Hey you must be nice person when you giving free hugs to strangers.
Topic: FREE Hugs - page 41. (Read 97606 times)
Hey you must be nice person when you giving free hugs to strangers.
Gorillas may not rape or kill for fun, unlike their more evolved counterparts, but they will kill babies so that the mother will mate with them.
Most infanticides occur when infants' mothers are not accompanied by their group's mature male (usually because he has died). Infants in this situation are almost certain to be killed by unfamiliar males unless they are nearly weaned. Active defense of infants by females is ineffective, and females cannot avoid unfamiliar males for prolonged periods. In contrast, infanticide is rare — yet has been observed — in encounters between mature males. It is not associated with group takeovers and male eviction by extra-group males, unlike the case in many other mammals. Demographic constraints and reproductive competition limit the occurrence of defensive coalitions between males. These factors, plus the high risks associated with male/male aggression, inhibit the occurrence of group takeovers by male coalitions. Infanticide shortens interbirth intervals and results in a high probability that a female will mate with the infanticidal male.
Is this type of murder "necessary"? I have a feeling if you ask the infant the answer would be no. From the male gorillas point of view its all about ensuring the survival of his genetic line by mating with the mother of the baby gorilla he just killed. Granted you cant compare this to what humans do to each other on a daily basis but it is none the less an example of violence for selfish reasons and ones not related to survival but procreation.
Most infanticides occur when infants' mothers are not accompanied by their group's mature male (usually because he has died). Infants in this situation are almost certain to be killed by unfamiliar males unless they are nearly weaned. Active defense of infants by females is ineffective, and females cannot avoid unfamiliar males for prolonged periods. In contrast, infanticide is rare — yet has been observed — in encounters between mature males. It is not associated with group takeovers and male eviction by extra-group males, unlike the case in many other mammals. Demographic constraints and reproductive competition limit the occurrence of defensive coalitions between males. These factors, plus the high risks associated with male/male aggression, inhibit the occurrence of group takeovers by male coalitions. Infanticide shortens interbirth intervals and results in a high probability that a female will mate with the infanticidal male.
Is this type of murder "necessary"? I have a feeling if you ask the infant the answer would be no. From the male gorillas point of view its all about ensuring the survival of his genetic line by mating with the mother of the baby gorilla he just killed. Granted you cant compare this to what humans do to each other on a daily basis but it is none the less an example of violence for selfish reasons and ones not related to survival but procreation.
With the gorilla listed as an endangered species I believe it to be a necessary evil, I guess you could also look at violence among humans as necessary evil because we are overpopulated, I refuse to believe that however
hahaha I really like that question. Since neither of those is really free I choose answer C!
are these hugs free as in beer or free as in speech?
No one will throw you into Guantanamo or unperson you if you do not give a good hug 
Soon i can post in the real forums!
YEAHHH, basaj stop spamming plz.
are these hugs free as in beer or free as in speech?
hahaha I really like that question. Since neither of those is really free I choose answer C!
are these hugs free as in beer or free as in speech?
Soon i can post in the real forums!
But when you observe other species that are very similar to humans such as gorillas for example you realize that they are all peaceful and not violent collectively, no phenomena such as rape, stealing etc exist, so if that was the case wouldn't some gorillas be naturally violent as well?
By not violent in this context I mean that they show the bare minimum amount of violence which is needed for survival.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
Violence, however, is preventable. Evidence shows strong relationships between levels of violence and potentially modifiable factors such as concentrated poverty, income and gender inequality, the harmful use of alcohol, and the absence of safe, stable, and nurturing relationships between children and parents. Scientific research shows that strategies addressing the underlying causes of violence can be effective in preventing violence. Examples of scientifically credible strategies to prevent violence include nurse home-visiting and parenting education to prevent child maltreatment; life skills training for children ages 6–18 years; school-based programmes to address gender norms and attitudes; reducing alcohol availability and misuse through enactment and enforcement of liquor licensing laws, taxation and pricing; reducing access to guns and knives; and promoting gender equality by, for instance, supporting the economic empowerment of women.
(Not that I necessarily agree with everything in that quote, seems biased to cram some agenda)
Gorillas may not rape or kill for fun, unlike their more evolved counterparts, but they will kill babies so that the mother will mate with them.
