np NP: Friday, July 22, 2016

[The Old Hack 2,448]

6 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

My point was that we are spoiled by society we lives in.

*groans* Not THIS again. Look, Robert E. Howard wrote some cool fantasy books, but the entire POINT of society -- any society -- is banding together for mutual protection. This notion of an ancient barbarian world where men were men and could stand tall and proud in their loincloths whilst in the middle of a howling blizzard, holding their swords aloft in one hand and the severed head of an effete virgin-sacrificing sorcerer in the other, a just barely not-sacrificed virgin clinging to their leg, may all be well and good but it has very, very little to do with reality.

If you look at history and take a close look at the bits that don't get as much attention as the others -- that is, the boring bits without war in them -- you will see long stretches of time in which hunters hunted, farmers farmed and (eventually) craftsmen crafted. They certainly didn't walk around killing one another on a daily basis. In fact, it was even hard to kill one another if you didn't have a good weapon, and weapons might well be frowned on by society or monopolised by whatever ruling power held it together.

These days it is appallingly easy to kill. Even in societies where firearms are controlled, nearly any adult can become a lethal killer just by taking the wheel in a car. Drive half a ton of automobile into someone at sixty kilometers per hour and see how good they look afterwards. Or you can go to a hardware store and buy a good steel steak knife. How available were these some three thousand years ago? The answer is: not very.

But let's totally drop the 'society that turns us into effete civilised people' and look at some ten thousand years ago. Did people kill one another back then? Sure they did, but murder was still an aberration. Normally fighting only led to someone giving up. But even if you wanted to kill someone, this was actually hard work and might take time -- and the other members of your band of hunter-gatherers might well be spoilsports and try to stop you.

Remember the movements of tribes a few thousand years ago? Some three thousand years ago a bunch of bloody immigrant refugees arrived in Denmark and immediately started to act like they owned the place. Why did they do that? Well, the main reason was that they had lived somewhere else and then been forced to relocate when another bunch of people moved in where they used to live. Note that phrase -- FORCED TO RELOCATE. That's not quite the same as being systematically killed. Anyway, these buggers (my ancestors on my mother's side) took over, absorbed the less technologically advanced tribe that used to run the place and started to establish an agrarian culture.

And that agrarian culture turned out to be pretty boring, all about getting harvests in and very little about killing one another for fun on the weekends. How effete they must have been, what has the world come to.

[hkmaly 490]

15 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

is banding together for mutual protection

Mutual. People were generally expected to help with protecting the community, when the need arise. They prayed it won't happen, sure, but they couldn't rely on professionals arriving in minutes if necessary.

16 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

a just barely not-sacrificed virgin clinging to their leg

... barely not-sacrificed no-longer-virgin, more likely ...

17 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

you will see long stretches of time in which hunters hunted, farmers farmed and (eventually) craftsmen crafted

The thing about long stretches of time is that you can easily find multiple things in them.

19 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

In fact, it was even hard to kill one another if you didn't have a good weapon, and weapons might well be frowned on by society or monopolised by whatever ruling power held it together.

It's surprising how many tools not only common, but necessary for hunters, farmers and craftsmen are acceptable-level weapons. Although ...

22 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

These days it is appallingly easy to kill. Even in societies where firearms are controlled, nearly any adult can become a lethal killer just by taking the wheel in a car. Drive half a ton of automobile into someone at sixty kilometers per hour and see how good they look afterwards. Or you can go to a hardware store and buy a good steel steak knife. How available were these some three thousand years ago? The answer is: not very.

... it's true that todays tools are much more effective in killing. Like the mentioned car. (I don't think steel steak knife is that more effective in killing the first person compared to less advanced knife. Sure, it will stay sharp longer, if you plan to kill more people ...)

In fact ... maybe the current society trying so hard to convince people to not kill is NECESSARY reaction to how easy would be to kill someone ...

29 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Note that phrase -- FORCED TO RELOCATE. That's not quite the same as being systematically killed.

Sure not systematically. I still find quite likely there was some killing before the people felt forced enough.

31 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

took over, absorbed the less technologically advanced tribe

... which might involved killing some people who didn't liked it ...

But if your point is that conflicts were generally solved without one side being eradicated, then yes, true.

