Are Our Values Backward?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
etaco wrote:
Somehow for millions of years our species survived with the young seeing death, violence and sex (one room huts) not just on a frequent basis, but as a part of life. Now with society making this stuff outright taboo to the young I think it has a fetishizing effect for many. The effect these things have on kids have as much to do with the reaction of their parents and the kids’ socialization as it does with the material itself.

I don’t think violence was as prominent in the average daily life of a typical person in history as we may have been led to believe. History, I think, gives a biased view because conflict is always framed as the crank that turns epochs. Ideas, any and all of them, are much more important and play a larger role to society than war. History is human action in the past; human action is the culmination of ideas. Yes, wars have been fought over ideas but all products of humanity are also the result of ideas.

I think violence didn’t become really understood by regular non military society until mass warfare was brought about by mechanization. Before that battles were fought up close and personal and the average person didn’t take part except when they were invaded and or conquered. There is also a real difference between witnessing violence first hand and being desensitized by it through repetitious fake murder.

I think violence is detrimental to the natural progression of ideas which is the essence of humanity. Without ideas we are just monkeys.[/quote]

Wars have typically been tangential the average person’s life-- frequently there but not a daily sight up close for most-- but the relative peace that has come from relatively pervasive rule of law is a very new phenomenon. For nearly all of human existence, crimes, “wrongs” and personal slights within a community were dealt with in up close and personal ways. Moreover people of all ages saw death up close on a frequent basis, with larger families having drastically higher mortality rates and even small children needing to kill dinner with their bare hands on a routine basis.

You may assert that violence is a detriment to progress, but violence, and in more general terms aggression, has always been a critical driver to the advancement of humanity. You may argue that scrubbing all violence and expressions of violent instincts from society will help it ‘advance’, but this is a radical proposition that’s wholly lacking in evidence to suggest its efficacy. I would argue that such an effort to extinguish these instincts would be just as likely, if successful, to retard human advancement. Don’t mistake what I’m saying; actual violence is typically a detriment, but our violent and aggressive instincts do drive us to useful ends as often as to destruction.

If kids are going crazy with video games and movies that go beyond the pale in terms of violence, I’d suggest that it may be their lack of familiarity with the real thing and their general sheltering underlying it. Without question though, the violence is in our DNA. Do we encourage people to do the equivalent of jerking off by playing video games, go out and do the real thing with either war or street fighting, or try to snuff out all thoughts and urges, successful as that would be?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Wow. The peanut gallery has spoken. I rest my case.

You ARE the peanut gallery. I certainly hope you rest, and try not to embarrass yourself further.

I am waiting for an intelligible argument from you that doesn’t just involve ad hominems – not to say I don’t enjoy the attention from you. Please just do it once. Tell me why VIOLENCE IS NATURAL…[/quote]

Because we have to kill things to eat them, same as every other animal on the planet.

[quote]tg2hbk4488 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
tg2hbk4488 wrote:
I love bein sheltered from sex…it makes every pair of tits I see that much sweeter. Why would I want to be desentistived to that?

Being desensitized to breasts is unpossible.

Sure it is. Europe is that way. Its on tv and in there newspapers. People could careless. They still find them attractive, but they arent like “DAMMMNNNN!!” or “Allright!” like I am. I perfer the latter[/quote]

All the good European breasts move to America.

[quote]orion wrote:
jawara wrote:
As a father I have a problem with this. I dont want my kids looking at porn because I think that it influances them to think that women are nothing but sex objects that they can bebase and then throw away.

I didnt have a problem with them watching to movie 300 because the love scene in that movie was just that, a LOVE scene not BangBus. Now as far as the violence of the film it was a little over the top but the message of the film was very important to me and somthing that I wanted to share with my son.

Excuse me, when as a male, have you ever felt like porn was reality?

It is a fantasy precisely because reality is different.

[/quote]

WE both know it isnt real but young kids are easy to INFLUANCE. Negatively.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Wow. The peanut gallery has spoken. I rest my case.

You ARE the peanut gallery. I certainly hope you rest, and try not to embarrass yourself further.

I am waiting for an intelligible argument from you that doesn’t just involve ad hominems – not to say I don’t enjoy the attention from you. Please just do it once. Tell me why VIOLENCE IS NATURAL.

Just to give to a jumping off point I will say everything that happens is in nature and therefore “natural”. Now please tell me why it is in our nature to be violent yet sex is not.

Sex is necessary for life. Violence is not.

(Don’t try feeding us any more BS about me forcing my kids to watch porn. That is an other logical fallacy called a strawman argument.)[/quote]

You call me a fucking idiot, and then proceed to admonish me about ad hominems? Fuck you, Wilber.

You wouldn’t know an intelligible argument if it slapped you in the face, and you have proven that countless times in this forum.

Please go back and provide the exact quote where I said sex is not natural. I don’t know exactly what logical fallacy it falls under - but I’m pretty sure making shit up is in there. How about we just call it what it is - a fucking lie.

Your definition of violence is horribly skewed. How about you define violence in absolute terms first?

[quote]flyboy51v wrote:
OP … do you not see the irony in pointing out that ideas are what separates us from monkeys … and then going on to say that we should approach sex more like animals?

Monkeys have no sexual inhibitions. At least none that I’ve ever observed. Monkeys would be fine with sex in public … sex with multiple partners … sex in front of the “kids” etc, etc. I’m pretty sure monkeys would love porn … all kinds.

