ConsciousContact said:

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

Without making this a P&R thread, It is the 7 deadly sins that causes fighting and violence. The 7 are the conditioning not inherent but learned behaviors:

Wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, gluttony.

Children do not posess these behaviors until taught them.

These are societies values. A child is taught to behave this way if it wants to survive it's society.

actually the child is taught not to give in to those 7 things

a child will eat until you stop them, so you measure their portions

a child will hit when when frightened or even confused or displeased.

so you teach them that hittin is a no-no

i could go down the list

the thing is

children are taught to be civil and humane

but then society teaches (through example)

that certain actions create success in life.

KingBAD said:

ConsciousContact said:

These are societies values. A child is taught to behave this way if it wants to survive it's society.

actually the child is taught not to give in to those 7 things

a child will eat until you stop them, so you measure their portions

a child will hit when when frightened or even confused or displeased.

so you teach them that hittin is a no-no

i could go down the list

the thing is

children are taught to be civil and humane

but then society teaches (through example)

that certain actions create success in life.

Spot-on man!

KingBAD said:

ConsciousContact said:

These are societies values. A child is taught to behave this way if it wants to survive it's society.

actually the child is taught not to give in to those 7 things

a child will eat until you stop them, so you measure their portions

a child will hit when when frightened or even confused or displeased.

so you teach them that hittin is a no-no

i could go down the list

the thing is

children are taught to be civil and humane

but then society teaches (through example)

that certain actions create success in life.

Sorry King Bad, I have to disagree.

For instance, when breast feeding or giving the baby a bottle, when he/she is full they certainly push the breast/bottle away and purse their lips if you try to force it.

Children learn to hit only because we've adapted a punitive system as our means of distinguising right/wrong associating pain with "wrong". With a stern "no" which is audibly distinguilshed as an unpleasant sound.

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

KingBAD said:

actually the child is taught not to give in to those 7 things

a child will eat until you stop them, so you measure their portions

a child will hit when when frightened or even confused or displeased.

so you teach them that hittin is a no-no

i could go down the list

the thing is

children are taught to be civil and humane

but then society teaches (through example)

that certain actions create success in life.

Sorry King Bad, I have to disagree.

For instance, when breast feeding or giving the baby a bottle, when he/she is full they certainly push the breast/bottle away and purse their lips if you try to force it.

Children learn to hit only because we've adapted a punitive system as our means of distinguising right/wrong associating pain with "wrong". With a stern "no" which is audibly distinguilshed as an unpleasant sound.

whut can i say,

you picked the example of an infant.

i would love to think that we are 'pecious' beings

throughout childhood, but again i can show you

the examples down the line of the sevens.

if humans weren't, by nature, distructive beings

we would have never come to this state of afairs

today. this is a continuation of life as it has been

sence the 'dawn of man'

and it's fair to disagree with whut i say.

this is the very reason that society is STARTING

to realize that we must redubble our efforts to show

our young that we can live in peace with each other

that we can be non-aggressive.

babies are told not to hit LONG BEFORE they may be

chastised for hitting. one of the first words a toddler

repetes is NO, not yes. now why would that be?

i admire your wish to think human nature as kind and humane,

but in the real world, it's everything but.

but let's not stop tryin to make it so...

NDRU said:

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

Really? So hard for me to grasp. I just don't believe it.

have you ever seen nature?

I'm mother nature...no J/K. Yes and your point is? I separate survival of the fittest from gang-banging. Animals may be agressive to thwart predators or even kill to sustain themselves, but they don't really go around being aggressive just because....we do.

ConsciousContact said:

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

Without making this a P&R thread, It is the 7 deadly sins that causes fighting and violence. The 7 are the conditioning not inherent but learned behaviors:

Wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, gluttony.

Children do not posess these behaviors until taught them.

These are societies values. A child is taught to behave this way if it wants to survive it's society.

^ yep, exactly!

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

NDRU said:

have you ever seen nature?

I'm mother nature...no J/K. Yes and your point is? I separate survival of the fittest from gang-banging. Animals may be agressive to thwart predators or even kill to sustain themselves, but they don't really go around being aggressive just because....we do.

Just because!

Deadcake said:

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

I'm mother nature...no J/K. Yes and your point is? I separate survival of the fittest from gang-banging. Animals may be agressive to thwart predators or even kill to sustain themselves, but they don't really go around being aggressive just because....we do.

Just because!

