Yo Brits! What is the real story about the London Riots? Looting? Mayhem?

[PaleoPhil]

Yes, I've read about that. Where did you do that?

[Iguana]

Your open embrace of brutality is refreshing in its honesty, but I suspect it might turn newbies off and give ammunition to critics who claim that raw Paleo dieters embrace blindly emulating violent "savages" in so-called neo-Rousseauian fashion.

Yes, and not only newbies.

The whole point of the noble savage theory was that primitive tribes were supposedly pacifistic, implying that that was basic human nature. In the past,  I have shown again and again that the opposite was true, in history/prehistory and that violence was simply part of basic human nature.

What I read led me to think that human widespread violence against its own kind started with the use of fire for cooking (middle or upper Paleolithic) and blew up with the emergence of agriculture (Neolithic). I gave a serious reference here but I had no feedback. We may refer also to the bonobos chimps that are the nearest animals to our kind and are peaceful while the common chimps are less so. More generally, animals are very seldom killing the members of their own species.

And I was not "embracing brutality", I merely subscribe to the notion of "like cures like" so burning down(or confiscating) the houses of those looters/rioters seems appropriate given that they burned other peoples' houses etc. Similiarly, the death penalty seems appropriate for the crime of murder etc.

If that’s not brutality, what is it? It’s exactly the politics the Nazis followed in occupied territories as well as the one followed by the French during the war in Algeria (lex talionis). According to anthropologist Margaret Mead, the Arapesh tribes of New Guinea have an opposite behavior.

[TylerDurden]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8714097/China-tries-to-stop-women-marrying-for-money-rather-than-love.html

The above article is indicative of what I meant re China, despite being oppressive in some respects, usually getting things right far more often than Western nations have. I wish I were a Chinese living in China, as that would protect me more easily against the coming economic storm.

[raw-al]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8714097/China-tries-to-stop-women-marrying-for-money-rather-than-love.html

The above article is indicative of what I meant re China, despite being oppressive in some respects, usually getting things right far more often than Western nations have. I wish I were a Chinese living in China, as that would protect me more easily against the coming economic storm.

Thanks for the link Tyler, interesting.

What I got from that is that divorce is as prevalent there as it is here. As usual the government is trying to manipulate to reduce the stats. This does not work any more than it does here in North. Am. where the divorce courts try to discourage it by slam dunking the guy into making him part of the working poor with ridiculous settlements.

The worst excesses of this thought processes seem to be the judges with a religious bent such as Catholics or those with strong ties to feminist organizations. One judge I dealt with had received awards from local feminist organizations that his wife was tied to. And these scum are given their job for life.

This probably sounds like a rant (guilty as accused )

Divorce is the modern disease. It is probably related to affluence and the modern appliances making life so easy that we have to time to stop and look at each other, complain and spend quality time together complaining. 

Personally I have no desire to move to China. I think if you actually moved there you would be soon packing your bags to come back home. The Chinese have their own culture and mindset where they submit easily to those in power. It would shock your system. It only looks like a good idea. But go for it. Let us know how it worked out.

[TylerDurden]

OK, I will address many of the above faulty points made by the various posters on this page, some seemingly based on fantasy(such as a film) or emotions, logic being surprisingly absent in most cases:-


First of all, please never mention Margaret Meade ever again. She was a well-known fraudster who wrote utter lies about Samoa:-

http://www.discovery.org/a/1169

Of course, there are many similiar fraudsters in anthropology such as Jared Diamond.

Re brutality:- Treating others the same way they treat society is not brutal, it's just common sense, nothing more.

Re bonobos:- There seems to be some disagreement here. Some state that common chimpanzees have evolved more than bonobos since splitting from ancient pre-humans, so that that is the only reason why bonobos are closer to us genetically:-

http://ericmjohnson.posterous.com/bonobos-are-genetically-closer-to-humans-than

 So, that doesn't demolish the killer-ape hypothesis.

