3 of 6
3
Moammar Gadhafi is dead
Posted: 23 October 2011 10:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05

A real reason to eliminate Gaddafi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 06:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
psikeyhackr - 23 October 2011 10:12 PM

A real reason to eliminate Gaddafi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

psik

More love of speculation. But if that were a reason, it’s not a bad one. Mercantilism has been proven to be a failed policy and a resource-based currency (Au) encourages such a policy.

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 06:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
mckenzievmd - 23 October 2011 06:35 PM

George,

Can you find any evidence pit bulls are more violent than other breeds? Is that a scientific fact? A function of media coverage? A function of the people who tend to own pitbulls? What does “violent” mean here? Frequency of biting? Severity of injuries inflicted? Aggression towards people, other dogs, gophers, etc…?

I realize it’s just an example, and I know we’ve been through the debate about “race” and genetics and behavior enough times that there is little point in having that conversation again. But I couldn’t just let pass an illustrative example that really is deeply flawed and misleading when it strayed into my bailiwick. The example says nothing about the propensity for violence in Libya vs Canada vs Anywhere Else, and it doesn’t actually even say anything well-grounded in science about pit bulls.

Okay, Brennen. Since you are the expert here on dogs and implicitly suggest that pit bulls are not more violent than other breeds—although, I was specifically referring to poodles and not “other breeds”—I’ll have to take your word for it. But it would be certainly ludicrous to suggest behavior is not rooted in biology. Selective breeding of mice clearly shows that their aggression can be easily manipulated over no more than four generations. And then there is also the now famous Belyaev’s experiment with foxes. I understand artificial selection is not exactly natural selection, but the difference here is more quantitative (i.e. time-related) than qualitative. I am sure you would agree that wolfs are more aggressive than dogs and that it was most likely a mutation that was initially responsible for (some) wolfs to lose some of their aggressive behaviour and allowed them to be “tamed” by us.

But you are right: we are not pit bulls nor foxes, and as always, we are (or at least our behaviour is) a lot more complicated than that of other animals. We do, however, know that aggression is highly heritable (somewhere between 0.5 and 0.7), so there is enough reason to believe that natural selection has played a major role in shaping our behaviour as far as aggression goes. Also, I don’t know if you yet read Clark’s A Farewell to Alms and Cochran’s and Harpending’s The 10,000 Year Explosion, but it seems as there has been enough of a recent biological evolution to tweak the degree of different peoples towards violent behaviour.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 07:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6198
Joined  2006-12-20
George - 24 October 2011 06:57 AM


Okay, Brennen. Since you are the expert here on dogs and implicitly suggest that pit bulls are not more violent than other breeds—although, I was specifically referring to poodles and not “other breeds”—I’ll have to take your word for it.

I don’t think Brennen was saying that. I’m certainly happy to rely on my intuitions and experience regarding Pit bulls.

Brennen was just saying that’s not science. (I think)

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 07:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3256
Joined  2011-08-15

have to challenge that reference.  Lions are known to kill cubs born from a rival male.  Wolves are known to kill members of a rival pack.  I’m sure there are other examples.  It’s more than chimps and humans.

I see your point and I shouuld have been more specific in my reference. Both chimps and humans don’t just kill their rivals. They also kill for status in their societies. Wade points out that both SEEk rivals to kill, and always hunt in packs to overwhelm their opponents. My point is that this is deliberate and not genetic, where one animal kills a rival’s cub to protect its territory. It shows learned agression and not behavior via natural selection. Just as humans select certain animals for their natural agression and continue to breed them to fight (ex. pit bulls, game cocks, bull mastiffs for protection). I still contend that it’s a blend of nature and nurture.