I have no idea what is going on in this image....please "school" me.

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

KingBAD said:

actually the child is taught not to give in to those 7 things

a child will eat until you stop them, so you measure their portions

a child will hit when when frightened or even confused or displeased.

so you teach them that hittin is a no-no

i could go down the list

the thing is

children are taught to be civil and humane

but then society teaches (through example)

that certain actions create success in life.

Sorry King Bad, I have to disagree.

For instance, when breast feeding or giving the baby a bottle, when he/she is full they certainly push the breast/bottle away and purse their lips if you try to force it.

Children learn to hit only because we've adapted a punitive system as our means of distinguising right/wrong associating pain with "wrong". With a stern "no" which is audibly distinguilshed as an unpleasant sound.

Sorry but you're not entirely wrong.

People are born with certain tendencies. Some are naturally aggressive, some are naturally pacifists, and most are somewhere in-between.

I have two sons. Both raised the exact same way, with the exact same discipline. My oldest is naturally timid while my youngest is a fireball. In fact, according to your theory, my oldest should be more aggressive because we were tougher on HIM as opposed to the "baby"...but the little one naturally clenches his fists and takes a swing while the oldest tends to withdraw. We have had to aggressively try to curb that behavior in the little one, while trying to get the older one to defend himself better.

I think it's part Nature and part Nurture. I'm sure that if I was a professional boxer, both my boys and maybe my girl would know how to fight. But as it is, nature has had its say, and we're trying to deal with it.

My 2-cents anyway.

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

NDRU said:

have you ever seen nature?

I'm mother nature...no J/K. Yes and your point is? I separate survival of the fittest from gang-banging. Animals may be agressive to thwart predators or even kill to sustain themselves, but they don't really go around being aggressive just because....we do.

yes, maybe cruelty for entertainment is not natural...but then, actually a cat does love to play with a poor animal just for fun. In nature they eat it because they are hungry, but cats still kill, even when they are not hungry.

But that was not really what I meant I was talking about nature not having any compassion. A tree simply tries to spread its roots, it has no concern for the grass underneath it. Animals just want to eat, they don't care about taking food from others or taking innocent lives.

And gang banging is about money & power--which are pretty much the same as food and sex

It is discouraging, and maybe humans will rise above violence some day, but yes I do think it is natural

PurpleJedi said:

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

Sorry King Bad, I have to disagree.

For instance, when breast feeding or giving the baby a bottle, when he/she is full they certainly push the breast/bottle away and purse their lips if you try to force it.

Children learn to hit only because we've adapted a punitive system as our means of distinguising right/wrong associating pain with "wrong". With a stern "no" which is audibly distinguilshed as an unpleasant sound.

Sorry but you're not entirely wrong.

People are born with certain tendencies. Some are naturally aggressive, some are naturally pacifists, and most are somewhere in-between.

I have two sons. Both raised the exact same way, with the exact same discipline. My oldest is naturally timid while my youngest is a fireball. In fact, according to your theory, my oldest should be more aggressive because we were tougher on HIM as opposed to the "baby"...but the little one naturally clenches his fists and takes a swing while the oldest tends to withdraw. We have had to aggressively try to curb that behavior in the little one, while trying to get the older one to defend himself better.

I think it's part Nature and part Nurture. I'm sure that if I was a professional boxer, both my boys and maybe my girl would know how to fight. But as it is, nature has had its say, and we're trying to deal with it.

My 2-cents anyway.

this would be more true than anything else.

there are some born with natural compassion.

and it happens a lot.

these would be concidered ' HUMAN KIND'

or as i had said before MAN KIND, but people

don't phatom the reality of that theory.

but again, whut you say is true, but the odds

of the peaceful out numbering the aggressive

are very low... 80/20 70/30 and they may be gettin lower

i dont know, i havent had kids around in qwite some time.

but i still see them, and i still pay attention.

Deadcake said:

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

I have no idea what is going on in this image....please "school" me.

