Muslims

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Blackheart
It's all the womens fault :P

They dig the uniforms.

Don't blame us. It's just our instincts.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Ants, and chimps don't actually engage in war, so much as they engage in violence to secure resources. The definition is fuzzy, but does nothing to dull his point.

Actually that is incorrect - it has been observed AND recorded that various primates, I believe mostly chimpanzees - wage war on other groups. They organize and actually wage war - either for food, for a female, or various other reasons - but it has been obversed that they do it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Ants, and chimps don't actually engage in war, so much as they engage in violence to secure resources. The definition is fuzzy, but does nothing to dull his point.

whats the difference between that and war exactly?

It must be because he's only quasi evil...

well what can I say its all in my genes...

[Blackheart]

Rex- "why would that be a genetic thing? It would serve no genetic purpose to just kill for the heck of it. It would never survive as a successful trait. It would be much too much of a danger and you would gain nothing from it. So genetically it would be pointless. BUT if killing another person allows you to better yourself and thus makes it more likely to pass on your genes then this becomes a logical evolutionary step. Don’t you agree? "

Again, you should take a look at those studies showing the preference of human females for "warriors" across cultural boundries, and re-evaluate this... It's not genetically pointless for humans at all....

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Artanis
Don't blame us. It's just our instincts.

Wanna see my uniform that I got in the goblin wars? It's all black leather and silver, and I have silver studs on this sleeve for all the orcs I slew...

Am I not studly madam?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Again, you should take a look at those studies showing the preference of human females for "warriors" across cultural boundries, and re-evaluate this... It's not genetically pointless for humans at all....

well JUST killing for NO purpose whatsoever as Jersey stated (Im assuming that means no genetic purpose even an unconcious one to the animal) would by definition be impossible in an evolutionary sense. wouldnt it? But of course there are reasons to kill that may not be direct immediate benefit ones so sure it can manifest itself in a species. theres even reasons to kill babies as Rian knows full well now. Even the most dispicable behavior (by our "moral" measure) can be explained away for genetic reasons (remember the good and evil thread?). But wanting warriors to mate with and wanting psychotic heartless killers I think are two different things. who wants to idolize a Jeffrey Dalmer. hey wait a minute....

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Wanna see my uniform that I got in the goblin wars? It's all black leather and silver, and I have silver studs on this sleeve for all the orcs I slew...

Am I not studly madam?

dont listen to him Artanis. Watch, Ill slit his throat to prove how macho I am. doesnt that turn you on?

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Actually that is incorrect - it has been observed AND recorded that various primates, I believe mostly chimpanzees - wage war on other groups. They organize and actually wage war - either for food, for a female, or various other reasons - but it has been obversed that they do it.

War is rather above tribal conflict... Even tribal humans have difficulty sustaining war as opposed to raiding.

It's a level of difference and intent. Raiding and other forms of conflict are aimed primarily at securing resources.

War is primarily aimed at eliminating competition period... whether through wholesale slaughter or absorbing the remnants into your own power structure.

Of any of the other animals, only slaver ants and PERHAPS the chimps apprach this, but not to the level that I would qualify it as war.

A bunch of anthropologists were only to happy to label chimp aggression/conflict as war, because it furthered their aims of pointing out how similar chimps were to humans, without regard for semantics. Stupid anthropolgists...

[Blackheart]

"But wanting warriors to mate with and wanting psychotic heartless killers I think are two different things. who wants to idolize a Jeffrey Dalmer. hey wait a minute...."

Mmmhmm. Don't step on the landmines while you are at it.

What's the main difference between a warrior and a heartless psychotic killer?

One does his business during war to other warriors, the other during peacetime to innocents.

Apparantly for some people, the distinction does get blurred. Maybe genetic drift?

Or just discussion drift...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
oh dear no. our brain IS a product of our genes. By definition. We exhibit complex yet still predictable behavior patterns because of genetic input filtered through said brain. Genes do NOT just control unconscious things like breathing and heart beat and hunger urges and reproduction urges. Genes set the boundries. And we take it from there. Organized conflict is well within the bounds of aggressive innate behavior that can be traced to our genetic make up as humans.

Actually - our conscious mind sets the boundaries. - Yes there can be a genetic disorder where the higher level brain can not tell the difference between right and wrong. They have been studying that. But it is our conscious mind that ultimately decides for the majority of us what we wish to do - whether it is wrong or right.

Never allow yourself to forget that everything we do as humans is either directly or indirectly tied to a genetic root. Just because we wear pants and make art and read the wall street journal doesn’t mean we are any different then those other creatures that don’t “think”. Its easy to assume we are above this especially if you are a religious person but since you aren’t I would assume it’s a little easier for you to keep focus of our non specialness as a species. We are naked apes and we act accordingly. War (or organized conflict) is normal behavior in many primates im afraid.

