Sports writer kills himself, leaves behind website describing how and why

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
Even just calling all european ethnocentric history a class struggle is pretty stupid anyway. It completely ignores how history is filled with struggles based solely on differences in religion, without pretty much any basis in class struggle.
Right. Here is a non-retarded way to approach the argument.
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
yeah, I'd say the same. I will probably make an argument that marxist narrative is one of the leasthumanisticinterpretation of human history.

to khalid. ancient is gay.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Right. Here is a non-retarded way to approach the argument.
You mean exactly the way I approached it, by pointing out that there is more to human history than the one sided view being presented?

Are you like trolling for negs or something? Because you just went full fucking retard.
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
78,878
156,742
How long willl Hodj drag out losing this argument? Another week?
 

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
to khalid. ancient is gay.
You're just my type cutie-pie.
wink.png


You mean exactly the way I approached it, by pointing out that there is more to human history than the one sided view being presented?

Are you like trolling for negs or something? Because you just went full fucking retard.
You approached it by saying "nuh-uh, what about cavemen!" Which is stupid. Which is why I called you out on it despite the fact you are arguing with Dumar, who I almost never agree with.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
You're just my type cutie-pie.
wink.png




You approached it by saying "nuh-uh, what about cavemen!" Which is stupid.
No, I didn't.

There are no cavemen, that's a dysphemistic and completely inaccurate term that relates no significance to our ancestors, who built up the cultural patterns and lifestyles that contribute heavily to modern society. This is also a strawman because it implies that pre modern human ancestors had no culture, no existence. Your entire line of reasoning is ignorant as shit. Homo sapiens, in their modern forms, not "cavemen" have existed for 100,000 years.

Homo erectus, Neanderthalensis, Denosivan and others all had cultural patterns and in some cases possibly languages as well they made tools and your entire argument ignores the CUMULATIVE NATURE of the human experience. That's the only stupid thing about this conversation.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

Current data suggest that modern humans evolved from archaic humans primarily in East Africa. A 195,000 year old fossil from the Omo 1 site in Ethiopia shows the beginnings of the skull changes that we associate with modern people, including a rounded skull case and possibly a projecting chin. A 160,000 year old skull from the Herto site in the Middle Awash area of Ethiopia also seems to be at the early stages of this transition. It had the rounded skull case but retained the large brow ridges of archaic humans. Somewhat more advanced transitional forms have been found at Laetoli in Tanzania dating to about 120,000 years ago. By 115,000 years ago, early modern humans had expanded their range to South Africa and into Southwest Asia (Israel) shortly after 100,000 years ago. There is no reliable evidence of modern humans elsewhere in the Old World until 60,000-40,000 years ago, during a short temperate period in the midst of the last ice age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans

The term anatomically modern humans[1] (AMH, also AMHS for "anatomically modern Homo sapiens"[2]) in paleoanthropology refers to individuals of Homo sapiens with an appearance consistent with the range of phenotypes in modern humans.

Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago.[3] The emergence of anatomically modern human marks the dawn of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens,[4] i.e. the subspecies of Homo sapiens that includes all modern humans. The oldest fossil remains of anatomically modern humans are the Omo remains, which date to 195,000 (?5,000) years ago and include two partial skulls as well as arm, leg, foot and pelvis bones.[5][6]

Other fossils include the proposed Homo sapiens idaltu from Herto in Ethiopia that are almost 160,000 years old[7] and remains from Skhul in Israel that are 90,000 years old.[8]
We aren't talking fucking "Cavemen" here, we're talking ANATOMICALLY MODERN HUMANS. Anatomically. Their brains, their bodies, were as ours are, right now. Their cultural patterns, language complexity, as ours is, now. Thank you.

The history of human history is not just class struggle and fucking modern humans have existed for longer than the 10,000 or so years Dumar would like to restrict this conversation to. Their lives and histories and experiences were and are valid and should be considered as part and parcel of any examination of the fundamental natures of human existence.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
No one missed your point. Your point is wrong, and based on slander and intentionally misleading and provably false language.
 