It's not nice its orca whales playing with elephant seals. The seals don't usually survive these games.

and after the fun is over, the seal will be eaten.

a seal hardly ever survives meetin a whale...

you'ld of been more on point showin a cat

playin with a dead mouse, but that's in their nature

to play with smething they kill then loose interest.

kittyedit

[Edited 1/13/12 10:17am]

we're just animals of a diff kind ..

that's life in the (stinking) big city

small villages or medium towns/cities are a whole different world, trust me :winK: a breath of fresh air

KingBAD said:

Deadcake said:

WhatdoUwantme2do said: It's not nice its orca whales playing with elephant seals. The seals don't usually survive these games.

and after the fun is over, the seal will be eaten.

a seal hardly ever survives meetin a whale...

you'ld of been more on point showin a cat

playin with a dead mouse, but that's in their nature

to play with smething they kill then loose interest.

kittyedit

I was sure I'd watched David Attenborough presents on TV and heard they did it for sport and sometimes seal carcasses were left uneaten! But you are right, I researched on the internet, and apparently in NO cases do they NOT eat them - and I read that from a report by a marine biologist.

I did also read a whole bunch of stuff about foxes and weasels who break into chicken coops and kill ALL the chickens yet eating only one or two

I also read about cats who bring their owners like 20 dead birds in a day. I wonder about cats though, they are domesticated, they have no need to kill to eat, they are fed, are they just acting out on their instincts to kill and not eating because they simply aren't hungry?

PurpleJedi said:

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

Sorry King Bad, I have to disagree.

For instance, when breast feeding or giving the baby a bottle, when he/she is full they certainly push the breast/bottle away and purse their lips if you try to force it.

Children learn to hit only because we've adapted a punitive system as our means of distinguising right/wrong associating pain with "wrong". With a stern "no" which is audibly distinguilshed as an unpleasant sound.

Sorry but you're not entirely wrong.

People are born with certain tendencies. Some are naturally aggressive, some are naturally pacifists, and most are somewhere in-between.

I have two sons. Both raised the exact same way, with the exact same discipline. My oldest is naturally timid while my youngest is a fireball. In fact, according to your theory, my oldest should be more aggressive because we were tougher on HIM as opposed to the "baby"...but the little one naturally clenches his fists and takes a swing while the oldest tends to withdraw. We have had to aggressively try to curb that behavior in the little one, while trying to get the older one to defend himself better.

I think it's part Nature and part Nurture. I'm sure that if I was a professional boxer, both my boys and maybe my girl would know how to fight. But as it is, nature has had its say, and we're trying to deal with it.

My 2-cents anyway.

it is curious that within the seemingly same environment personality traits can be so different. I'll have to consider this aspect also. thanks for the input.

NDRU said:

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

I'm mother nature...no J/K. Yes and your point is? I separate survival of the fittest from gang-banging. Animals may be agressive to thwart predators or even kill to sustain themselves, but they don't really go around being aggressive just because....we do.

yes, maybe cruelty for entertainment is not natural...but then, actually a cat does love to play with a poor animal just for fun. In nature they eat it because they are hungry, but cats still kill, even when they are not hungry.

But that was not really what I meant I was talking about nature not having any compassion. A tree simply tries to spread its roots, it has no concern for the grass underneath it. Animals just want to eat, they don't care about taking food from others or taking innocent lives.

And gang banging is about money & power--which are pretty much the same as food and sex

It is discouraging, and maybe humans will rise above violence some day, but yes I do think it is natural

I like this point as I hadn't considered it. You're correct but I can help but think that might fall under the survival of the fittest mode as a tree is not purposely uprooting the grass. I guess I feel with humans there is a consious effort to be agressive, I'm not so sure in nature it is purposeful aside from the basic needs?

I'm glad you got that "gang banging" was a broader term than most would think.

Thanks for your thoughts.

KingBAD said:

Deadcake said:

WhatdoUwantme2do said: It's not nice its orca whales playing with elephant seals. The seals don't usually survive these games.

and after the fun is over, the seal will be eaten.

a seal hardly ever survives meetin a whale...

you'ld of been more on point showin a cat

playin with a dead mouse, but that's in their nature

to play with smething they kill then loose interest.

kittyedit

[Edited 1/13/12 10:17am]

does this mean that cats are merely entertaining themselves at the expense of mice? i suppose that is aggressive. I've never owned a cat I'm a dog person. I did have a dog once who brought a dead mouse in the house...it was awful, but I digress.

The thing with the whales is sad but again, are they playing with the seals?

thanks for helping me to think this through.

KingBAD said:

ConsciousContact said:

These are societies values. A child is taught to behave this way if it wants to survive it's society.

actually the child is taught not to give in to those 7 things

a child will eat until you stop them, so you measure their portions

a child will hit when when frightened or even confused or displeased.

so you teach them that hittin is a no-no

i could go down the list

the thing is

children are taught to be civil and humane

but then society teaches (through example)

that certain actions create success in life.

