Nobel Scientist: When Did We Start to Value Killing Over Living?

[Serious]

It's amazing how so many smart people have no clue about how human beings operate.

Violence for gain been going on for millions of years. It's evident from how chimpanzees behave.




in the paleolithic era 80% of all males died from violence. 80%. I mean get real people.

The greatest people in history, got what they want by smashing their enemies and using force. Ghengis Khan, Julius Caesar, Queen Elizabeth. These people built the great empires of all time.

I mean the Aryans spread their genetics from deep in Central Asia to all over the world not by being nice, but by a trail of bloodshed and enslavement. 10% of the world are descendants of Ghengis Khan!

Go to any prison yard dominated by lifers where social constraints no longer apply... the most violent and ruthless men control 100s if not 1000s of other men on the yard.

I don't see how any smart person can simple ignore the facts of history. Nice people lose.

After this post, I dont ever want to ever hear comment anything pertaining to black on black crime.....

 

[Professor Emeritus]

It's amazing how so many smart people have no clue about how human beings operate.

Violence for gain been going on for millions of years. It's evident from how chimpanzees behave.




in the paleolithic era 80% of all males died from violence. 80%. I mean get real people.

The greatest people in history, got what they want by smashing their enemies and using force. Ghengis Khan, Julius Caesar, Queen Elizabeth. These people built the great empires of all time.

Cape for acting like chimpanzees breh.

There's a reason they still live in the fukking trees.

Ghengis Khan spent 10 years of his prime in obscurity (25 to 35) after being defeated in war by his own best friend. Then after he regained power, he had a massive rift with his next partner that eventually led to an assassination attempt and the breakup of their collaboration. He finally gained power at 44, but only got there by fighting with or being betrayed by basically all his allies to that point, including his own shaman who tried to weaken him from within. During those 20 years in power, he was almost constantly at war, had to deal with constant infighting for control between his sons, and finally died in battle. But not before one of his sons died first, possibly poisoned by his own father.

Julius Caesar started a civil war within the Roman empire, then got involved with a civil war in Egypt, created disturbing spectacles of human death in gladiator games (so disturbing that citizens rioted, only to be turned into human sacrifices by Caeser's priests), and eventually was assassinated by his own senators.

Queen Elizabeth don't make no sense - she's the one who oversaw the collapse of the British empire, she didn't build it.


If your whole point is, "I glorify people who smash enemies, therefore those people are glorious to me", then it's just circular reasoning. But for every Julius Caesar, there are a million warlords who tried to smash all their enemies and were far less successful. You get one great empire-builder every 500 years or so, and in between you have ten thousand Gulbuddin Hekmatyars and Joseph Konys, warlords who kill and kill without ever getting anything meaningful out of it. And even being a Julius Caesar isn't all that "great" by any other definition of what one wants to get out of life.

 

[Zee Scribe]

Nobel Scientist: When Did We Start to Value Killing Over Living?





This is one of the most scary and understated things about this administration. Aside from general antagonism towards non-whites and anyone outside of the US, the disdain for science is some disturbing shyt. Scientific research might get thrown back decades.

I cited an article about how scientists feel and the history of scientists and politics a couple weeks back on my site. There have been actual marches by scientists again Trump that have flown under the radar.

I think it's the 4th article "when did science become a political" or something like that.

 

[Camile.Bidan]

Cape for acting like chimpanzees breh.

There's a reason they still live in the fukking trees.

Ghengis Khan spent 10 years of his prime in obscurity (25 to 35) after being defeated in war by his own best friend. Then after he regained power, he had a massive rift with his next partner that eventually led to an assassination attempt and the breakup of their collaboration. He finally gained power at 44, but only got there by fighting with or being betrayed by basically all his allies to that point, including his own shaman who tried to weaken him from within. During those 20 years in power, he was almost constantly at war, had to deal with constant infighting for control between his sons, and finally died in battle. But not before one of his sons died first, possibly poisoned by his own father.

Julius Caesar started a civil war within the Roman empire, then got involved with a civil war in Egypt, created disturbing spectacles of human death in gladiator games (so disturbing that citizens rioted, only to be turned into human sacrifices by Caeser's priests), and eventually was assassinated by his own senators.

Queen Elizabeth don't make no sense - she's the one who oversaw the collapse of the British empire, she didn't build it.


If your whole point is, "I glorify people who smash enemies, therefore those people are glorious to me", then it's just circular reasoning. But for every Julius Caesar, there are a million warlords who tried to smash all their enemies and were far less successful. You get one great empire-builder every 500 years or so, and in between you have ten thousand Gulbuddin Hekmatyars and Joseph Konys, warlords who kill and kill without ever getting anything meaningful out of it. And even being a Julius Caesar isn't all that "great" by any other definition of what one wants to get out of life.

I am not glorifying anything. I am stating reality. I am stating that there is a clear benefit to being ruthless towards other human beings. I see this everyday in the corporate world. I saw this in gang/drug controlled streets that I grew up in, and I see this in human history.


Another study found that men that killed more than 1 man in certain amazonian tribes had more kids had more kids than men that did not kill.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I am not glorifying anything. I am stating reality. I am stating that there is a clear benefit to being ruthless towards other human beings. I see this everyday in the corporate world. I saw this in gang/drug controlled streets that I grew up in, and I see this in human history.

Another study found that men that killed more than 1 man in certain amazonian tribes had more kids had more kids than men that did not kill.

I easily countered your supposed benefit, and you couldn't refute a single one of my arguments.

Amazon tribes and gang/drug controlled streets...they winning, right?

 

[Pressure]

Human nature is inherently violent. Without people defending them, the scientist and thinkers wouldn't be able to freely practice their passions.

This back and forth has been going on since the republic.

 

[Absalom's Thought]

.