KaskadskyjKozak

Heart of Darkness

Man, it's like explaining the punch line to a joke, isn't it?

Still buying the myth of the Noble Savage, eh? LOLZ

if we have in fact become less violent as a species over the past few millenia, it seems to me to largely be a product of our ability to learn - other critters can do that of course, and the skill only goes so far, but we have learned how to make life more comfortable, how to tolerate The Outsiders, and how to redirect our inherent combatitiveness into more productive enterprises (profesional sports, for example, offer all the glories of the mercenaries of days gone by w/ substantial less risk to all involved). The 20th century resulted in more bloodshed than any previous century in our history. Not so sure about us getting "less violent" as a species.

fap fap fap

Well, you picked a group of countries with the greatest and most recent colonial legacy that many have failed to deal with peaceably, and it also doesn’t help that we now twist their arms into participating to conflicts they would never start on their own. But, nonetheless, my point is that the overwhelming majority of people (and somewhat less of countries) are at peace most of the time, and even most of those engaged in wars would rather not be either because they are on the receiving end of aggression or because being cannon-fodder isn’t a very rewarding business. Not only is there little evidence that war was common before agriculture (or that it is common in the animal world) but war often results from democratic deficits when power hungry sociopaths take over the direction of nations and, at best, lie to incite violent aggression. In fact, as you noted, there could be now fewer conflicts as decision-making is on average more widely shared than at any moment in history since nomadism was the norm. I see little justification to claim the inevitability of war as if it were part of our dark nature. Ah, yes, recall the peaceful days of Native Americans, who never went to war with one another, never enslaved others, subnjugated weaker tribes, or had blood sacrifices on large stone monuments. And the Romans...the Greeks... the Egyptians, Persians, Hittites... all peaceful and kind. The Mongol hordes, were indeed a Golden one, spreading peace and harmony across the steppes and into Europe. The Goths, the Visigoths, the Franks. All peaceful by nature, and would never have harmed a fly. The Moors... and the Crusaders. More of the same No, it is clearly not in man's nature to engage in war. It is not natural, and only a modern phenomenon. Thanatos, my ass, Dr. Freud!

Umm, I said, it already - history. Study it.

Actually, hairless or not, most monkeys (by far) do not throw feces at one another. There are even quite a few countries that have not been at war for a long, long time. The norm isn't a state of warfare even if it is popular to claim otherwise. Nonsense. And history proves it.

Oh, no, he's not electable, but he's giving people like boner hope that he could be.

I'm getting the feeling Kev would not pass your class...

None of which even register as a blip on the national scene

Neither does this,or any of the previous presidents since FDR. They keep calling wars shit like "police actions", "operations (enduring freedom!!)", etc

No one is even talking about tapering off. It's speeding up. Yes, it's really unfortunate. The republicans want to spend money on tax breaks for the rich and the democrats want to spend money on subsidies for the poor and the only guy who says any different wants to throw the economy into Mt. Doom or whatever. I'm sorry, anybody that thinks Ron Paul's solution is the answer is a fucking retard of the highest caliber of retards. I'm talking King of the Retards. Like Texas-caliber retardation. George W. Bush levels, the sort of retardation that is embarrassing to watch. Gosh, Rob, things are going so great now though!

What's worse is you have Dru humping your left leg and j_b your right. ;-)

it has nothing to do with singular, it has to do with context and verb moods -- i.e. subjunctive vs. indicative verbs, etc. In this case, "were" would be the subjunctive mood of the verb "to be" and is appropriate for cases in which you are referring to something that's not likely to be true, reminiscing, etc. I.E. "I wish I were a rich man" vs "Yesterday, I was rich" -- "was" is the indicative mood of the verb and is appropriate for things that are true, or likely to be true in hypothetical situations. Doesn't anybody know English anymore??? Now, if teaching a class on spanking is something you are likely to do, then perhaps "was" is appropriate To answer your question, unfortunately, very few know English these days. Carry on.

We are the 1%

It's a good thing Floridians don't decide important things... like presidential election outcomes.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MINXIE!

don't be a dick, mkaythxbye!

Delaying the christening of the USS Bubba would be a better move. ;-)

I had the privelege of visiting this ship in the late 80's when it was docked at Alameda along with the Carl Vinson. linky It was truly "one of a kind" as the prolific Nimitz class replaced this prototype nuclear carrier design.

How is the East ridge? I'm looking for a little less spiciness than the N sounds.

You have failed to follow the primary, haven't you? R's hate eachother more than Dem's. That's why they hate Barry so much. They just don't realize he is one of them.

Mitt is actually a Democrat pretending to be an R. He's the dem's only hope to get the Republican out of the White House. Repulicans sense this instinctively and that's why Mitt fails to close the deal.

Ron Paul fully supports this bill!