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 07:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

One just needs to empower the moderates.  The moderates are the ones who say that there is no US AND THEM, if we really take a look at them, they are just like us, they learn, love, and have families just as we do, they do some good works, they want peace too, we can find common ground.  Its the extremists who say that THEY are different than US, WE are not like THEM, THEY are really walking talking here-on-Earth demons, and so we can’t get along with them, we must fight.  Every society has their extremists.  Now isn’t the time for fighting in Lybia, now it is time to make peace.  smile

They should have freedom and rights for each and every person, not just 99% of them but all of them, they should have one united country, one Libya, they should use the oil money to build the democratic institutions like roads, schools, Internet, medicine, docks, justice, etc., and they should have freedom of religion.  Let each person have freedom of religion, let the Sharia laws take effect only when they don’t conflict with the state laws, let the rebels have a reward of a plot of land, establish checks-and-balance on the oil money to make sure it goes to the people and democracy.

 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 07:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
jump_in_the_pit - 24 October 2011 07:48 AM

they are just like us, they learn, love, and have families just as we do, they do some good works, they want peace too

Just a personal anecdote here, but I know a number of people who immigrated to Canada from countries like Afghanistan or El Salvador to escape the violence. The puzzling thing here is (well, not that puzzling to me) why many of them joined the Canadian army.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 08:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
thevillageathiest - 24 October 2011 07:32 AM

My point is that this is deliberate and not genetic

Why do you think a “deliberate act” doesn’t happen for biological reasons?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 08:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1191
Joined  2011-08-01

Still dead?

 Signature 

Free in Kentucky
—Humanist
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”—Edith Sitwell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 09:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
traveler - 24 October 2011 06:12 AM
psikeyhackr - 23 October 2011 10:12 PM

A real reason to eliminate Gaddafi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

psik

More love of speculation. But if that were a reason, it’s not a bad one. Mercantilism has been proven to be a failed policy and a resource-based currency (Au) encourages such a policy.

It has to be speculation.  It is not a physics problem.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 10:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6198
Joined  2006-12-20
George - 24 October 2011 07:54 AM
jump_in_the_pit - 24 October 2011 07:48 AM

they are just like us, they learn, love, and have families just as we do, they do some good works, they want peace too

Just a personal anecdote here, but I know a number of people who immigrated to Canada from countries like Afghanistan or El Salvador to escape the violence. The puzzling thing here is (well, not that puzzling to me) why many of them joined the Canadian army.

I’d think 1) They’ve got to do something, of course that something could be living off the state I suppose but people who have the gumption to emigrate usually have the gumption to get off their arses once they arrive. 2) Many other options are closed to them. 3) Perhaps they feel a duty to the country who took them in, feel they have a debt to pay. 4) Would like to get fit and healthy. 5) Would like the opportunities to learn new skills and travel the world. 5) Due to their status and poverty the army is by far the best option (same as 2 perhaps) 6) Would like to be admired and respected. 7???????????????????????????????????????????

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 11:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Sure, any of those are a possibility. Similarly, I am sure there are many people who, for example, enjoy that disgusting “hobby” of hunting for a number of reasons: 1.) Enjoying outdoors; 2.) enjoying playing (a sophisticated version of hide-and-seek); 3.) helping to control animal overpopulation; 4.) protecting smaller animals; 5.) protecting hikers; 6.) protecting farm animals; 7.)???

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 11:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
joad - 23 October 2011 09:22 PM
thevillageathiest - 22 October 2011 05:07 AM

My reaction when I saw the violent scene was a recolection of video where a bunch of chimps murdered another chimp from a neighboring tribe. Scary stuff. I think we get an instant idea of how primitive those people still are.

Wade points this out in his book Reclaiming the past. He states that the only two species who knowingly kill their fellow members are chimps and humans. I felt the same revulsion when I saw a bloody figure in the truck being beaten by a wild mob. I couldn’t tell who it was. He was beaten to a pulp. They should have kept him alive for a trial. It would at least shown the world that someone was in charge. Now on to the next strong man or theocrat.

Cap’t Jack

I have to challenge that reference.  Lions are known to kill cubs born from a rival male.  Wolves are known to kill members of a rival pack.  I’m sure there are other examples.  It’s more than chimps and humans.