Re presumption of guilt:- Correct, it seems, but this change happened only recently, historically, as there is a an 1895 article stating that presumption of guilt still existed in France. The one  saving grace is that in such countries with civil Roman law, the judges are forbidden from making laws, re "case law". The real problem with anglophone law has always been that judges were allowed to dictate the law, and that has led to huge abuses of the human rights act, which has led to numerous criminals avoiding being convicted of their crimes.


Re cherimoya's comments:- Hmm, I did note, for example,  that the Innocence Project had shown that more convicted innocents were black or hispanic, but that, like with most race-based issues, is likely rather due to class-related -issues, nothing more. I'm sure that wealthy people living in Santa Barbara are far less likely to be falsely arrested than poor people in South Central LA, regardless of skin-colour. As far as abuse of power is concerned, that occurs in all societies , even your current one, sometimes even benefitting the criminals.

Re Kings:- Clearly, you have not read much history. if you had, you would have come across the term "enlightened despot", where the ruling monarchs in question were way more benevolent than any comparable political system. Take Austria, for example, they had the enlightened Habsburg monarchs for 600 years, now Austria has a so-called "democracy" in which 2 ruling political parties, the socialists and the conservatives, make sure that no one can get the top jobs unless they are a card-carrying member of one of those 2 political parties etc.. It was amusing to find that so many people born in the lands formerly belonging to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, such as modern Slovaks,  Hungarians etc. were distraught at the recent death of the last Royal Habsburg this year, because, of course, the Habsburgs were far better rulers than the Communist and post-Communist governments they'd had.

Of course, it is a common mistake  for people throughout history to falsely assume that their particular time and culture is always  the most superior one in history, but any serious perusal of history will show the opposite.

Re China:-  I would have to be Chinese and speak Chinese to get the full benefits of relocating to China, I suspect. Well, if I'm lucky in my next reincarnation..... 

[Iguana]

I didn’t know that Jared Diamond is a fraudster (? apparently there’s some controversy about some points of his writings, but it doesn’t invalidate  the bulk of his work) and I don't think it's so clear cut about Mead as well:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead
Translation:
In 1983, five years after the death of Margaret Mead, anthropologist Derek Freeman published Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of An Anthropological Myth, in which he calls into question the main conclusions of Mead about sexuality in Samoan society, believing that his informants had misled her. After years of discussions, many anthropologists believe that the truth of the matter can never be established, although many elements in the debate suggests that Freeman’s criticism is probably unfounded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead  excerpts:
In 1983, five years after Mead had died, New Zealand anthropologist Derek Freeman, published Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, in which he challenged Mead's major findings about sexuality in Samoan society, citing statements of her surviving informants' claiming that she had coaxed them into giving her the answers she wanted. Most anthropologists have been highly critical of Freeman's arguments, even if they are often skeptical of Mead's popular works, such as Coming of Age in Samoa. A frequent critique of Freeman is that he regularly misrepresented Mead's research and views.[19][20] In a recent evaluation of the debate, anthropologist Paul Shankman concluded that:

    There is now a large body of criticism of Freeman's work from a number of perspectives in which Mead, Samoa, and anthropology appear in a very different light than they do in Freeman's work. Indeed, the immense significance that Freeman gave his critique looks like "much ado about nothing" to many of his critics.[21]

On January 19, 1979, President Jimmy Carter announced that he was awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously to Mead. U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young presented the award to Mead's daughter at a special program honoring Mead's contributions, sponsored by the American Museum of Natural History, where she spent many years of her career. The citation read:[24]

    "Margaret Mead was both a student of civilization and an exemplar of it. To a public of millions, she brought the central insight of cultural anthropology: that varying cultural patterns express an underlying human unity. She mastered her discipline, but she also transcended it. Intrepid, independent, plain spoken, fearless, she remains a model for the young and a teacher from whom all may learn."

The 2006 music video for "If Everyone Cared" by Nickelback ends with her quote: "Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

In addition, there are several schools named after Margaret Mead in the United States: a junior high school in Elk Grove Village, Illinois,[25] an elementary school in Sammamish, Washington[26] and another in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, New York.[27]

Thus, I do not understand your stance on this matter. It nullifies one of the most important reason to eat raw paleo and it seems to me highly counterproductive for the whole raw paleo diet standpoint.