Famm

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
11,041
794
Isn't most of what we know about culture and society in groups of humans predating recorded history pretty much guesswork anyway? How do we know they didn't have a form of class struggles and revolts?
 

Famm

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
11,041
794
http://www.theonion.com/articles/ame...kind-of,33827/

NEW YORK-Noting that it feels clearly distinct from the type of generalized, aching malaise and sadness that constitutes their usual day-to-day existence, Americans nationwide reported feeling a somewhat different sense of spiritual numbness today, one characterized by an acute melancholy, a more localized feeling of emptiness, and a helpless inability to alter the course of the past 12 years of history. "Typically, as I go through my daily routine, the emotional paralysis I feel is more like a dull, non-specific pain that pervades the very essence of my being-a pained voice, if you will, that wants to scream but can't-but today it's more like a profoundly longing, grieving kind of numb," 35-year-old Ohio resident William Bryant told reporters, echoing the sentiments of all 315 million Americans, who say their daily sense of grief and spiritual exhaustion usually "just sort of hangs there in the background, but felt more specifically and immediately miserable today." "When I woke up this morning, I felt utterly alone and shattered, just as I always do, but there was a little added something in the mix this time-horror, maybe? A sense of unmollified anguish over a tragic event that can never be erased or even truly comprehended? I don't know, something like that. It felt shitty, I know that much." Americans went on to confirm that while today's unique variety of emotional numbness was certainly no better than any other day's, at the very least it changed things up a little.
 

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
I only read anthropology as a hobby, so I don't know, but it seems like in a state of nature, the impetus to disenfranchise and control the weaker members of a social group by the stronger ones would be fairly strong. I mean, do we not believe hominids would have broken that far from other primates? Because other primates certainly have class structures, from what I understand--the Alpha gets all the bitches, the most food and dictates what everyone does. But again, don't know that much about it.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Isn't most of what we know about culture and society in groups of humans predating recorded history pretty much guesswork anyway? How do we know they didn't have a form of class struggles and revolts?
No, because there were still lots of tribal cultures around the globe just 50 and 100 years ago and less, and even many today, that were heavily studied.

Margaret Mead, Franz Boaz and Claude Levi-Strausse are some classic anthropologists from that era that broke immense ground researching tribal communities and kinship patterns and there are still people living in rural African tribal communities doing research right now. Australia still has a healthy tribal population, Africa, South America, North America with Eskimos and, to a much lesser extent, the Native American tribes on the reservations, etc and so forth.

I only read anthropology as a hobby, so I don't know, but it seems like in a state of nature, the impetus to disenfranchise and control the weaker members of a social group by the stronger ones would be fairly strong. I mean, do we not believe hominids would have broken that far from other primates? Because other primates certainly have class structures, from what I understand--the Alpha gets all the bitches, the most food and dictates what everyone does. But again, don't know that much about it.

If you want to get into primate research, you will find that the dynamic of weak vs strong exists, but the "weak" often are not so weak after all. The women, as discussed, use their sexual capacity to acquire more access to resources, often by trading sex to weaker males for food, and to stronger males for protection, weaker males often find ways to sneak behind bigger males backs to engage in sexual activity with the females, etc. Mutual grooming exercises build friendship ties. There's even sperm competition between males and the males have developed semen that creates plugs and semen that can erode plugs all sorts of funky crazy ties between cultural relationships and biology and environment in the little fuckers.

That's what I'm saying though, ignoring all this data and focusing on the tiniest subset possible and declaring everything else irrelevant, the result of "Cavemen" and "bipeds and chimpanzees".

That's not science. That's bias.
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
If you want to get into primate research, you will find that the dynamic of weak vs strong exists, but the "weak" often are not so weak after all. The women, as discussed, use their sexual capacity to acquire more access to resources, often by trading sex to weaker males for food, and to stronger males for protection, weaker males often find ways to sneak behind bigger males backs to engage in sexual activity with the females, etc. Mutual grooming exercises build friendship ties. There's even sperm competition between males and the males have developed semen that creates plugs and semen that can erode plugs all sorts of funky crazy ties between cultural relationships and biology and environment in the little fuckers.