Nice example is that after Trojan War, the Trojan survivors escaped to Italy and later founded Rome. Some Greeks might've regret they weren't more systematic later ...

[The Old Hack 2,448]

19 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Mutual. People were generally expected to help with protecting the community, when the need arise. They prayed it won't happen, sure, but they couldn't rely on professionals arriving in minutes if necessary.

The thing about long stretches of time is that you can easily find multiple things in them.

Neither -- in fact, none -- of your arguments negate my main point, which is that this absurd kill or be killed mentality you seem to posit as a necessity for survival is the exception and not the rule.

As to professionals arriving in minutes, why not? Much smaller communities then. All you needed was a good alarm bell and the help would be there quite speedily. In fact, a rather famous militia in the early days of America was called 'Minutemen' for precisely this reason...

[banneret 45]

Politics is not a recent invention, as a manifestation of hierarchy and the pursuit of power among social animals we can safely assume it predates written history. As far as we know there have always been leaders who rode to war, and leaders who did not, in the same periods. The warrior king and the tribal chief riding with their hosts are romantic notions, but we must not succumb to primitivism. Soldiers are sent to fight whether or not the leader is present, and historically the presence of leaders was a matter of practical necessity. Either the leader stayed with the host to direct it or stayed with the host for security, they can only now command from afar due to advancements in technology.
 

[hkmaly 490]

13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

13 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Mutual. People were generally expected to help with protecting the community, when the need arise. They prayed it won't happen, sure, but they couldn't rely on professionals arriving in minutes if necessary.

The thing about long stretches of time is that you can easily find multiple things in them.

Neither -- in fact, none -- of your arguments negate my main point, which is that this absurd kill or be killed mentality you seem to posit as a necessity for survival is the exception and not the rule.

I think you see me more extreme that I am. I agree that the "kill or be killed" situations are rare. I'm just saying they are not so rare to not happen to "everyone" (on every genetic path) when you look over whole history. Because those "long stretches of time".

(Although, this is statistics. Even if we (or I) knew much more about history than we do, it wouldn't be possible to PROVE no such genetic path exist without examining all of them.)

13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

In fact, a rather famous militia in the early days of America was called 'Minutemen' for precisely this reason...

They were famous because it was exception and not a rule - I mean, the fact the militia in the early days of America was so good was not only noteworthy, but a reason which made them famous.

To borrow the vikings again, if viking attacks were usually met with answer from professional militia, they wouldn't be doing it often enough to get famous with them.

3 hours ago, banneret said:

Politics is not a recent invention, as a manifestation of hierarchy and the pursuit of power among social animals we can safely assume it predates written history.

Depends on where you start calling it politics ... I think that politics is evolving, getting more complicated - and usually more useful for the politicians and less for the group he's leading. Of course, statistically, over time - not in the "all politicians in same period are same" sense, that would be easy to disprove.

3 hours ago, banneret said:

Either the leader stayed with the host to direct it or stayed with the host for security, they can only now command from afar due to advancements in technology.

Before current advancement in technology, the "commanding from afar" was implemented by having "military chief" or generally the hierarchy of command (or chain of command if you look on just one line). There was some "smaller" leader, officer, who were doing the "local" command over area related to how high he was in hierarchy ... and then there were political leaders, who were on top of that hierarchy and didn't really need to be present on site of battle.

In history, the chain of command is getting longer (statistically) in time, even if just because bigger population (and/or bigger army) is necessary for longer chain. Someone in middle of the chain have considerably less choice in peaceful solutions or the amount of violence he will order to be employed compared to the political leaders.

(I feel like stating the obvious, but hopefully it will explain what I meant better ...)

[The Old Hack 2,448]

Just now, hkmaly said:

They were famous because it was exception and not a rule - I mean, the fact the militia in the early days of America was so good was not only noteworthy, but a reason which made them famous.

To borrow the vikings again, if viking attacks were usually met with answer from professional militia, they wouldn't be doing it often enough to get famous with them.

Codswallop. Your original argument was that it couldn't be done. I showed that it could be, and was.

Also, I posit that where the Vikings were met with answer from professional militia, they either learned to attack easier targets or switched to trade... and historically, they did both.

