to understand this try crossing your eyes until it hurts and saying it, contort your face also for further effect, to really feel the derrr, the power of derrr

I tells ya in some minds something like this is happening, a notion like that is doing its good work

further, related, some people barely have a working concept for public and private that can reliably distinguish the difference between those two things

feel free to join in, poke fun at dumb libertarians

that’s what we said

As in literally, in that other thread.

SCIENCE said:

that’s what we said

I must have extra sensory wavelengths, receiving your projections, receiving your broadcasts

you’re broadcasting, I better take my medications

humor alert

You’ve reminded me of one of the many stupid things said by Ben Shapiro.

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

that’s what we said

I must have extra sensory wavelengths, receiving your projections, receiving your broadcasts

you’re broadcasting, I better take my medications

humor alert

All good we’re sure that most good ideas happen around similar times to similar observers within similar settings when the relevant broader social awareness and context reaches a point that the conclusion or corollary is the next natural step.

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

that’s what we said

I must have extra sensory wavelengths, receiving your projections, receiving your broadcasts

you’re broadcasting, I better take my medications

humor alert

All good we’re sure that most good ideas happen around similar times to similar observers within similar settings when the relevant broader social awareness and context reaches a point that the conclusion or corollary is the next natural step.

sometimes it even happens twice

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

that’s what we said

I must have extra sensory wavelengths, receiving your projections, receiving your broadcasts

you’re broadcasting, I better take my medications

humor alert

All good we’re sure that most good ideas happen around similar times to similar observers within similar settings when the relevant broader social awareness and context reaches a point that the conclusion or corollary is the next natural step.

some of that happens, true, master science

if there was no money there would be no spending

if there was no time then no-one would ever be late

of course there would still be antisocial things going on, just less sense of vindication.. or maybe it’ll swing the other way where vigilantism rules the world…

but.. the bigger issues is, what would we do with all the lawyers… you DO NOT want to leave them idle (or feed them after midnight)

Arts said:

if there was no money there would be no spending

if there was no time then no-one would ever be late

of course there would still be antisocial things going on, just less sense of vindication.. or maybe it’ll swing the other way where vigilantism rules the world…

but.. the bigger issues is, what would we do with all the lawyers… you DO NOT want to leave them idle (or feed them after midnight)

Fertiliser

Arts said:

if there was no money there would be no spending

if there was no time then no-one would ever be late

of course there would still be antisocial things going on, just less sense of vindication.. or maybe it’ll swing the other way where vigilantism rules the world…

but.. the bigger issues is, what would we do with all the lawyers… you DO NOT want to leave them idle (or feed them after midnight)

Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2.

captain_spalding said:

Arts said:

if there was no money there would be no spending

if there was no time then no-one would ever be late

of course there would still be antisocial things going on, just less sense of vindication.. or maybe it’ll swing the other way where vigilantism rules the world…

but.. the bigger issues is, what would we do with all the lawyers… you DO NOT want to leave them idle (or feed them after midnight)

Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2.

Synopsis: Falstaff meets a rebel knight, who surrenders to him. When Prince John reproaches Falstaff for his late arrival, Falstaff turns over his captive and requests permission to return to London by way of Gloucestershir

From a deeply philosophical perspective, humans have evolved with two natures.

Firstly the primitive animal instinct nature. Survival and reproduction: “Can I eat it? Can it eat me? Can I shag it?”.

But then humans evolved to live in groups, corresponding with a higher level of cognitive function: “what’s the best thing to do for the group or society I belong to?”. The answer to this question is often in opposition to the basic animal instinct option.

Humans have become so successful due to the ability to act together in groups. A single human acting alone is not the top of the food chain. Bujt humans acting together are the most successful species in history.

The clash between the duality of human natures, and how to ensure the predominance of the group over the selfish individual nature has been a feature of every human society ever. Laws are just one way of trying to achieve it.

Without laws you have no society.