That's what I'm saying though, ignoring all this data and focusing on the tiniest subset possible and declaring everything else irrelevant, the result of "Cavemen" and "bipeds and chimpanzees".

That's not science. That's bias.
you still gotta have sex to know about social behaviour and the history of "social" movements, so I am guessing this info is useless to me.
 

Pancreas

Vyemm Raider
1,131
3,818
Dehydrated Discussion* (Just add water and it expands like magic!)

There is no aspect of humanity that is truly unique to humans with the possible exception of written language. What we have done however, is refine and manipulate these aspects to a much finer degree than most other forms of life on the planet.

In fact, we have so thoroughly dominated all exogenous threats to our survival, that now, human activity itself poses some of the most substantial threats. There are plenty of dangers that still exist no matter what we decide to do with our time, but many of these are outside of our current scope of influence. In time, who knows, maybe those will be dominated as well.

Our world, and the events that shaped that world, along with stresses and dangers posed by that world, shaped us into the creatures we are today. This planet made us savage long before it opened the door to become civilized. We still carry the memories of our ancestor's fears and triumphs, of their struggles, defeats and victories. Every event removed or ensured that certain genes would be passed on and thereby changed us forever

Eventually our world became so prone to change that the only trait that truly mattered was the ability to adapt. To evolve, not over the course of many generations, but over the course of years, months, days. To be able to change and adapt within hours. To be able to perceive the minuscule details of our world that we might find more secure and better quality sources to sustain us. This concentration on observing our world was the fire that forged our cognitive abilities.

And with this, our dependence on one another also increased. Our physical prowess and development in youth is stunted due to the taxing of our biological resources for the development of our seat of cognitive ability, the brain. We are born, blind, weak, vulnerable and useless. We must be protected longer than any other mammalian species before we can truly fend for ourselves. This need to protect our young, more than any other species, caused us to develop deeper and more complex social structures than any other group.

Deep social connections, and advanced information processing allowed us to begin to unravel the mysteries of the world that made us and share these discoveries. This environment created the space in which the technologies that would lead to civilization, would be developed. Now, instead of our genes communicating the realities of the world and determining what worked and what failed, our minds and bodies did. The rate of change in our world had eventually increased by a magnitude.

And so, with such things in place, the rest of human development passes like a blur. The stones become metals and then plastics. The subtle body language becomes incredibly precise spoken word and then text. The world sees us reach every clime and corner and we re-invent what being a human entails in order to survive there. We left on a journey, each finding a different path, and now it seems humanity is approaching consensus once again.

But there is a negative space that gives all of this action and effort such dark contrast. And that is our mortality. None of these achievements would be if not for death. If every human lived forever, then death would be the only achievement of note.

And so we come finally to a point of slightly more relevance to the discussion at hand. Should humans strive to attain a much finer manipulation of their own deaths, similar in fashion to the level of control they strive to achieve over every aspect of their lives? Or should our deaths be the final vestige of the unpredictable and brutal world from which we owe our existence, leaving to fate or chance the time of our demise? To have struggled for millennia to postpone the inevitability of death, to then promote the hastening of such a thing would seem counter to what being human is.

But being human is not about just surviving, it's about adapting. As our manipulation of the world becomes finer and more precise, the ability to die, without the express desire to do so, may become an impossibility. In such a world, death might only occur as a conscious decision. We are not there yet, but someday we may be.

I think given the current state of the world and the rate of technological advances, to assume that ones life has reached it's maximum potential and therefore is no longer worthy of continuance, is a very large assumption indeed. Those without the desire to live, should be encouraged to live for others. If that sounds selfish, it's because it is. It is the epitome of selfish desire, to wish that others will work for one's own benefit. And yet that is how we have survived long enough as a species to have such a conversation. However, when we ourselves engage in such an activity, the selfless work for the benefit of others, it becomes the epitome of altruistic behavior; which is also credited for many of the advances that allow our species to survive.

If we do not strike a balance between these two powerful aspects of the human psyche, then destruction is sure to follow. It always has.

*Most of the stuff about human development is only in there because you people are horrible at staying on topic.