection with the website and lost all of my work!
    i will see if I can find the motivation to have another go at a later date... much of what you said is redundent in light of more recent comments... but I do concede that my comment "I think good behaviour is natural and common... bad behaviour is the perversion of our nature." is a fallacy... no need to be pretentious with the morralistic business

    apart from that thanks for you're comment I hope to give you a full response in due course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    718
    The urge to violence is natural enough, for defense and as a way to acquire food or territory or other necessities. What our big brains can do is anticipate and give consideration to the consequences. I say can, because our big brains are also quite good at coming up with justifications for carrying through with our urge to violence whilst assiduously avoiding consideration of the wider consequences that will arise. Violence towards people who we believe to be deserving can give satisfaction, but, unfortunately just being told someone deserves it can be sufficient to satisfy the 'we believe' part.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    I am aware that some points may seem redundant in light of recent comments, but I think that the full implications of the points are not getting through to you. Thus, in order to make my point clear, I juxtaposed recent comments with my message to make my point clear.

    Be sure to think about what I have I said, for the thinking styles mentioned tend to be unconscious, insidious, and powerful. I fear that you may respond in a reactionary way, as opposed to a response borne from careful introspection.

    I look forward to your thoughtful response.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I remember when Jane Goodall began her work studying chimps. She spent years in the field, living with wild chimps. Initially, and for some years, she marveled at how peaceful they were, and how violence did not intrude on their existence. How wrong she was!

    Later work showed wild chimp society was a most violent place. Not just infanticide, rape, homicide, and beatings, but even lethal inter-tribal warfare.

    If we could envisage some alien equivalent of Jane Goodall studying humans, watching us one at a time, chosen at random, how long would it probably take before the observer saw its first act of serious violence? Since humans are actually less violent than chimps, it is probable that the observer could watch for decades without observing anything other than trivial acts of violence. Basically, what I am saying is that humans may be violent, but our propensity to violence is not great, with the exception of a few individuals.

    We may be a violent species, but it is utterly trivial within any one societal group. In addition, this violence has been getting less and less over time. Our violent tendencies are very prone to readjustment with learning. We are learning to be a much less violent species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Violence between humans (and chimps) is the extreme end of something even fewer species have: an urge to align with or hate specific groups within the species. Remove it, there'd be no war. And just eliminating overt violence does not stop, say, political parties from sabotaging each other and causing real harm. In some ways girl bullying is worse than boys'.

    The advantage of violence was earlier explained through sorts of game theory lenses, being strategic for a selfish male's reproduction for example. But is our tendency to us vs. them good for the species altogether? Until recently it promoted genetic diversity. It still promotes cultural diversity. I think that means we are, as a whole, more adaptive...?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    QFY

    As to why violence is 'natural'?

    I would offer three lines of 'evidence'.
    1. Our closest relatives, the chimps, engage in human-type violent behaviour, including inter-tribal wars and homicide.
    2. Violence is ubiquitous among human societies. If it was merely learned, we would expect many tribes not to have learned it, and that is not the case.
    3. Mock violence is ubiquitous among small boys. Play fights and the like. We know that play is one technique used by children to learn what they must know for adulthood, so play fights are also preparation.

    However, that is not to say that people enjoy war. Most people do not. There are always a few psychopaths and otherwise insane types around, but most people do not. If you want to say "Man does not like war", I agree it is true for most men.

    And yes, even if violence is partly innate, a big part of violent behaviour is learned. And what can be learned can also be unlearned. Which brings me to the reduction in violence.

    Prof. Steven Pinker made a substantial study of violence in history. This is not 'once over lightly'. This is a major work of study. He found that human violence has been reducing - not just from the Dark Ages - but from the earliest days. His summary of his findings are shown in this lecture.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

    I
    would suggest you take the time to watch it.
    I think we have establish violence is a part of human behaviour, I never meant to deny that, I don't think I did deny that. I never said it was merely learned.
    I don't doubt selective use of statistics can indicate a reduction in violence. I'd agree that % wise, less people are directly subjected to severe violence such as homocide than 500 years ago, I have little doubt. Though violence does mean more than homocide...

    The presentation in itself didn't convince me of much... i'm not saying I disagree with all he says. The social aspects of societies do lead to more empathy and less killing i agree.

    But... what evidence is in that presentation of anything? he claimed stats... as a scientist, what did you see there that can inform your scientific conclusion?

    He used stats on nomadic people of today as evidence for how things were in the past... thats not convincing for me...