Cheers
François

[Iguana]

I should have added that responding to violence with (more) violence launch a vicious circle ending up in an escalation of violence. Probably in a so called “civilized” society there’s sometimes no other alternative, but within a tribe it would quickly be a disaster in which the whole tribe could be destroyed.

Shouldn’t a reasonable society inquire why a person acted with violence  and care of him/her (starting with proper nutrition and love!) instead of punishing him/her?  

[TylerDurden]

Wikipedia has always been extremely dodgy as a reference point, the above article is appalling in its pro-Meade bias. Margaret Meade has already been totally discredited re her evidence in the anthropological community other than the most extreme Leftwing "anthropologists". Sadly, I don't have the time to deal with the article permanently as I already have to spend time to deal with the raw foodism and three dozen other pages, merely in order to make sure no idiot deletes useful info or adds dodgy data.

Jared Diamond has made many errors of judgement, some so severe that one can reasonably state that he is too biased to be considered a valid anthropologist.

[TylerDurden]

I should have added that responding to violence with (more) violence launch a vicious circle ending up in an escalation of violence. Probably in a so called “civilized” society there’s sometimes no other alternative, but within a tribe it would quickly be a disaster in which the whole tribe could be destroyed.

Shouldn’t a reasonable society inquire why a person acted with violence  and care of him/her (starting with proper nutrition and love!) instead of punishing him/her? 

Some people are beyond redemption. Besides, I have nothing against vendettas, as they have been an intrinsic part of many societies in the past, tribal or otherwise.

[cherimoya_kid]

Re cherimoya's comments:- Hmm, I did note, for example,  that the Innocence Project had shown that more convicted innocents were black or hispanic, but that, like with most race-based issues, is likely rather due to class-related -issues, nothing more. I'm sure that wealthy people living in Santa Barbara are far less likely to be falsely arrested than poor people in South Central LA, regardless of skin-colour. As far as abuse of power is concerned, that occurs in all societies , even your current one, sometimes even benefitting the criminals.

You conveniently and completely ignored my point about killers of white people being more likely to get the death penalty, than killers of other races. Are white lives worth more?

[TylerDurden]

You conveniently and completely ignored my point about killers of white people being more likely to get the death penalty, than killers of other races. Are white lives worth more?

Like I said above, it is far more likely to be a class-related issue, nothing to do with race. It's a well-known fact, for example, that the media/police get more worked up about an upper-middle-class child being kidnapped than the child of  working-class parents. We had similiar issues in the UK, where the murder of an upper-middle-class child raised endless articles in the media, while, at the same time, the murder of a recent immigrant who was a prostitute  was barely mentioned.

Oh, I read one explanation re that claim of yours, it was suggested somewhere that since whites form most of the US population, that they therefore likely formed most of the murder victims, and therefore that would explain the anomaly.

[miles]

Don't kill the poachers, kill the people who destroyed the forests and live in the cities where the animals could be living. Tyler, if you weren't living in your house some animals could be living there, therefore you should be killed.

[TylerDurden]

Don't kill the poachers, kill the people who destroyed the forests and live in the cities where the animals could be living. Tyler, if you weren't living in your house some animals could be living there, therefore you should be killed.

  Not valid. I don't have children. If an extreme animal-rights issue ever came up, it would make far more sense to start killing off  those families with a dozen children or more, as that would benefit the environment much quicker. Rather more seriously, there is little one can do about damage already sustained, all we can do is try to prevent more damage from happening via punishing poachers and the like,  and to try to expand the areas of wildlife parks  already in existence, plus introducing one-child policies in relevant high-birth-rate countries(yet another great idea from China).

[miles]

It's not about animal rights, it's about human 'rights'. Animal rights do not matter, because it's not animals who will fight back against oppression.