The school system teaches children to be competitive and envious of each other by the very nature of the grading system. Children are graded, they are not encouraged to think for themselves or express themselves as total human beings in schools. That would be a threat to the agressive, greedy, competitive society that we have created.

ConsciousContact said:

KingBAD said:

actually the child is taught not to give in to those 7 things

a child will eat until you stop them, so you measure their portions

a child will hit when when frightened or even confused or displeased.

so you teach them that hittin is a no-no

i could go down the list

the thing is

children are taught to be civil and humane

but then society teaches (through example)

that certain actions create success in life.

The school system teaches children to be competitive and envious of each other by the very nature of the grading system. Children are graded, they are not encouraged to think for themselves or express themselves as total human beings in schools. That would be a threat to the agressive, greedy, competitive society that we have created.

again, i appologize.

a lot of you get your info from study and reports.

alot of you. the school system has it's faults

but it came about in the name of convenience

(which is another deadly sin)

i', 56, scantly educated, and i don't even read whole threads.

so this whut i say is pure experience talkin.

i have gaged human nature and no matter whut side

you choose, you say the same thing.

if you agree that it is the nature of animals

to be aggressive, then you must agree that human nature

is to be agressive. humans are upscale animals.

animals have the ability to think. humans have a greater

copacity to think and act on their thoughts.

in havin that ability, and havin the agression

of animals but not the stregnth of other animals

man found ways and means to bend most things to his will (aggression)

and the more things he learns to control, the more weapons he has,

in case he wants to act out.

civility comes, or came when man understood that all they wanted to do

was kill, and that made life hard.

SO, civility is whut we try to teach our babies

and then they end up in the syatem that says

agression is the answer.

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

KingBAD said:

this is exactly the nature of humans.

humans are by nature pettie things, that

have to be taught to be different (peaceful)

that's why religions were so easy to put on folks.

humans are the only (were the only) truly distructive

creatures on earth and will distroy the eatrh for the sake

of their own whims.

HUMAN NATURE, it is whut it is

Well there's survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom. But we're taking it to a whole new level. You're convinced that IS HUMAN NATURE rather than conditioning?

I don't. I think its conditioning. If it were human nature there wouldn't be societies who commune void of aggression.

Violence in societies is a result of numbers. Whether chimps, apes or people, the easiest inducer of violence is increased population.

About half of all of us now live in urban areas.

SUPRMAN said:

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

Well there's survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom. But we're taking it to a whole new level. You're convinced that IS HUMAN NATURE rather than conditioning?

I don't. I think its conditioning. If it were human nature there wouldn't be societies who commune void of aggression.

Violence in societies is a result of numbers. Whether chimps, apes or people, the easiest inducer of violence is increased population.

About half of all of us now live in urban areas.

too shay.

yet another insightful look

into the why.

but would you say this is

inherent(sic) in human nature

the reason aggresion is there

in the first place?

you know, "this is my space"

KingBAD said:

ConsciousContact said:

The school system teaches children to be competitive and envious of each other by the very nature of the grading system. Children are graded, they are not encouraged to think for themselves or express themselves as total human beings in schools. That would be a threat to the agressive, greedy, competitive society that we have created.

again, i appologize.

a lot of you get your info from study and reports.

alot of you. the school system has it's faults

but it came about in the name of convenience

(which is another deadly sin)

i', 56, scantly educated, and i don't even read whole threads.

so this whut i say is pure experience talkin.

i have gaged human nature and no matter whut side

you choose, you say the same thing.

if you agree that it is the nature of animals

to be aggressive, then you must agree that human nature

is to be agressive. humans are upscale animals.

animals have the ability to think. humans have a greater

copacity to think and act on their thoughts.

in havin that ability, and havin the agression

of animals but not the stregnth of other animals

man found ways and means to bend most things to his will (aggression)

and the more things he learns to control, the more weapons he has,

in case he wants to act out.

civility comes, or came when man understood that all they wanted to do

was kill, and that made life hard.

SO, civility is whut we try to teach our babies

and then they end up in the syatem that says

agression is the answer.

Who is the "we" you are referring to? Are we not all responsible for the agressive society that has been created, seeing as we are a part of the society?

