I believe Slavery was an Evolutionary Step...

[GPGeorge]

I am one of those reporting your posts. I've seen your game before. You're not even very good at it, actually.

 

[Isaac]

Over the past few years I have learnt a lot from Dr Jordan Peterson. I have learnt that our thoughts and actions are often driven by instinct. These are Instincts, not just human evolved, but also instincts from the creatures that humans evolved from, and not just mammals, evolution going right back to amoebas!

It is clear that evolution is a major mechanism in a physical sense, and in our actions and instincts. I believe slavery was such an Evolutionary step and Slavery played a major role in human development. Anyone want to debate!

I wouldn't mind debating and I am interested, as I like people who have the courage to bring up taboo topics. However I just don't feel very clear on what exactly position you're taking or even what you're suggesting? Can you elaborate a little bit more?

 

[Isaac]

It's just that it is such a patronising post giving the impression that Pat thinks she is so great that not many people know what she (or Americans) know.

Yes we all know slavery in whatever form is rife in many countries including the UK and the USA. Just put it with the 100's of other things to sort out, in the meantime keep paying the japanese prozzies, they need the money to send home for their families.
Col

Are you positive you haven't contributed to her impression? Frequently asking questions that you know are worded in such a way that no one could possibly believe you really think that about the United states, such as everyone wearing cowboy hats and shooting each other, and thus the remaining likely motive is provocation?

You may need to take your pick. Do you wish to identify as being a person who often creates posts in order to be provocative, or out of ignorance? I sometimes side with you but many of your posts can only fall into one of those two categories. If you wish to reject one you'll have no choice but to accept the other!

 

[Isaac]

Kit, thank you for your expert opinion on prostitution and escorts, your knowledge is far greater than mine.
Col

We men just have to be careful nowadays, at least in the United States they are no longer considered prostitutes. They are all considered trafficking victims...

Just kidding, it's not something that I need to worry about other than the theoretical error of the situation.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Can you elaborate a little bit more?

Slavery has been a feature of human culture for millennium.

The Israelites were slaves to the Egyptians, as documented in the Bible, as is their escape to Israel.

I then wondered if slavery is an evolutionary step? Are there any benefits to a society that encourages slavery?

I would guess that people are unwilling to become slaves, they are probably losers of a battle.

The winner of the battle would have the option of putting any survivors to the sword, but this is a waste of a resource and it occurred to me slavery was a way of utilising this resource to the benefit of society.

When I say "evolutionary step" I don't mean in DNA type of evolution I mean the evolution of society, it has obviously evolved into something much better then the warring factions of tribes.

Enslaving the survivors of a battle may have had a similar effect to the taking of the opposition's women, in bringing the two warring factions together better, creating an environment where they worked more closely together and understood each other better in other words the taking of the enemies women, and enslaving the men produced the benefit of understanding.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The Israelites were slaves to the Egyptians, as documented in the Bible, as is their escape to Israel.

Except that teams of Israeli archaeologists who have vested interest in verifying that documentation, of PROVING that the Israelites WERE the "chosen people" ... have stated unequivocally that there is no evidence of Hebrews having ever been slaves in Egypt. Which puts the kibosh on the veracity of the book of Exodus.

The Israelites of the Old Testament were often quite brutal. One can look at the way the Bible describes the treatment of the Amalekites - the men were all killed but the women and children became slaves. An evolutionary step in the DNA sense would have killed the male children, too. You would have to look at survival of the TRIBE (or family, since back then tribes WERE extended family units). In that sense, it was survival of the fittest TRIBE and elimination of the less fit TRIBE. So if you want to look at it as survival of groups or families, it would make sense as a form of hybrid evolution, a societal survival of the strongest tribes.

 

[Isaac]

Which puts the kibosh on the veracity of the book of Exodus.

Or put another way, remains unknown for lack of evidence

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Or put another way, remains unknown for lack of evidence

I'll agree with that for the stated reason.

 

[ColinEssex]

Are you positive you haven't contributed to her impression? Frequently asking questions that you know are worded in such a way that no one could possibly believe you really think that about the United states, such as everyone wearing cowboy hats and shooting each other, and thus the remaining likely motive is provocation?

All I try to do is clarify comments made, and perhaps offer a view. When a person makes two opposing statements in two posts, we know at least one statement is a fabrication. Then when asked for clarification, the original poster resorts to abusive language (something about sand if I recall)
How people interpret posts can vary from what the writer meant.

There was an interview of an American man on the news recently after the latest mass shooting, he was wearing a cowboy hat. JR Ewing wore one in 'Dallas' and Americans do shoot each other. We see it on the news at least once a week. What are we to think?

