The rule sets of combat

[dvcochran]

Yes that is a given. Robert Sapolski has some good lectures on line that explains how the wide range of nature vs nuture influences effect us and brings our behavior right down to the individual level. But he is a firm believer in the idea we have no free will.

The brain circuitry doesn't change. All that changed was how we perceived the individual. There are studies that were done where someone was given a sports team hat to wear and what was shown is that if the test subject was from a different city from the sports team they were more likely to put that person in a "them" catagory, but then the person said he was born in the same city as the test subject and wow all of the sudden that person becomes recognized as an "US".

The key word in you post is some. Some people, not most. We can all be put into some categories (black, white, Asian, etc...) but that is way too specific of an example to pool everyone under.

 

[dvcochran]

You need to do your homework. Lots of serfs in Roman times.

 

[jobo]

You need to do your homework. Lots of serfs in Roman times.

if your replying to mne I didn't say anything about serfs, rather slavery after the Romans had departed

after just spending 30 seconds checking your facts, its seem there were no( certainly not many) serfs in roman ttimes in the uk, it being a system that was developed after the fall of the roman empire, so most definitely not LOTS of them

perhap a source for your fact ?

 

[geezer]

It the 1700's Monarchy's were the norm and democracy was not even a thing. Public execution was a form of control. Slavery/serf/indentured servant was much more of the norm. Especially on your side of the pond. I would say mankind has come a long, long way.

I'm definitely getting confused here, so please straighten me out. DV, who's location is listed as the "Southeast" (US?) -which was a slave-based agrarian economy during the 17th-19th centuries, is saying to Jobo that slavery in the 1700s was more the norm on "your side of the pond" ?!?

Setting aside indentured servitude, serfs, share-croppers, and the horrible state of the working poor during the industrial revolution (on both sides of the "pond"), and just talking about slavery per se, I was under the impression that in the UK proper, slavery was illegal. Slavery was only allowed in the colonies of the empire. And furthermore, slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833, roughly three decades before we fought a horrendous war to abolish it here in the States.

Now to get back on topic, I'm with Jobo about the human species not having evolved in any positive direction over the centuries. Developed human societies have definitely evolved to become more egalitarian and "humane", at least during times of prosperity and peace. We haven't done so well during the World Wars, Stalinist purges, the Maoist "Cultural Revolution", Vietnam War, and the many other regional conflicts of the last century, though.

Let's see how we do in the coming century, especially if climate change and political upheavals put a real dent in our ability to feed our population and we have to contend with massive global migrations of starving masses of refugees. I'm guessing that our responses won't be anything to brag about or hold up as paradigms of evolved human behavior.

No. IMO Jobo has an unvarnished grasp of human nature.

 

[hoshin1600]

Let's see how we do in the coming century, especially if climate change and political upheavals put a real dent in our ability to feed our population and we have to contend with massive global migrations of starving masses of refugees. I'm guessing that our responses won't be anything to brag about or hold up as paradigms of evolved human behavior.

i think the big changes will come from ideology. always do

 

[geezer]

Well, regardless I'm generally a pretty optimistic guy. But still pessimistic enough to train self defense.

Yet optimistic in that I enjoy it!

 

[drop bear]

Yes that is a given. Robert Sapolski has some good lectures on line that explains how the wide range of nature vs nuture influences effect us and brings our behavior right down to the individual level. But he is a firm believer in the idea we have no free will.

The brain circuitry doesn't change. All that changed was how we perceived the individual. There are studies that were done where someone was given a sports team hat to wear and what was shown is that if the test subject was from a different city from the sports team they were more likely to put that person in a "them" catagory, but then the person said he was born in the same city as the test subject and wow all of the sudden that person becomes recognized as an "US".

Brain circuitry does change. The interesting thing about nature vs nurture is they effect each other.

Behavior effects brain circuitry/chemistry which effects behavior.

 

[drop bear]

I use to believe in rules, chair to the face solved that issue.

Although, I do believe in legalities. Check your state laws or at least Supreme Court rulings.

Rules sets are a great idea but, they are not in the realm of reality, when it comes to life. Legal issues, yes..rulesets, not so much.

For me if I can dominate a person under the restrictions of a rule set. I should have a better chance of winning when unrestricted.

 

[drop bear]

Where do rules come from? I would propose they are an expectation extended to society based on our own morality. Our morality is conditioned by our biology, behaviors that are chemical based in our systems many of which we share with other species. Monkeys understand "fairness" they get very angry if one monkey is given a bigger piece of banana then the others.
Interesting studies have been done and it has been suggested that pastoral nomadic people's and their decedent's have higher rates of violence than agricultural or hunter gatherer societies. The nomadic people have a "honor" code, a morality that is cultural. This allows certain violence to be morally ok within that culture.