    I suppose the main thing is that % wise less people are being killed these days than in recent times...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo View Post
    I am aware that some points may seem redundant in light of recent comments, but I think that the full implications of the points are not getting through to you. Thus, in order to make my point clear, I juxtaposed recent comments with my message to make my point clear.

    Be sure to think about what I have I said, for the thinking styles mentioned tend to be unconscious, insidious, and powerful. I fear that you may respond in a reactionary way, as opposed to a response borne from careful introspection.

    I look forward to your thoughtful response.

    You have a subjective opinion that the fullimplications of the points others make are not getting through to me... I havejust read through this entire thread... I fail to see how that opinion of yourscan be justified.
    You did not ‘juxtapose’ ‘recent’ quotes from me...those quotes you added were all from the same much earlier section of in thisthread. Posts 57 and 63 I believe. I will go into more details concerning thosecomments, further on in this post.
    The fact that you admit the quotes may seemredundant, then claim they are recent seems like an attempt to give theimpression that quoting redundant comments is acceptable. The use of unnecessarilyfancy words seems to me like an attempt to give the impression of intellect,intellect which is missing from the content of that comment.
    My thinking is insidious? The suggestion is offensive...I suggest that as you are using fancy words which give the impression ofintellect, yet arrange those words into a sentence that doesn’t make sense(therefore undermining your attempts to seem clever), and criticize me on things that really are redundent, yet ignore rellevant comments... then it could be suggestedthat your thinking is insidious... perhaps you are aware of this? Hence youproject this onto me before I get the chance make clear you’re crafty attemptsto seem innocent whilst really presenting an idea which is far more potentiallydamaging than my thinking? In short, you’re being a hypocrite. But I do likethe idea that you find my thinking ‘powerful’, this brings a smile.
    The command to think about what you have said ispatronising, however, bearing in mind that you have this strange idea ‘I havenot considered peoples points thoroughly’... I will not take offence.
    ‘The thinking styles mentioned tend to be unconscious, insidious, andpowerful’ What thinking styles? Mine? Or yours?...The comment does not make sense, how can thinking styles be subconscious?Thinking is a conscious act. The idea of the subconscious mind is a concept toexplain certain things like how things in our body can operate without consciousthinking, such as the heart, Or to explain how we can function withoutthinking... ‘thinking styles’ cannot be subconscious. How can subconsciousthought be insidious? They cannot be, insidiousness is deliberate andconscious. Can you please explain why you feel my thinking is insidious anddangerous? But the idea that you consider my thinking as ‘powerful’ did bring asmile to my face... if there is any power to influence in what I say, then thatpower is due to my honesty and perspective , or they agree with my honest andgenuine sentiments.... not due to any attempts at craftily manipulating peopleinto dangerous conclusions. If I influence people it is because they see I amright... If anything I seems rational that your view of our nature is far moredangerous than mine... it’s simply ridiculous for you to accuse me of this IMO,but I look forward to your explanation of my insidious thinking.
    ‘I fear you will respond in a reactionary way, as opposed from aresponse borne from careful introspection’ I haveto smile at this! Firstly, don’t be scared, you’ll be ok. Secondly, the ideathat I can ‘respond’ in anything but a‘reactionary way’ is a fallacy and again undermines you’re attempts to seemthoughtful and present and apparently intelligent comment. Responses arereactions, If my comment is not reactionary then it will notexist! Be assured... as I respond to your earlier comments further down in thispost, I will introspect myself with regards to any points you raise... I havealso used careful introspection to form my opinions on this matter and to judgeothers comment and their validity towards human nature. It has been a theme ofthis thread that some consider my methods of introspection to arrive at ideas,to ‘be unscientific’... it is me who has argued that introspection is a greatway for us to understand our own Human nature.
    The fact is, you know that some of the things youhave said are insulting, you know that you have lied about what I said and whatI meant, you know that you have chosen to ignore the vast majority of thisthread and concentrate on one or two comments in order to suggest that I am notcapable of being reasonable or taking on board others comments... rest assuredI will answer your previous comment as I see fit and your suggestion that Ishould use careful introspection instead of reacting to your provocation willhave no affect on the outcome of my response, except to cause far greater annoyance than if you had refrained from making those comments. I do find it to beshockingly conceited bearing in mind the lack of competence and awareness shownin your criticisms.

    I will now post my response to your previous post...

