Everything you know is wrong: the modern decline in violence

I don't know. However will you prove yourself? Since the reference I provided was apparently too light for your taste, how about this one?

Over the past 30 years, women have entered the military in ever-increasing numbers. Ultimately, these women will make the transition from Servicemember to Veteran. In 2009, women comprised 8 percent of the total Veteran population in the United States. By 2035, they are projected to make up 15 percent of all living Veterans. ​

Does that show a societal trend that you can recognize and grasp or am I still too subtle? Can you untie your hands now?

How very magnanimous of you to admit such.

Really? How long have they done so? Is this a good thing?

So you admit that this a good thing for "womens' sake"? Are women part of society? Like maybe, I don't know, half?

Surely this is a good thing no?

Please provide evidence to support your "feelings". Can you?

I'm sorry, you lost me. Assuming your assertion is true, is this a positive or negative development?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Life is a balance, a gain somewhere is a loss elsewhere. It is both a positive development that violence has decreased and negative development that empathy has increased. In terms of women taking up men jobs and men taking up women jobs, I do not know at this time whether this will yield good results, seems to me like men wouldnt know what do with babies and women wouldnt know what to do with coal.

You brought the issue of women in the military...now to me women in military have no business, for a reason that if they get hurt who will look after the family? A woman has a higher chance of success in developing healthy children by herself than if a man was doing it by himself. Also what simply do not know the post-traumatic effects on women after the military service...Many men come home psychologically unstable after war, will this have the same effect on women?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just to be clear, you are asserting that an increase in empathy is a bad thing, correct? Are you sure you understand the meaning of this word? If you do understand, please, by all means, expound on why this is a "negative develoment", would you?

Well, though perhaps a statistical rarity, at least three thousand women knew what to do with coal way back in 1980 and single fathers are increasingly learning "what to do with babies":

13.6
approximately 13.6 million single parents in the United States today, and those parents are responsible for raising 21.2 million children (approximately 26% of children under 21 in the U.S. today).
- U.S. Census Bureau

60%
Single father homes are the fastest growing type of family situation; the amount of single fathers has grown by 60% in the last ten years alone.​

I'm very sorry that reality does not match your assertions. Society is trending away from your primitive beliefs and heading towards egalitarianism. Try again?

Yes, to you. But not to society. That's self evident.

Ummm, the father? Their lesbian life partner? Aunts and uncles? Is this multiple choice?

Cite your source.

Probably. So?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe the suffering has gone down over time per person. For milinia human population was stagnate at 500 million, this means people were being killed off as fast as they bred. Assuming that meant many shorts lives that ended in starvations, disease or murderer verse a few lives that last longed enough to have many children and to live to old age. Compared to the billions of humans today and its clear most people get to live long enough to have families and make it to old age. Since we all agree dying young is suffering I argue thus that suffering has decreased.

 

Randwolf I mean apathy not empathy...sorry.

The world became uncaring of each other with all the equality amongst us all, everyone expects the other to do 50% or better.

 

yes they are, even to the point where some are insubordinate.
jesus.
i shudder to think what would have happened to me if i ever sassed my mother or told her i was calling the police.
i already KNOW what would happen.
she would beat my ass then throw me in the car, drive down to the cop shop and FORCE me to tell them what happened.
then she would throw me back into the car, drive me home, then beat my ass again for making her go down there.
yes sir indeed, i was raised by a true wildcat.

 

and you have become one too...

 

people are entitled to their opinions i guess.

 

you don't think you have the characteristics of your mother?

 

and father, sister, niece, uncle charlie, the pope, nobel winners and losers, and practically everyone else.
i've found i am almost unflappable in the face of mortal danger.
if you have a gun you better shoot my ass with it or you WILL wear it.

 

Hmmm you defenitely attributed characteristics of being antsy)

 

A reduction from widespread violence to somewhat widespread violence is nothing to be proud of.

