ibx

Don't get me wrong but this sounds a lot like the post modernist approach to anthropology. In my opinion this approach is biased from the beginning. What is this newest information you speak of? The very problem with this field is, that is hardly any information to go by. History literally started when writing was invented. These are all facts unrelated to monogamy except for jealousy. Jealousy is again easily explained by your innate drive to distribute your genes. If your partner sleeps with another man, it's possible for him to farther her child, that you would mean that you would invest resources in to furthering the distribution of someone elses genes. With what evidence? Again this sounds like a post modernist approach at rewriting human history. Exactly. Current hunter/gatherer societies have been extensively studied esp. in Papua New Guinea. There are some weird society models, but most them conform pretty much to monogamy with polygamy reserved for individuals with high status. Why should it have been different 10.000 years ago? Aaaah I know: The patriarchy.

I just read this part... must have skipped it before. In a post-scarcity society like we live in I think this is where you are wrong because now society can take of woman and children that do not have men to care of them. This is exactly what happens with social security or whatever you would call it. Additionally society can pool resources and have dedicated people take care of children, so woman are once again free to utilize their resources without being dependent on a man.

It's useful because it ensures a relatively even distribution of resources. And reduces conflict within a society. The problem comes with the biological discrepancy between males and females. Men can biologically father thousands of children, without expending lots of resources. Woman on the other hand can only have comparatively few children. In the later stages of pregnancy and in the first few years of the child, the resources of the woman are severely limited due to having to take care of the child or children. Now lets assume the basic premise that the aim of life is to spread ones genes, because that's what drives evolution. In traditional hunter/gatherer societies, the way pretty much all humans lived until the advent of farming and settling into cities, men had to supply the family unit with food. A man shockingly also has limited resources, so best way ensure that 1. His genes/children survive, he can't father too many children with too many woman since they would starve 2. He does not provide for another mans children/genes - a great source of conflict for any society. Monogamy was developed. This pretty much solves all of these issues especially when enforced by society/religion.

So what you are saying is, the US Government lied to it's people and the world. Started a war because of supposed WMD. The whole world thinks there are none because apparently nobody found jack shit, the US government has an absolute low in foreign relations and is the laughing stock of the world. Yet here you are, a lowly soldier, telling us that for some strange uncomprehendable reason the US did find lots of WMD's and decided to keep it quiet. All the while knowing that showing the world these weapons would have legitimized the war!?! Yeah, that makes sense.

Well then - every American and Iraqi life was worth it then. Do you even read the articles you post? I would probably delude myself as well, it must be tough realizing that you where lied to, lost friends, saw and caused terrible shit all so that some white old men could get richer...

Maybe you should invest a little bit more time in finding out about the "innate concept" you base your life on... BTW, it doesn't take a lot of time at all for an intelligent person to realize that a certain concepts are inherently flawed.

Well presented with new undeniable information I was willing to learn and change my mind. How much of your own research have you done to confirm your ridiculous bronze age religion?

How many four year olds where killed by cypresses or fire extinguishers? This is the unique way of American thinking, you only think about whats convenient and good for yourself. You feel safer with a gun? Who gives a fuck about the the children that die!? It's not your fault, since guns don't kill people... PSSSH!? Please. How you can live a delusional world where you even compare the two is the mystery the world is trying understand about USA.

I saw this a few years ago in German documentary about 9/11 and why the government failed to predict the attacks. They gave this as one the reasons the FBI and CIA did not cooperate. Apparently I'm was wrong and learned something on this forum - who woulda thought? thanks!

Well... The CIA is an intelligence agency that finds out what is going on internationally, they give politicians there analysis and politicians base policy off of that. They are not allowed to work domestically. So far correct? That would make part of the legislative branch of the government. The FBI is supposed hunt criminals domestically. That would make them part of the executive branch of the government, correct? That's why they are not supposed to share information. If I got this wrong, please explain, I want to learn.

That is true if only it weren't for that pesky separation of powers. But you got rid of that pretty quickly so your all intelligence services can now spy on anyone anytime with any method. Good job America.

Comparing who is the vilest is pretty stupid endeavor, don't you think? I think both sides have their fair share of ignorant, senseless violence. Muslims stone people - you torture innocent people to death in your state prisons. Whats the fucking difference? Arguing this is semantics - from the German perspective you both have primitive violent cultures.

1. They do. Nobody ever claimed you can prevent 100% of the violence. German police uses about 100 bullets per year. 2. We are on the internet(an international communications network) discussing things, like policy and politics in a forum where policy and politics are discussed by an international group. If you don't want to hear other peoples opinions maybe you should rethink your method of communication and go back your echo chamber.

Germany will make sure they'll be cheap _legal_ labor to exploit. Germany just got a law with a minimum wage after about 30 years of fighting for it. They are already talking about rolling it back because the refugees.

Well... your country recently killed about 300.000 foreign citizens for profit... Is still killing daily in foreign country's without any due process. You have a torture prison. Your ancestors committed genocide on the indigenous population. About 18.000 people a year die due to violent causes in the US alone. 3 generations ago Germany perfected industrial genocide. I would be careful calling other cultures barbaric. It's going to be really tough. Nobody can foresee the exact outcome yet since it depends on many things the unclear right now.