    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo View Post
    All science aside, you harbor the Moralistic Fallacy, which you outlined yourself:
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I think good behaviour is natural and common... bad behaviour is the perversion of our nature.
    Thus, you make your moral convictions a priori to the condition of the natural world.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is a clearly established fact that violent behaviors are part of a larger set of natural human behaviors. The single largest reason for this is the adaptive value of violence, the evolutionary advantage it provides in many scenarios. Research on violence from the evolutionary perspective conclusively establishes violence as natural behavior. Furthermore, genetic research supports the notion that violence-based adaptations are indeed subject to evolution due to genetic components, and it shows the weakness in the notion that this ‘defective’ piece of culture and society is merely taught, something that can be removed from society by removing things that teach violent behavior.

    In the following statement, you express the moral fallacy by linking ‘natural’ with what is desirable or good. You also make a generalized conclusion comparing ‘primitive’ societies to ‘advanced’ societies based on a single tribe as portrayed by a documentary.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Speaking of isolated people, you guys have seen bruce parry's series called 'tribe' right? I remember one isolated tribe in south america, they have NO violence whatso ever within there comunity. When some of the young tribe members go to so called civilisation (the nearest city) in order to get an education and a different way of life (mo money!) they then witness and become involved in violence and drugs and sex.

    That for me, indicates very strongly, that 'natural' people from 'primative' cultures are not violent by nature. It is societies where people want control and power and money, where violent behaviour florishes.
    While I have not seen this documentary, I concede that such a tribal culture is feasible. However, research on tribes will sufficiently refute your generalized claims. In general, tribal, ‘primitive’ peoples are not noble, non-violent savages. You’ll find that the lack of violence in a community will serve to prove the rule rather than denounce the idea that violence is part of human nature (i.e. Either, factors known to give rise to violent behavior in human beings are missing for one explainable reason or another or factors that reduce violent behavior are present, or both scenarios are simultaneously operating). This does not make non-violence common or natural.

    While it is tempting to use the isolated example above as proof of a generalized claim, an exercise better known as Inductive Reasoning, using one specific example for such an operation produces unfounded, often fallacious claims when the thinker is under influence of biases. You are exhibiting biases that maintain your belief that violence is controlled by merely social factors, a behavior that is merely taught. At times, you concede to ideas about violent tendencies, but then you later revert or seemingly fail to understand what the fact implies about your own belief. Throughout this thread, you are either refuting disconfirmation of your preconceived notion about human nature or failing to understand the disconfirmation, while you unquestionably accept ideas that fit your preconceived notion, that violent behavior is an unnatural, learned behavior that can be erased using social intervention. Namely, posts by dedo, which express the idea that “violence is a learned behavior”, are met with affirmation and acceptance by you. This is concisely known as a confirmation bias. Another bias complicating your reasoning is the Availability bias, thinking that what most easily comes to mind is common, which allows your mind to justify fallacious inductive reasoning claims since the only specific cases you pay attention to, and accept, are the only cases available to you through the filter of the confirmation bias. Where I quoted you about the documentary is my primary example of your engagement in fallacious reasoning.

    In sum, research has revealed that violence is common and has genetic components. This grinds with your moral belief that “good behavior is natural and common” and the converse for bad behaviors. You consider violence bad, and therefore determine that it cannot be natural and common. This reasoning is guiding your interpretations. Ultimately, the evolution of your belief about this topic is being severely retarded by factors outside of the science on the topic; you are being held back by fallacious logic, and that’s it. I strongly suggest reconsidering the claim that I pointed out as the Moralistic Fallacy. It is not logical. It is naïve.
    The following posts will adress this post...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    All science aside, you harbor the MoralisticFallacy, which you outlined yourself:
    Orignally Posted by question for you
    I think good behaviour is natural and common... bad behaviour is theperversion of our nature.
    Thus, you make your moral convictions a priori tothe condition of the natural world.
    I already explained I agree this statement is afallacy, it is false. It’s one of the few comments where I gave an informalresponse to another user’s post and you pounced on it... since this seems to melike your strongest argument I feel it is necessary to repast the comment in itsoriginal and unedited form, and to re-post adelady’s comment so that we can allsee my comment in its context!
    Adelady said:

    “Sometimes schools don't even realise there are problems in some householdsuntil they come across the parents or the residence for some other reason (- oranother child from the same family exhibits the common behaviours of suchneglected children). It's always a bit of a shock because teachers can usuallyidentify pretty quickly when kids are from badly dysfunctional families. Thesekids don't just hold themselves together, some of them manage the whole family.

    It's a bit of a wake-up call for some of us who take pride in our goodparenting. It's entirely possible that many of our well-behaved children mighthave been like that anyway. But who'd want to throw that dice.”