I'm not saying that there is no link with genetics - I'm saying we are not genetically programmed to just kill our fellow man. We are genetically programmed to do other things - but the violence and conflict is just a means to an end. Blackheart said we were genetically programmed toward violence and conflict THIS I disagree with.

[b]
why would that be a genetic thing? It would serve no genetic purpose to just kill for the heck of it. It would never survive as a successful trait. It would be much too much of a danger and you would gain nothing from it. So genetically it would be pointless. BUT if killing another person allows you to better yourself and thus makes it more likely to pass on your genes then this becomes a logical evolutionary step. Don’t you agree?
[b]

As I said repeatedly - but you seem to ignore - the conflict and violence is a MEANS TO AN END. It is not genetic to be violent - it is genetic to need and want things. The violence manifests itself to obtain these things.

If the net benefit is high then youll see it in nature. Also: keep in mind here that war is not JUST killing people. It’s a complex chain of behaviors. Its aggression both false and real (bluff aggression and actual violence). Then if that doesn’t work its pack behavior and hierarchy behavior (read army command structure) which helps us justify doing things like torture and killing which are hard to justify to ourselves on our own. In a group setting where there is peer pressure and peer identity its easier. There is also the flight or fight instinct you spoke of. And this is usually the final step. adrenoline builds and we see our only choice is to attack or run. Some run but many attack and the end result: killing. Package this all up and its called WAR

Do you read anything I say? I said that it was a means to an end. Wars always have some purpose for one side or the other. Hitler wanted to basically take over the world, Osama bin Ladin wants to basically make Islam the religion of the world, America wanted freedom from England, etc....

* singing *
what is it GOOD for. Absolutely nothing… good god!

I disagree - if we stood up to Hitler before he became so powerful we could have prevented the deaths of millions and millions of people - but instead the world wanted to take the "peaceful" way out and ended up being forced to fight an even BIGGER war. Sometimes small wars are required to make sure major conflict doesn't break out.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Blackheart
"But wanting warriors to mate with and wanting psychotic heartless killers I think are two different things. who wants to idolize a Jeffrey Dalmer. hey wait a minute...."

Mmmhmm. Don't step on the landmines while you are at it.

What's the main difference between a warrior and a heartless psychotic killer?

One does his business during war to other warriors, the other during peacetime to innocents.

Apparantly for some people, the distinction does get blurred. Maybe genetic drift?

Or just discussion drift...

It's interesting how your posts seem to try to indicate that you are not of the human race and that you are above all this. :rolleys:

There is a difference between a warrior during wartime and a psychotic killer. The psychodic killer doesn't get nightmares years later for killing. I've never met a warrior who actually enjoyed killing someone - and I'm not denying that there aren't people out there. But I find your statement offensive.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
....I disagree - if we stood up to Hitler before he became so powerful we could have prevented the deaths of millions and millions of people - but instead the world wanted to take the "peaceful" way out and ended up being forced to fight an even BIGGER war. Sometimes small wars are required to make sure major conflict doesn't break out.

yes, and sacrificing innocent people (men, women and children) for that peace. How nice of them.

[Blackheart]

"I disagree - if we stood up to Hitler before he became so powerful we could have prevented the deaths of millions and millions of people - but instead the world wanted to take the "peaceful" way out and ended up being forced to fight an even BIGGER war. Sometimes small wars are required to make sure major conflict doesn't break out."

And thus we come back to the concept of "limited-scale" conflict.

And what, pray tell, is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, if it isn't a "limited-scale conflict?"

You're making me dizzy going in circles...

I'm going to have to take a break for a while and watch cartoons, the only other redeeming quality about humans aside from literature...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Actually - our conscious mind sets the boundaries. - Yes there can be a genetic disorder where the higher level brain can not tell the difference between right and wrong. They have been studying that. But it is our conscious mind that ultimately decides for the majority of us what we wish to do - whether it is wrong or right.

I'm not saying that there is no link with genetics - I'm saying we are not genetically programmed to just kill our fellow man.

Our "conscious mind" is fixed rigidly in the borders provided to us by our genes. If killing was not an option genetically, we would never come up with the idea.

The violence manifests itself to obtain these things.

manifests itself? What do you mean by that exactly?

The violence you speak of has a direct GENETIC SOURCE which is my repeated point. It doesn’t just come out of a vacume or doesn’t occur to us just by thinking really hard. It’s a knee jerk hard wired response. Attack. Hurt. Kill if necessary.

