Originally posted by RagnorakPalynka, it's disappointing just how much you take Pinker's thoughts as gospel truths. You seem totally blinded by his assertions, which suit your comforting beliefs..
LOL!
Palynka, it's disappointing just how much you take Pinker's thoughts as gospel truths. You seem totally blinded by his assertions, which suit your comforting beliefs.
Pinker didn't restrain the sample set? Come on! He listed 6 or 7 of the most violent prehistoric peoples he could, after doubling the actual figures. Would he have reached the s ...[text shortened]... u do to, if you actually thought about his assertions with any form of critical thought.
D
Quite the opposite. At least my beliefs are supported by some evidence.
Would he have reached the same conclusion if he had chosen the Bushmen of the Kalahari as his sample group? The categorical answer to that is NO!
Again, that is a false analogy. The main instigators/inflictors of violence are normally the dominant societies. Also, the idea is that violence has decreased in average around the world. The bushmen of Kalahari are known only to a relatively recent period when considering human recorded history, so you have absolutely no idea what the people there were like 10.000 years ago.
As for Moses, that was simply an illustration about the normal behaviour prevalent in Western cultures at the time and for a long time. Nazi Germany ideology did not have the mainstream impact across the Western world and was actually severely frowned upon by the majority of the Allies. It was also very shortlived. So, yes, it is a fundamentally weak argument and at that's why Pinker only provides it as an illustration, not as an argument, as you seem to be doing.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNot murderous troglodyte, just that the relationship of humankind with violence and death has fundamentally changed over the years and that there is a visible trend for the decrease of violent behaviour.
Haven't time to comment much here, but yes, this discussion has been a battle between two strawmen--the noble savage versus the murderous troglodyte.
Do you disagree?
Originally posted by PalynkaYou were invoking precisely that stereotype last week. And your guns are aimed squarely at the other strawman. Because that was your stated purpose in posting the video. That's why I bothered to respond. Pinker is irrelevant to me.
Not murderous troglodyte, just that the relationship of humankind with violence and death has fundamentally changed over the years and that there is a visible trend for the decrease of violent behaviour.
Do you disagree?
Is there a visible trend? Not to me--I haven't seen anything to suggest that. Statistical scenarios are of limited interest, too, since they can suit any bias. So, I don't know. Perhaps there's a declining propensity for violence puncuated by massive flares of violence, like the temperature gradient of a dying sun.
Originally posted by PalynkaNor does anybody. In fact Pinker's figures tell us absolutely nothing solid about the remoter past.
[b]Would he have reached the same conclusion if he had chosen the Bushmen of the Kalahari as his sample group? The categorical answer to that is NO!
Again, that is a false analogy. The main instigators/inflictors of violence are normally the dominant societies. Also, the idea is that violence has decreased in average around the world. The bushmen of Ka ...[text shortened]... corded history, so you have absolutely no idea what the people there were like 10.000 years ago.[/b]
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDedicated to Rags and all who believe pre-civilizational harmony is anything more than pure propaganda and myth
You were invoking precisely that stereotype last week. And your guns are aimed squarely at the other strawman. Because that was your stated purpose in posting the video. That's why I bothered to respond. Pinker is irrelevant to me.
Is there a visible trend? Not to me--I haven't seen anything to suggest that. Statistical scenarios are of limited int ...[text shortened]... lence puncuated by massive flares of violence, like the temperature gradient of a dying sun.
My guns are (and were) aimed at the noble savage myth. If anything, it is you attacking the "murderous troglodyte" strawman.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBut that is the point. We do SEE much more, because of the mass media advent. But the truth seems to be that there is actually less in proportional terms.
Is there a visible trend? Not to me--I haven't seen anything to suggest that. Statistical scenarios are of limited interest, too, since they can suit any bias. So, I don't know. Perhaps there's a declining propensity for violence puncuated by massive flares of violence, like the temperature gradient of a dying sun.
Originally posted by PalynkaSince accurate figures for the past simply do not exist, and no representative samples of hunter-gatherers exist, what is the point of this statistical fiction?
[b]Dedicated to Rags and all who believe pre-civilizational harmony is anything more than pure propaganda and myth
My guns are (and were) aimed at the noble savage myth. If anything, it is you attacking the "murderous troglodyte" strawman.[/b]
I've lost count of how many of my questions you've skipped (it's normal), but please answer this one: do Pinker's figures apply to the entire world, or just parts of it (and which ones if so)?