    To which I responded directly:
    “Wellyou know what I think about it adelady...

    I think good behaviour is natural and common... bad behaviour is the perversionof our nature. Usually caused by some kind of suffering

    As we can see, adelady was talking about these ‘Teflonchildren’ who show such resilience to toxic environments that it has astoundedthe world of child psychologist.
    My response was not to adelady’s entire post, butspecifically the last pararagraph:
    “It'sa bit of a wake-up call for some of us who take pride in our good parenting.It's entirely possible that many of our well-behaved children might have beenlike that anyway. But who'd want to throw that dice.”
    I responded directly to adelady, tellingher my opinion because I felt that this paragraph echoed my sentiments, myopinion.
    So taken in context, it is merely a throwaway comment made between me and somebody I had spent a lot of time discussingthis subject with, it was not intended as a statement to every reader of thethread... it was clearly a repetition of my previously clearly expressed pointof view which I am entirely entitled to, regardless of what you think, or sayyou think. The fact that you quoted this, or some of it, and used it to attemptto undermine me and all the effort I have put into this thread and otherspeoples comments, indicates to me yet again insidious thinking on your part.
    Now I will explain my last post where Iadmitted this comment is a fallacy... as demanded by you.
    It can be said to be false, as you did.Here’s why: Good and bad are relative terms, they can be said to not exist.Natural is another word I used, and many others have in this thread, whichactually has no meaning. It can be said that everything is natural... eventhings that are artificial, have actually come about through natural processand development. Therefore the title of this thread ‘is violence naturalbehaviour’...? The answer is yes... all behaviour is natural behaviour.
    I have tried to raise a question that I’minterested in discussing, the amount of response I have received is testamentto the relevance of this topic. Most people can get past the argumentative andpetty approach of dissecting each word in the title of this thread and actuallyget down to discussing our behaviour, what it is, what it was, what it couldbe, and what people think it should be. I apologise that the question ‘isviolence natural behaviour’ doesn’t fully express the question I intended toraise, but hey, I’m working with a language that I did not invent and I’m doingit to the best of my ability. Furthermore a lot of the early posts attempted toclear up some of the failings of the use of English in the title, theyattempted to give a specific definition of ‘violence’ so that the essence of myquestion is easier to interpret and, give an answer to.
    Finally, I could also argue that thestatement is right and you have misinterpreted it: ‘good behaviour is naturaland common’ Yep I think that’s a fair observation which implies not one tinybit of bias on the matter (except that it doesn’t also list the equal andopposite fact). ‘Bad behaviour is the perversion of our nature’ yes that couldbe said, most bad behaviour is due to an external influence or a lack ofrequirements to be content. If a child is being cared for by it’s parentsproperly and isn’t subject to external influences which make it want to actbadly, then it won’t. So it could be said this statement has an amount of truthin it, though it does not account for the fact not all bad behaviour has tonecessarily be a perversion of our natural behaviour. Not all encompassing withregard to bad behaviour, but not necessarily false either... unless you want toget really pedantic and argue something you cannot prove. Though I accept thisstatement does give an impression that bad behaviour is never natural, that’sjust an impression due to the reader misunderstanding the comment. And it’scertainly a misinterpretation of my judgments if you take the time to read thewhole thread.
    Hopefullythat is all clear... Moving onwards: as with the previous segments of thispost, you’re words are in black, mine are blue, together our words are like avictim of violence!

