Just like to say: Those that are going on about laws and morality are missing the point. Law has absolutely nothing to do with morality.

On Kolbergs scale (1 to 6) Law and order is cleary defined at about level 4 usually acheived by chidren of 11 or 12 years old. Of course most of these children never leave that level (because of culture and religion) levels 5 and 6 dont seem to be understood by many on this thread.

(September 9, 2011 at 4:59 am)ElDinero Wrote: Sae, if you really don't care about innocent people being executed 12% of the time, I think you're a sociopath. I wonder if you'd still be so callous about it if someone you cared about (if such a person exists) was staring down a lethal injection and they were innocent? If so, you're definitely a sociopath.

I believe she's fucking with you man.

Impossible to tell really. Hence why I requested clarification before. Don't see the point in trolling on a forum like this, it's not like there's a lack of diverse opinions.

(September 9, 2011 at 5:02 am)Peter44 Wrote: Just like to say: Those that are going on about laws and morality are missing the point. Law has absolutely nothing to do with morality.

On Kolbergs scale (1 to 6) Law and order is cleary defined at about level 4 usually acheived by chidren of 11 or 12 years old. Of course most of these children never leave that level (because of culture and religion) levels 5 and 6 dont seem to be understood by many on this thread.

Impressive display of douchiness...

Law has a LOT to do with morality. Look at any law system and you'll have a really good idea of what kind of people it governs and what the consensus' morals are, even what kind of history they had. Law is an impressively precise blueprint of the society that created it. Do not underestimate its importance.

What is legal and what is moral are two things that are very connected to each other. As proof, for a very long time, tribunals were ecclesiastic: the moral authorities and the legal authorities were one and the same.

I'm unfamiliar with the history of the Pacific Islands, from what you've put forward it sounds like they had a good thing going and it got trashed (no surprise). However, the notion that early religions that focused more on goddesses were peaceful or somehow softer is not the picture that the archaeological record of N. Europe (for example) presents. Military fortifications and weapons were prevalent before the rise of god (as opposed to goddess) centered cultures, preference was given to males in burial (and their graves were lavish compared to the pits we find the females in), in fact, many of the myths that survive from these religions describe women who are sought out precisdely for their expertise in battle, and the goddesses associated are often best described as purely malevolent. The picture painted by archaeology (at least in N. Europe) is one of the cast of deities changing, while the rest of their lives seems to have been business as usual, going all the way back to the neolithic.

There is simply nothing that we've dug up that would lead us to believe in this peaceful goddess culture theory. I mention Marija Gimbutas because she is easily the most prolific author on this subject (and was one of it's earliest proponents). Her theories have received massive amounts of criticism, not on her observations, but upon the conclusions she drew from them. There was a large goddess culture in N. Europe, but it was no less warlike or dominated by males than any of the more paternalistic religions that followed. Firstly, I wouldn't call women "the weak" but to use that sentiment; the archaeological record shows us that throughout history the weak have never been given more than lip service. If these cultures were dominated by women, they were dominated by powerful women who commanded bands of warriors to mercilessly slaughter their foes and enact gruesome ritual murders to appease their goddesses. Great book I've linked here that discusses how researchers political leanings and ideologies crept into our understanding of the past.

http://www.amazon.com/Knossos-Prophets-M...0226289532

(September 9, 2011 at 10:46 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'm unfamiliar with the history of the Pacific Islands, from what you've put forward it sounds like they had a good thing going and it got trashed (no surprise). However, the notion that early religions that focused more on goddesses were peaceful or somehow softer is not the picture that the archaeological record of N. Europe (for example) presents. Military fortifications and weapons were prevalent before the rise of god (as opposed to goddess) centered cultures, preference was given to males in burial (and their graves were lavish compared to the pits we find the females in), in fact, many of the myths that survive from these religions describe women who are sought out precisdely for their expertise in battle, and the goddesses associated are often best described as purely malevolent. The picture painted by archaeology (at least in N. Europe) is one of the cast of deities changing, while the rest of their lives seems to have been business as usual, going all the way back to the neolithic.

There is simply nothing that we've dug up that would lead us to believe in this peaceful goddess culture theory. I mention Marija Gimbutas because she is easily the most prolific author on this subject (and was one of it's earliest proponents). Her theories have received massive amounts of criticism, not on her observations, but upon the conclusions she drew from them. There was a large goddess culture in N. Europe, but it was no less warlike or dominated by males than any of the more paternalistic religions that followed. Firstly, I wouldn't call women "the weak" but to use that sentiment; the archaeological record shows us that throughout history the weak have never been given more than lip service. If these cultures were dominated by women, they were dominated by powerful women who commanded bands of warriors to mercilessly slaughter their foes and enact gruesome ritual murders to appease their goddesses. Great book I've linked here that discusses how researchers political leanings and ideologies crept into our understanding of the past.

http://www.amazon.com/Knossos-Prophets-M...0226289532

Your making a point about war as if it was in some way bad. In fact protecting yourself is good.