It's self-serving in the extreme to dismiss Nazi murders simply because they are "a-typical" (and they were not, really, as the history of colonialism illustrates; in fact they were rather the epitome). Has the risk of being murdered by another human being decreased in Rwanda?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt's better some evidence, than none at all. Should we throw away archaeological evidence on the grounds of non-representativeness? I think that's a non-argument, really. It's not much as evidence, but it at least supports his argument. What's YOUR evidence?
Since accurate figures for the past simply do not exist, and no representative samples of hunter-gatherers exist, what is the point of this statistical fiction?
I've lost count of how many of my questions you've skipped (it's normal), but please answer this one: do Pinker's figures apply to the entire world, or just parts of it (and which ones if s ...[text shortened]... the epitome). Has the risk of being murdered by another human being decreased in Rwanda?
I've said this repeatedly, so your accusation that I'm not answering your questions is absolutely false. If you have more that I did not address, please be more explicit.
Pinker does NOT dismiss Nazi evidence, he just states its marginality when considering world population. He backs this with figures including both world wars and still showing a progressive decline. He also includes the Iraq war and Rwanda for the most recent figures.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaQuite the opposite. At least my beliefs are supported by some evidence.
[b]Palynka, it's disappointing just how much you take Pinker's thoughts as gospel truths. You seem totally blinded by his assertions, which suit your comforting beliefs..
Quite the opposite. At least my beliefs are supported by some evidence.
Would he have reached the same conclusion if he had chosen the Bushmen of the Kalahari as his sample grou ...[text shortened]... y Pinker only provides it as an illustration, not as an argument, as you seem to be doing.[/b]
Please. I haven't seen one scrap of evidence from you in this debate, apart from a couple of heavily manipulated numbers (I'll take it that you agree with my point on D/T being manipulated for self-serving reasons seeing as you haven't responded to my refutation).
Unless you count your heavily biased by cultural traditional thinking interpretation of historical events and possible trends as "evidence" or "facts".
To be honest, it doesn't surprise me that you do, considering you make the claim that there were less famines in prehistoric times (backed with absolutely no data) and when I respond with a number of huge famines in the past century alone and invite you to post info on prehistorc famines, you accuse me of providing no evidence to support my points. LOL.
The main instigators/inflictors of violence are normally the dominant societies.
Is this in civilised warfare or prehistoric warfare? How do you know this? The point I'd like to make is that if you attack somebody because you need access to their resources due to desperation, it doesn't follow that the attacking force would necessarily have to be stronger.
Also, the idea is that violence has decreased in average around the world.
So Pinker refers to highly localised (possibly one off) events to show high violence rates prehistorically, but uses them to make conclusions about the rest of the world? Is he a comedian specialising in farce?
There were 5 million people max pre agricultural revolution. Do you honestly claim that there were more violent clashes ongoing then amongst people so scattered that they must rarely have encountered each other, than there is now with 1,320 times more people inhabiting the same space?
Nazi Germany ideology did not have the mainstream impact across the Western world and was actually severely frowned upon by the majority of the Allies.
LOL. So anti-semitism is/was restricted to Nazi Germany and was very short lived. Right. 🙄
I'm not using it as an argument, I'm using it to show how ridiculous Pinker's findings/interpretations are. I'm glad you agree with me on this point.
The bushmen of Kalahari are known only to a relatively recent period when considering human recorded history, so you have absolutely no idea what the people there were like 10.000 years ago.
I would presume that they wouldn't have changed much considering they were still hunter/gatherers up until the 1950s. Of course, we can also use evidence from archaeologists to look into their lives up to 22,000 years ago, which proves that they have lived effectively unchanged.
You automatically presume that they must have been vicious, bloodthirsty animals 10,000 years ago. I'm not sure I understand your motivation in this assumption. I guess it's just cultural tradition for you and CFT and most others to think of prehistoric man as an inferior bloodthirsty animal who has built no airports or train stations.
I don't have much time for this today, but hopefully I'll be able to respond some more tomorrow. In the meantime, if you feel up to it, I'd like to see in bullet form any "evidence" or "facts" you've provided to support your position. It shouldn't take you long. 😉
D
3 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, you didn't answer the question that I just asked. But I take it the figures apply to the world as a whole.
I've said this repeatedly, so your accusation that I'm not answering your questions is absolutely false. If you have more that I did not address, please be more explicit.
Pinker does NOT dismiss Nazi evidence, he just states its marginality when considering world population. He backs this with figures including both world wars and still showing a progressive decline. He also includes the Iraq war and Rwanda for the most recent figures.
With regard to evidence--I think it's a bit like the existence of God; without water-tight evidence, I prefer to remain agnostic.