    (1)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    It is a clearly established fact that violentbehaviors are part of a larger set of natural human behaviors.
    Yes, we managed to establish that here too!
    The single largest reason for this is the adaptivevalue of violence, the evolutionary advantage it provides in many scenarios. ‘adaptive value ofviolence’? I’m sorry, I’m not sure that makes sense...? Secondly, in manyscenarios violence can retard evolution... like if you get killed... you’re notgoing to breed... oh yes, I see what you mean... the violent ones get killedone by one and in the end the offspring of the peaceful types will be left toinherit the earth! Eureka! Because in today’s terms, that’s what happens, ifyou want to go to war and kill your brother, there’s less chance of youcontributing as much to the gene pool. This point was raised earlier in thethread.
    In other scenarios violence can help a personsurvive, like if they are under attack... and they react with violence andsuccessfully fend off the aggressor, they have more chance of surviving andcontributing to the gene pool. (you will note I have been impartial and givenexamples of scenarios for and against... can you say that you are beingimpartial, rather than subjective in your thinking?) Are you sure you areactually thinking? or are you subconsciously repeating what you have learntwhilst refusing to consider that you have not learnt everything on the subject?
    Research on violence from the evolutionaryperspective conclusively establishes violence as natural behavior.
    Did you notice earlier in the thread when we triedto clear up the definition of violence? I have said repeatedly that what I meanby violence for the purpose of this discussion... is not the ability to useforce to defend oneself... it is more like attacking another who poses nothreat. This includes reasons for violence such as egomania, being powerhungry, etc. All of these things are considered pathological (the result ofsuffering) in psychology, I believe. Though they are still naturally occurring,therefore the behaviour that results is also naturally occurring, as said beforeeverything is naturally occurring. I have responded to this sentence... yet Ithink it redundant in light of previous posts.
    Furthermore, genetic research supports the notionthat violence-based adaptations are indeed subject to evolution due to geneticcomponents, (does the preceding sentence make grammatical sense?) and it shows theweakness in the notion that this ‘defective’ piece of culture and society ismerely taught, (hey, if you say so! But as the notion that violence based adaption’sare merely taught has been previously been addressed in this thread, that’s ifanybody held that notion in the first palace, It’s a redundant comment) something that canbe removed from society by removing things that teach violent behavior. Again, I don’t thinkyou idea of violence or your use of the word has taken into account thespecific definitions that have been given as a topic of debate in this thread.
    Yes, genetic research has found a gene that is andindicator of the ability to be more ruthlessly violent than most other people.This was mentioned and discussed earlier in the thread. I believe the generesponsible for extremely violent capabilities without the ‘normal’ guiltexperience by the majority of people after taking such action was named theAlpha gene. Just having it doesn’t indicate that a person will be violent intheir life, it is not clearly understood how it works, where it came from orwhat it means, except it is thought that these people will not be plagued by guiltfor their ‘sins’. We no nothing about where this ‘freak’ gene comes from, It’sjust as likely that it was added by a mad scientist in the 60’s who operated asperm donor clinic, as it is that it has evolved in certain people... wellthats for all I know personally ofcourse... and to be honest i’m not even sureif the gen i’m talking about is called the alpha gene or something else.


    In short genetic research does not show a weaknessin the notion that violence can be encouraged and taught and developed inpeople... all half intelligent people in here know this to be true. Nobody hassuggested it is merely taught. You should pay more attention, possibly readthings twice if this helps to prevent you jumping to conclusions that aresimply invalid.


    (2)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    In the following statement, you express the moralfallacy by linking ‘natural’ with what is desirable or good. You also make ageneralized conclusion comparing ‘primitive’ societies to ‘advanced’ societiesbased on a single tribe as portrayed by a documentary.
    Originally Posted by question for you
    Speaking of isolated people, you guys have seen Bruce parry's seriescalled 'tribe' right? I remember one isolated tribe in south America, they haveNO violence what so ever within there community. When some of the young tribemembers go to so called civilisation (the nearest city) in order to get aneducation and a different way of life (mo money!) they then witness and becomeinvolved in violence and drugs and sex.

    That for me, indicates very strongly, that 'natural' people from 'primitive'cultures are not violent by nature. It is societies where people want controland power and money, where violent behaviour flourishes.

    While I have not seen thisdocumentary, I concede that such a tribal culture is feasible. However,research on tribes will sufficiently refute your generalized claims. Ingeneral, tribal, ‘primitive’ peoples are not noble, non-violent savages. You’llfind that the lack of violence in a community will serve to prove the rule ratherthan denounce the idea that violence is part of human nature (i.e. Either,factors known to give rise to violent behavior in human beings are missing forone explainable reason or another or factors that reduce violent behavior arepresent, or both scenarios are simultaneously operating). This does not makenon-violence common or natural.
    I like the part where you end onesentence with an emphasis on MY generalized claims, and start the next sentencewith ‘In general’! You really are something else sometimes! I would laugh, if Ihadn’t been spending so much of my time and energy responding to this insidiousdrivel! However, as I told john galt when he posted this in response to myinformative comment on this one particular tribe; “It is unscientific and illogical tostate that because one primitive tribe was free of violence that therefore allprimitive tribes were free of violence.”... “John: I didn't state that as one tribe is non violent,they all are, I raised the fact that some tribes are violent. It is in factillogical to claim that I said that.” The same goes for you,instead of insidiously implying that I am making generalized claims, when I amclearly expressing that this, for me, is an indicator that isolated people are peaceful.Try actually bringing some specific examples to back up YOUR GENERALISED claimsthat in general, isolated tribes are violent savages... That would be useful,rather than making me re-explain something that has already been explained infollowing posts.
    Following directly on fromyour generalization of (isolated*ignored, yet important factor) tribal people being savages, you post this: “You’ll find thatthe lack of violence in a community will serve to prove the rule rather thandenounce the idea that violence is part of human nature” You really are verygood at sounding intelligent whilst simultaneously making no grammatical sense,and no sense what so ever. ‘the lack of violence in acommunity will serve to prove the rule’ Oh so you’re suddenly changing you’resubjective opinion here or what? Forgetting the bizarre language employed byyou... The lack of violence in a community will by no means serve to prove the‘idea’ that violence is a part of human nature! It serves to suggest theopposite. I notice that you were very careful to say the ‘idea’ that violenceis part of human nature rather than say the ‘rule’ that violence is a part ofhuman nature... However, this does not disguise your subjective opinion thatviolence is a part of human nature or your bias to that stance.
    I stated that some tribes wereviolent... but that I know of none that are isolated, have been isolated for along time (forever) from civilisation, and yet display violent ways of livinganywhere near the level of violence displayed within ‘civilized’ communities.Do you know of any? Because if not... you really aren’t adding anything to thediscussion here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907





