| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 43:51:10 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 175,718 |
On 2025-10-05 15:02:27 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:
A 2016 interview:
<https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/when-primatologist-jane-goodall-
compared-trump-to-male-chimpanzees-9383629>
-a-a-a When Primatologist Jane Goodall Compared Trump To Male
-a-a-a Chimpanzees In 2016, during Trump's first presidential race,
-a-a-a Goodall said that his performances reminds her of male
-a-a-a chimpanzees and their dominance rituals.
-a-a-a In 2016, during Trump's first presidential race, Jane Goodall
-a-a-a had drawn the comparison, remarking, "In many ways the
-a-a-a performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and
-a-a-a their dominance rituals."
-a-a-a Goodall, who spent years studying chimpanzees, appeared to
-a-a-a make the connection while explaining the animal's pursuit of
-a-a-a dominance. "In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise
-a-a-a in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays:
-a-a-a stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing
-a-a-a rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the
-a-a-a faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and
-a-a-a the longer he is likely to maintain that position," she told
-a-a-a the Atlantic
LOL, she nailed it. Works for orangutans too I presume.
On 10/5/25 17:00, super70s wrote:
On 2025-10-05 15:02:27 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:
A 2016 interview:
<https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/when-primatologist-jane-goodall-
compared-trump-to-male-chimpanzees-9383629>
aaa When Primatologist Jane Goodall Compared Trump To Male
aaa Chimpanzees In 2016, during Trump's first presidential race,
aaa Goodall said that his performances reminds her of male
aaa chimpanzees and their dominance rituals.
aaa In 2016, during Trump's first presidential race, Jane Goodall
aaa had drawn the comparison, remarking, "In many ways the
aaa performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and
aaa their dominance rituals."
aaa Goodall, who spent years studying chimpanzees, appeared to
aaa make the connection while explaining the animal's pursuit of
aaa dominance. "In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise
aaa in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays:
aaa stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing
aaa rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the
aaa faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and
aaa the longer he is likely to maintain that position," she told
aaa the Atlantic
LOL, she nailed it. Works for orangutans too I presume.
Orangs are more mellow and far more solitary and
despite reminding of Buddhist monks are not quite
as sharp as chimps.
However most of our cousin species are very aggressive.
Getting to the top of the proverbial pecking order
is hard-wired into MANY species - reptiles, birds,
mammals, even seen octopus death-matches - and it
is hard-wired in US too. I suppose it's "Darwinian"
in a number of ways ... but that was before the
thermonuclear weapons.
ALWAYS look for "dominance imperative" hidden behind
elaborate philosophical/"logical" arguments no matter
WHO is selling them.
As for Goodall ... a fairly honest researcher. Started
with a hippy-dippy notion that apes were the "better"
model for social affairs, learned different and SAID so.
Like many species, humans rose to the top of the food chain by pusuing
their own individual self interest. Social relations are a product of
that self interest pursuit.
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 02:59:08 -0400, RightistsAreDimwits didnAt write:
Like many species, humans rose to the top of the food chain by pusuing
their own individual self interest. Social relations are a product of
that self interest pursuit.
Wrong way round. We are primarily pack animals with a hierarchical social >structure, just like the dogs we are so fond of (and which are so fond of >us). Individuals who prioritized their own self interest would not be >willing to sacrifice themselves for the common good. They wouldnAt form an >armed force or police force to protect the country; humans would be more >like cats, individualists who will preserve themselves ahead of anybody >else.
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own self
interest to do so.
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:30:53 -0400, RightistsAreMorons didnAt write:
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own self
interest to do so.
No it doesnAt. It serves the interest of the nation. How can it serve your >own personal interest to die?
Without a wider social context to view such
an action in, beyond your own personal perspective, that would be suicide.
The fact that people can be viewed to adopt just such a social context, is >something that unscrupulous leaders have been known to take advantage of.
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 23:02:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:30:53 -0400, RightistsAreMorons didnrCOt write:
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own self
interest to do so.
No it doesnrCOt. It serves the interest of the nation. How can it
serve your own personal interest to die?
<LOL> Not many soldiers choose to die.
Without a wider social context to view such an action in, beyond your
own personal perspective, that would be suicide.
I didn't say there was no social context. I said the social context
serves individual's self interest.
The fact that people can be viewed to adopt just such a social context,
is something that unscrupulous leaders have been known to take advantage
of.
..by convincing them that it is in their best interest to do so.
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 21:44:18 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/5/25 17:00, super70s wrote:
On 2025-10-05 15:02:27 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:
A 2016 interview:
<https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/when-primatologist-jane-goodall-
compared-trump-to-male-chimpanzees-9383629>
-a-a-a When Primatologist Jane Goodall Compared Trump To Male
-a-a-a Chimpanzees In 2016, during Trump's first presidential race,
-a-a-a Goodall said that his performances reminds her of male
-a-a-a chimpanzees and their dominance rituals.
-a-a-a In 2016, during Trump's first presidential race, Jane Goodall
-a-a-a had drawn the comparison, remarking, "In many ways the
-a-a-a performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and >>>> -a-a-a their dominance rituals."
-a-a-a Goodall, who spent years studying chimpanzees, appeared to
-a-a-a make the connection while explaining the animal's pursuit of
-a-a-a dominance. "In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise
-a-a-a in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays:
-a-a-a stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing
-a-a-a rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the
-a-a-a faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and
-a-a-a the longer he is likely to maintain that position," she told
-a-a-a the Atlantic
LOL, she nailed it. Works for orangutans too I presume.
Orangs are more mellow and far more solitary and
despite reminding of Buddhist monks are not quite
as sharp as chimps.
However most of our cousin species are very aggressive.
Getting to the top of the proverbial pecking order
is hard-wired into MANY species - reptiles, birds,
mammals, even seen octopus death-matches - and it
is hard-wired in US too. I suppose it's "Darwinian"
in a number of ways ... but that was before the
thermonuclear weapons.
ALWAYS look for "dominance imperative" hidden behind
elaborate philosophical/"logical" arguments no matter
WHO is selling them.
As for Goodall ... a fairly honest researcher. Started
with a hippy-dippy notion that apes were the "better"
model for social affairs, learned different and SAID so.
Like many species, humans rose to the top of the food chain by pusuing
their own individual self interest. Social relations are a product of
that self interest pursuit. Favoring the best intersts of the social
group at the detriment of one's own is trait of lower intellect
species.
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 23:02:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:30:53 -0400, RightistsAreMorons didnrCOt write:
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own self
interest to do so.
No it doesnrCOt. It serves the interest of the nation. How can it serve your >> own personal interest to die?
<LOL> Not many soldiers choose to die.
Without a wider social context to view such
an action in, beyond your own personal perspective, that would be suicide.
I didn't say there was no social context. I said the social context
serves individual's self interest.
The fact that people can be viewed to adopt just such a social context, is >> something that unscrupulous leaders have been known to take advantage of.
..by convincing them that it is in their best interest to do so.
On 10/6/25 02:59, LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 21:44:18 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/5/25 17:00, super70s wrote:
On 2025-10-05 15:02:27 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:
A 2016 interview:
<https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/when-primatologist-jane-goodall-
compared-trump-to-male-chimpanzees-9383629>
-a-a-a-a When Primatologist Jane Goodall Compared Trump To Male
-a-a-a-a Chimpanzees In 2016, during Trump's first presidential race, >>>>> -a-a-a-a Goodall said that his performances reminds her of male
-a-a-a-a chimpanzees and their dominance rituals.
-a-a-a-a In 2016, during Trump's first presidential race, Jane Goodall >>>>> -a-a-a-a had drawn the comparison, remarking, "In many ways the
-a-a-a-a performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and >>>>> -a-a-a-a their dominance rituals."
-a-a-a-a Goodall, who spent years studying chimpanzees, appeared to
-a-a-a-a make the connection while explaining the animal's pursuit of >>>>> -a-a-a-a dominance. "In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise >>>>> -a-a-a-a in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays:
-a-a-a-a stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing
-a-a-a-a rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the
-a-a-a-a faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and >>>>> -a-a-a-a the longer he is likely to maintain that position," she told >>>>> -a-a-a-a the Atlantic
LOL, she nailed it. Works for orangutans too I presume.
-a-a Orangs are more mellow and far more solitary and
-a-a despite reminding of Buddhist monks are not quite
-a-a as sharp as chimps.
-a-a However most of our cousin species are very aggressive.
-a-a Getting to the top of the proverbial pecking order
-a-a is hard-wired into MANY species - reptiles, birds,
-a-a mammals, even seen octopus death-matches - and it
-a-a is hard-wired in US too. I suppose it's "Darwinian"
-a-a in a number of ways ... but that was before the
-a-a thermonuclear weapons.
-a-a ALWAYS look for "dominance imperative" hidden behind
-a-a elaborate philosophical/"logical" arguments no matter
-a-a WHO is selling them.
-a-a As for Goodall ... a fairly honest researcher. Started
-a-a with a hippy-dippy notion that apes were the "better"
-a-a model for social affairs, learned different and SAID so.
Like many species, humans rose to the top of the food chain by pusuing
their own individual self interest. Social relations are a product of
that self interest pursuit. Favoring the best intersts of the social
group at the detriment of one's own is trait of lower intellect
species.