Arts said:

if there was no money there would be no spending

if there was no time then no-one would ever be late

of course there would still be antisocial things going on, just less sense of vindication.. or maybe it’ll swing the other way where vigilantism rules the world…

but.. the bigger issues is, what would we do with all the lawyers… you DO NOT want to leave them idle (or feed them after midnight)

LOL

party_pants said:

From a deeply philosophical perspective, humans have evolved with two natures.

Firstly the primitive animal instinct nature. Survival and reproduction: “Can I eat it? Can it eat me? Can I shag it?”.

But then humans evolved to live in groups, corresponding with a higher level of cognitive function: “what’s the best thing to do for the group or society I belong to?”. The answer to this question is often in opposition to the basic animal instinct option.

Humans have become so successful due to the ability to act together in groups. A single human acting alone is not the top of the food chain. Bujt humans acting together are the most successful species in history.

The clash between the duality of human natures, and how to ensure the predominance of the group over the selfish individual nature has been a feature of every human society ever. Laws are just one way of trying to achieve it.

Without laws you have no society.

Is that your own? If so, it’s well out together and succent.

Peak Warming Man said:

party_pants said:

From a deeply philosophical perspective, humans have evolved with two natures.

Firstly the primitive animal instinct nature. Survival and reproduction: “Can I eat it? Can it eat me? Can I shag it?”.

But then humans evolved to live in groups, corresponding with a higher level of cognitive function: “what’s the best thing to do for the group or society I belong to?”. The answer to this question is often in opposition to the basic animal instinct option.

Humans have become so successful due to the ability to act together in groups. A single human acting alone is not the top of the food chain. Bujt humans acting together are the most successful species in history.

The clash between the duality of human natures, and how to ensure the predominance of the group over the selfish individual nature has been a feature of every human society ever. Laws are just one way of trying to achieve it.

Without laws you have no society.

Is that your own? If so, it’s well out together and succent.

out = put

Peak Warming Man said:

party_pants said:

From a deeply philosophical perspective, humans have evolved with two natures.

Firstly the primitive animal instinct nature. Survival and reproduction: “Can I eat it? Can it eat me? Can I shag it?”.

But then humans evolved to live in groups, corresponding with a higher level of cognitive function: “what’s the best thing to do for the group or society I belong to?”. The answer to this question is often in opposition to the basic animal instinct option.

Humans have become so successful due to the ability to act together in groups. A single human acting alone is not the top of the food chain. Bujt humans acting together are the most successful species in history.

The clash between the duality of human natures, and how to ensure the predominance of the group over the selfish individual nature has been a feature of every human society ever. Laws are just one way of trying to achieve it.

Without laws you have no society.

Is that your own? If so, it’s well out together and succent.

Not really. Just paraphrasing many centuries of philosophers.

Law, what is it good for?

party_pants said:

From a deeply philosophical perspective, humans have evolved with two natures.

Firstly the primitive animal instinct nature. Survival and reproduction: “Can I eat it? Can it eat me? Can I shag it?”.

But then humans evolved to live in groups, corresponding with a higher level of cognitive function: “what’s the best thing to do for the group or society I belong to?”. The answer to this question is often in opposition to the basic animal instinct option.

Humans have become so successful due to the ability to act together in groups. A single human acting alone is not the top of the food chain. Bujt humans acting together are the most successful species in history.

The clash between the duality of human natures, and how to ensure the predominance of the group over the selfish individual nature has been a feature of every human society ever. Laws are just one way of trying to achieve it.

Without laws you have no society.

Even chimpanzees have laws in a sense.

dv said:

party_pants said:

From a deeply philosophical perspective, humans have evolved with two natures.

Firstly the primitive animal instinct nature. Survival and reproduction: “Can I eat it? Can it eat me? Can I shag it?”.

But then humans evolved to live in groups, corresponding with a higher level of cognitive function: “what’s the best thing to do for the group or society I belong to?”. The answer to this question is often in opposition to the basic animal instinct option.