    While it is tempting to use the isolated example above as proof of ageneralized claim
    (I bet it is tempting for you, you’ve shown that you cannot resist thattemptation either), an exercise better known as Inductive Reasoning, using one specificexample for such an operation produces unfounded, often fallacious claims whenthe thinker is under influence of biases. (Well, you’ve been fallacious, you’veused unfounded claims, you’ve shown you’re under the influence of a bias, yetyou have not even provided one single example to justify you’re unfounded,fallacious claims. Which is a poor show) You are exhibiting biases thatmaintain your belief that violence is controlled by merely social factors, abehavior that is merely taught (you liar! That’s not even insidious; it’s nowherenear subtle enough! Not just a liar, a hypocrite! I never claimed that at all.). At times, youconcede to ideas about violent tendencies (yes, at times well before and wellafter post number #57 and #63 which you quoted me on, more evidence for theredundancy of pretty much your entire post), but then you later revert or seeminglyfail to understand what the fact implies about your own belief (certainly one ofus has failed to understand many of the posts in this thread, not quite so sureit is me). Throughout this thread, you are either refuting disconfirmation ofyour preconceived notion about human nature or failing to understand thedisconfirmation ( I certainly do not understand, aka, stand under your ‘disconfirmation’..you’re trying to disconfirm something I did not say), while youunquestionably accept ideas that fit your preconceived notion (did it occur toyou that I do not need to question comments which I understand? Others are freeto do so), that violent behavior is an unnatural (rubbish, go back and read the threadbetter), learned behavior that can be erased using social intervention (much of it yes). Namely, posts bydedo, which express the idea that “violence is a learned behavior”, are metwith affirmation and acceptance by you. This is concisely known as aconfirmation bias (yes, I confirmed that I liked the comment, I confirmed that I favoredthat view over some of the other preceding it, and yet many of my othercomments both before and after confirm that I accept violence as a naturalcapability. Confirmation bias relates to evidence, dedo supplied evidence...not many of the other posts contain any sources of evidence, just claims.). Another biascomplicating your reasoning is the Availability bias, thinking that what mosteasily comes to mind is common, which allows your mind to justify fallaciousinductive reasoning claims since the only specific cases you pay attention to,and accept, are the only cases available to you through the filter of theconfirmation bias. Where I quoted you about the documentary is my primaryexample of your engagement in fallacious reasoning. This is some prettyarrogant, insulting stuff. I think what you have done in this post is show yourown bias by using the very weakest of my comments which were given as aresponse to an individual, take them out of context, twist their meaning andclaim meaning that did not exist. You have also refused to acknowledge far morerecent and relevant posts in which I accept ideas that you claim I am unable tocognitively recognize and understand.