[hkmaly 490]

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Codswallop. Your original argument was that it couldn't be done. I showed that it could be, and was.

I didn't specified any quantifier and would prefer discussion without need of mathematical symbols.

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Also, I posit that where the Vikings were met with answer from professional militia, they either learned to attack easier targets or switched to trade... and historically, they did both.

To rephrase, there was enough places where they didn't met with answer from professional militia (the "easier targets") for them to get famous for they attacks.

Based on wikipedia, the age of vikings raids lasted for three centuries and didn't ended for "all seashores were fortified" reason. I believe the number of places which were fortified or equipped with fast-reaction professionals raised during those centuries, but apparently not enough.

Also, slave-taking and slave trade is mentioned as important source of their profit ... while it wasn't only thing they traded with, it's not exactly example of peaceful activity.

(Unless you want to move the discussion in the direction of "it wasn't kill or be killed situation, see, you had option to be sold to slavery". Note that wikipedia mentions monks and clergymen, so yes, those might be taken because they choose not to fight. If they also chosen celibate, they are not really relevant for discussion about genealogy, though.)

[The Old Hack 2,448]

57 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I didn't specified any quantifier and would prefer discussion without need of mathematical symbols.

Too bad. I shall resolve this by means of simple logic.

Let us posit this 'killing gene' exists -- a tall order, but I shall let you have that much. Some combination of genes makes it easy for a human to kill other humans. Or alternately, some form of training exists that allow humans to overcome their reluctance to kill. We shall label this condition A.

Next, we have the absence of this attitude or conditioning. These humans can still kill but only do so accidentally or in utter extremis; otherwise they are too restrained to actively seek the death of fellow humans.

First, let us posit a humanity in which the existence of A is ubiquitous and omnipresent -- this is the state you insist on. From there, there is a sliding scale going from large majorities possessing A existing towards the opposite end where it is either rare or nonexistent. Let us ignore the sliding scale and look at the murderous monsters inhabiting a planet where only A exists. Every time they enter conflict, they are satisfied only with the death of their opponent. Evolutionarily speaking, how well does this hypothetical species do?

I shall present the following hypothesis: not very well. This species would self-destruct in an orgy of violence very, very quickly.

If we go downwards on the sliding scale, it does better, of course. But as soon as we do, I am allowed ancestors that do not end all their conflicts with killing, and your original position falls apart. The End.

[Scotty 1,061]

I never heard of anyone talking of killing being a genetic thing, mind you it could be the same as  it being part of the survival instinct in which if you felt threatened by something, you'd act according to your instincts. It greatly varies from person to person, some would try to avoid confrontation, some may try peaceful resolution, some may fight. Early humans mainly had a choice of fight or run away, then later developed other methods.

I think at some point though, humans started using the need to survive as an excuse to take from others, like "I need food, you have food, if you won't give some food, I'll take it".

[The Old Hack 2,448]

2 hours ago, Scotty said:

I never heard of anyone talking of killing being a genetic thing, mind you it could be the same as  it being part of the survival instinct in which if you felt threatened by something, you'd act according to your instincts. It greatly varies from person to person, some would try to avoid confrontation, some may try peaceful resolution, some may fight. Early humans mainly had a choice of fight or run away, then later developed other methods.

Fight, run away, posture, submission. This is a pattern that repeats intraspecies in many different animals. Wolves being an obvious example as well as any of the primates. Often it will never even come to a fight as both parties will puff up threateningly and one then either displays submission or flees. Mind you, this is usually only seen within the same species and is probably an evolved response to aid species survival.

[hkmaly 490]

4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

this is the state you insist on

Are you even serious?

4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Some combination of genes makes it easy for a human to kill other humans. Or alternately, some form of training exists that allow humans to overcome their reluctance to kill.

I would actually suspect the opposite - that is, specific genes which makes one less likely (reluctant) to kill members of same species. Makes more sense if you look at animals. Of course, most humans have it.

And about the training to overcome their reluctance to kill ... thats exactly what most of military training is about. Of course, the goal is to make soldiers kill enemies, not the rest of their unit.

And about the society where most people had that military training ... Sparta (well ... ok, most men). Lasted centuries.

