|
|
Post by truecristian on May 28, 2021 13:14:42 GMT
We live in a time when violence is offered up as the panacea. The bullet seems to be the final instrument of political discourse. Men die violently, we bury them, we mourn for them and we seek retribution. It's a deadly pattern... a quote from Genesis, 'Behold the dreamer. Come now therefore and let us slay him and we shall see what has become of his dream.' We cannot murder the tyranny by murdering the tyrant and we cannot murder the dream by murdering the dreamer. And if we justify the taking...
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on May 29, 2021 9:33:07 GMT
For the majority of humans the world is safer than at any time in history.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 30, 2021 1:48:53 GMT
You mean in America?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 30, 2021 12:03:29 GMT
For the majority of humans the world is safer than at any time in history. Except that there are 7000 nukes pointed at us. Yeah but we have nukes pointed at those people as well. In terms of global warfare and demolishing nations, the US is actually a far bigger threat than any other country.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 30, 2021 12:05:56 GMT
Uh no, violence and crime has gone down considerably, if you're really interested in the subject (you're probably not) I would suggest reading "Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steve Pinker.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on May 30, 2021 15:39:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by truecristian on Jun 1, 2021 11:52:50 GMT
respectful of other members at all times All posts should be professional and courteous. You have every right to disagree with your fellow community members and explain your perspective. However, you are not free to attack, degrade, insult, or otherwise belittle them or the quality of this community. It does not matter what title or power you hold in these forums, you are expected to obey this rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 1, 2021 21:42:28 GMT
respectful of other members at all times All posts should be professional and courteous. You have every right to disagree with your fellow community members and explain your perspective. However, you are not free to attack, degrade, insult, or otherwise belittle them or the quality of this community. It does not matter what title or power you hold in these forums, you are expected to obey this rule. It would also be professional respectful and courteous to answer a polite question in a thread if you are the OP. You have not done this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Jun 2, 2021 12:49:23 GMT
Public discourse often results in shouts, insults plus a few threats of violence which, in most cases, never actually occurs.  |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jun 4, 2021 6:03:51 GMT
Knowing someone is an American doesn't tell you how safe where they are living is.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 4, 2021 6:21:44 GMT
Knowing someone is an American doesn't tell you how safe where they are living is. I didn't ask that. I asked a more general question which the OP saw fit to ignore. I wanted to know the level of his generalisation about violence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Jun 4, 2021 11:28:35 GMT
Knowing someone is an American doesn't tell you how safe where they are living is. I didn't ask that. I asked a more general question which the OP saw fit to ignore. I wanted to know the level of his generalisation about violence. The OP tends to strike me as someone who is not entirely serious. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 29, 2021 6:37:18 GMT
For the majority of humans the world is safer than at any time in history. This is true in cultures for which we have written record, primarily European, but also Middle Eastern and Chinese probably. The world is less violent now than at any time in history. Humans are self-domesticating.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jun 29, 2021 13:01:21 GMT
No surprise. Humans have been hard-wired for violence as part of a basic survival mechanism. What became new under the sun with this was the evolution of individuals into tribalism into clans, into nations and nationalism--giving rise to armies where it became increasingly necessary (as nations veered from the military as a purely defensive into an offensive force primed for conquest) to train men to kill other human beings who had not actually harmed them in any fashion. It's readily predictable that centuries of this sort of reconditioning of inherent proscriptions against random violence and murder ended up leaching into society and the culture at large, leading into a general mindset of violence as being a primary tool for dealing with any type of conflict situation--be the conflict physical, ideological, political, cultural, or what-have-you.