Most infanticides occur when infants' mothers are not accompanied by their group's mature male (usually because he has died). Infants in this situation are almost certain to be killed by unfamiliar males unless they are nearly weaned. Active defense of infants by females is ineffective, and females cannot avoid unfamiliar males for prolonged periods. In contrast, infanticide is rare — yet has been observed — in encounters between mature males. It is not associated with group takeovers and male eviction by extra-group males, unlike the case in many other mammals. Demographic constraints and reproductive competition limit the occurrence of defensive coalitions between males. These factors, plus the high risks associated with male/male aggression, inhibit the occurrence of group takeovers by male coalitions. Infanticide shortens interbirth intervals and results in a high probability that a female will mate with the infanticidal male.
Is this type of murder "necessary"? I have a feeling if you ask the infant the answer would be no. From the male gorillas point of view its all about ensuring the survival of his genetic line by mating with the mother of the baby gorilla he just killed. Granted you cant compare this to what humans do to each other on a daily basis but it is none the less an example of violence for selfish reasons and ones not related to survival but procreation.
Its really a classic nature vs nurture debate. How do you determine (or is it possible to determine) how much influence someones personality/genetics/inborn characteristics have on their actions as opposed to the environment in which they were raised. It seems like you lean more towards the John Locke/Ibn Tufail school of thought, which would make sense for someone interested in a decentralized (and essentially libertarian) currency. I would think that most of those on this forum with a philosophical bent would agree with you. But I digress...
Its hard to argue that society has 0 impact on a persons actions (just like its hard to argue that society is the only determining factor). I think that our society and global culture definitely leads to more "bad" people but that some people would be "bad" even in an idealistic utopia (an impossible point to prove but an interesting thought experiment). Some people. despite being given all the love and support in the world still hurt others or seek to impose their thought systems forcibly on society. Are greed, envy, lust, and hate natural human emotions or are they something we have created because of the royally messed up way that we live our lives as a species? Personally I think all of these things exist as part of human nature, we just exacerbate them through the eviornment we create for ourselves.
But that's just my 2 cents...a pretty interesting conversation while I wait in purgatory for my 4 hours to be up...And one deserving of several hugs!
Its hard to argue that society has 0 impact on a persons actions (just like its hard to argue that society is the only determining factor). I think that our society and global culture definitely leads to more "bad" people but that some people would be "bad" even in an idealistic utopia (an impossible point to prove but an interesting thought experiment). Some people. despite being given all the love and support in the world still hurt others or seek to impose their thought systems forcibly on society. Are greed, envy, lust, and hate natural human emotions or are they something we have created because of the royally messed up way that we live our lives as a species? Personally I think all of these things exist as part of human nature, we just exacerbate them through the eviornment we create for ourselves.
But that's just my 2 cents...a pretty interesting conversation while I wait in purgatory for my 4 hours to be up...And one deserving of several hugs!
But when you observe other species that are very similar to humans such as gorillas for example you realize that they are all peaceful and not violent collectively, no phenomena such as rape, stealing etc exist, so if that was the case wouldn't some gorillas be naturally violent as well?
By not violent in this context I mean that they show the bare minimum amount of violence which is needed for survival.
Hugs to Alani!
I think most people underestimate how closely politics and psychology are linked, every time the taxes are raised more people are hurt and more sick people are produced, the very same sick people that loom the streets looking for trouble, the same sick people that become mass murderers or find ways to gain advantage by exploiting the system in a horrific manner. Even such monstrous characters such as Ed Gein are merely a result of even bigger monsters that either failed him through ignorance, greed or lack of knowledge, the very same teachers that turned their head the other way when he was bullied, the neighbors that had heard things but decided not to report, the politicians that rolled in the dirt like pigs seeking total control, when you realize all of that you pity the person rather than being angry at him.
I don't think any person is bad for acting in a bad way, there must have been a buildup of going through a rough life and then it is simply a question of being susceptible. Not everyone can afford treatment or access to a therapeutic environment.
But those are just my thoughts....