Anyway, I didn't post for a couple of months in the hope things may calm down, but looking at comments on other threads it seems not so.

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Col, I want to be clear. Just before you left for a while, I admonished you because you were beginning to attack a particular user, approaching the level of bullying - which as you should know is not allowed here. My admonition was just a warning; I did NOT do anything to your account. You are indeed welcome back.

I am reminded of the line from Woody Allen's movie What's Up Tiger Lily, "I would accuse you of being a sadistic, sodomistic necrophile... but that would be beating a dead horse." The point I was making is that you sometimes "beat a dead horse" when focused on nit-picking things that some of us say around here. You do that to a degree that seems somewhat abusive. When it gets to that level, I will step in with an "enough is enough" type of message. I asked you then and I ask you now to let that particular dead horse go. Pick a new dead horse for a while, please. For instance, Meghan and Harry seem to be among your favorite targets.

There was an interview of an American man on the news recently after the latest mass shooting, he was wearing a cowboy hat. JR Ewing wore one in 'Dallas' and Americans do shoot each other. We see it on the news at least once a week. What are we to think?

I prefer the "Indiana Jones" style of hat to the cowboy hat myself. Floppy brim, shorter crown, shades the face better. I am a USA-style American, but I've never shot anyone and nobody has shot me. I would guess that your "talking heads" news readers are like ours - looking for something controversial or outrageous or in some other way attention-grabbing.

 

[ColinEssex]

Now what have I done? Are you accusing me of sodomistic, necrophile? Sorry, but your post is confusing - Meghan and Harry - I've not mentioned them for months. Have I lied or is it the banter about cowboy hats that upset?
It seems to me anything with my name here warrants a bollocking.

Col

 

[Isaac]

The Israelites of the Old Testament were often quite brutal.

I'm curious, were they brutal in contrast to other tribes and groups of the time?

 

[Isaac]

Sheesh, reading this page I have to just objectively step back for a moment and say we all fixate and nit-pick sometimes.
I see it in myself for sure, and I see various examples of it in all of you but there is no need to point it out, as the arguing continues.

There is too much pretense, people both pretending they did not intend something or pretending they did, or pretending not to know why others are upset, or pretending only some people fixate when they themselves cannot resist the most distant glimmer of an unsolicited opportunity to denounce another's assertion or opinion...

And, I hate to break it to the Brits, but provocative and offensive "pokes", cloaked in the most eloquent badinage, delivered with great panache, does not innocence make.

There. Do I qualify?

Everyone needs to just relax, go eat some fish and chips, or should I say mayonnaise and enormous french fries - or whatever cuisine you admire!

 

[NauticalGent]

And, I hate to break it to the Brits, but provocative and offensive "pokes", cloaked in the most eloquent badinage, delivered with great panache, does not innocence make.

Just one question Isaac: Did it hurt when you pulled that out of your arse??

 

[GPGeorge]

Also known as the "Who??? ME??" defense.

 

[NauticalGent]

Exactly...we know our own!

 

[Isaac]

Just one question Isaac: Did it hurt when you pulled that out of your arse??

Actually, it felt kinda good.

Ok, BUSTED.
I keep a list of words that watching Frasier has taught me.

Watch for upcoming posts where I try to sneak in churlish, loutish, and lambent. !!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Now what have I done? Are you accusing me of sodomistic, necrophile? Sorry, but your post is confusing - Meghan and Harry - I've not mentioned them for months. Have I lied or is it the banter about cowboy hats that upset?
It seems to me anything with my name here warrants a bollocking.

Col

Your first paragraph in post #95 seemed to be an attempt to excuse behavior that has already been explained as "out of line." It's the past. Let it go. I will if you will. The Woody Allen movie quote is related to your behavior in USA slang. "Beating a dead horse" is a more colloquial way of saying "persistent to a fault" or "doesn't know when to let go." And that is what got you into trouble when I got on your case before.

Actually, I was going along with your joke regarding the "cowboy hats." The only reason I wear hats these days is because of my aging process. I am now more likely than ever before to get sunburned scalp if I don't wear a hat or cap. And the LAST thing I need these days is to overheat my already tired brain by going outside without something on my head.

 

[ColinEssex]

It wasn't a joke. I've noticed that southerners wear cowboy hats more than more northern states. That may explain why JR Ewing wore one as Dallas is in Texas (I think)

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Women will never have equality until men get arrested at the same time and with the same frequency as their amant pour la nuit gets arrested. And until the baby-daddy can be forced to take a monetary interest in the kid he started before he left his one-night stand.