Sorry if I am rambling, just thinking out loud..on in text as the case may be.

If morality was genetic. It should be constant across culture.

Let's look at nakedness. It is a morality that dramatically changes from culture to culture and time to time.

 

[dvcochran]

I'm definitely getting confused here, so please straighten me out. DV, who's location is listed as the "Southeast" (US?) -which was a slave-based agrarian economy during the 17th-19th centuries, is saying to Jobo that slavery in the 1700s was more the norm on "your side of the pond" ?!?

Setting aside indentured servitude, serfs, share-croppers, and the horrible state of the working poor during the industrial revolution (on both sides of the "pond"), and just talking about slavery per se, I was under the impression that in the UK proper, slavery was illegal. Slavery was only allowed in the colonies of the empire. And furthermore, slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833, roughly three decades before we fought a horrendous war to abolish it here in the States.

Now to get back on topic, I'm with Jobo about the human species not having evolved in any positive direction over the centuries. Developed human societies have definitely evolved to become more egalitarian and "humane", at least during times of prosperity and peace. We haven't done so well during the World Wars, Stalinist purges, the Maoist "Cultural Revolution", Vietnam War, and the many other regional conflicts of the last century, though.

Let's see how we do in the coming century, especially if climate change and political upheavals put a real dent in our ability to feed our population and we have to contend with massive global migrations of starving masses of refugees. I'm guessing that our responses won't be anything to brag about or hold up as paradigms of evolved human behavior.

No. IMO Jobo has an unvarnished grasp of human nature.

I'm not exactly sure what the point is you are trying to make but yes, I am from the southeast U.S. If you are implying that everyone from the southeast are black racists then you are the typical uninformed who think they are doing humanity a favor arguing about something for the sake of argument. Very sad.
Mankind has become more egalitarian, "But" yada, yada, yada is a total statement of no position. It gives you an out to meaninglessly argue on either side of the coin. If you are going to side with someone then side with them; not make paper statements so you can wiggle out of them.
It is totally illogical to "set aside" indentured servitude, serfs, and even share croppers as something completely different from slavery. Most of the debate with Jobo regarded the 1700's but as you confirmed there was slavery in the UK in the 1800's.
I have no clue what your argument is. If you think mankind has done such a bad job then what are doing to facilitate change?

 

[jobo]

I'm not exactly sure what the point is you are trying to make but yes, I am from the southeast U.S. If you are implying that everyone from the southeast are black racists then you are the typical uninformed who think they are doing humanity a favor arguing about something for the sake of argument. Very sad.
Mankind has become more egalitarian, "But" yada, yada, yada is a total statement of no position. It gives you an out to meaninglessly argue on either side of the coin. If you are going to side with someone then side with them; not make paper statements so you can wiggle out of them.
It is totally illogical to "set aside" indentured servitude, serfs, and even share croppers as something completely different from slavery. Most of the debate with Jobo regarded the 1700's but as you confirmed there was slavery in the UK in the 1800's.
I have no clue what your argument is. If you think mankind has done such a bad job then what are doing to facilitate change?

I think you may need to read his post again there most certainly WAS NOT slavery in the UK in the 1800,s or at least a thousand years before that,

I think his other point may be, that some Americans have no idea if any history but their own, as indicated by your continual insistence that the UK had slavery in the 1800s

 

[dvcochran]

I think you may need to read his post again there most certainly WAS NOT slavery in the UK in the 1800,s or at least a thousand years before that,

I think his other point may be, that some Americans have no idea if any history but their own, as indicated by your continual insistence that the UK had slavery in the 1800s

You need to better read my post. Indentured servants, and serfs are a form of slavery.
Oh, and the UK sent criminals or undesirable to the US to be used as slaves as a form of punishment. Where did most of the people who migrated from the US come from?
So get off your high horse.