-a Humans seem to have "modes"
On 10/6/2025 6:44 PM, c186282, Nazi pseudo-sage and cocksucking cipher,
took his hands and mouth off Xi's dick long enough to peck:
On 10/6/25 02:59, LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 21:44:18 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/5/25 17:00, super70s wrote:
On 2025-10-05 15:02:27 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:
A 2016 interview:
<https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/when-primatologist-jane-goodall-
compared-trump-to-male-chimpanzees-9383629>
-a-a-a-a When Primatologist Jane Goodall Compared Trump To Male
-a-a-a-a Chimpanzees In 2016, during Trump's first presidential race, >>>>>> -a-a-a-a Goodall said that his performances reminds her of male
-a-a-a-a chimpanzees and their dominance rituals.
-a-a-a-a In 2016, during Trump's first presidential race, Jane Goodall >>>>>> -a-a-a-a had drawn the comparison, remarking, "In many ways the
-a-a-a-a performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and >>>>>> -a-a-a-a their dominance rituals."
-a-a-a-a Goodall, who spent years studying chimpanzees, appeared to >>>>>> -a-a-a-a make the connection while explaining the animal's pursuit of >>>>>> -a-a-a-a dominance. "In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise >>>>>> -a-a-a-a in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays:
-a-a-a-a stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing >>>>>> -a-a-a-a rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the >>>>>> -a-a-a-a faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and >>>>>> -a-a-a-a the longer he is likely to maintain that position," she told >>>>>> -a-a-a-a the Atlantic
LOL, she nailed it. Works for orangutans too I presume.
-a-a Orangs are more mellow and far more solitary and
-a-a despite reminding of Buddhist monks are not quite
-a-a as sharp as chimps.
-a-a However most of our cousin species are very aggressive.
-a-a Getting to the top of the proverbial pecking order
-a-a is hard-wired into MANY species - reptiles, birds,
-a-a mammals, even seen octopus death-matches - and it
-a-a is hard-wired in US too. I suppose it's "Darwinian"
-a-a in a number of ways ... but that was before the
-a-a thermonuclear weapons.
-a-a ALWAYS look for "dominance imperative" hidden behind
-a-a elaborate philosophical/"logical" arguments no matter
-a-a WHO is selling them.
-a-a As for Goodall ... a fairly honest researcher. Started
-a-a with a hippy-dippy notion that apes were the "better"
-a-a model for social affairs, learned different and SAID so.
Like many species, humans rose to the top of the food chain by pusuing
their own individual self interest. Social relations are a product of
that self interest pursuit. Favoring the best intersts of the social
group at the detriment of one's own is trait of lower intellect
species.
-a-a Humans seem to have "modes"
Shut up, you pompous fucking Nazi pseudo-sage.
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 19:10:36 -0400, RightistsAreMorons didnAt write:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 23:02:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:30:53 -0400, RightistsAreMorons didnAt write:
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own self
interest to do so.
No it doesnAt. It serves the interest of the nation. How can it
serve your own personal interest to die?
<LOL> Not many soldiers choose to die.
oChooseo or not, lots of them *do* die. And they know it.
Without a wider social context to view such an action in, beyond your
own personal perspective, that would be suicide.
I didn't say there was no social context. I said the social context
serves theindividual's self interest.
No, it serves *society*As interest. ThatAs why itAs a osocial contexto,
not an oindividual contexto.
The fact that people can be viewed to adopt just such a social context,
is something that unscrupulous leaders have been known to take advantage >>> of.
..by convincing them that it is in their best interest to do so.
Interesting that they *can* be convinced of such a fiction, donAt you
think?
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 02:59:08 -0400, RightistsAreDimwits didnAt write:
Like many species, humans rose to the top of the food chain by pusuing
their own individual self interest. Social relations are a product of
that self interest pursuit.
Wrong way round. We are primarily pack animals with a hierarchical social >structure, just like the dogs we are so fond of (and which are so fond of >us). Individuals who prioritized their own self interest would not be >willing to sacrifice themselves for the common good. They wouldnAt form an >armed force or police force to protect the country; humans would be more >like cats, individualists who will preserve themselves ahead of anybody >else.
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own self
interest to do so. Humans (mostly males) have an inborn need (self
interest) to compete and to prove themselves.
No, it serves *society*As interest. ThatAs why itAs a osocial contexto,
not an oindividual contexto.
I didn't say that it didn't serve the country's interest. Of course it
does, but that's not the reason people join the military. They join up
to have something to be proud of. It's an ego thing
On 10/6/2025 6:44 PM, c186282, Nazi pseudo-sage and cocksucking cipher, took his
hands and mouth off Xi's dick long enough to peck:
On 10/6/25 02:59, LeftistsAreDimwits wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 21:44:18 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/5/25 17:00, super70s wrote:
On 2025-10-05 15:02:27 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:
A 2016 interview:
<https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/when-primatologist-jane-goodall-
compared-trump-to-male-chimpanzees-9383629>
aaaa When Primatologist Jane Goodall Compared Trump To Male
aaaa Chimpanzees In 2016, during Trump's first presidential race,
aaaa Goodall said that his performances reminds her of male
aaaa chimpanzees and their dominance rituals.
aaaa In 2016, during Trump's first presidential race, Jane Goodall >>>>>> aaaa had drawn the comparison, remarking, "In many ways the
aaaa performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and >>>>>> aaaa their dominance rituals."
aaaa Goodall, who spent years studying chimpanzees, appeared to
aaaa make the connection while explaining the animal's pursuit of
aaaa dominance. "In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise >>>>>> aaaa in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays:
aaaa stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing
aaaa rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the
aaaa faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and >>>>>> aaaa the longer he is likely to maintain that position," she told
aaaa the Atlantic
LOL, she nailed it. Works for orangutans too I presume.
aa Orangs are more mellow and far more solitary and
aa despite reminding of Buddhist monks are not quite
aa as sharp as chimps.
aa However most of our cousin species are very aggressive.
aa Getting to the top of the proverbial pecking order
aa is hard-wired into MANY species - reptiles, birds,
aa mammals, even seen octopus death-matches - and it
aa is hard-wired in US too. I suppose it's "Darwinian"
aa in a number of ways ... but that was before the
aa thermonuclear weapons.
aa ALWAYS look for "dominance imperative" hidden behind
aa elaborate philosophical/"logical" arguments no matter
aa WHO is selling them.
aa As for Goodall ... a fairly honest researcher. Started
aa with a hippy-dippy notion that apes were the "better"
aa model for social affairs, learned different and SAID so.
Like many species, humans rose to the top of the food chain by pusuing
their own individual self interest. Social relations are a product of
that self interest pursuit. Favoring the best intersts of the social
group at the detriment of one's own is trait of lower intellect
species.
a Humans seem to have "modes"
Shut up, you pompous fucking Nazi pseudo-sage.
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 01:15:02 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 19:10:36 -0400, RightistsAreMorons didnrCOt write:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 23:02:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:30:53 -0400, RightistsAreMorons didnrCOt write: >>>>
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own self
interest to do so.
No it doesnrCOt. It serves the interest of the nation. How can it
serve your own personal interest to die?
<LOL> Not many soldiers choose to die.
rCLChooserCY or not, lots of them *do* die. And they know it.
Without a wider social context to view such an action in, beyond your
own personal perspective, that would be suicide.
I didn't say there was no social context. I said the social context
serves theindividual's self interest.
No, it serves *society*rCOs interest. ThatrCOs why itrCOs a rCLsocial contextrCY,
not an rCLindividual contextrCY.
I didn't say that it didn't serve the country's interest. Of course it
does, but that's not the reason people join the military. They join up
to have something to be proud of. It's an ego thing
Most of the posting on political Usenet groups is an ego thing. Very
few posters believe they're going to convince anyone. It's all about
scoring ego points. Self worth is a powerful motivator.
The fact that people can be viewed to adopt just such a social context, >>>> is something that unscrupulous leaders have been known to take advantage >>>> of.
..by convincing them that it is in their best interest to do so.
Interesting that they *can* be convinced of such a fiction, donrCOt you
think?
Indeed. Most humans are easily manipulated. They've been convinced of
lots of fictional nonsense be being told that it's in their best
interest to do so.
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 21:59:17 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 02:59:08 -0400, RightistsAreDimwits didnAt write:
Like many species, humans rose to the top of the food chain by
pusuing their own individual self interest. Social relations are a
product of that self interest pursuit.
Wrong way round. We are primarily pack animals with a hierarchical
social structure, just like the dogs we are so fond of (and which are
so fond of us). Individuals who prioritized their own self interest
would not be willing to sacrifice themselves for the common good. They >>wouldnAt form an armed force or police force to protect the country;
humans would be more like cats, individualists who will preserve
themselves ahead of anybody else.
I'd never looked at it that way. What a revelation!
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:30:53 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own self
interest to do so. Humans (mostly males) have an inborn need (self >>interest) to compete and to prove themselves.
Not to the exclusion of ALL else. Family ... institutions ...
Who wouldn't risk their own life for their kid?
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in >news:b2dbeklda6nrrf1v0hhcr8khr6lo05du5p@4ax.com:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 21:59:17 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 02:59:08 -0400, RightistsAreDimwits didnAt write:
Like many species, humans rose to the top of the food chain by
pusuing their own individual self interest. Social relations are a
product of that self interest pursuit.
Wrong way round. We are primarily pack animals with a hierarchical
social structure, just like the dogs we are so fond of (and which are
so fond of us). Individuals who prioritized their own self interest
would not be willing to sacrifice themselves for the common good. They >>>wouldnAt form an armed force or police force to protect the country; >>>humans would be more like cats, individualists who will preserve >>>themselves ahead of anybody else.
I'd never looked at it that way. What a revelation!
For most of human history we were
socialists. When a big kill was made
the meat was passed around to everyone.
When the women collected fruits and
nuts the proceeds were shared among
all. There was no "private property",
everyone depended on everyone else.
Tribes and clans were collectives.
It was only with the agricultural
revolution that we invented cities
and bureaucracies and rulers and
a priest class and a worker class.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 02:10:10 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b2dbeklda6nrrf1v0hhcr8khr6lo05du5p@4ax.com:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 21:59:17 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|+Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 02:59:08 -0400, RightistsAreDimwits didnrCOt write: >>>>
Like many species, humans rose to the top of the food chain by
pusuing their own individual self interest. Social relations are a
product of that self interest pursuit.
Wrong way round. We are primarily pack animals with a hierarchical
social structure, just like the dogs we are so fond of (and which are
so fond of us). Individuals who prioritized their own self interest
would not be willing to sacrifice themselves for the common good. They >>>> wouldnrCOt form an armed force or police force to protect the country; >>>> humans would be more like cats, individualists who will preserve
themselves ahead of anybody else.
I'd never looked at it that way. What a revelation!
For most of human history we were
socialists. When a big kill was made
the meat was passed around to everyone.
When the women collected fruits and
nuts the proceeds were shared among
all. There was no "private property",
everyone depended on everyone else.
Tribes and clans were collectives.
It was only with the agricultural
revolution that we invented cities
and bureaucracies and rulers and
a priest class and a worker class.
That's total nonsense, of course. Human social structures in all of
recorded history have been based on hierarchy. Top dogs always got the
best pickings. There's zero evidence that it was any different in pre-recorded history.
Leftist losers like Hollowhead have been making the ridiculous "humans
are collectivists" claim for a long time in pathetic and unsuccessful attempts to get their hands on other people's stuff without competing
for it.
Humans, like most animals, are competitive, self interest seeking life
forms.
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:50:13 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:30:53 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own self >>>interest to do so. Humans (mostly males) have an inborn need (self >>>interest) to compete and to prove themselves.
Not to the exclusion of ALL else. Family ... institutions ...
Who wouldn't risk their own life for their kid?
Most parents, indeed. But having a family is also a self interest
thing. Most humans enjoy the family life and see it as a very
important part of their life.
Humans, like most animals tend to do the things that serve their self >interest. Societies, packs, communities, etc are created by
individuals because the individuals believe they serve the
individual's self interest. It's just the way we are.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 02:10:10 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in >>news:b2dbeklda6nrrf1v0hhcr8khr6lo05du5p@4ax.com:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 21:59:17 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 02:59:08 -0400, RightistsAreDimwits didnAt write:
Like many species, humans rose to the top of the food chain by
pusuing their own individual self interest. Social relations are a
product of that self interest pursuit.
Wrong way round. We are primarily pack animals with a hierarchical >>>>social structure, just like the dogs we are so fond of (and which are >>>>so fond of us). Individuals who prioritized their own self interest >>>>would not be willing to sacrifice themselves for the common good. They >>>>wouldnAt form an armed force or police force to protect the country; >>>>humans would be more like cats, individualists who will preserve >>>>themselves ahead of anybody else.
I'd never looked at it that way. What a revelation!
For most of human history we were
socialists. When a big kill was made
the meat was passed around to everyone.
When the women collected fruits and
nuts the proceeds were shared among
all. There was no "private property",
everyone depended on everyone else.
Tribes and clans were collectives.
It was only with the agricultural
revolution that we invented cities
and bureaucracies and rulers and
a priest class and a worker class.
That's total nonsense, of course. Human social structures in all of
recorded history have been based on hierarchy.
On 10/8/25 02:28, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:<snip>
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 02:10:10 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
For most of human history we were
socialists. When a big kill was made
the meat was passed around to everyone.
Ummmm ... no actual EVIDENCE of that - it's
just lefty-tainted fantasy.
MORE likely the meat went just to the few
alphas and their squeezes. Inferior
hunter/gatherers, well, they had to get
by on whatever crap they could dig out
of the dirt.
When the women collected fruits and
nuts the proceeds were shared among
all. There was no "private property",
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:48:17 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons ><IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:50:13 -0400, Governor Swill >><governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:30:53 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own self >>>>interest to do so. Humans (mostly males) have an inborn need (self >>>>interest) to compete and to prove themselves.
Not to the exclusion of ALL else. Family ... institutions ...
Who wouldn't risk their own life for their kid?
Most parents, indeed. But having a family is also a self interest
thing. Most humans enjoy the family life and see it as a very
important part of their life.
Humans, like most animals tend to do the things that serve their self >>interest. Societies, packs, communities, etc are created by
individuals because the individuals believe they serve the
individual's self interest. It's just the way we are.
So ... others' interests are also ones' own?
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 02:37:31 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/8/25 02:28, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:<snip>
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 02:10:10 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
For most of human history we were
socialists. When a big kill was made
the meat was passed around to everyone.
Ummmm ... no actual EVIDENCE of that - it's
just lefty-tainted fantasy.
Uh, yeah, actually there is.
MORE likely the meat went just to the few
alphas and their squeezes. Inferior
hunter/gatherers, well, they had to get
by on whatever crap they could dig out
of the dirt.
Those early, pre agriculture tribes had to practice communal
production. The hunters hunted. The gatherers gathered. Everything
was shared.
When the women collected fruits and
nuts the proceeds were shared among
all. There was no "private property",
Witness the astonishment of both American and Australian aboriginals
who laughed at white men, "drawing lines upon the land."
To such hunter/gatherer tribes, the earth belonged to nobody but
itself. How could a man own any part of the Earth?
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:48:17 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:50:13 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:30:53 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own self
interest to do so. Humans (mostly males) have an inborn need (self
interest) to compete and to prove themselves.
Not to the exclusion of ALL else. Family ... institutions ...
Who wouldn't risk their own life for their kid?
Most parents, indeed. But having a family is also a self interest
thing. Most humans enjoy the family life and see it as a very
important part of their life.
Humans, like most animals tend to do the things that serve their self
interest. Societies, packs, communities, etc are created by
individuals because the individuals believe they serve the
individual's self interest. It's just the way we are.
So ... others' interests are also ones' own?
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:19:51 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:48:17 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons >><IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:50:13 -0400, Governor Swill >>><governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:30:53 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own self >>>>>interest to do so. Humans (mostly males) have an inborn need (self >>>>>interest) to compete and to prove themselves.
Not to the exclusion of ALL else. Family ... institutions ...
Who wouldn't risk their own life for their kid?
Most parents, indeed. But having a family is also a self interest
thing. Most humans enjoy the family life and see it as a very
important part of their life.
Humans, like most animals tend to do the things that serve their self >>>interest. Societies, packs, communities, etc are created by
individuals because the individuals believe they serve the
individual's self interest. It's just the way we are.
So ... others' interests are also ones' own?
Where'd you get that?
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:26:32 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 02:37:31 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/8/25 02:28, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:<snip>
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 02:10:10 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
For most of human history we were
socialists. When a big kill was made
the meat was passed around to everyone.
Ummmm ... no actual EVIDENCE of that - it's
just lefty-tainted fantasy.
Uh, yeah, actually there is.
MORE likely the meat went just to the few
alphas and their squeezes. Inferior
hunter/gatherers, well, they had to get
by on whatever crap they could dig out
of the dirt.
Those early, pre agriculture tribes had to practice communal
production. The hunters hunted. The gatherers gathered. Everything
was shared.
Pure speculation:
Probably only within family units. At any rate, there's no evidence of
it. Definately no evidence it went further than the family unit.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:10:51 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:19:51 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:48:17 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons
<IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:50:13 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:30:53 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own self
interest to do so. Humans (mostly males) have an inborn need (self >>>>>> interest) to compete and to prove themselves.
Not to the exclusion of ALL else. Family ... institutions ...
Who wouldn't risk their own life for their kid?
Most parents, indeed. But having a family is also a self interest
thing. Most humans enjoy the family life and see it as a very
important part of their life.
Humans, like most animals tend to do the things that serve their self
interest. Societies, packs, communities, etc are created by
individuals because the individuals believe they serve the
individual's self interest. It's just the way we are.
So ... others' interests are also ones' own?
Where'd you get that?
When individuals bind together and work as a team, they are each no
longer working SOLELY in their own interests. They must have an
interest in the organization or they are soon shunned.
It isn't black and white. There are shades of gray.
NP: Roxette - The Look
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:26:32 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 02:37:31 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/8/25 02:28, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:<snip>
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 02:10:10 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
For most of human history we were
socialists. When a big kill was made
the meat was passed around to everyone.