Its really a classic nature vs nurture debate. How do you determine (or is it possible to determine) how much influence someones personality/genetics/inborn characteristics have on their actions as opposed to the environment in which they were raised. It seems like you lean more towards the John Locke/Ibn Tufail school of thought, which would make sense for someone interested in a decentralized (and essentially libertarian) currency. I would think that most of those on this forum with a philosophical bent would agree with you. But I digress...
Its hard to argue that society has 0 impact on a persons actions (just like its hard to argue that society is the only determining factor). I think that our society and global culture definitely leads to more "bad" people but that some people would be "bad" even in an idealistic utopia (an impossible point to prove but an interesting thought experiment). Some people. despite being given all the love and support in the world still hurt others or seek to impose their thought systems forcibly on society. Are greed, envy, lust, and hate natural human emotions or are they something we have created because of the royally messed up way that we live our lives as a species? Personally I think all of these things exist as part of human nature, we just exacerbate them through the eviornment we create for ourselves.
But that's just my 2 cents...a pretty interesting conversation while I wait in purgatory for my 4 hours to be up...And one deserving of several hugs!
^^^^^
I thought this thread deserved a bump, because the post above by CasinoBit is pretty deep
And also, because I'M GIVING OUT MORE FREE HUGS
Post your HugCoin wallet addresses and I shall send millions of hugs (ᵔᴥᵔ)
I thought this thread deserved a bump, because the post above by CasinoBit is pretty deep
And also, because I'M GIVING OUT MORE FREE HUGS
Post your HugCoin wallet addresses and I shall send millions of hugs (ᵔᴥᵔ)
YEAHHH
^^^^^
I thought this thread deserved a bump, because the post above by CasinoBit is pretty deep
And also, because I'M GIVING OUT MORE FREE HUGS
Post your HugCoin wallet addresses and I shall send millions of hugs (ᵔᴥᵔ)
I thought this thread deserved a bump, because the post above by CasinoBit is pretty deep
And also, because I'M GIVING OUT MORE FREE HUGS
Post your HugCoin wallet addresses and I shall send millions of hugs (ᵔᴥᵔ)
Man that is dedication, I'm a big fan of the free hug but can't say I have the same commitment. Keep it up, everyone needs hugs!
"Bad" people are a byproduct of a sick society that is rotten to the core, no need to be angry with them.
Anyway have a hug
thanks for the hug!
where do you draw the line between personal responsibility and societal ramifications? I'll give you that a lot of people are messed up because of situations our society placed them in to but at some point they made a choice no?
I think most people underestimate how closely politics and psychology are linked, every time the taxes are raised more people are hurt and more sick people are produced, the very same sick people that loom the streets looking for trouble, the same sick people that become mass murderers or find ways to gain advantage by exploiting the system in a horrific manner. Even such monstrous characters such as Ed Gein are merely a result of even bigger monsters that either failed him through ignorance, greed or lack of knowledge, the very same teachers that turned their head the other way when he was bullied, the neighbors that had heard things but decided not to report, the politicians that rolled in the dirt like pigs seeking total control, when you realize all of that you pity the person rather than being angry at him.
I don't think any person is bad for acting in a bad way, there must have been a buildup of going through a rough life and then it is simply a question of being susceptible. Not everyone can afford treatment or access to a therapeutic environment.
But those are just my thoughts....
Man that is dedication, I'm a big fan of the free hug but can't say I have the same commitment. Keep it up, everyone needs hugs!
"Bad" people are a byproduct of a sick society that is rotten to the core, no need to be angry with them.
Anyway have a hug
thanks for the hug!
where do you draw the line between personal responsibility and societal ramifications? I'll give you that a lot of people are messed up because of situations our society placed them in to but at some point they made a choice no?
Hello!
hug to BitManCo.Let's not kid ourselves. Nothing in life is free.
That is so true...in the end we pay the ultimate price They say the best things in life are free
I need a hug because I cannot post in other subforums 
..so ..show me some love
..so ..show me some love hug to deblocare.Let's not kid ourselves. Nothing in life is free.
hug to drofdelm.Yes please <3
hug to pimger.Stay awesome everyone!
Let's not kid ourselves. Nothing in life is free.
That is so true...in the end we pay the ultimate price
I need a hug because I cannot post in other subforums ..so ..show me some love
..so ..show me some love
Let's not kid ourselves. Nothing in life is free.
Yes please <3
Jump to: