From: Mermaid (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Sun Oct 05 2003 - 18:08:58 MDT
henson: acts of violence committed by the KKK, Nazis, Stalin, Red China, white slave owners, State of Israel...the apartheid, the crusades, bombing of hiroshima etc..all occured in non primitive societies. you too believe that wars are triggered off by economic downturns which means that poverty is also a trigger that incites violence. So, poverty too is a form of violence. Those who strive to keep a population poor indirectly contribute to the general violene in the society. Muggings, assault, spousal abuse, rape are all acts of violence.
Imprisonment of a rapist(rape is an act of violence) rather than the murder of the rapist as revenge is a civilised judgement. On the whole, the civilised world will bear more acts of violence(rape) when the rapist engages in serial acts of violence than in a primitive society where there are only two acts of violence, the rape and the subsequent murder of the rapist.
I have no reason to believe that primitive societies are NOT violent at all. However, I do not accept the reasoning attempted to prove that primitive societies are more violent than non primitive societies. What you are showing me is the study where the researchers are extrapolating *one* form of violence and trying to sell the idea that primitive societies are more violent than non primitive societies. imo, it is neither valid nor factual.
If there is an absence of strong adherence to the legal system in primitive societies, you have to consider *all* acts of violence including capital punishment, war casualities that occur in non primitive societies. Afterall, non primitive societies are 'ordered' societies where there is a strict enforcement of law and order. Tribal warfare is often caused by friction between clans. It could be over sheep or land or a woman as they are all considered property. Tribal warfare over sheep is the equivalent of countries fighting over oil in terms of intent and significance.
You quoted from johnhorgan.com: "In the 20th century, about 100 million men, women, and children died from war-related causes, including disease and famine. The total would have been 2 billion if our rates of violence had been as high as in the average primitive society."
he also says: ". About 1 percent of all 20th-century males in Europe and the U.S. died of war-related causes. As many as 50 percent of the men in primitive societies were killed by other men."
How many males of the 20th century engages in warfare? If the number of members of a tribe is lesser than the number of population of the 20th century, it is easy to understand why more proportion of men would engage in warfare to defend their own tribe.
here's a thought: there are 4 people in a tribe. the tribe splits and fight each other. one person from each tribe dies. so 50% of the male population died because of an act of violence! On the other hand, what was the total population of europe and US during the 20th century. Of this, how many engaged in warfare? If those who died of violent crimes is one percent, how is this valid as proof that primitive societies are more violent than non primitive societies? this is why statistics is perverse.
btw, as hermit pointed out...my comment re texas frying thousands/yearly is an unfortunate exaggeration indeed.
---- This message was posted by Mermaid to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29437> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 05 2003 - 18:09:09 MDT