Men and women create <human> life together. Most of us endeavor to protect the life we create together. Because there are dangers out there, we need to know how to defend ourselves. In fact, self-preservation is likely a big part of what makes us have a profound capacity to understand and commit violence.

<on balance, I suspect the killers have a majority>

The self-family-tribe-culture-nation preservationists have the majority. Your statement is sophomoric and dramatic in equal measure. Why do you think people <kill>?

As for evolution, there's no argument worth debating. One doesn't have to be fond of it: it simply is the case, and anyone who doubts this is delusional or ill-informed. The irony is that in most parts of the civilized world evolution is quite compatible with religious belief -- the notion that they're in conflict is mainly an American phenomenon. And one that embarrasses thinking Americans.

Where exactly is pacifism feasible? How many nations on this planet have a military, and how many municipalities have some sort of police force? How can we speak of pacifism with these structures in place, keeping the peace and <violently> stopping others from committing crimes?

In any case, bonobos seem not immune to violent behavior http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...

I accept that you sincerely believe that statement.

<And one that embarrasses thinking Americans.>

On the other hand, Strachey apparently had mixed feelings about any such interposition. One trusts that an interposed Bishop or Knight suffers no such ambiguity.

Plus, of course, the word 'gay' meaning homosexual was not current in 1915 - but some of the words then used are now offensive.

Nor, as a thinking person, are you embarrassed by the topic under discussion. I should perhaps have said that *some* thinking Americans find the subject embarrassing. And, as you know, there are those - emphatically not me - who regard the very idea of a 'thinking American' as a contradiction in terms. A sort of Oxy-moron-acetylene torch for, eh, lighting the flames of hell.

So if we dispose of 'thinking' and 'embarrassment' there's just one angle left: Americans. Is it possible - no offence intended - that you're not really an American? Could you be a mole or a foreign agent? Or maybe Ohio seceded without telling anyone?

Incidentally, I now seem to live in one of the most 'liberal' states on Earth. Last week, Ireland was the first country anywhere to put the issue of gay marriage before the people, in the form of a referendum and constitutional amendment -- which was passed by a large majority. Other countries which enacted such laws just did the deed in parliament - this way is more democratic.

It's shocking, in a sense, given how conservative the country was a generation ago. Things have changed.

And one woman's ceiling wax is another woman's floor polish...

BTW, does anyone remember <Sealing Wax> which lawyers used to melt and dribble onto important documents.

Well, I despise the Kardashians and American Idol and cell phones, so maybe I'm adopted. Yes, it's a rather lowbrow country, incredibly unthinking for the availability of things to think about.

< Earth. Last week, Ireland was the first country anywhere to put the issue of gay marriage before the people, in the form of a referendum and constitutional amendment -- which was passed by a large majority. Other countries which enacted such laws just did the deed in parliament - this way is more democratic.

It's shocking, in a sense, given how conservative the country was a generation ago. Things have changed.>

Yes, that's mostly plausible - that 'otherwise' is a tad too all-embracing for me, but the position generally holds.

Of course, 'reality' is not the kind of quality which usually gets attached to human belief systems such as pacifism. Is there a 9th dimension in Mormonism? Is there quiddity in capitalism? Is there balm in Gilead?

And why bring in evolution? Unless you think that linking two concepts which you happen to disbelieve in will somehow jointly undermine both?

Isn't that <sympathetic magic>? Or just magical thinking without the thought?

Remember that most leading world religions are *not* opposed to evolution, any more than they are to other scientific ideas. Opposition, such as it is, tends to come from conservative American pastors who have been persuaded that Neo-Darwinism is at odds with the Old Testament.

Arraign USA, Chuck.
Ask anarchic guru.
Saurian crack hug.
Curing hack's aura.
A rag chunks Curia.
Gun us, archaic Ark.
Crack Hug as a ruin.

The great Werner Hug, Swiss specialist in the Winawer French and SWARM System, of course. For the uninitiated, the SWARM is the Swiss-Armenian variation, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Ba5 ... often with 6.b4.

Why do you insist on pretending to know what my belief system is, on evolution, or religion? I have no idea why you keep harping on world religions. No idea why you are talking about any "creator."

My entire point about bringing up evolution, or any other creature on this planet, is because they had to defend themselves in some way, shape and form.

You are throwing things into this argument that have no bearing on my point, which, originally, was basically women aren't the only gender which create life (of course), and that the protection of that <human> life is what brings about violence. Paradoxical, but it makes perfect sense.

If you honestly re-read this thread <domdaniel> you'll see just how confused and off your responses are. It's as if you don't even know what you are trying to argue against.