 

[jobo]

You need to better read my post. Indentured servants, and serfs are a form of slavery.
Oh, and the UK sent criminals or undesirable to the US to be used as slaves as a form of punishment. Where did most of the people who migrated from the US come from?
So get off your high horse.

deAr god man you don't even know own your own history, most of the people who migrated to the USA were from Germany,

they had penal camps in Australia, I'm not aware they had them in the USAthough you may be correct, IL Google it, but criminals are bit slaves, they are prisoners , like those sentenced to hard labour s serfs went out with the middle ages, so a thousand years give or take

it's very very unfortunate , to make coparisons with servants and the brutality of the American slave s, I mean really there no comparison at all on legal status,

 

[dvcochran]

deAr god man you don't even know own your own history, most of the people who migrated to the USA were from Germany,

they had penal camps in Australia, I'm not aware they had them in the USAthough you may be correct, IL Google it, but criminals are bit slaves, they are prisoners , like those sentenced to hard labour s serfs went out with the middle ages, so a thousand years give or take

it's very very unfortunate , to make coparisons with servants and the brutality of the American slave s, I mean really there no comparison at all on legal status,

You consistently leave out facts when it is convenient to you. Fact. The English founded the first US colony.
From Wikipedia:
Convicts in Australia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British Government began transporting convicts overseas to American colonies in the early 17th century. When transportation ended with the start of the American Revolution, an alternative site was needed to relieve further overcrowding of British prisons and hulks. Earlier in 1770, James Cook charted and claimed possession of the east coast of Australia for Britain.

There was a surge of German migration from around 1830 to 1860 before the World Wars started. Way after the Revolution.

Who needs to get their facts straight?

I can do this all day.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

For me if I can dominate a person under the restrictions of a rule set. I should have a better chance of winning when unrestricted.

Agreed, to a point. They lose the same restrictions you do. If you are better equipped (than them) without those restrictions, then removing them is in your favor.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If morality was genetic. It should be constant across culture.

Let's look at nakedness. It is a morality that dramatically changes from culture to culture and time to time.

Agreed. The mechanism is probably genetic (how the brain processes and develops this), but the actual moral code is largely learned. There's probably a reasonable argument that some of it could be genetic, but I'm not sure how we'd manage to separate that out among the (likely) larger portion that isn't.

 

[jobo]

You consistently leave out facts when it is convenient to you. Fact. The English founded the first US colony.
From Wikipedia:
Convicts in Australia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British Government began transporting convicts overseas to American colonies in the early 17th century. When transportation ended with the start of the American Revolution, an alternative site was needed to relieve further overcrowding of British prisons and hulks. Earlier in 1770, James Cook charted and claimed possession of the east coast of Australia for Britain.

There was a surge of German migration from around 1830 to 1860 before the World Wars started. Way after the Revolution.

Who needs to get their facts straight?

I can do this all day.

unfortunately I fear you might, but you said we're did the highest number of migrants come from, nothing about when, and that was Germany, yes they sent prisoners to America, but those were NOT slaves, they were criminal serving their sentence some where els e all most certainly in much better conditions than the prisons they left behind, when they finish their sentence they were released, so bit slaves at all

 

[Gerry Seymour]

deAr god man you don't even know own your own history, most of the people who migrated to the USA were from Germany,

they had penal camps in Australia, I'm not aware they had them in the USAthough you may be correct, IL Google it, but criminals are bit slaves, they are prisoners , like those sentenced to hard labour s serfs went out with the middle ages, so a thousand years give or take

it's very very unfortunate , to make coparisons with servants and the brutality of the American slave s, I mean really there no comparison at all on legal status,

I suspect he's referring to indentured servitude, which I recall being used at the time. I can't recall what portion (if any) of that came from England (or was it already the UK by then? I'm bad with historical sequencing).

I think Georgia was founded as a penal colony for prisoners from England...assuming my sketchy memory didn't swap countries in that.

 

[jobo]

I suspect he's referring to indentured servitude, which I recall being used at the time. I can't recall what portion (if any) of that came from England (or was it already the UK by then? I'm bad with historical sequencing).

I think Georgia was founded as a penal colony for prisoners from England...assuming my sketchy memory didn't swap countries in that.

I know what he is referring to, he just isn't making a good point, indentured servitude of criminals to serve their sentence is not in anyway the same as slavery , where,,children ( and adults) who had committed no crime, were used a slaves, you must see there a complete moral difference , even if he can't

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I know what he is referring to, he just isn't making a good point, indentured servitude of criminals to serve their sentence is not in anyway the same as slavery , where,,children who had committed no crime, were used a slaves, you must see there a complete moral difference , even if he can't

I'm not familiar with the situation indentured servants were subjected to, so can't speak to the morality of them. If we stick to talking about adults (I'm not sure all types of slavery over time included children, nor that any excluded them), the question could be whether it's ever moral to put someone in a slave-like situation (whether as a consequence of their actions, or otherwise). That'd be a long debate, and likely to drift into politics. And I'm not nearly well enough informed to give good input from the start.