What has happened to the English Languge?

"Here we troll, here we troll, here we tro-oll.."

(Making a legitimate point, I am)

 

I just hate the fucking lot of you.

 

Perhaps he's getting some kicks out of it, like a masochist who want to get beaten.

True, every community or culture has their own set of ethics. So that means for what is acceptable for one culture or community code of ethics and morality, a different culture or community will think and see it as amorality thus unacceptable and unethical.

 

Why can you not just accept me for who I am? :thumbup:

 

That seems like a stretch to me, claiming that some practice declared to be completely heinous by one culture is bound to be accepted by another.

Not that there is necessarily an absolute in ethics, but I remember an ethics instructor I once had suggest that honesty might be a quality held in high regard by all cultures. After all, if one can never trust what is being communicated to him, the very point of communication is undermined and the community built around it would fall apart.

 

In some of the older cultures like in Africa, it was absolutly normal to eat the brains and some other parts of your slain enemy, because they thought it would give them the powers or knowledge of whom they have eaten. It's still normal in China (by the older generations) to make woman to wear very small shoes, so there feet will get and stay very small. In the Middle-East it's very normal to hack off hands of caught thieves. Woman circumcision and people who have an affair gets stone to death is still in use there. More wives? Just normal there. Are these normal in our sense of our cultures? They think it's very unethic if they will see that we kiss each other on the street, where everyone can see them. Woman walking alone in the city, weird. Well, I could go on, but I think it will become a very long post.

 

Culture in itself is hard to define. The Japanese are a culture built upon shame, and look where it got them? Ritual suicide by the warrior class for shame brought upon their masters. The world needs new culture, we're stagnating in violence and bigotry.

 

Has there ever been a time when humans weren't stagnating in violence and bigotry, though?

 

Well, true. It's human nature, and I guess it's been occurring since the dawn of the species some 200,000 years ago. But that doesn't mean we can't change. Will we, in the forseeable future? Perhaps. But not in my lifetime.

 

I presume that the violence started when humanity has found out those bones is a good way to hit or kill someone. Before that, if I can remember correctly humans were scavengers and plant eaters. If we look at the anatomy of the human look, we are naturally plant-eaters. That is the reason why we had in the past (when we were plant eaters) had longer intestines.

That must have started when we encountered other cultures for the first time.

I think that we in the forseeable future will act the same way. (yes, I am cynical about this)

 

We have canines so we can eat meat.

Just because we found a way to kill the animal ourselves instead of waiting for somebody else to finish with it doesn't mean we're herbivores.

Also, saying "Humans started to become violent when they realized they could kill things" is herp derp.

 

True, you are right. I meant before we started to use weapons, we were already violent (fighting for leadership or over food), but perhaps we became more violent, when we had a weapon at our disposal.

 

The only things a weapons change is what the violence looks like.

The violence were always inside of us, the invention of nuclear bombs did not create the will to use it, just the means.

 

An English professor I had once said the absolute line between moral and immoral came down to: "The use of force or fear not in self-defense".

I have expanded it to: "The use of unwanted unjustified direct or indirect force or fear to a person or their solely owned property not in self-defense".


There is a line where you and your property extend to. If not property, then just you and your body. A breach in this line requires the exertion of another individual on purpose with undeniable intent. The property line can of course be re-defined, but your body is an undeniable boundary.


When I say indirect I mean using a tool or other medium to convey your intents, for example: A man is payed to host an advertising billboard in his backyard that has bright flashy lights and loud sound that plays throughout the night/day is using indirect force to convey his message. Who is in the wrong here? The mob of annoyed citizens that use direct force to tear it down, or the man who established the sign/billboard himself? What if he needs the money due to exigent circumstances on his behalf? Can't the citizens just 'ignore' the annoyance by going to another city and uprooting? What is the difference between this form of communication and regular vocal communication?

 

True, I don't know when we started to act this way, but we always have been a violent race. Some say that we became like this, because Kain killed his brother, but I am not that sure. When we began to use weapons other than our fists, (I think we started with stones, large sticks or perhaps it were bones) it became more easy to kill our prey (Now we could get flesh on our own, and ate it raw.) and wage war with their own or other people. The most cases it was in self-defence, fighting for leadership, territory or for the sheer fun. There's even some rumors that the neanderthals were cannibals.

As apes, we ate plants and leaves. Then when we climbed out of the trees we perhaps started to eat scavanged meat, and fruit (as well). Thus we became herbivors. Later on we began to hunt for food. After many years we began to plant our own fruit, and vegetables. In the same time or later we began holding animals.

Now about our teeth (this is just a speculation). It may be possible that we started with the same teeth as the rest of the plant eaters. Then when we began to eat meat as well, our teeth began to change in what we have now.

 

Our teeth are the products of millions of years of evolution, but since humans have the habit of caring for the infirm, our teeth have seen no advances over our existence. The teeth of an archaic homo sapien of 200 k years ago are the same as the teeth of a modern day homo sapien. We've been cooking our meals since the discovery of fire, which has actually been around longer than we as a species, and this lead to a stagnation of dental development.

 

I know your English is a bit poor, so maybe you should go check a dictionary.