Ummmm ... no actual EVIDENCE of that - it's
just lefty-tainted fantasy.
Uh, yeah, actually there is.
MORE likely the meat went just to the few
alphas and their squeezes. Inferior
hunter/gatherers, well, they had to get
by on whatever crap they could dig out
of the dirt.
Those early, pre agriculture tribes had to practice communal
production. The hunters hunted. The gatherers gathered. Everything
was shared.
Pure speculation:
Probably only within family units. At any rate, there's no evidence of
it. Definately no evidence it went further than the family unit.
When the women collected fruits and
nuts the proceeds were shared among
all. There was no "private property",
Witness the astonishment of both American and Australian aboriginals
who laughed at white men, "drawing lines upon the land."
Nonsense...
Check out the Treaty of Fort Laramie.
To such hunter/gatherer tribes, the earth belonged to nobody but
itself. How could a man own any part of the Earth?
Most American Indians were very territorial, Dumbass. They fought each
other over their territories
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 02:28:15 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons <IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:write:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 02:10:10 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>wrote:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in >>>news:b2dbeklda6nrrf1v0hhcr8khr6lo05du5p@4ax.com:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 21:59:17 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 02:59:08 -0400, RightistsAreDimwits didnAt
are
Like many species, humans rose to the top of the food chain by
pusuing their own individual self interest. Social relations are a >>>>>> product of that self interest pursuit.
Wrong way round. We are primarily pack animals with a hierarchical >>>>>social structure, just like the dogs we are so fond of (and which
Theyso fond of us). Individuals who prioritized their own self interest >>>>>would not be willing to sacrifice themselves for the common good.
wouldnAt form an armed force or police force to protect the country; >>>>>humans would be more like cats, individualists who will preserve >>>>>themselves ahead of anybody else.
I'd never looked at it that way. What a revelation!
For most of human history we were
socialists. When a big kill was made
the meat was passed around to everyone.
When the women collected fruits and
nuts the proceeds were shared among
all. There was no "private property",
everyone depended on everyone else.
Tribes and clans were collectives.
It was only with the agricultural
revolution that we invented cities
and bureaucracies and rulers and
a priest class and a worker class.
That's total nonsense, of course. Human social structures in all of >>recorded history have been based on hierarchy.
The agricultural revolution happened long before history began being recorded.
<snip>
On 10/8/25 18:22, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:26:32 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 02:37:31 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/8/25 02:28, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:<snip>
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 02:10:10 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> >>>>> wrote:
-a-a-a For most of human history we were
socialists. When a big kill was made
the meat was passed around to everyone.
-a-a Ummmm ... no actual EVIDENCE of that - it's
-a-a just lefty-tainted fantasy.
Uh, yeah, actually there is.
-a-a MORE likely the meat went just to the few
-a-a alphas and their squeezes. Inferior
-a-a hunter/gatherers, well, they had to get
-a-a by on whatever crap they could dig out
-a-a of the dirt.
Those early, pre agriculture tribes had to practice communal
production.-a The hunters hunted.-a The gatherers gathered.-a Everything >>> was shared.
Pure speculation:
Probably only within family units. At any rate, there's no evidence of
it. Definately no evidence it went further than the family unit.
When the women collected fruits and
nuts the proceeds were shared among
all. There was no "private property",
Witness the astonishment of both American and Australian aboriginals
who laughed at white men, "drawing lines upon the land."
Nonsense...
Check out the Treaty of Fort Laramie.
To such hunter/gatherer tribes, the earth belonged to nobody but
itself.-a How could a man own any part of the Earth?
Most American Indians were very territorial, Dumbass. They fought each
other over their territories
-a They attacked/invaded/raped/killed/genocided
-a quite often.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:26:32 -0400, Governor Swill<noemail@aol.com>
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 02:37:31 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
On 10/8/25 02:28, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 02:10:10 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<snip>wrote:
For most of human history we were
socialists. When a big kill was made
the meat was passed around to everyone.
Ummmm ... no actual EVIDENCE of that - it's
just lefty-tainted fantasy.
Uh, yeah, actually there is.
MORE likely the meat went just to the few
alphas and their squeezes. Inferior
hunter/gatherers, well, they had to get
by on whatever crap they could dig out
of the dirt.
Those early, pre agriculture tribes had to practice communal
production. The hunters hunted. The gatherers gathered. Everything
was shared.
Pure speculation:
Probably only within family units. At any rate, there's no evidence of
it. Definately no evidence it went further than the family unit.
...
Even modern tribal cultures are collectivist.
Hoarding food is logistically impossible and
futile as it quickly spoils anyway.
Those early, pre agriculture tribes had to practice communal
production. The hunters hunted. The gatherers gathered. Everything
was shared.