Humans have become so successful due to the ability to act together in groups. A single human acting alone is not the top of the food chain. Bujt humans acting together are the most successful species in history.

The clash between the duality of human natures, and how to ensure the predominance of the group over the selfish individual nature has been a feature of every human society ever. Laws are just one way of trying to achieve it.

Without laws you have no society.

Even chimpanzees have laws in a sense.

As do most primates. Very often they are led by the biggest and strongest individual that simple commands that they do this and not do that. And that also applies to Homo sapiens.

Arts said:

captain_spalding said:

Arts said:

if there was no money there would be no spending

if there was no time then no-one would ever be late

of course there would still be antisocial things going on, just less sense of vindication.. or maybe it’ll swing the other way where vigilantism rules the world…

but.. the bigger issues is, what would we do with all the lawyers… you DO NOT want to leave them idle (or feed them after midnight)

Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2.

Synopsis: Falstaff meets a rebel knight, who surrenders to him. When Prince John reproaches Falstaff for his late arrival, Falstaff turns over his captive and requests permission to return to London by way of Gloucestershir

..and the scene includes the memorable line, ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’.

dv said:

party_pants said:

From a deeply philosophical perspective, humans have evolved with two natures.

Firstly the primitive animal instinct nature. Survival and reproduction: “Can I eat it? Can it eat me? Can I shag it?”.

But then humans evolved to live in groups, corresponding with a higher level of cognitive function: “what’s the best thing to do for the group or society I belong to?”. The answer to this question is often in opposition to the basic animal instinct option.

Humans have become so successful due to the ability to act together in groups. A single human acting alone is not the top of the food chain. Bujt humans acting together are the most successful species in history.

The clash between the duality of human natures, and how to ensure the predominance of the group over the selfish individual nature has been a feature of every human society ever. Laws are just one way of trying to achieve it.

Without laws you have no society.

Even chimpanzees have laws in a sense.

Yes. But humans have it in greater abundance. Try getting 250 chimps on a plane to sit still in their seats for a long haul flight.

party_pants said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

From a deeply philosophical perspective, humans have evolved with two natures.

Firstly the primitive animal instinct nature. Survival and reproduction: “Can I eat it? Can it eat me? Can I shag it?”.

But then humans evolved to live in groups, corresponding with a higher level of cognitive function: “what’s the best thing to do for the group or society I belong to?”. The answer to this question is often in opposition to the basic animal instinct option.

Humans have become so successful due to the ability to act together in groups. A single human acting alone is not the top of the food chain. Bujt humans acting together are the most successful species in history.

The clash between the duality of human natures, and how to ensure the predominance of the group over the selfish individual nature has been a feature of every human society ever. Laws are just one way of trying to achieve it.

Without laws you have no society.

Even chimpanzees have laws in a sense.

Yes. But humans have it in greater abundance. Try getting 250 chimps on a plane to sit still in their seats for a long haul flight.

Why would 250 chips want to get on a plane, but if you want them to stay in a group in their natural habitat they will. You cannot expect animals, even other primates to behave like us with our far greater knowledge and intelligence. However, they are highly social animals as are many other species from elephants to invertebrates and they each have their own ways and cooperation to enhance their species survival.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Even chimpanzees have laws in a sense.

Yes. But humans have it in greater abundance. Try getting 250 chimps on a plane to sit still in their seats for a long haul flight.

Why would 250 chips want to get on a plane, but if you want them to stay in a group in their natural habitat they will. You cannot expect animals, even other primates to behave like us with our far greater knowledge and intelligence. However, they are highly social animals as are many other species from elephants to invertebrates and they each have their own ways and cooperation to enhance their species survival.

chips = chimps

captain_spalding said:

Arts said:

captain_spalding said:

Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2.

Synopsis: Falstaff meets a rebel knight, who surrenders to him. When Prince John reproaches Falstaff for his late arrival, Falstaff turns over his captive and requests permission to return to London by way of Gloucestershir

..and the scene includes the memorable line, ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’.