Anyway. There's evidence for a declining murder rate, despite holocausts, atrocities, etc. Therefore, the world is in better shape than ever before. I find this self-evidently absurd. I doubt that the Rwandan refugees, like the char I employed for a day whose 3- and 4-year-old brother and sister were murdered, whose nursing education was interrupted, perhaps permanently, and whose civil engineer husband now works as a car guard, will be comforted by Pinker's figures (although they might be reassured that the armaments profits derived from the destabilisation of their region will be ploughed into the security of other countries, which might contribute to an increase in security on average). But perhaps when I can walk at night in perfect confidence through downtown Johannesburg at night, I'll change my opinion.
Pinker valorises the average over the individual. Perhaps the increasing human population, 2 to 6 billion from 1950 until now, has something to do with the curve? As long as people reproduce quickly enough, it doesn't matter if a million people here or there die overnight. They're simply subsumed by statistics.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhat Pinker did was select the 6 most violent tribes from prehistoric finds. For some reason, palynka thinks its absurd to try to emulate Pinker's "science" by only applying the study of current times to the Jews of Germany, the Tutsis of Rwanda, the Christians of Darfur, the Kmers of Pol Pot's Cambodia etc for the next 3 higher victims of violence. I wonder why he thinks it's absurd for one side to do it, and not the other.
There's evidence for a declining murder rate, despite holocausts, atrocities, etc. Therefore, the world is in better shape than ever before. I find this self-evidently absurd. When I can walk at night in perfect confidence through downtown Johannesburg at night, I'll change my opinion.
Its also handy for Pinker and Palynka that our population is exploding uncontrollably. 6.5 billion now, 12 billion in another 30 to 40 years if the trend of the past couple of hundred years is anything to go by.
Even if there were 10 holocausts in 30 years time, on average, there would be less violence. Great science alright. 🙄
D
Originally posted by WajomaNo doubt fashion was the decisive factor.
I do not try and wipe anyone out, I do not try to convert anyone, many early Maori in New Zealand went to great effort to emmulate the english colonisers, could it be they were sick of wearing grass skirts and eating fern roots?
Out of interest--I wonder what percentage of Maori who survived the wars were slaves? I doubt they had anything to lose by a change of masters.
Originally posted by RagnorakTypical huff and puff.
[b]Quite the opposite. At least my beliefs are supported by some evidence.
Please. I haven't seen one scrap of evidence from you in this debate, apart from a couple of heavily manipulated numbers (I'll take it that you agree with my point on D/T being manipulated for self-serving reasons seeing as you haven't responded to my refutation).
Unless y ...[text shortened]... ovided to support your position. It shouldn't take you long. 😉
D[/b]
Evidence on famines and trade: David Grigg (1985) "The World Food Problem 1950-1980". Particularly chapters 11 and 12.
I haven't seen one scrap of evidence from you in this debate
Funny, considering I started this debate by quoting a source of evidence.
There were 5 million people max pre agricultural revolution. Do you honestly claim that there were more violent clashes ongoing then amongst people so scattered that they must rarely have encountered each other, than there is now with 1,320 times more people inhabiting the same space?
Percentually, yes. First of all, they were not that scattered. Secondly, that there are 1320 times more people also means that there are many who have prospered by living in peace. This is why even the harsh tragedies in Rwanda are a drop in an ocean.
So anti-semitism is/was restricted to Nazi Germany and was very short lived.
Do you even understand the concept of mainstream? It was even much more mainstream in the Inquisition times.
I'm not using it as an argument, I'm using it to show how ridiculous Pinker's findings/interpretations are. I'm glad you agree with me on this point.
Devoid of a point. I've explained why the comparison is incorrect. If you wish to attack my arguments on why it is incorrect, please do. I'm still waiting.
I would presume that they wouldn't have changed much considering they were still hunter/gatherers up until the 1950s. Of course, we can also use evidence from archaeologists to look into their lives up to 22,000 years ago, which proves that they have lived effectively unchanged.
Where is that evidence?
You automatically presume that they must have been vicious, bloodthirsty animals 10,000 years ago.
Not at all. I presume they had the same nature of modern man. Biologically, mankind has not yet had time to change significantly since the dawn of civilization. It is you assuming that mankind's relationship with violence has changed dramatically when mankind became sedentary.
Originally posted by RagnorakThat's exactly the point. What's non-scientific about that?
Even if there were 10 holocausts in 30 years time, on average, there would be less violence. Great science alright. 🙄
In average there would be less violence, which means on average there would be less holocausts, more peace, etc.
Originally posted by PalynkaOf course there would also be more actual violent deaths, but those are cancelled by the magic of statistics. Stay away from you, you evil priest of numbers!
That's exactly the point. What's non-scientific about that?
In average there would be less violence, which means on average there would be less holocausts, more peace, etc.