Philosophy Now Forum

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 1:20 pm He would like to go back to the time of 'noble savages', when people spent all the time tip-toeing through soft mists, making poetry and never killing anything or anyone.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 4:10 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 1:20 pm He would like to go back to the time of 'noble savages', when people spent all the time tip-toeing through soft mists, making poetry and never killing anything or anyone.

There is no evidence that our species ever behaved like that.

It can seem like that, because the experience of interband conflict among hunter gatherers might seem rare. But this is not taking into account the statistics. Suppose the band suffers one warrior fatality plus one "civilian" fatality per decade. Doesn't seem like much, but the band size is only 50. What happens when you work out "what % of deaths are the result of being killed by the enemy". Surprisingly high, isn't it.

The is an argument that this has been our behavior even before we could be said to be human and that it serves an evolutionary purpose. We are a long lived, slow to reproduce species. Over our lifetime, our band could expect to encounter multiple "bad years" (drought, flood, etc.). If hostility between neighboring bands caused bands to leave space between, space not normally utilized for hunting or gathering because too dangerous, then in normal years, only a small percentage of the total land would be heavily utilized. Come the bad years, these otherwise untapped areas could be utilized, the reason normally avoided less important as your neighbor band is also scrambling for food, too busy to feud. On the other hand, if bands normally shared the habitat peacefully, there would be no space between, no normally unutilized reserve, and the result of a bad year would be massive, area wide die off.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:38 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 1:41 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 1:27 pm Too stupid to even bother trying to argue with it. Wokies are truly the most detestable creatures on the planet. If that's what 'the West' has ended up with then perhaps a return to the caves is in order after all...

DUH! You're on my ignore list, put me on yours, please!

Accelafine nails her colours to the mast.

So henceforth do I .

Belinda wokey Accelafine sleepy

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:33 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 1:15 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 12:52 pm
I don't "think we must go back" ! It was you who wrote "When one wishes to understand the behaviours of an individual or a nation, one needs to ask what they are reacting to." Rational people don't react, they reflect.

I am sorry if I gave the idea that reaction was necessarily mindless. There is one thing no creature can do, and that is to not to react to its environment; that is to be a part of the world. Rationality is desired but not always present; reaction is always present, whether rational or not. Reaction can be devoid of morality. In the case of empire and violent colonization, it is both of these in the embrace of the path of least resistance.

Thanks for the clarification, Popeye. I understand you used 'react' in the general sense of cause and effect. I took 'react' to refer to the psychological style that is opposed to 'reflect'.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 9:59 am To the OP, I'd invert it.

Gaza Crisis: Are we morally right?

Thank Christ I can't see accelafine's rabid theodicy as only other Foes now respond to it.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 8:01 pm Wokies can't cope with facts and rational arguments. They are fish in a barrel. This is why they are champions of so-called 'cancel culture', the 'we believe in free speech but we also believe in 'consequences' for free speech' mob. That's like saying there was free speech in Nazi Germany. Yes, you could say what you liked, but if you did you would be executed
It's why wokies like popeye can only cope with morons like the cross-dressing 'Belinda'.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 12:25 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 8:01 pm Wokies can't cope with facts and rational arguments. They are fish in a barrel. This is why they are champions of so-called 'cancel culture', the 'we believe in free speech but we also believe in 'consequences' for free speech' mob. That's like saying there was free speech in Nazi Germany. Yes, you could say what you liked, but if you did you would be executed
It's why wokies like popeye can only cope with morons like the cross-dressing 'Belinda'.

I am too sartorially liberal to be a cross dresser.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:10 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 12:25 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 8:01 pm Wokies can't cope with facts and rational arguments. They are fish in a barrel. This is why they are champions of so-called 'cancel culture', the 'we believe in free speech but we also believe in 'consequences' for free speech' mob. That's like saying there was free speech in Nazi Germany. Yes, you could say what you liked, but if you did you would be executed
It's why wokies like popeye can only cope with morons like the cross-dressing 'Belinda'.

I am too sartorially liberal to be a cross dresser.

I thought you'd Foed it?!

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 10:57 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:10 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 12:25 pm
I am too sartorially liberal to be a cross dresser.

I thought you'd Foed it?!

Yes I did but my curiosity gets the the better of me. There is just enough reward in it to keep me coming back.