Generally, people are perfectly capable of building long-lasting stable societies even if they would kill person from specific enemy tribe on sight. It only requires some distance. Only in last century or so the globalization made that impossible.

4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I am allowed ancestors that do not end all their conflicts with killing

I never said anything about "all their conflicts" ... you keep seeing me more extreme than I am.

Actually, during the discussion, I remembered one group of people, which was relatively genetically isolated and for long time (since 132 CE to 1948) had lot of reasons to avoid killing. Jews. They survived, although with heavy loses. Note that before and after that period, they seem less reluctant to kill, but still .... apparently there are holes in my statistics argument: even if you have no jew ancestors, it IS possible you have some lines composed from ancestors who were so lucky they were not killed despite not wanting to kill. The example of Jews for almost two thousand years proves that the amount of luck needed is not so big.

Note that the ancestors who did kill must still be common, while the ancestors which were killed before having children are obviously impossible. And in most military conflicts, the leaders didn't had the kind of long-term thinking necessary to only take into army people who already have children. But I overgeneralized when I claimed that it requires all ancestors or at least one ancestor on every line to kill.

And I still think that if Undine is not open to negotiation and starts attacking you instead, it makes sense for you to attack her. I don't know how the game supports the "render harmless without killing" option, so I'm not going to comment if it makes sense to kill her.

 

[The Old Hack 2,448]

2 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Are you even serious?

Allow me to quote you a quote:

If your ancestors would have the same opinion on self-defense as you do, you wouldn't exists.

This was in response to someone who effectively said, "I can't see why I have to kill her just because she tried to kill me."

So yes, I am serious. You posited a pure 'kill or be killed' mentality, disallowing flight, counterintimidation and submission as options. And did so with a, "if any ancestors in your entire family tree did not have the 'kill or be killed' mindset, you would not exist" argument. That is all.

[hkmaly 490]

4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

"if any ancestors in your entire family tree did not have the 'kill or be killed' mindset, you would not exist"

On 07/28/2016 at 1:52 AM, hkmaly said:

On 07/28/2016 at 3:19 AM, Drasvin said:

Sure, she's trying to kill you with magic spears, but that doesn't mean you should answer violence with violence.

If your ancestors would have the same opinion on self-defense as you do, you wouldn't exists.

I don't see any "any" in what I said.

4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

That is all.

... I'm getting the impression you don't really want to discuss this. Ok.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

I don't see any "any" in what I said.

So? The absence of "any" in this case implies "all."

[ijuin 572]

In regards to people taking justice into their own hands against an attacker vs. calling in the professionals, it wasn't really until the 19th century with communication and transportation methods faster than riding-on-horseback that governments were able to strongly enforce the government-monopoly-on-use-of-force outside of cities--"frontier justice" such as stereotypically happened in the American Old West often meant that the "capture, arrest, and detain" part of law enforcement had to be carried out by the local population themselves since there weren't enough police, and then they would (ideally) haul the captured suspect before the Judge for trial.

 

On 7/30/2016 at 3:34 AM, banneret said:

Politics is not a recent invention, as a manifestation of hierarchy and the pursuit of power among social animals we can safely assume it predates written history.

This depends heavily on your definition of "Politics". Certainly there has always been influence-trading and debates amongst the ruling groups in royal courts and such, but the whole "pandering to the masses, promising 'a chicken in every pot', etc." type of politics came about with the rise of widespread suffrage, such that the "poor, unwashed masses" were allowed to vote for national leaders. This wasn't all that common before the 18th century--prior to that, only landowners usually got to vote in national elections, where such existed at all (and "landowner" usually had a minimum land value qualification such that merely owning a cheap house in town was not enough to qualify).

[The Old Hack 2,448]

10 hours ago, ijuin said:

This depends heavily on your definition of "Politics". Certainly there has always been influence-trading and debates amongst the ruling groups in royal courts and such, but the whole "pandering to the masses, promising 'a chicken in every pot', etc." type of politics came about with the rise of widespread suffrage, such that the "poor, unwashed masses" were allowed to vote for national leaders. This wasn't all that common before the 18th century--

Errr... the idea of promising the masses bread and circuses was already found in Rome well before the birth of Christ. And probably in parts of Greece, too. And in many other places if you count such instances as promising a starving people better living if they'll just help you toss the old chieftain out on his ear and put you in his place. Then there's any workplace where there is jostling for position amongst the employees.