It's your fault that the number of wild-life is limited, because you have destroyed the forests to build your cities. Now that you've destroyed the forests, you want to prevent people from living off of the small amount that remains. People hunting for food are not responsible for the small number of wildlife, it's people who do not hunt for food who are responsible. The people who wiped the buffalo to starve the native Americans; the people who hunted for fun; to make the wild 'civilized'; and to sell parts of animals. They did this because they do not need the wild animals to survive. These are the people who should be killed.

[TylerDurden]

It's not about animal rights, it's about human 'rights'. Animal rights do not matter, because it's not animals who will fight back against oppression.

It's your fault that the number of wild-life is limited, because you have destroyed the forests to build your cities. Now that you've destroyed the forests, you want to prevent people from living off of the small amount that remains. People hunting for food are not responsible for the small number of wildlife, it's people who do not hunt for food who are responsible. The people who wiped the buffalo to starve the native Americans; the people who hunted for fun; to make the wild 'civilized'; and to sell parts of animals. They did this because they do not need the wild animals to survive. These are the people who should be killed.

Not remotely valid. First of all, technology, if used responsibly, could easily lead to more wildlife being spared. Granted, it might mean a future involving plants grown in hydroponic tanks, meats being grown in test-tubes, humans being shifted off-planet etc., but most of that is a futuristic possibility.More to the point, it's an absurd illusion that hunter-gatherer tribes left wildlife alone - haven't you read about most of the large animals in Australia being wiped out at the same time that humans migrated to Australia, then there's the extinction of mammoths and other large game being wiped out c. 30,000 to 40,000 years ago in Europe/Asia by  decidedly non-urban human tribes.

[Iguana]

30,000 to 40,000 years ago the fire was well mastered and widely used! 
BTW, I'm open to other sources than Wikipedia concerning Margaret Mead.

[cherimoya_kid]

Like I said above, it is far more likely to be a class-related issue, nothing to do with race. It's a well-known fact, for example, that the media/police get more worked up about an upper-middle-class child being kidnapped than the child of  working-class parents. We had similiar issues in the UK, where the murder of an upper-middle-class child raised endless articles in the media, while, at the same time, the murder of a recent immigrant who was a prostitute  was barely mentioned.

Oh, I read one explanation re that claim of yours, it was suggested somewhere that since whites form most of the US population, that they therefore likely formed most of the murder victims, and therefore that would explain the anomaly.

No, Geoff, that's not how statistics work.  Take a look at this link--

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides#Fig. 7

Here's a quote from that article--

"...One of the most sophisticated of the studies reviewed by the GAO was the study of race and the death penalty in Georgia. This study looked at 2400 cases processed in Georgia over a seven year period. It showed that, even when controlling for the many variables which might make one case worse than another, defendants whose victims were white, faced, on average, odds of receiving a death sentence that were 4.3 times higher than similarly situated defendants whose victims were black.17 The study controlled for hundreds of variables such as the level of violence in the crime and the prior criminal record of the defendant..."

[TylerDurden]

The above study seems to come from a biased source, thus strongly suggesting that the study did not control all variables, such as class etc.. I can find mentions of other studies which debunk this sort of notion re the death penalty, anyway:-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010606/aponline142749_001.htm

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-08-26/news/8502250855_1_death-row-convictions-or-sentences-death-sentence

 I mean, one could argue that men are discriminated too because they vastly outnumber women on Death Row, but there's obviously a similiar, simpler explanation for that, namely that men commit far more crime than women.

Then there's this study which purports to claim that there is some(steadily decreasing) racial bias in Southern States but not anywhere else, as regards the death penalty(pdf file provided in other links on google):-

http://www.nber.org/papers/w16981

In other words, there is considerable disagreement re all this.