|
|
|
|
Post by theauxphou on Jul 12, 2021 9:43:14 GMT
Yeah, except we don’t.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jul 12, 2021 20:24:42 GMT
No surprise. Humans have been hard-wired for violence as part of a basic survival mechanism. What became new under the sun with this was the evolution of individuals into tribalism into clans, into nations and nationalism--giving rise to armies where it became increasingly necessary (as nations veered from the military as a purely defensive into an offensive force primed for conquest) to train men to kill other human beings who had not actually harmed them in any fashion. It's readily predictable that centuries of this sort of reconditioning of inherent proscriptions against random violence and murder ended up leaching into society and the culture at large, leading into a general mindset of violence as being a primary tool for dealing with any type of conflict situation--be the conflict physical, ideological, political, cultural, or what-have-you. If you actually look up at studies done, you will fine that the world is less violence now. Than what it was in the best Go back 50, 100, 200 and so on years and you will fine a world that is far more violence and dangerous than what it is today.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 13, 2021 14:11:52 GMT
No surprise. Humans have been hard-wired for violence as part of a basic survival mechanism. What became new under the sun with this was the evolution of individuals into tribalism into clans, into nations and nationalism--giving rise to armies where it became increasingly necessary (as nations veered from the military as a purely defensive into an offensive force primed for conquest) to train men to kill other human beings who had not actually harmed them in any fashion. It's readily predictable that centuries of this sort of reconditioning of inherent proscriptions against random violence and murder ended up leaching into society and the culture at large, leading into a general mindset of violence as being a primary tool for dealing with any type of conflict situation--be the conflict physical, ideological, political, cultural, or what-have-you. The key word here is survival. Humans will choose non-violent solutions if they are presented and the "tribe" is educated enough to understand the advantages of non-violence. Exactly--which is why the military, throughout history, but seemingly even more especially now, has had to work rigorously to break down the proscriptions the average human being has against committing violence and murder against others who have done him no actual physical harm. And I fully believe that in highly militarized societies (and ours is one, make no mistake) this sort of acculturation to violence seeps out into the society and helps to foster a climate where brute force as the solution to problems becomes increasingly rational and even desirable to people who might otherwise reject it, if they had not been brought up in an atmosphere where it's accepted and even celebrated through glorification of war and militarism under the guise of 'patriotism'.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 13, 2021 14:29:52 GMT
No surprise. Humans have been hard-wired for violence as part of a basic survival mechanism. What became new under the sun with this was the evolution of individuals into tribalism into clans, into nations and nationalism--giving rise to armies where it became increasingly necessary (as nations veered from the military as a purely defensive into an offensive force primed for conquest) to train men to kill other human beings who had not actually harmed them in any fashion. It's readily predictable that centuries of this sort of reconditioning of inherent proscriptions against random violence and murder ended up leaching into society and the culture at large, leading into a general mindset of violence as being a primary tool for dealing with any type of conflict situation--be the conflict physical, ideological, political, cultural, or what-have-you. If you actually look up at studies done, you will fine that the world is less violence now. Than what it was in the best Go back 50, 100, 200 and so on years and you will fine a world that is far more violence and dangerous than what it is today. Looking at the number of gun deaths daily in the US alone makes me seriously question that. I was alive in the US fifty years ago, and I know for a fact that it was neither as violent or dangerous a place as it is today. Even in the face of simple perception bias, you would have a difficult time proving to me it was less safe. As to the climate regarding violence of centuries ago, you're speaking of a literally different world, with very different cultural ideas regarding violence, so that doesn't make for a terrifically pertinent yardstick to measure the present era against.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jul 13, 2021 16:02:21 GMT
I daresay the OP is attempting to compare conservative Evangelicals as being murdered like Joseph son of Jacob was by his brothers...only they didn't murder him, but sold him into slavery where, according to the Bible, he became the vizier to the pharaoh using his dream reading abilities. Of course, the only place this is recorded in "history" is a story written by a backwater Canaanite tribe whose king managed to get rich and wanted their own heroes of the past to be proud of. The story of Joseph is arguably the most bizarre story of History. Well, the story of the twelve tribes gives the impression that the twelve tribes were twelve different groups of people suffering in Egypt. Even more bizarre is how Joseph is such a hero, yet Judah is the super duper magical lineage. The reasons for dismissing Reuben, Simeon, and Levi look pretty contrived, especially considering how Levi is such a privileged class. The descriptions of the twelve tribes could give indications as to their status in Egypt. One would expect the oldest, Reuben, to be more royal than the others, or more Egyptian. Simeon is described so violently that one wonders if he was in a soldier class. Levi could be the priests and scribes. What was the tribe of Judah before leaving Egypt? It would seem that only the younger sons were really in a slave class, but Joseph was a younger son and yet a noble, so that's bizarre. If the tribes were formed by different classes, why does Joseph so protective of Benjamin? What of those six "nobody cares about us" tribes of Asher, Dan, Napthali, Gad, Isaachar, and Zebulon? Seems they went out of bondage into more bondage. It's no surprise that any recording of Joseph's success would be erased, however, since we know there was an upheaval of his importance. Logically, any favorable mention of Joseph would be utterly destroyed by whomever usurped the position of his lineage. The fact that his sons become "half tribes" hint at their being placed in minor positions. That's not uncommon. Those jealous of Joseph would certainly be intent on diminishing his sons.
|
|