Has it occurred to you that to truly leave monkey violence behind we’ll probably have to leave monkey sex behind as well …[/quote]

Sex is an animal act…thinking, reason and forming ideas are human acts. Humans have sexual inhibition because it is a learned behavior. Where did it come from and why is it necessary for our survival? I am thinking is a fairly recent event in the last millennium.

Killing meat is not violence. I am strictly speaking about interpersonal violence – otherwise known as aggression – or the initiation of force.

My proposition is that aggression is not a necessary act. There is never a need to aggress against an other human being. If no one ever raised there hand to an other person ever again there would never be any more violence.

My question is quite simple. Why is violence (aggression) a necessary function of human life?

Because not everything can be handled with words contrary to hippie pussy beliefs

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
My question is quite simple. Why is violence (aggression) a necessary function of human life?[/quote]

Limited resources.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I am waiting for an intelligible argument from you [/quote]

Good luck with that. Unless by ‘intelligible argument’ you mean raw aggression, insults and of course shouts of ‘LIAR’ and the endless requests for the ‘exact quote where I said…’ you are going to be waiting a long time.

[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
My question is quite simple. Why is violence (aggression) a necessary function of human life?

Limited resources.[/quote]

That is why we exchange and take advantage of the division of labor. Scarcity does not necessitate violence.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
My question is quite simple. Why is violence (aggression) a necessary function of human life?

Limited resources.

That is why we exchange and take advantage of the division of labor. Scarcity does not necessitate violence.[/quote]

It does all the time, everywhere in nature.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
My question is quite simple. Why is violence (aggression) a necessary function of human life?

Limited resources.

That is why we exchange and take advantage of the division of labor. Scarcity does not necessitate violence.

It does all the time, everywhere in nature.[/quote]

Humans can trade. Dumb animals cannot. Trade trumps war.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
My question is quite simple. Why is violence (aggression) a necessary function of human life?

Limited resources.

That is why we exchange and take advantage of the division of labor. Scarcity does not necessitate violence.

It does all the time, everywhere in nature.

Humans can trade. Dumb animals cannot. Trade trumps war.[/quote]

Only when there are things to trade.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Only when there are things to trade. [/quote]

Violence and destruction do not produce things; it destroys them. Theft doesn’t produce them either; it deprives the rightful owners of things.

Now we are getting down to morality which is where I was trying to steer the conversation.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
My question is quite simple. Why is violence (aggression) a necessary function of human life?

Limited resources.

That is why we exchange and take advantage of the division of labor. Scarcity does not necessitate violence.

It does all the time, everywhere in nature.

Humans can trade. Dumb animals cannot. Trade trumps war.[/quote]

Not if you have nothing of value to trade with, and you are hungry.

Not if party A is in possession of a strategic piece of land, and party B wants it more than party A does.

Please. You have been lecturing me for the last couple of days about my ability to construct a logical argument - and you post this kind of crap?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Only when there are things to trade.

Violence and destruction do not produce things; it destroys them. Theft doesn’t produce them either; it deprives the rightful owners of things.

Now we are getting down to morality which is where I was trying to steer the conversation.[/quote]

You are pretty slow on the uptake aren’t you?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:
OP … do you not see the irony in pointing out that ideas are what separates us from monkeys … and then going on to say that we should approach sex more like animals?

Monkeys have no sexual inhibitions. At least none that I’ve ever observed. Monkeys would be fine with sex in public … sex with multiple partners … sex in front of the “kids” etc, etc. I’m pretty sure monkeys would love porn … all kinds.

Has it occurred to you that to truly leave monkey violence behind we’ll probably have to leave monkey sex behind as well …

Sex is an animal act…thinking, reason and forming ideas are human acts. Humans have sexual inhibition because it is a learned behavior. Where did it come from and why is it necessary for our survival? I am thinking is a fairly recent event in the last millennium.[/quote]

Have you actually studied evolutionary psychology? From an evolutionary perspective, women have inhibitions because if they mate with a person who won’t serve as a caretaker and provider, she is in bad shape. She and the baby may die. Men have inhibitions because there if he screws a woman that is already taken by a big dangerous male, things might happen whereby evolution kicks in.

That’s what they taught ME in school.

As far as the whole social uptightness about sex, I think that’s human nature as well. Humans think too hard and overcomplicate things and confuse themselves.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Only when there are things to trade.

Violence and destruction do not produce things; it destroys them. Theft doesn’t produce them either; it deprives the rightful owners of things.

Now we are getting down to morality which is where I was trying to steer the conversation.

You are pretty slow on the uptake aren’t you?[/quote]

Cognitvs Minimvs

[quote]Gael wrote:
Have you actually studied evolutionary psychology? From an evolutionary perspective, women have inhibitions because if they mate with a person who won’t serve as a caretaker and provider, she is in bad shape. She and the baby may die. Men have inhibitions because there if he screws a woman that is already taken by a big dangerous male, things might happen whereby evolution kicks in.

[/quote]
There are two completely different concepts at work here. Inhibition is not a bad thing per se and not what this discussion was about. It was about values.

Evolutionary psychology cannot answer questions of values. It can only answer questions of mental states; and even still evolutionary psychology deals with how they evolved; is is biological or does it come from something external or both?

I have not studied evolutionary biology but I have all the discursive abilities to reason it – which is the only way one can study it.

[quote]
Humans think too hard and overcomplicate things and confuse themselves.[/quote]

Sometimes. Sometime they are complicated on their own and require reasoning to get to the meaning of it all.