Anyway, my own stance re the death penalty and other harsh penalties is this:-

1) The death penalty acts as an effective deterrent. For example, 1 other site cited statistics that the death penalty in Texas led to a reduction of 8 possible  murders for every criminal executed for murder. The point is that with parole etc., most sentences are now way too lenient, and we no longer have the option of deporting our criminal element to the colonies(eg:-Australia). Well, I'd love for those looters to be deported to Antarctica or the emptier spaces of Siberia, but, sadly, that will never happen.
2) The Chinese, as I recall, use the organs of their executed criminals to help those in need. I like that, sort of forcing a criminal to give something back to society.
3) I have on several occasions been robbed, burgled and even once I endured a failed mugging. If sentences were much harsher, I strongly suspect that most of the criminals involved, most of whom I know were definitely long-term offenders given their skill/persistence etc., would instead have been in jail rather than making my life a misery. Several of my holidays were ruined by such thefts. Well, it's been said that a Conservative is a Liberal who's just been mugged by reality. Perhaps you lot will eventually experience the "benefits" of contact with criminals, and eventually come to my way of thinking.

[PaleoPhil]

OK, I will address many of the above faulty points made by the various posters on this page, some seemingly based on fantasy(such as a film) or emotions, logic being surprisingly absent in most cases:-


First of all, please never mention Margaret Meade ever again. She was a well-known fraudster who wrote utter lies about Samoa:-

http://www.discovery.org/a/1169

Please never post biased religious science-attacking sites like that again regarding scientific matters. They are no more credible than Meade was. This was explained to you before when you posted a polemical Protestant Christian site as evidence on this anthropological matter, and now a Catholic variant with the same religious agenda. You're behaving no better than William did. Shame!

[TylerDurden]

Please never post biased religious science-attacking sites like that again regarding scientific matters. They are no more credible than Meade was. This was explained to you before when you posted a polemical Protestant Christian site as evidence on this anthropological matter, and now a Catholic variant with the same religious agenda. Shame!

  There are dozens of websites attacking Mead given her fraud. This just happened to be a random one I selected given time constraints. Plenty of other sources for you to choose from.

[PaleoPhil]

No wonder. 

[TylerDurden]

Incidentally, while I'm in favour of the death penalty, I do also favour organisations like the Innocence Project which endeavour to correct judicial mistakes.

[PaleoPhil]

Cool. 

[cherimoya_kid]

Perhaps you lot will eventually experience the "benefits" of contact with criminals, and eventually come to my way of thinking.

As long as we're wishing bad things on each other, perhaps you or someone you care about will get fired from a job or falsely accused of a crime, and you will come to MY way.

[raw-al]

Yes, I've read about that. Where did you do that?

I was the chair of our local Extra-Judicial Sanctions Committee. This was a system set up to essentially keep under 18 year olds from a getting a criminal record for minor items. It morphed over the years, but essentially if the child admitted doing whatever it was, and agreed to abide by the judgement of the committee then they could do as we decided and the record would be file 13nd in two years.

There are two directions for the contract with the child. The best, most effective method was mediation. I was a teacher for teaching mediators. Mediation obviously required there to be a victim and a perpetrator is in theft. It couldn't be drinking underage as the society would be the victim in that case.

Basically if the victim and the perpetrator agreed to mediation, then they were brought together in a very prescribed way with very specific and strenuously agreed to rules of conduct and given the opportunity to see each other's side of the story.

As an outsider it may seem a bit weird or ineffective but my experience and all the experiences of the other committees in the province were that it was very effective and had a profound effect on all participants.

The perpetrator got to see and hear the victim explain what it felt like to be violated and had to justify what they had thoughtlessly done, while the victim got to put a face to the criminal act and see the opportunity to put the youngster on the track to being a stronger and wiser person.

The victim got the opportunity to create a contract which the child had to fulfill. Then the child had to agree to and fulfill the contract.

Bearing in mind of course that our legal system is based on the common law of England which is based on precedence and precedence case law from sometimes back in the 18th century had made children not liable for their torts and therefore you cannot go after children for financial or contractual obligations.

I used to know the specific case it was based on. Basically it was a young child who went to a jewellery shop and asked for a very expensive piece of jewellery from the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper knew the boy's parents had lots of money, so he sold it to him and billed the parents. I forget some of the details but I think the parents passed away and the shopkeeper tried to get the money, but had to sue and he was unsuccessful.