"“You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you're making progress" - Malcolm X

 

Going from 15-60% of men dying by homicide during humanities hunter-gather subsistence times to less then 2% (including all wars in the last century) is progress, I don't care if its still far from world peace or Utopia its better then what was by a much larger margin than knifing a guy 9 inches deep verse 6. If we continue to progress as we are world peace is likely attainable, possibly in this century! Violence will be many fractions lower then even today. We can't now start spiting on civilization and say that people like the yanomami have it right living in "harmony with nature" simply because we have become so comfortable in our present existence to be foolish enough to think that a idealize life with nature is better.

 

About Malcolm X...he was advocating hate against white people. Hardly a good thing to quite.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/feb/03/jared-diamond-clash-tribal-peoples

"A fierce dispute has erupted between Pulitzer prize-winning author Jared Diamond and campaign group Survival International over Diamond's recently published and highly acclaimed comparison of western and tribal societies, The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?

The controversy threatens to expose a deep rift in modern anthropology, with each claiming the other has fallen into a delusion that threatens to undermine the chances for survival of the world's remaining tribal societies."

"Survival accuses Diamond of applying studies of 39 societies, of which 10 are in his realm of direct experience in New Guinea and neighbouring islands, to advance a thesis that tribal peoples across the world live in a state of near-constant warfare."

 

Tribal societies have a population limitation, before they need to divide. You will not find a 10,000,000 person tribe, because the upper limit for tribes is closer to 100,000, with few tribes reaching that. As two tribes compete for the same land and resources, it hard for them to combine as the population rises, if the composite tribe approach the population limit.

In America, of the 150 or so tribes of native Americans, Cherokee has the most people which is about 300,000. This number does not reflect an old fashion tribe living off the land, but a tribe that has added western cultural features. One does not have to be 100% Cherokee to be included in the trim. Ask Senator Warren from Massachusetts, who claimed to be Cherokee. She wanted to be 300,001 because that allowed her to get a quota job. She is not exactly tribal and may have never even spent a night outside.

I would guess the limited size of tribes may reflect the natural balance between humans, land and nature, with too much human population density putting too much stress on the natural environment. Most native American tribes could live off the land. To add more people you will need to add artificial things, but this will change the character of tribe to something else.

 

Warren has never held a "quota job", or received any visible privileges from her claimed Red ancestry. (It's very common for Americans from pioneering stock to have a family tradition of Red ancestry, and it is often more or less accurate - my own paternal grandmother, for example, was not registered in any Tribe, but was known to have been ancestrally Red. I never met her. She lived and died (young) long before there was any advantage to tribal designation in her tribe - much the opposite. I have never put that on any forms, but many Americans in my position have, especially if the tribal connection is a good or romantic one.

The people of the Cherokee Nation (seven clans, or "tribes") have been building houses and living in them for hundreds of years now, since long before the Whites showed up, and not "sleeping outside".

The Cherokee just prior to European contact probably numbered 30,000 - 50,000 people, depending on how one counts them. The Five Civilized Tribes and neighbors together easily approached 250 - 300k. As they were a primary source of some of the farming and crops and general ecological knowhow that led to the great population growth and expansion among Americans, one can as validly credit the adoption of Cherokee cultural features for the Scotch-Irish tribe's population increases as the other way around.

The obliviousness with which you and your kind slander people you know nothing about is striking, still, after all these years of watching it cross the screen.

As far as the thread, the Cherokee and Iroquois confederations of tribes maintained a state of essentially permanent low intensity warfare along their borders, with an agreed demilitarized border zone free of Red towns and used by both parties to hunt (as in many places around the world, these zones seem to have served as game refuges. They still do.). The first White tribes to settle west of the Appalachian fall line, the (Walkers) Creek Valley clan of the Scotch-Irish tribe, settled in this zone - the only place they could set up in the face of the superior military power of either Confederation of Tribes north or south. The men would likely have been killed by raiders, the women and children killed or kidnapped for various purposes, the farms robbed and burned and the livestock butchered or gone feral, had they attempted to build near an established Red town.

It wasn't then like it is now, where people can just move across the Appalachian Mountains in either direction, bring the family, find or build a house and get a job and settle in; without much real risk of having their family raped and butchered and their house burned down by the neighbors.