Pure speculation:
Probably only within family units. At any rate, there's no evidence of
it. Definately no evidence it went further than the family unit.
Oh.
Tribes HAVE to share food.
First of all, everyone in the
tribe is related to you. Are you
going to deny food to your mother/
aunt/cousin/inlaw/nephews?
Secondly "private property" is
stupid in a mobile clan. When you
have carry everything you "own"
long distances you learn not to
own things.
Thirdly, the food you kill/gather
is going to quickly spoil, you might
as well share it.
Governor Swill wrote<snip>
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 02:28:15 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 02:10:10 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:
For most of human history we were
socialists. When a big kill was made
the meat was passed around to everyone.
When the women collected fruits and
nuts the proceeds were shared among
all. There was no "private property",
everyone depended on everyone else.
Tribes and clans were collectives.
It was only with the agricultural
revolution that we invented cities
and bureaucracies and rulers and
a priest class and a worker class.
That's total nonsense, of course. Human social structures in all of >>>recorded history have been based on hierarchy.
The agricultural revolution happened long before history began beingEven modern tribal cultures are collectivist.
recorded.
<snip>
Hoarding food is logistically impossible and
futile as it quickly spoils anyway.
Plus there's been human selection of fruit trees too, as a method to
improve a gathering spot. This includes relatively recent evidence of
this with the American Paw-Paw, performed by American Indian tribes.
On 10/8/2025 2:19 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 01:48:17 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons
<IronWhite@Systemic_Patriotism.org> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:50:13 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 18:30:53 -0400, LeftistsAreMorons wrote:
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own self
interest to do so. Humans (mostly males) have an inborn need (self
interest) to compete and to prove themselves.
Not to the exclusion of ALL else.-a Family ... institutions ...
Who wouldn't risk their own life for their kid?
Most parents, indeed.-a But having a family is also a self interest
thing. Most humans enjoy the family life and see it as a very
important part of their life.
Humans, like most animals tend to do the things that serve their self
interest. Societies, packs, communities, etc are created by
individuals because the individuals believe they serve the
individual's self interest. It's just the way we are.
So ... others' interests are also ones' own?
What's so odd about common interests? You have an interest in not
starving to death, and so do I. That's an interest we have in common. So what? That may or may not mean that I have an interest in helping you
attain your interest.
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 21:59:17 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 02:59:08 -0400, RightistsAreDimwits didnAt write:
Like many species, humans rose to the top of the food chain by pusuing
their own individual self interest. Social relations are a product of
that self interest pursuit.
Wrong way round. We are primarily pack animals with a hierarchical social
structure, just like the dogs we are so fond of (and which are so fond of
us). Individuals who prioritized their own self interest would not be
willing to sacrifice themselves for the common good. They wouldnAt form an >> armed force or police force to protect the country; humans would be more
like cats, individualists who will preserve themselves ahead of anybody
else.
I'd never looked at it that way. What a revelation!
NP: The Moody Blues - I'm Just A Singer In A Rock N Roll Band
That's total nonsense, of course. Human social structures in all ofThe agricultural revolution happened long before history began being recorded.
recorded history have been based on hierarchy.
MORE likely the meat went just to the fewThose early, pre agriculture tribes had to practice communal
alphas and their squeezes. Inferior
hunter/gatherers, well, they had to get
by on whatever crap they could dig out
of the dirt.
production. The hunters hunted. The gatherers gathered. Everything
was shared.
Witness the astonishment of both American and Australian aboriginalsWhen the women collected fruits and
nuts the proceeds were shared among
all. There was no "private property",
who laughed at white men, "drawing lines upon the land."
To such hunter/gatherer tribes, the earth belonged to nobody but
itself. How could a man own any part of the Earth?
Oh.Those early, pre agriculture tribes had to practice communal
production. The hunters hunted. The gatherers gathered. Everything
was shared.
Pure speculation:
Probably only within family units. At any rate, there's no evidence of
it. Definately no evidence it went further than the family unit.
<snip>
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own selfNot to the exclusion of ALL else. Family ... institutions ...
interest to do so. Humans (mostly males) have an inborn need (self
interest) to compete and to prove themselves.
Who wouldn't risk their own life for their kid?
Governor Swill wrote:
The armed forces train and fight because it serves their own selfNot to the exclusion of ALL else. Family ... institutions ...
interest to do so. Humans (mostly males) have an inborn need (self
interest) to compete and to prove themselves.
Who wouldn't risk their own life for their kid?
The point of basic training is to break down selfishness and get
soldiers to act as an interdependent group. The psychopaths get sent off
to OCS.
I expect communal hunting produces more meat than what each hunter could
get with individual hunts.