rob

Disagree. I mean, to a point, sure we can be what we want. But so much of human nature is...well, nature. Just like any other animal. Our brains work a certain way, just like any other mammal, and our behavior tends to fit into a mold. Of course there are one-off examples that break the mold, but an animal is an animal. Of course environmental and social surroundings impact how we behave, but human nature significantly dictates how we react to these things, and controls even how easily (or not) we can change ourselves and so react differently. Agreed that humans are capable of many things. I'm not sure any other animal has the self-awareness to actually change its behavior the way that humans can. But there are still definitely parts of our basic nature that are part of who we are. Just like every other species.

But I thought your point was humans weren't a violent species. Or are you saying we're violent but not warlike? On average we are neither especially violent or warlike as shown by the overwhelming majority of humans who aren't that way. War and most violence aren't ineluctable as claimed by many, which was the main point I was making, but you probably should have gotten all of this from what I wrote in this thread. I kind of get your point -- most humans are probably not regularly engaged in violence. But the flaw in this logic is that it assumes that at least 51% of a species must be engaged in violence to assume a species is violent, which is a fallacy. Labeling a species as violent seems like a relativistic statement -- it doesn't matter how many humans are engaged in violence, it matters how such a propensity towards violence relates to other species. Referring to humans as a "non-violent" species obviously would be bad advice. So it's a matter of comparing our violence towards that of the other animals on this planet, and to that end it seems like humans indeed have quite a capacity for killing each other.

I used to bring them with me when I was new but I never ended up using them. Too much trouble. And I usually have a few old biners I wouldn't mind leaving behind, anyway, for when I'm worried about the rope not pulling smoothly. I like Dan's quick-link suggestion, though.

the "E" must be for elephant

watch out for the straight razor.

there HAS been plenty of studies? Really, Minx?

Popular routes already typically have slings at the rap points. Most people might cut away any old stuff that looks beat and maybe add another sling to the collection. Are you going to untie them all and put them through the rap ring you bought? And then retie them? And do that at every station?

But I thought your point was humans weren't a violent species. Or are you saying we're violent but not warlike?

wtf is an individual act of collective violence? are you using big words again?

yeah yeah yeah, and there are also some purely vegetarian cultures but that doesn't mean man in general is mostly vegetarian.

The Eagles would disagree with you

I'm better than all you jerkies.

What good is punishment for mental illness? This isn't the 19th century anymore. Mental illness among our service members is skyrocketing and the current military command doesn't seem to be addressing it well enough from my civilian perspective. Your fire and brimstone moral system sounds chivalrous but is old-fashioned. Punative rehabilitation has it's place but not with a mentally I'll, decorated and wounded veteran of four tours. Four, right? You can't put a human in these situations without taking some responsibility for them How is this dumbass any different than Anders Breivik or Jeffrey Dahmer? Jeffery Dahmer wasn't a good guy with a decorated history who snapped after the trauma of extended tours and injuries that he signed up for in the first place in the defense of his country. Of course, I'm assuming that's the case with this guy, which by all accounts seems to be the case. I get your point, but if you can't see the difference between any two given cases of insanity than you're living in a pretty simple world!

You're right -- due process sounds great. Assuming that means we take care of our decorated veterans who are suffering from job-related PTSD or whatever (I'm assuming that's the case here, by all accounts he sounds like he used to be a really good soldier but I guess the investigators will figure that out). Of course the killing of civilians is terrible, but the Afghanistan government's desire for this guy's blood isn't worth an ounce of piss to me. They can go stuff themselves as far as I'm concerned, they're pretty poor allies. So I hope that we treat this service member fairly instead of throwing him under the bus as a political expediency because those bunch of jackals aren't worth it.

What good is punishment for mental illness? This isn't the 19th century anymore. Mental illness among our service members is skyrocketing and the current military command doesn't seem to be addressing it well enough from my civilian perspective. Your fire and brimstone moral system sounds chivalrous but is old-fashioned. Punative rehabilitation has it's place but not with a mentally I'll, decorated and wounded veteran of four tours. Four, right? You can't put a human in these situations without taking some responsibility for them

everyone talks about violence like it's always a bad thing. Hatred and anger have their place, we evolved them for a reason. what a bunch of hippies you guys are with your peace and love and rock & roll. They should just kick this guy out of the military and let him go. People are gonna snap in combat, it sounds like he was a good guy who got all messed up in the head and we should take care of our own. After all, we turned him into a pit bull in the first place. We should take some responsibility and take better care of our soldiers.

Probably you shouldn't ground children, either. Or yell at them. That might make them feel bad.

I thought kevbone was into candidates the mainstream media refused to acknowledge, but it turns out he's the one who refuses to acknowledge the non-mainstream candidates. ahhh, irony

None of which even register as a blip on the national scene Hey, if you're talking about electability then Ron Paul isn't an option, either. He won't even be on the ballot but these other guys will -- in some states

Er.... Ron Paul IS the status quo. Useless posturing. All the other candidates (Obama, Newt, Mitt and Rick) want and will continue the current occupations. Ron Paul will not. How is that the status Quo? there are other candidates, haven't you been listening?

They're all the same, kevin. Everything in the world is identical except for Ron Paul.

I only want chocolate cake. All other types of cake are identical!