Well played Sir.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Even chimpanzees have laws in a sense.

Yes. But humans have it in greater abundance. Try getting 250 chimps on a plane to sit still in their seats for a long haul flight.

Why would 250 chips want to get on a plane, but if you want them to stay in a group in their natural habitat they will. You cannot expect animals, even other primates to behave like us with our far greater knowledge and intelligence. However, they are highly social animals as are many other species from elephants to invertebrates and they each have their own ways and cooperation to enhance their species survival.

I think you are missing the main philosophical point. It is not something that humans have evolved exclusively. But it is something that humans have evolved. Any species capable of collective action needs laws or rules etc in order to function as a group in such a way that the achievements of the group are greater than the sum of any individuals acting alone. But humans definitely take it to a higher level than any other species.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

Yes. But humans have it in greater abundance. Try getting 250 chimps on a plane to sit still in their seats for a long haul flight.

Why would 250 chips want to get on a plane, but if you want them to stay in a group in their natural habitat they will. You cannot expect animals, even other primates to behave like us with our far greater knowledge and intelligence. However, they are highly social animals as are many other species from elephants to invertebrates and they each have their own ways and cooperation to enhance their species survival.

I think you are missing the main philosophical point. It is not something that humans have evolved exclusively. But it is something that humans have evolved. Any species capable of collective action needs laws or rules etc in order to function as a group in such a way that the achievements of the group are greater than the sum of any individuals acting alone. But humans definitely take it to a higher level than any other species.

When the earth was young and we were dim
Survival was our only thing
We had no time to grow our brain
Until that is we planted grain
Time to wonder, time to ponder.

I’m more in favour of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, that we do right because it’s the right thing to do.

Peak Warming Man said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

Why would 250 chips want to get on a plane, but if you want them to stay in a group in their natural habitat they will. You cannot expect animals, even other primates to behave like us with our far greater knowledge and intelligence. However, they are highly social animals as are many other species from elephants to invertebrates and they each have their own ways and cooperation to enhance their species survival.

I think you are missing the main philosophical point. It is not something that humans have evolved exclusively. But it is something that humans have evolved. Any species capable of collective action needs laws or rules etc in order to function as a group in such a way that the achievements of the group are greater than the sum of any individuals acting alone. But humans definitely take it to a higher level than any other species.

When the earth was young and we were dim
Survival was our only thing
We had no time to grow our brain
Until that is we planted grain
Time to wonder, time to ponder.

Lo a shiny thing o’er yonder.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

From a deeply philosophical perspective, humans have evolved with two natures.

Firstly the primitive animal instinct nature. Survival and reproduction: “Can I eat it? Can it eat me? Can I shag it?”.

But then humans evolved to live in groups, corresponding with a higher level of cognitive function: “what’s the best thing to do for the group or society I belong to?”. The answer to this question is often in opposition to the basic animal instinct option.

Humans have become so successful due to the ability to act together in groups. A single human acting alone is not the top of the food chain. Bujt humans acting together are the most successful species in history.

The clash between the duality of human natures, and how to ensure the predominance of the group over the selfish individual nature has been a feature of every human society ever. Laws are just one way of trying to achieve it.

Without laws you have no society.

Even chimpanzees have laws in a sense.

As do most primates. Very often they are led by the biggest and strongest individual that simple commands that they do this and not do that. And that also applies to Homo sapiens.

Jack West, you have always been a troll.

What psychology is behind this from your research?

tauto said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Even chimpanzees have laws in a sense.

As do most primates. Very often they are led by the biggest and strongest individual that simple commands that they do this and not do that. And that also applies to Homo sapiens.

Jack West, you have always been a troll.

What psychology is behind this from your research?

So, adding information, presenting scientific research and sometimes giving a different opinion makes me a troll. I think that says a lot more about your stupidity than any trolling you think I have done. As for psychology, I prefer to use facts rather than other people’s opinion, especially regarding research matters. Psychology as with religion have been amended as science continues to discover the wonders of our world. As for Jack West, I am very fond of him as he added many contributions using scientific knowledge and personal discovery.

PermeateFree said:

tauto said:

PermeateFree said:

As do most primates. Very often they are led by the biggest and strongest individual that simple commands that they do this and not do that. And that also applies to Homo sapiens.

Jack West, you have always been a troll.

What psychology is behind this from your research?

So, adding information, presenting scientific research and sometimes giving a different opinion makes me a troll. I think that says a lot more about your stupidity than any trolling you think I have done. As for psychology, I prefer to use facts rather than other people’s opinion, especially regarding research matters. Psychology as with religion have been amended as science continues to discover the wonders of our world. As for Jack West, I am very fond of him as he added many contributions using scientific knowledge and personal discovery.

Well you failed, you could have achieved much more if you weren’t so egotistical

tauto said:

PermeateFree said:

tauto said:

Jack West, you have always been a troll.

What psychology is behind this from your research?

So, adding information, presenting scientific research and sometimes giving a different opinion makes me a troll. I think that says a lot more about your stupidity than any trolling you think I have done. As for psychology, I prefer to use facts rather than other people’s opinion, especially regarding research matters. Psychology as with religion have been amended as science continues to discover the wonders of our world. As for Jack West, I am very fond of him as he added many contributions using scientific knowledge and personal discovery.

Well you failed, you could have achieved much more if you weren’t so egotistical

Yes, quoting facts can appear that way.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

From a deeply philosophical perspective, humans have evolved with two natures.

Firstly the primitive animal instinct nature. Survival and reproduction: “Can I eat it? Can it eat me? Can I shag it?”.

But then humans evolved to live in groups, corresponding with a higher level of cognitive function: “what’s the best thing to do for the group or society I belong to?”. The answer to this question is often in opposition to the basic animal instinct option.

Humans have become so successful due to the ability to act together in groups. A single human acting alone is not the top of the food chain. Bujt humans acting together are the most successful species in history.

The clash between the duality of human natures, and how to ensure the predominance of the group over the selfish individual nature has been a feature of every human society ever. Laws are just one way of trying to achieve it.

Without laws you have no society.

Even chimpanzees have laws in a sense.

As do most primates. Very often they are led by the biggest and strongest individual that simple commands that they do this and not do that. And that also applies to Homo sapiens.

But heavy is the head that wears the crown…
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119677-chimps-beat-up-murder-and-then-cannibalise-their-former-tyrant/

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Even chimpanzees have laws in a sense.

As do most primates. Very often they are led by the biggest and strongest individual that simple commands that they do this and not do that. And that also applies to Homo sapiens.

But heavy is the head that wears the crown…
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119677-chimps-beat-up-murder-and-then-cannibalise-their-former-tyrant/

Which is what happens to many tyrants, and that includes H. sapiens, of which proves my point that “often they are led by the biggest and strongest individual that simple commands that they do this and not do that.” So what is your point?

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Even chimpanzees have laws in a sense.

As do most primates. Very often they are led by the biggest and strongest individual that simple commands that they do this and not do that. And that also applies to Homo sapiens.

But heavy is the head that wears the crown…
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119677-chimps-beat-up-murder-and-then-cannibalise-their-former-tyrant/

I’ll wait until I hear from “The Pigeon of Damocles” before I decide.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

As do most primates. Very often they are led by the biggest and strongest individual that simple commands that they do this and not do that. And that also applies to Homo sapiens.

But heavy is the head that wears the crown…
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119677-chimps-beat-up-murder-and-then-cannibalise-their-former-tyrant/

Which is what happens to many tyrants, and that includes H. sapiens, of which proves my point that “often they are led by the biggest and strongest individual that simple commands that they do this and not do that.” So what is your point?

I’m allowed to agree with you, right?

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

But heavy is the head that wears the crown…
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119677-chimps-beat-up-murder-and-then-cannibalise-their-former-tyrant/

Which is what happens to many tyrants, and that includes H. sapiens, of which proves my point that “often they are led by the biggest and strongest individual that simple commands that they do this and not do that.” So what is your point?

I’m allowed to agree with you, right?

But I don’t think that was the point you were trying to make.

tauto said:

PermeateFree said:

tauto said:

Jack West, you have always been a troll.

What psychology is behind this from your research?

So, adding information, presenting scientific research and sometimes giving a different opinion makes me a troll. I think that says a lot more about your stupidity than any trolling you think I have done. As for psychology, I prefer to use facts rather than other people’s opinion, especially regarding research matters. Psychology as with religion have been amended as science continues to discover the wonders of our world. As for Jack West, I am very fond of him as he added many contributions using scientific knowledge and personal discovery.

Well you failed, you could have achieved much more if you weren’t so egotistical

Well, your post is somewhat typical of many I receive here. Yours states I am a troll and egotistical, not very nice considering I have not been in contact with you. I get a little fed up with this treatment and when I hit back it is interpretated that it was all my fault. Perhaps if I was treated more kindly and with a little respect I might reciprocate.

PermeateFree said:

tauto said:

PermeateFree said:

So, adding information, presenting scientific research and sometimes giving a different opinion makes me a troll. I think that says a lot more about your stupidity than any trolling you think I have done. As for psychology, I prefer to use facts rather than other people’s opinion, especially regarding research matters. Psychology as with religion have been amended as science continues to discover the wonders of our world. As for Jack West, I am very fond of him as he added many contributions using scientific knowledge and personal discovery.

Well you failed, you could have achieved much more if you weren’t so egotistical

Well, your post is somewhat typical of many I receive here. Yours states I am a troll and egotistical, not very nice considering I have not been in contact with you. I get a little fed up with this treatment and when I hit back it is interpretated that it was all my fault. Perhaps if I was treated more kindly and with a little respect I might reciprocate.

Well ,at least you have admitted to being a troll.
That is all you are.
,

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Which is what happens to many tyrants, and that includes H. sapiens, of which proves my point that “often they are led by the biggest and strongest individual that simple commands that they do this and not do that.” So what is your point?

I’m allowed to agree with you, right?

But I don’t think that was the point you were trying to make.

I was continuing the discussion with further illustration.

tauto said:

PermeateFree said:

tauto said:

Well you failed, you could have achieved much more if you weren’t so egotistical

Well, your post is somewhat typical of many I receive here. Yours states I am a troll and egotistical, not very nice considering I have not been in contact with you. I get a little fed up with this treatment and when I hit back it is interpretated that it was all my fault. Perhaps if I was treated more kindly and with a little respect I might reciprocate.

Well ,at least you have admitted to being a troll.
That is all you are.
,

Have I? I don’t think so, but another typical reply.

Peak Warming Man said:

captain_spalding said:

Arts said:

Synopsis: Falstaff meets a rebel knight, who surrenders to him. When Prince John reproaches Falstaff for his late arrival, Falstaff turns over his captive and requests permission to return to London by way of Gloucestershir

..and the scene includes the memorable line, ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’.

Well played Sir.

well the polite thing to do would be to state the line number

PermeateFree said:

tauto said:

PermeateFree said:

So, adding information, presenting scientific research and sometimes giving a different opinion makes me a troll. I think that says a lot more about your stupidity than any trolling you think I have done. As for psychology, I prefer to use facts rather than other people’s opinion, especially regarding research matters. Psychology as with religion have been amended as science continues to discover the wonders of our world. As for Jack West, I am very fond of him as he added many contributions using scientific knowledge and personal discovery.

Well you failed, you could have achieved much more if you weren’t so egotistical

Well, your post is somewhat typical of many I receive here. Yours states I am a troll and egotistical, not very nice considering I have not been in contact with you. I get a little fed up with this treatment and when I hit back it is interpretated that it was all my fault. Perhaps if I was treated more kindly and with a little respect I might reciprocate.

