|
LastReplaySC (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I'm missing the relation of exponential population growth rates, that kicked in with beginning of the industrialized age. basically because the birthrate has just simply outrun the killing rate in the 20th century doesn't mean that the 20th century is less violent. .... I can get all statistics to lie for my tail. This guy is a paid propagandist! the pharma industries kills more people than all wars and killings and accidents together ...
forgotmypassword3 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Violence? Well, things aren't eating us as often.
Yes, we will die by media and thoughtless thoughts in the future.
SpFiota (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Thank you. Someone who realizes the world was a much, much worse place in the past.
RWFW (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
bachelor's degree in experimental psychology from McGill University. doctorate from Harvard. He did research at the MIT, became an assistant professor at Harvard and then Stanford University, then MIT, and eventually became the director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience. As of 2008, he is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard.
not too shabby.
not too shabby.
sinshine1985 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
It is interesting how much the media changes our views... statistically in the 1950's teenagers were more sexually active and more violent, but at that time a pregnant 16-yr old wasn't national news, nor was a kid getting stabbed at school... now one kid dies or gets pregnant and it's on CNN for a week.
trycoun (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
i can't believe he really has the stomach to refer to mainstream media as a "source".
where did this man get his grade, if any.
dangerous approach, in my view.
Zeitschen (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Quantitative is the only way to look at it."
You want to understand history and violence, I suggest you stay back in arithmetic class.
My point was that the way someone dies is relevant and not just that they died since that is an inevitability and surer even than arithmetic.
flamablesteve (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
You argued that the "linear thinking" of quantitative death rates as opposed to qualitative death is "blind" suggesting earlier deaths where somehow more honorable.
I'm saying its not blind, because earlier deaths were not "honorable".
Quantitative is the only way to look at it.
Zeitschen (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"My point is, all the supposedly honorable ways to die in earlier societies were ridiculous causes." And now with the advent of money society they have suddenly become honourable ones?
flamablesteve (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
NO, not Iraq.
I'm referring to your statement here:
"Blind in the sense I gave it was that there often was something worth dying for in the first place for violence."
The only things i can think of that people would die for in the past is vengeance, tribal wars about land, "family honor" ect.
My point is, all the supposedly honorable ways to die in earlier societies were ridiculous causes. |