ConsciousContact said:

KingBAD said:

again, i appologize.

a lot of you get your info from study and reports.

alot of you. the school system has it's faults

but it came about in the name of convenience

(which is another deadly sin)

i', 56, scantly educated, and i don't even read whole threads.

so this whut i say is pure experience talkin.

i have gaged human nature and no matter whut side

you choose, you say the same thing.

if you agree that it is the nature of animals

to be aggressive, then you must agree that human nature

is to be agressive. humans are upscale animals.

animals have the ability to think. humans have a greater

copacity to think and act on their thoughts.

in havin that ability, and havin the agression

of animals but not the stregnth of other animals

man found ways and means to bend most things to his will (aggression)

and the more things he learns to control, the more weapons he has,

in case he wants to act out.

civility comes, or came when man understood that all they wanted to do

was kill, and that made life hard.

SO, civility is whut we try to teach our babies

and then they end up in the syatem that says

agression is the answer.

Who is the "we" you are referring to? Are we not all responsible for the agressive society that has been created, seeing as we are a part of the society?

we are those who strive

to teach our young that the spirtual

path is the one that needs no aggression

and i am one who was most aggressive in

my life and manorisms.

we are the ones who see things that

seem to be missed by books and reports

we is me, i guess

i'm responsible for my actions,

who do you make responsible for yours?

i gave way to my most base instincts (nature), as a child

however, i've learned to manage my impulses.

but i can still FLASH, it's in my nature

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

KingBAD said:

actually the child is taught not to give in to those 7 things

a child will eat until you stop them, so you measure their portions

a child will hit when when frightened or even confused or displeased.

so you teach them that hittin is a no-no

i could go down the list

the thing is

children are taught to be civil and humane

but then society teaches (through example)

that certain actions create success in life.

Sorry King Bad, I have to disagree.

For instance, when breast feeding or giving the baby a bottle, when he/she is full they certainly push the breast/bottle away and purse their lips if you try to force it.

Children learn to hit only because we've adapted a punitive system as our means of distinguising right/wrong associating pain with "wrong". With a stern "no" which is audibly distinguilshed as an unpleasant sound.

I disagree. Children will hit without ever being hit or spanked. They don't hit because their parents spank them.

KingBAD said:

SUPRMAN said:

Violence in societies is a result of numbers. Whether chimps, apes or people, the easiest inducer of violence is increased population.

About half of all of us now live in urban areas.

too shay.

yet another insightful look

into the why.

but would you say this is

inherent(sic) in human nature

the reason aggresion is there

in the first place?

you know, "this is my space"

Yes, but the problem is we fail, out of convenience, to deal with it.

It's one reason I think parks are so essential in a city. It's a place to 'get away' from most people.

Some people can't seem to live life without other people.

We are also conditioned to live in confined spaces. We don't have many options when other factors such as poverty, don't allow a person to some space.

SUPRMAN said:

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

Sorry King Bad, I have to disagree.

For instance, when breast feeding or giving the baby a bottle, when he/she is full they certainly push the breast/bottle away and purse their lips if you try to force it.

Children learn to hit only because we've adapted a punitive system as our means of distinguising right/wrong associating pain with "wrong". With a stern "no" which is audibly distinguilshed as an unpleasant sound.

I disagree. Children will hit without ever being hit or spanked. They don't hit because their parents spank them.

nooooo, babies do not come out of the womb hitting just like they don't come out walking, talking and asking for designer sneakers--all learned behavior. the more aggressive the environment the more aggressive the child whether mentally or physically.

WhatdoUwantme2do said:

SUPRMAN said:

I disagree. Children will hit without ever being hit or spanked. They don't hit because their parents spank them.

nooooo, babies do not come out of the womb hitting just like they don't come out walking, talking and asking for designer sneakers--all learned behavior. the more aggressive the environment the more aggressive the child whether mentally or physically.

the point i've been tryin to make all along

but, no matter how true the statement some

will hold on to the training theory.

when a baby scratches, hits, pulls,or

pushes it's bein aggressive. AND

a baby can only be so aggressive.

an infant is not as aggressive as a baby,

a baby is not as aggressive as a man

and so forth,

so look before you say that you don't

have to teach a child NOT to be aggressive.

kids are definitely violent without being spanked. They will hit you and throw stuff at your head either in anger or because they think it's funny.

And all of them do it, so it's not jsut the ones that have been spanked or taught to be violent.

They have to learn NOT to do that stuff