Ok, some people seem upset that I didn't somehow immediatedly answer people's questions (while I was asleep and working) so I'm going to continue the life of this admittedly over-discussed topic. 
I tend to lean towards environmental and societal factors in explaining behavior rather than biological and genetic factors. There are a lot of reasons for this but I can respect those who disagree. However, I cannot respect those who use conjecture without proof to say that things are biologically-based. When someone proves to me that, based on biology, men are automatically more agressive then women I'll have a discussion with them. (And yes, I'm aware of the studies done on "super-males" (XYY chromosone) but this is a chromosone imbalance which means it doesn't neccessarily hold true for "normal" men.) As to the idea that a man "must" be present to raise "normal" children, I haven't seen that proved in any sociological studies. In fact, extensive studies have shown that two care-givers are slightly better for a child's developement than a single care-giver. This very likely has a lot to do with the amount of time that can be afforded to be with the child.
Spectre - That's the whole point of humans "developing", ie, becoming modernized. We no longer act in exactly the same ways we acted in the past. That said, humans are the only species that organizes into large armies and goes to war with itself. If war and agression are such natural phenomenon, who don't bonobo chimps, with whom we share about 97% of our DNA, do it also?
Arrel, I never said god was a "she". If you want to get into a more extensive discussion over my personal religious beliefs you can take it to the Ms. Magazine boards in the Spirit section. Just start a thread directed at me and I'll discuss it there. We're not supposed to be discussing it here. As to your social darwinist arguements, I think they speak for themselves.
Jeff Thomas - It's a question I pose to other people not just gun owners. We're trying to build a city which is less violent and where people feel more secure and are able to sit on their stoops again in the evening. Oh, and I had sortof picked up that you're starting to use non-violent direct action and stuff. I think that's great and I wish you neat creative actions.
Red Bull - Anyone can call themselves a pacifist. That doesn't mean they fit my definition of one. IMHO, the whole point of pacifism is that the means DO matter. It is my non-pacifist friends who think that the ends justify the means (ie, that killing a few people in the course of the revolution is ok). We used to have a sign above our meeting that "peace is not the goal, it is the way". Therefore, I won't use any tactics that are in any way violent or oppressive to another person. And I answered a question earlier about "imposing my views".
I tend to lean towards environmental and societal factors in explaining behavior rather than biological and genetic factors. There are a lot of reasons for this but I can respect those who disagree. However, I cannot respect those who use conjecture without proof to say that things are biologically-based. When someone proves to me that, based on biology, men are automatically more agressive then women I'll have a discussion with them. (And yes, I'm aware of the studies done on "super-males" (XYY chromosone) but this is a chromosone imbalance which means it doesn't neccessarily hold true for "normal" men.) As to the idea that a man "must" be present to raise "normal" children, I haven't seen that proved in any sociological studies. In fact, extensive studies have shown that two care-givers are slightly better for a child's developement than a single care-giver. This very likely has a lot to do with the amount of time that can be afforded to be with the child.
Spectre - That's the whole point of humans "developing", ie, becoming modernized. We no longer act in exactly the same ways we acted in the past. That said, humans are the only species that organizes into large armies and goes to war with itself. If war and agression are such natural phenomenon, who don't bonobo chimps, with whom we share about 97% of our DNA, do it also?
Arrel, I never said god was a "she". If you want to get into a more extensive discussion over my personal religious beliefs you can take it to the Ms. Magazine boards in the Spirit section. Just start a thread directed at me and I'll discuss it there. We're not supposed to be discussing it here. As to your social darwinist arguements, I think they speak for themselves.
Jeff Thomas - It's a question I pose to other people not just gun owners. We're trying to build a city which is less violent and where people feel more secure and are able to sit on their stoops again in the evening. Oh, and I had sortof picked up that you're starting to use non-violent direct action and stuff. I think that's great and I wish you neat creative actions.
Red Bull - Anyone can call themselves a pacifist. That doesn't mean they fit my definition of one. IMHO, the whole point of pacifism is that the means DO matter. It is my non-pacifist friends who think that the ends justify the means (ie, that killing a few people in the course of the revolution is ok). We used to have a sign above our meeting that "peace is not the goal, it is the way". Therefore, I won't use any tactics that are in any way violent or oppressive to another person. And I answered a question earlier about "imposing my views".