I disagree - if we stood up to Hitler before he became so powerful we could have prevented the deaths of millions and millions of people - but instead the world wanted to take the "peaceful" way out and ended up being forced to fight an even BIGGER war. Sometimes small wars are required to make sure major conflict doesn't break out.

.

Well take it up with Edwin Starr. I just like the song.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Blackheart
...What's the main difference between a warrior and a heartless psychotic killer?

One does his business during war to other warriors, the other during peacetime to innocents.

I would venture to guess that you are not and have not been a soldier in a time of war that participated in battle. I'm sure that they would not agree with you on this. A soldier fights on the battle field to defend his/her country, not take pleasure in the murder of his/her victim. There is a big difference. And to say there is no difference is an insult.

In fact, there has been studies done on serial killers, which you might want to look up and read. Some of it suggests that they have a mental defect, while a few suggest a genetic defect.

[Blackheart]

"It's interesting how your posts seem to try to indicate that you are not of the human race and that you are above all this. :rolleys:"

Yes isn't it interesting


"There is a difference between a warrior during wartime and a psychotic killer."

I beleive I pointed out what the main difference is. One is sanctioned, the other is not. The other differences are of less importance when talking about the gentic implications, or did you lose track of the point?

"The psychodic killer doesn't get nightmares years later for killing."

Want to bet on it? Sociopathic behavior does come with a price. But that's not germane to the discussion either.

"I've never met a warrior who actually enjoyed killing someone - and I'm not denying that there aren't people out there. But I find your statement offensive."

I have met several. And I understand why they felt that way. The reaction is so intense that one cannot remain indifferent. Some loathe it, some love it. You may find my statement offensive, but it's based on my experience, and as such, I make no apology.

Furthermore, you are keeping me from my cartoons.

[Blackheart]

"I would venture to guess that you are not and have not been a soldier in a time of war that participated in battle."

Unfortunatley you are incorrect

"I'm sure that they would not agree with you on this. A soldier fights on the battle field to defend his/her country, not take pleasure in the murder of his/her victim."

Soldiers fight for a lot of different reasons Ruinel. Most often it's because someone is shooting at them.

If you get good enough at it, you begin to take a pervese pride in it. It's only a short step from there to pleasure.

No it is not a popular topic, nor is it openly talked about. Maybe if it was there wouldn't be so many people having a bad time when they come back to the "world".

"There is a big difference. And to say there is no difference is an insult."

Insult? Pffft. What the **** would you know? One of the best complements my Platoon Seargeant gave me was that I was a psycho killer. What the hell wou... never mind. It's not a fit topic for discussion here. Probably not anywhere but in a group setting either...

Not to mention that the discussion in question was in regards to the genetic predisposition of women to choose a particular type of mate and the possibility that unconciously the traits are not easy to discern. But no, you want to focus on the ugly reality. I'll be happy to point it out, but it's not a fit place.

"In fact, there has been studies done on serial killers, which you might want to look up and read. Some of it suggests that they have a mental defect, while a few suggest a genetic defect."

One would indeed assume that the inablity to discern war from peace might be a mental defect. That is unsurprising. I'm also well aware of the literature, since it was in my field of study for a number of years.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Blackheart
And thus we come back to the concept of "limited-scale" conflict.

And what, pray tell, is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, if it isn't a "limited-scale conflict?"

Tell the Palestinians and Israelis that it's a small conflict. It's not small - it's what the muslims use as a rallying cry against the west. It is MAJOR conflict on a small scale. Israel and the palestinian terrorities are small - but the conflict is not. Small scale conlficts were the various wars waged between the US and the Soviet Union during the cold war in order to keep each side in check. Without those wars - Europe would be communist as would most of the rest of the world. The US didn't have to fight the Soviet Union - it coudl have sat back - but what would the world look like today? I don't think I would want to live in that world.

I'm going to have to take a break for a while and watch cartoons, the only other redeeming quality about humans aside from literature...

I think cartoons are more your speed anyway.

[Sister Golden Hair]

I think cartoons are more your speed anyway.

JD, come on, that is flame bait. No more please.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Blackheart
If you get good enough at it, you begin to take a pervese pride in it. It's only a short step from there to pleasure.

No it is not a popular topic, nor is it openly talked about. Maybe if it was there wouldn't be so many people having a bad time when they come back to the "world".

It is not a popular topic because it implies that anyone could become like that given the right (or maybe 'wrong' is a better word) circumstances.

Wanna see my uniform that I got in the goblin wars? It's all black leather and silver, and I have silver studs on this sleeve for all the orcs I slew...

Am I not studly madam?

Studly is the word. Watch out for IR. You're not going to let him attack first, are you.
*feels her war-mungering instincts take control*