That works both ways.

We do appreciate your science type input into this forum. You have knowledge about the natural area around where you live. When you post about that, we all learn something new.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

From a deeply philosophical perspective, humans have evolved with two natures.

Firstly the primitive animal instinct nature. Survival and reproduction: “Can I eat it? Can it eat me? Can I shag it?”.

But then humans evolved to live in groups, corresponding with a higher level of cognitive function: “what’s the best thing to do for the group or society I belong to?”. The answer to this question is often in opposition to the basic animal instinct option.

Humans have become so successful due to the ability to act together in groups. A single human acting alone is not the top of the food chain. Bujt humans acting together are the most successful species in history.

The clash between the duality of human natures, and how to ensure the predominance of the group over the selfish individual nature has been a feature of every human society ever. Laws are just one way of trying to achieve it.

Without laws you have no society.

Even chimpanzees have laws in a sense.

As do most primates. Very often they are led by the biggest and strongest individual that simple commands that they do this and not do that. And that also applies to Homo sapiens.

Are you sure that Trump is a Homo sapien?

Peak Warming Man said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

Why would 250 chips want to get on a plane, but if you want them to stay in a group in their natural habitat they will. You cannot expect animals, even other primates to behave like us with our far greater knowledge and intelligence. However, they are highly social animals as are many other species from elephants to invertebrates and they each have their own ways and cooperation to enhance their species survival.

I think you are missing the main philosophical point. It is not something that humans have evolved exclusively. But it is something that humans have evolved. Any species capable of collective action needs laws or rules etc in order to function as a group in such a way that the achievements of the group are greater than the sum of any individuals acting alone. But humans definitely take it to a higher level than any other species.

When the earth was young and we were dim
Survival was our only thing
We had no time to grow our brain
Until that is we planted grain
Time to wonder, time to ponder.

David Attenborough claims that wheat caused us to knock down the forest so it could dominate on the plains.

primate societies are not really relevant to the point I was making about human societies.

yeah but that won’t stop disinformation agents trying to pull a quick one

If there were no roads there would be no road accidents

Ian said:

If there were no roads there would be no road accidents

Yes Minister.

Tamb said:

Ian said:

If there were no roads there would be no road accidents

Yes Minister.

Reminds me of the best equipped, state of the art hospital.

Peak Warming Man said:

Tamb said:

Ian said:

If there were no roads there would be no road accidents

Yes Minister.

Reminds me of the best equipped, state of the art hospital.

That’s the one.

If There Were No Speed Limit Then No Crashes Would Be Due To Speeding

Ian said:

If there were no roads there would be no road accidents

Id there we no roads, there would be no society

:p

party_pants said:

Ian said:

If there were no roads there would be no road accidents

Id there we no roads, there would be no society

:p

I think some PNG highlanders would disagree.

SCIENCE said:

yeah but that won’t stop disinformation agents trying to pull a quick one

We have always had propaganda merchants.

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

yeah but that won’t stop disinformation agents trying to pull a quick one

We have always had propaganda merchants.

speak for our(0,1,1)selves, we(1,0,0) haven’t

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

yeah but that won’t stop disinformation agents trying to pull a quick one

We have always had propaganda merchants.

speak for our(0,1,1)selves, we(1,0,0) haven’t

I leave my phone on answering machine and nobody leaves a message. That’s because it is only bots that are calling.

Ian said:

If there were no roads there would be no road accidents

There’s a point.

SCIENCE said:

If There Were No Speed Limit Then No Crashes Would Be Due To Speeding

Better yet. Nobody could get booked.

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Ian said:

If there were no roads there would be no road accidents

Id there we no roads, there would be no society

:p

I think some PNG highlanders would disagree.

Hell, does nobody realise that our roads used to be tracks used by the indigenous to walk between water.