Fighting for your own group against others is also good and woman's place in that certainly show they took part if not as equals because of physical weakness (I am not too PC to say it).

I dont dispute that slaughter and violence were not widespread in prehistory nor that women took part in it. I am suggesting that you have to have it in context and in fact just saying war and violence is bad is far from the case. Nor does it preclude societies being peaceful and having equality within them. Your interpretation of the past is well clouded by your immersion in the present.

Looking again at Pacific Island cultures which are often matriarchal and matrilineal. Malinowski certainly suggest that such societies involved better care of children and elderly by males than was evident in modern western cultures.

So stick by point which in fact was a very small part of my post on religion and morality.

You're imagining wars for self defense when the archaeological record shows that these wars were territorial (and aggressively imperialist), over resources, and sometimes ritual (or for the purpose of taking prisoners). Whenever one is defending, another is attacking. Peaceful warlike societies? I'm not placing any moral judgement on this sort of thing, I have nothing against war in and of itself (I was a soldier), simply stating that the notions of a "better" society by way of matriarchal structure or religion isn't something we have evidence for. These societies appear to be essentially the same as any other (at least in the case of N. Europe).

A simpler way of stating this would be: If women were in charge, human beings would still be in charge. That the societies you're referencing in the Pacific had a different dynamic most likely has more to do with those people specifically, than it has to do with the nature of women as a whole, as it relates to power or governance. My N. European examples are a great way to substantiate that claim. Our current culture seems to be doing a pretty decent job of taking care of their children, if our population growth is any indicator, people are surviving into ever increasing age, and I think most people would characterize ours as a patriarchal culture. How does that square with your ideas of a superior societal structure in matriarchal cultures? Did those cultures achieve greater population growth? Did they live longer?

I'm not trying to claim that whatever benefits those cultures in the Pacific had did not arise from their matriarchal structure. I'm perfectly willing to say that you know more about them than I do. What I am giving are examples of matriarchal societies that went the exact opposite way with it and were as warlike and aggressive as any patriarchal society. It would seem, to me at least, that whether a society is matriarchal or patriarchal is most likely not the reason (or at least is not the only reason) for a society to be more peaceful than their fellows.

(for the record, the romans (just for one example) believed the women of many pagan tribes to as fierce a warrior as any of the men, so I'm not trying to be PC here, just stating that women aren't exactly absent on the battlefields of history or prehistory)

(September 9, 2011 at 4:59 am)ElDinero Wrote: Sae, if you really don't care about innocent people being executed 12% of the time, I think you're a sociopath. I wonder if you'd still be so callous about it if someone you cared about (if such a person exists) was staring down a lethal injection and they were innocent? If so, you're definitely a sociopath.

If someone I cared about was staring down either a lethal injection or prison time: I am breaking them out and butchering the rest of the people in there.

There aren't a lot of people that I care about... and the few I do mean a lot to me.

---

(September 9, 2011 at 6:04 am)FaithNoMore Wrote: I believe she's fucking with you man.

Only a little... most of what I said is what I believe.

"You didn't ask" - Solid Snake

---

(September 9, 2011 at 7:01 am)ElDinero Wrote: Impossible to tell really. Hence why I requested clarification before. Don't see the point in trolling on a forum like this, it's not like there's a lack of diverse opinions.

As I've said before... I only troll 1/6th of the time. The other 5/6ths of me add strongly to the diversity of this place.

I don't believe I am a sociopath... but you never know. All that donating and giving and general kindness I show to others? Probably habitual

I don't really mind you having barbaric opinions, as long as you're consistent. So if FOR SOME REASON you weren't able to infiltrate a highly secure detention facility and rescue your friend without being captured or killed yourself, as bizarre and unlikely as that idea may be, would you be ok with them being put to death by the state for a crime they didn't commit? If yes, you're a sociopath. If no, you're a hypocrite. Your choice.

(September 9, 2011 at 12:37 pm)ElDinero Wrote: I don't really mind you having barbaric opinions, as long as you're consistent. So if FOR SOME REASON you weren't able to infiltrate a highly secure detention facility and rescue your friend without being captured or killed yourself, as bizarre and unlikely as that idea may be, would you be ok with them being put to death by the state for a crime they didn't commit? If yes, you're a sociopath. If no, you're a hypocrite. Your choice.

I do not care what crimes a friend of mine committed or did not commit. If I am their friend: I am not ever okay with them being put to death until they are no longer my friend.

Nor am I ever okay with them being locked up for an extended period of time stretching past a handful of months.

Your false dichotomy is amusing.