My own conviction is that as soon as you have three or more people in the same place, politics appear. This is probably an exaggeration but the word itself is based on the greek Polis, or city. Possibly a good definition is that as soon as you have a decent size population that can support a city, politics rear their head. Even kings at times have to placate their people if they get hungry enough, after all. Or that guy who sees a golden opportunity to replace you may appear...

[hkmaly 490]

On 08/01/2016 at 7:57 PM, The Old Hack said:

This is probably an exaggeration but the word itself is based on the greek Polis, or city.

Quite possibly Greek city-states were the first where it happened, because, well, they were doing the voting stuff. Also though about it a lot. Our resident faraon might tell us what would happen with Egypt if people would start talking about tossing old faraon out ... I suspect it would involve crocodiles.

Of course, it the time of Rome, the politics was already heavily used. But ... it sort of lost power after fall of Rome ... took those "barbarians" some time to learn it.

On 08/01/2016 at 9:37 AM, ijuin said:

In regards to people taking justice into their own hands against an attacker vs. calling in the professionals, it wasn't really until the 19th century with communication and transportation methods faster than riding-on-horseback that governments were able to strongly enforce the government-monopoly-on-use-of-force outside of cities--"frontier justice" such as stereotypically happened in the American Old West often meant that the "capture, arrest, and detain" part of law enforcement had to be carried out by the local population themselves since there weren't enough police, and then they would (ideally) haul the captured suspect before the Judge for trial.

... that's what I was speaking about ... well, ok, maybe not that clearly ...

[Don Edwards 548]

According to something I read once, there were very few documented instances in the American west of extralegal "frontier justice" NOT turning the suspected criminals over to law-enforcement authorities.

And in one of the few such instances, the reason they decided to hang the cattle-rustlers rather than turn them over to the sheriff was... the first rustler they hanged was the sheriff.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

4 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

And in one of the few such instances, the reason they decided to hang the cattle-rustlers rather than turn them over to the sheriff was... the first rustler they hanged was the sheriff.

To be fair, internal investigations run by the criminals themselves do not have a good track record of apprehending and convicting the actual responsible parties.

[mlooney 3,417]

6 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

To be fair, internal investigations run by the criminals themselves do not have a good track record of apprehending and convicting the actual responsible parties.

Unless, of course they are Germans.  They document every thing.  Granted, the don't expect any one else to find the documents, but when the do, it's all there in black and white, so to speak.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

6 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Unless, of course they are Germans.  They document every thing.  Granted, the don't expect any one else to find the documents, but when the do, it's all there in black and white, so to speak.

You have a point there. I think the German Army could have been paralysed just as easily by depriving it of paper instead of oil.

[Vorlonagent 442]

4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

You have a point there. I think the German Army could have been paralysed just as easily by depriving it of paper instead of oil.

Germans it's paper and ink, italians it's pasta and water...

[Scotty 1,061]

With Canadians, it's maple syrup and poutine.

 

 

 

 

 

That should get them to leave hockey and Tim Hortons alone...I mean, what? 

[The Old Hack 2,448]

35 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Germans it's paper and ink, italians it's pasta and water...

To be fair, the Italian army during WWII was of such horrible quality that if you selected five random squads and told each of them to storm an empty barn, at most three of them would succeed in taking it. Not as much because of the men, mind you -- but their leadership and motivation was so atrocious that it darn near ranks right down there with Santa Anna leading the Mexican Army.

[Vorlonagent 442]

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

To be fair, the Italian army during WWII was of such horrible quality that if you selected five random squads and told each of them to storm an empty barn, at most three of them would succeed in taking it. Not as much because of the men, mind you -- but their leadership and motivation was so atrocious that it darn near ranks right down there with Santa Anna leading the Mexican Army.

I remember reading that. 

2 hours ago, Scotty said:

With Canadians, it's maple syrup and poutine.

 

 

 

 

 

That should get them to leave hockey and Tim Hortons alone...I mean, what? 

I thought it was back-bacon, beans, and beer...