Agree with everything in the video. I will try shed light on the German position though. Well the simple question you have ask yourself if you consider the refugees as humans in need. If so, then the first thing is to help people in immediate need, disregarding of who they are since all humans deserve protection. That's one of the major insights that separates us from the middle ages and the middle east. Do we want to give that up? That's how the Germans are arguing and that's why we've opened the damn. These people are at the EU border right now, they are hungry and cold. With Germanys history, we do not want to force people to live in camps, can you guess why? Further we do not want an impenetrable border( A large defended wall). We've had a wall in the past where innocent people where shot for want of a better life. Most of these the refugees are not some demonic islamists, they are normal people who basically just want a better life the themselves and their families. So there is the dilemma. You can either forget your humanity and think solely of what your best interests are or you can try to help the people in need now and worry about the issues later. These issues will haunt Germany for at least the next decade or two and everybody who has just a little understanding of the subject realizes this.

Thats interesting. Did you train with the SEK or GSG9? The fact remains that German police discharge their weapons about 100 times a year, that's all cops put together. I would say they are doing something different. If you have a different first person experience, I would love to hear it. http://www.dw.com/en/why-german-police-officers-rarely-reach-for-their-guns/a-17884779 https://www.rt.com/usa/us-germany-85-shots-022/

A racist Christian - color me surprised.

There is so much wrong with what suggest that I don't even know where to begin. I will try though... So you think that every school, preschool and kindergarden should have an armed police officer on the premises on standby at all times? That will be - very expensive - only the best of best of police will considered for such an honorable cause - teaches children that they live with totalitarian overreaching government - the cop would be the first target of any assailant This is literally the only way to reduce the number guns in the population. How about you think of the future? But you are like lots of Americans, you only care for what is relevant for YOU right now. You obliviously don't care at all about the dead children of the future because it might mean minor inconvenience. Agree if enforceable. How do enforce those laws without giving up other rights like the 4th amendment? This is only enforceable by doing surprise visits to gun owners to check if they really comply. Making somebody indirectly responsible for anything is a very slippery slope and will lead great legal trouble.And rightly so. For this to even remotely work you would need national gun registry but you haven't thought of that have you? Agree, again only makes sense if enforceable. Who deems people ineligible for a firearm? Who enforces this? Where are they registered? Maybe you should think a little more about your "solutions". You know what would have most of those shootings? Decent mental health care and making it really difficult to buy firearms. Everything you've wrote is poorly thought out bullshit, as demonstrated.

They do. And it's not a problem since they are only used when there is mass unrest, like the civil unrest during 68 revolution. The German government took lots of flack due to how they reacted and policy has since changed. They are hardly ever used to confront criminals because the sight of an APC would make potential gunmen more aggressive, the German police tries to talk them down even if it takes days, which it sometimes does.

No, they fucking don't. There is a method called deescalation practiced very successfully by Germany law enforcement. We also have IED laying criminals. We cope without bloody military weapons. Deescalation means that you sometimes have to step down for while, but as long as you have to have the biggest dick nothing will change.

Hey History professor, you seriously need to reevaluate what you think you know about European history. Enough said? It was written for a feudal society 300 years ago and amended 27 times. Your country has more people in prison in absolute and relative numbers than any other country on earth. You have a militarized police. Innocent people are regularly executed by the government. Why do you not stand up to the tyranny? I can't understand why you think a 300 year old document is a good recipe for society. It is clearly flawed as evidenced by all the gun violence - unless of course you think gun violence is a good thing for society then I stand corrected.

Lots of cops: Technically they are APC's... http://downtrend.com/donn-marten/georgia-swat-video-perfect-example-thug-police-mentality http://images2.phoenixnewtimes.com/imager/u/original/6662594/arpaio_tank_top.jpg http://tftppull.freethoughtllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/lawmakers-propose-anti-militarization-bill.jpg

So the police has decided to stop doing their jobs without any recourse and you're blaming people who think that a democratic country shouldn't have militarized police force armed with tanks. In a country that has more prisoners than any other country on earth non the less. You can't understand why the population may object? According to wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactive_policing proactive policing is large part commutation with the community. Do you think that maybe the community does want to communicate with a force who is constantly threatening their lives and freedom with an over abundance of violence and force? (Military tactics) Destroying families because of minor bullshit like soft drug abuse. The community does not see you(the police) as part of it anymore, but as an external threatening entity and your answer to this is more aggression, or total bullshit like NOT DOING YOUR FUCKING JOB anymore. You see the difference between me practicing my EP's and you being vigilant is that if I don't practice my EP's it's my life on the line. If you fuck up, you destroy the people you are sworn to protect. My very honest opinion of police officers: You knew what you signed up for, you have immense power. (see the wiki article) I also think you should rather be willing to die than kill an innocent person. If you do not agree with this, you have the wrong job.

This is actually an amazing thing right here. A cop in complete and utter denial of reality. Crime rates have actually been steeply declining since the beginning of the 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States http://freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-4/ https://www.google.de/search?q=crime+rate+USA&espv=2&biw=1410&bih=727&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIjJuvusOgyAIVwdIaCh0UDAl_ Notice a trend in all the graphs in the last link? This type of thinking is why lots of cops are way out of line. You live in fantasy world where crime is skyrocketing and everybody is out to kill you. As soon as somebody as much questions military tactics and civil rights violations - you scream "It's a war on cops", in your next breath you blatantly lie about rising crime. Unbelievable.