I think humans and chimps are the only species to wage war (not just kill other members of their species), that is, organized raiding for territory, food, and perhaps females.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 11:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
George - 24 October 2011 06:57 AM
mckenzievmd - 23 October 2011 06:35 PM

George,

Can you find any evidence pit bulls are more violent than other breeds? Is that a scientific fact? A function of media coverage? A function of the people who tend to own pitbulls? What does “violent” mean here? Frequency of biting? Severity of injuries inflicted? Aggression towards people, other dogs, gophers, etc…?

I realize it’s just an example, and I know we’ve been through the debate about “race” and genetics and behavior enough times that there is little point in having that conversation again. But I couldn’t just let pass an illustrative example that really is deeply flawed and misleading when it strayed into my bailiwick. The example says nothing about the propensity for violence in Libya vs Canada vs Anywhere Else, and it doesn’t actually even say anything well-grounded in science about pit bulls.

Okay, Brennen. Since you are the expert here on dogs and implicitly suggest that pit bulls are not more violent than other breeds—although, I was specifically referring to poodles and not “other breeds”—I’ll have to take your word for it.

From what I understand of the pit bull breed, they are actually bred to be less aggressive towards humans than other breeds are, due to their strength and thus high risk of injury and death to their handlers and family. However, they were bred to be fighting dogs, so can be very aggressive towards other dogs.

But it would be certainly ludicrous to suggest behavior is not rooted in biology.

Yes, but dogs may not be a good example, for a couple reasons. One, their genes are more flexible than ours because they are based on tandem repeats. A simple change in the length of a repeating pattern will alter the parameters of their appearance (and thus perhaps also behavior, although I am not sure of this). Second, dogs can go through generations about 20 times faster than humans, meaning they can evolve faster, especially under the influence of selective breeding.

I think culture is a much larger component than genetics when it comes to aggression. The example that comes to mind is of the baboon troupe that had a hierarchical power structure with alpha males at the top. Somehow, the alphas were all wiped out by a disease, leaving the beta males in charge. The culture changed so that aggressive behavior was deemed unacceptable, and any new members who entered the group that were aggressive were shunned/punished and soon learned to be agreeable, as the culture demanded.

With Libyans, it seems the culture and history, and even the circumstances of his finding and who found him, would be much more important than the genetic component of their aggression in the killing of Gadaffi.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2011 11:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
domokato - 24 October 2011 11:32 AM
joad - 23 October 2011 09:22 PM
thevillageathiest - 22 October 2011 05:07 AM

My reaction when I saw the violent scene was a recolection of video where a bunch of chimps murdered another chimp from a neighboring tribe. Scary stuff. I think we get an instant idea of how primitive those people still are.

Wade points this out in his book Reclaiming the past. He states that the only two species who knowingly kill their fellow members are chimps and humans. I felt the same revulsion when I saw a bloody figure in the truck being beaten by a wild mob. I couldn’t tell who it was. He was beaten to a pulp. They should have kept him alive for a trial. It would at least shown the world that someone was in charge. Now on to the next strong man or theocrat.

Cap’t Jack

I have to challenge that reference.  Lions are known to kill cubs born from a rival male.  Wolves are known to kill members of a rival pack.  I’m sure there are other examples.  It’s more than chimps and humans.

I think humans and chimps are the only species to wage war (not just kill other members of their species), that is, organized raiding for territory, food, and perhaps females.

Two caveats here:
1.) Chimps fight for territory. The other benefits (females, food) are not their direct focus.
2.) One must be careful distinguishing the difference between a “war” and a larger number of chimps beating the crap out of (usually) a solitary chimp from another tribe. (Not that different from the murder of Gadafi.) A war between two groups of chimps usually doesn’t escalate into anything serious. They may throw a stone or “call each other names,” but most of their “wars” consist of just a lot of noise.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 6
3