- Mar 17, 2015
- 17,340
- 9,285
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
ah, so what you need to do is read high quality history of ancient times, then.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you have any evidence to support this idea, because it really begins to seem to me that you're parroting pulp-era science-fiction.
About whether humanity can easily descend back into widespread war? Yep. Sure am. I'm also very optimistic though. We have the powerful ideal of the "Rule of Law", and some partial (incomplete) application of it even in our "UN" organization, at least to the level of rhetoric, even when the rhetoric is hypocritical. That's significant also. Even hypocritically appealing to the ideal of the "Rule of Law", even while betraying it at times, even just that appeal, is a hopeful sign that more progress is possible. Not a given. Just possible.
Civilization itself, that is the largely peaceful activities we have, like medicine, science, engineering, law, etc. -- their predominance relies actually on the proportion of the population that is trying to often do (even just often and not always), the rule Christ gave --
"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you."
To the extent more of humanity is trying/attempting to do what He said to do, to that extent, only, and not more, we have real hope for humanity and peace and civilization continuing without collapsing. Just to that extent, exactly.
ah, so what you need to do is read high quality history of ancient times, then.
I'm talking about how your a pessimist in your view that the only way that early Homo Sapiens could have spread in to Europe outside of Africa is by violence which is also a fallacious view since you're using recent history to try and explain ancient history.
No, I'd like to use historical sense. Slavery only works in civilizations which have the concept of barter and trade and also live in a stable and singular location. Hunter-gatherers and nomadic hunters would have no need or desire to take slave since it would be more mouths to feed and would be a waste of resources.
ah, we agree yet again. That would indeed be a fallacious view! Totally correct. It is not nor ever was my own view. Like anyone, I had ideas (hundreds, or even thousands over a lifetime) that weren't good enough and got replaced, but I don't remember ever thinking we spread only by war alone.
Wonder what made you ascribe that silly viewpoint to me? You should investigate that.
If you find yourself in constant arguments, you should investigate why.
An interesting hypothesis. I don't think it will survive you doing some reading.
Your comments made me ascribe that viewpoint since all you have been focusing on is the claim that Homo Sapiens were violent towards the Neanderthals and you have since expanded that claim to try and justify it by saying that humans are inherently violent.
Sorry, but you didn't read me saying in various ways in many posts that other causes of deaths surely happened also?
About humans being inherently violent -- that's the issue we are contending on I think.
Point out correctly all sorts of causes of Neanderthal deaths....and it's only normal life on Earth. The question is whether our own ancestors were the key factor in the extinction of the Neanderthals.
It's a great question. To me, it's an open question.
Open and undecided. I know I don't know for sure.
Do you know you don't know for sure?
Prove me wrong then.
It's plausible (but likely wrong) to hypothesize that slavery only happens with settled agriculture.
I already know that's got exceptions. Just known fact.
Native Americans that were nomadic hunters took young women by force into their tribes from other tribes.
Historical fact. Read and find out if you like. It's all up to you what you choose to learn.
I want to learn things I don't already know.
I never said anything about slavery solely happens with settled agriculture. I said that it only happens when there's an abundance of resources to subsist the slaves and their masters on. If there's only enough resources to support one group, there's no need for them to take slaves.
And, again, prove me wrong. And I mean it. Native American slavery is not as blase and simple as you describe it.
It's not blase to me at least. I have some Native American ancestry (not a lot but some), and my great Aunt used to tell me stories about our tribes and their experiences. She was a well known painter of Native Americans. I can simply tell you I'm not blase about any of the hard, cruel, brutal facts of history. Rather, I'm aware of them pretty extensively, so that I refer to them briefly, expecting others to know at least some of that, but perhaps I should not expect others to know about the extensive crimes against Native Americans, and extensive violence between, against, and from Native Americans. How would you know, after all? I guess you would not know, now. I hadn't considered that. No, I'm not blase.
I'm not talking about crime, I'm talking about the fact that you are using an incredibly fallacious line of logic by going "Oh, these groups did it in the past, so our ancestors must have done it too" and you are doing so without providing any evidence to support your claim that Homo Sapiens enslaved Neanderthals.
Ok. Have a good day. I hope you enjoy your investigations.
So you aren't going to try and prove your claim right then? Good to know.
:=) Actually, even if you find it hard to believe, I try to learn every day really new stuff I don't already know! So, believe it or not, I'll be looking to read anthropological (and other science articles) about things I don't know. And I do that pretty much every day, for decades now. I know it's unusual. I'm not your usual opponent who wants to only reconfirm stuff he already knows. Just the opposite. I'll be especially interested to find new stuff showing limitations of Neanderthals, and in fact any article, especially a more scientific one, on Neanderthals. I'll be looking to get more about your views, too. REally. :=) Can you see why it's very relaxed and enjoyable to me. I'm not actually arguing with you. I've got nothing at stake. I just have a lot of real curiosity.
What totally new things will you learn today? Stuff that is unlike your own favored hypotheses?
A simple 'yes', 'no' or 'I'm going to find some evidence' could have easily sufficed.
Hey if you feel the discussion isn't friendly, then take a break, maybe get outside or do something enjoyable. I consider the discussion friendly.
I get that from watching nature programs on TV. Also from observing the stray cats and how they form a pecking order to where the strongest cats get the best food and the weak cats get the left over food that the others do not want. The weak get weaker and the strong get stronger.Not sure how you concluded that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?