    In sum, research has revealed that violence is common and has geneticcomponents
    (non violence is also common, in fact far more common than violence, ascan easily be proven by research. You make no point here and your preconceivedideas and claims are frankly perversely bias to the notion you hold thatviolence is more common than non violence within human nature, your claimsabout me show that you either are so blinded by your pre conceived ideas thatyou cannot rationally consider the facts and what I have said in an unbiasedway). This grinds with your moral belief that “good behavior is natural andcommon” (oh it is. As stated in the thread multiple times, violent behaviour isalso natural and common, probably nowhere nears as common as good behaviour butlet’s not forget, good and bad are relative terms.) and the conversefor bad behaviors (the evidence in the thread alone proves this statement to beridiculous). You consider violence bad, and therefore determine that it cannot benatural and common. (This is another assumption which implies to me that you have not readthe thread.) This reasoning is guiding your interpretations. Ultimately, theevolution of your belief about this topic is being severely retarded by factorsoutside of the science on the topic;(my personal experience is notoutside of the science of this topic, it may be for you, but it is not for me.Your apparent lack of understanding of the word ‘science’ is perhapsresponsible for the evolution of your beliefs regarding my beliefs, and is alsoultimately affecting your ability to take on board evidence from the threadthat disconfirm your opinions regarding my opinions) you are being heldback by fallacious logic, and that’s it. I strongly suggest reconsidering theclaim that I pointed out as the Moralistic Fallacy. It is not logical. It isnaïve.
    As you know by now I did address this,and explained that the words used in it have a specific meaning (applied by me)that does not conform with every definition of the word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    It seems apparent that you area well educated person. I do get the strong impression that you are trying toshow off your intelligence by criticizing certain comments made by me. I thinkthat you have failed to take the context of those comments into account andhave failed to properly observe those comments for what they are.
    Bearing in mind your completeignorance of the rest of this thread, I find your strategy of focusing in onirrelevant comments to be quite insulting and far from constructive to thethread.
    The fact that you misrepresentedsome of those comments does nothing to endear me to you or your opinions, or tomake me want to engage in further conversation with you. I think for you thisis more of a case of trying to step in and show how smart you are, the use ofquite pretentious language and the inability to string those words together intoa sensible and coherent sentence in some instances undermines your attempts tocome across as highly intelligent.
    As for your suggestion that Ishould respond based on careful introspection... how does that work? You have criticizeda redundant comment and twisted my meaning on another comment, the response tothat has nothing to do with introspection and I cannot apply introspection tomy response to those comments, it simply isn’t a cause for introspection. Myresponse hopefully is borne from careful inspection of your comments ratherthan careful introspection. I find it very difficult to use your criticism asthe basis for introspection as your criticisms are relating to comments thatyou really shouldn’t have touched upon, your criticism revolves around acomment that I am more than happy to admit is false, other criticism is basedon your own misinterpretation of my words... I find it very difficult toformulate a response which is borne from careful introspection in thisinstance.
    However,if it is introspection you want... here goes.

    (5)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    My opinions and notions that Ihold and have displayed are honest attempts at drawing conclusions from thetotal of my knowledge, most of my knowledge is drawn from personal experience,primary data, rather than others peoples experiences and books and reports,secondary data, though I do often seek secondary data to aid me if I seek tounderstand something better.
    One of my opinions is that I shouldn’thave opinions and shouldn’t express opinions as there is so much that I do notknow about reality. Therefore it seems that since I don’t know the ultimatereality it is very difficult to draw conclusions regarding smaller details ofreality... I do attempt to reserve my opinions and I think it is evident in themajority of this thread that I was trying to be relatively impartial orobjective about the issue. Most opinions I have expressed are responses toopinions and claims of others. In the end it becomes pointless being on a chatforum if you will not express an opinion.
    I felt that many people had missedthe point of the thread. I think that was my fault for not being able toarticulate the questions in the OP more effectively... I did however try toamend the questions as the discussion evolved and I found people were fixatingon the fact that violence is a part of our nature... I commented that Iunderstand this to be true and attempted to explain that violence as defined inthe dictionary is a part of our makeup but this isn’t what I wish to discuss. Iwished to discuss a certain type of violence, not any old violence but acertain type of violation of others which I personally due to my experiences,find unnecessary. I attempted to define that form of violence, and perhaps Idid not do a great job. Perhaps by the time I had redefined the question I wastrying to ask, it was too late in the thread. Either way whether I said so ornot, I think I acknowledged evidences explanations of violence being a part ofour ‘nature’, repeatedly.
    I think you have failed tounderstand my questions, you have certainly failed to answer within that postand have instead focused on trying to correct what you perceived as my biased opinion.
    Complete evidence has not beenpresented in this thread to prove or disprove my opinion... yet I have learntfrom many of the posts.
    I think the nature of ourlanguage is that sentences, even words are ambiguous and if people want toargue, they will always find a way, no matter what you say.
    I find your post to be amongstthe least constructive, though hopefully you were attempting to beconstructive... I just think you have missed the point and taken my words inthe OP too literally and failed to recognise attempts I made at clarifying myposition.
    I was far from impressed byyour comment and believe introspection on your part would an arrogant, boastfulstreak. Your exhibition of psychological terminology, though impressive initself, was not necessary as many of the criticisms were not relevant in lightof my other and far more recent comments that, show your criticisms to beunfair, unreasonable and lacking in understanding. Your failure at times tostring pretentious words into a coherent sentence undermines your attempts toseem highly intelligent.
    As you were expectingfollowing your rude comments, I was very tempted to react in a negative way...I have done my best to tone down my reaction due to the intellectual nature ofthis website.
    You’re plea for introspection was met with sheerdisbelief. I fail to see how quoting a comment way back in the thread where Iclearly expressed an opinion to an individual in response to their comment, isconstructive. If you wanted to politely point out an unprofessional streak inmy writing then I would have found this much easier to work with. Yet you werenot polite and your plea for a non reactionary reaction is further insight intoyour insidious thinking patterns.
    I later explained my reasonfor making this bias comment, other comments I have made clearly contradictthis comment so taking as a whole there is no justification to make the claimsyou make based on this one comment.
    You make false claims based onmy comment regarding the tribe in South America, this fact leads me to believe yournot interested in teaching me the error of my ways and helping me understand myfailings, your interested in trying to show off.
    Though you have tried to seemreasonable and fair, I find this to be disguising insidious attempts toundermine me and the concept of people truly wanting peace instead of violencefrom the leaders of our societies.
    I am genuinely disappointed byyour post, and your apparent motives for posting. It is either that you are notnearly as clever as you like to think, or you are a quite insidious,manipulative, deceitful and hypocritical specimen.
    One positive from your postand the introspection that followed is that I realise I need to re-evaluate theeffectiveness of the question I have asked. Having taken on board the answerspeople gave to my original question, I have realized the flaws of the question inregard to getting the opinions out of people that I’m interested in hearing.
    I do hope this displayssatisfactory levels in introspection for you, as well as thoughtful considerationof your comments...

    (6)

    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I have reworded my questionand hopefully now it is less ridiculous than my original question ‘is violencehuman nature’ and better suited to get the answers and opinions that I amlooking for... what am I looking for? Am I phrasing my question in order totailor the answers/responses? No, I am interested in what others think...
    Subjective opinions are verywelcome by me in this thread... as well as any data you wish to present to backup your opinion.
    EDIT:

    · Is it acceptable for anybody ororganization to be allowed to encourage and develop the innate Human ability todestroy other organisms, to enable that body or organization to attack othermembers of the Human family without ample cause?


    · If so, is it acceptable to usedeception in order to recruit Humans for this agenda?

    *ample cause = Selfdefense from unprovoked attack
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I apologise for the lack of spaces between some of the words... Something to do with pasting this into the quick reply box. I had to edit my response also but hopefully the essense of my response is still intact.

    The edit below I think is really the question I wanted to ask in the first place... hearing all your comments and arguing with you all helped me to find the necesary words to phares the question that I intended all along.

    Though the previous discusions regarding our natural capabilities and evolution have been enlightening.

    Many thanks to all who have contributed with reasoned comments (pretty much all of you I suspect)

    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    fine
    Last edited by icewendigo; August 31st, 2012 at 11:47 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    "Is violence natural behaviour for a Human Being?"
    Is it natural for a ball to fall? Is it Ballish Nature to fall? Im looking at a ball on the ground, apparently its natural for a ball to fall, why isnt it falling if its in its nature?
    But someone else says its not in its nature, but Im looking at a ball I just threw in the air, and its falling, how can it do that if its not in its nature?
    What? A Context?
    You mean to tell me that if I put a ball on the ground, its not the same as if I throw it up in the sky?
    I think you would do well to read the last couple of posts to see where the debate is at before you join in. We have well and truely moved beyond the original question which you quoted... lets not regress.

    As for your question...I would say the ball is inanimate... it's nature if it has one, is the nature of the physical universe, it is the nature of gravity of friction. In itself it has no nature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Violence
    By leohopkins in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 11th, 2009, 01:05 PM
  2. Human behaviour it's all in nature
    By jacketate in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: March 28th, 2008, 03:38 AM
  3. Human societies acting against "natural selection"
    By Burger in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: December 18th, 2007, 06:36 PM
  4. OMLL helps uncover ancient human behaviour
    By scpg02 in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 1st, 2007, 12:11 AM
  5. Human behaviour on the eve of extinction.
    By Skraken in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2006, 03:47 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •