Louisiana Police stun father as son died in house fire - Polidicks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42761334]"So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by palaeoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organisation." [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure[/url][/QUOTE] "Some archaeologists argue that violence in hunter-gatherer societies was ubiquitous. They argue that approximately 25% to 30% of adult male deaths in these societies were due to homicide, compared to an upper estimate of 3% of all deaths in the 20th century. They claim that the cause of this is near constant tribal warfare" Wow it's like you didnt even read the thing you were quoting :o

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42761285]humans survived hundreds of thousands of years before systematic dominion of other humans became a thing. so if it's not the way the world works, it's the way the world could work. [/QUOTE] Can't wait until we all become anarchists, and nobody has a bigger fur tent than the other.

[QUOTE=Vilusia;42761363]"Some archaeologists argue that violence in hunter-gatherer societies was ubiquitous. They argue that approximately 25% to 30% of adult male deaths in these societies were due to homicide, compared to an upper estimate of 3% of all deaths in the 20th century. They claim that the cause of this is near constant tribal warfare" Wow it's like you didnt even read the thing you were quoting :o[/QUOTE] "During the twentieth century, anthropologists discovered and studied dozens of different hunter-gatherer societies, in various remote parts of the world, who had been nearly untouched by modern influences. Wherever they were found--in Africa, Asia, South America, or elsewhere; in deserts or in jungles--these societies had many characteristics in common. The people lived in small bands, of about 20 to 50 persons (including children) per band, who moved from camp to camp within a relatively circumscribed area to follow the available game and edible vegetation. The people had friends and relatives in neighboring bands and maintained peaceful relationships with neighboring bands. Warfare was unknown to most of these societies, and where it was known it was the result of interactions with warlike groups of people who were not hunter-gatherers. In each of these societies, the dominant cultural ethos was one that emphasized individual autonomy, non-directive childrearing methods, nonviolence, sharing, cooperation, and consensual decision-making. Their core value, which underlay all of the rest, was that of the equality of individuals." [url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways[/url] [url]http://www.amazon.com/Warless-Societies-Origin-Raymond-Kelly/dp/0472067389[/url]

Why don't you do us a favor and go live with those tribes. :)

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42761426]"During the twentieth century, anthropologists discovered and studied dozens of different hunter-gatherer societies, in various remote parts of the world, who had been nearly untouched by modern influences. Wherever they were found--in Africa, Asia, South America, or elsewhere; in deserts or in jungles--these societies had many characteristics in common. The people lived in small bands, of about 20 to 50 persons (including children) per band, who moved from camp to camp within a relatively circumscribed area to follow the available game and edible vegetation. The people had friends and relatives in neighboring bands and maintained peaceful relationships with neighboring bands. Warfare was unknown to most of these societies, and where it was known it was the result of interactions with warlike groups of people who were not hunter-gatherers. In each of these societies, the dominant cultural ethos was one that emphasized individual autonomy, non-directive childrearing methods, nonviolence, sharing, cooperation, and consensual decision-making. Their core value, which underlay all of the rest, was that of the equality of individuals." [url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways[/url] [url]http://www.amazon.com/Warless-Societies-Origin-Raymond-Kelly/dp/0472067389[/url][/QUOTE] you're comparing small tribes consisting of 20-50 people interacting with other tribes of 20-50 people. [QUOTE=yawmwen;42761285]humans survived hundreds of thousands of years before systematic dominion of other humans became a thing. so if it's not the way the world works, it's the way the world could work.[/QUOTE] you're also talking about the world in general. pick one or the other not both.

[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;42761469]you're comparing small tribes consisting of 20-50 people interacting with other tribes of 20-50 people. you're also talking about the world in general. pick one or the other not both.[/QUOTE] humans are naturally peaceful and seek cooperation as well as egalitarianism, not inequality and war. [editline]5th November 2013[/editline] that works whether 20-50 people or 6 billion.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42761480]humans are naturally peaceful and seek cooperation as well as egalitarianism, not inequality and war.[/QUOTE] The world as it stands would seem to disagree with that, would it not? The majority of people probably think that way, but there will always be some looking to rise above and otherwise lead others.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42761426]"During the twentieth century, anthropologists discovered and studied dozens of different hunter-gatherer societies, in various remote parts of the world, who had been nearly untouched by modern influences. Wherever they were found--in Africa, Asia, South America, or elsewhere; in deserts or in jungles--these societies had many characteristics in common. The people lived in small bands, of about 20 to 50 persons (including children) per band, who moved from camp to camp within a relatively circumscribed area to follow the available game and edible vegetation. The people had friends and relatives in neighboring bands and maintained peaceful relationships with neighboring bands. Warfare was unknown to most of these societies, and where it was known it was the result of interactions with warlike groups of people who were not hunter-gatherers. In each of these societies, the dominant cultural ethos was one that emphasized individual autonomy, non-directive childrearing methods, nonviolence, sharing, cooperation, and consensual decision-making. Their core value, which underlay all of the rest, was that of the equality of individuals." [url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways[/url] [url]http://www.amazon.com/Warless-Societies-Origin-Raymond-Kelly/dp/0472067389[/url][/QUOTE] Now, here is the question for you, what has war brought us? Well, here is a little hint, we wouldn't be having this conversation without it. Notice the number of people involved, that is a major indicator of the limits of a society, the more people that are able to be directed to a goal, the more each can get done via specialization. A mechanic doesn't need to know how to farm, and a farmer doesn't need to know how to maintain his tools beyond the basics due to specialization. By focusing on one goal, rather than having to provide for one's self and relying on others to provide for you you can assist those others by making their lives easier through development. Incentives is the key. War is but one incentive, it provides a unifying goal. With this sense of unity we have gotten quite far, even if this unity is against another force and their own sense of unity.

[QUOTE=deadoon;42761512]Now, here is the question for you, what has war brought us? Well, here is a little hint, we wouldn't be having this conversation without it. Notice the number of people involved, that is a major indicator of the limits of a society, the more people that are able to be directed to a goal, the more each can get done via specialization. A mechanic doesn't need to know how to farm, and a farmer doesn't need to know how to maintain his tools beyond the basics due to specialization. By focusing on one goal, rather than having to provide for one's self and relying on others to provide for you you can assist those others by making their lives easier through development. Incentives is the key. War is but one incentive, it provides a unifying goal. With this sense of unity we have gotten quite far, even if this unity is against another force and their own sense of unity.[/QUOTE] although hunter-gatherers are egalitarian, the two terms are not mutually exclusive. there are other ways to organize society that don't require a hunter-gatherer lifestyle that also retain the idea of egalitarianism.

[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;42759935]As a parent you don't think of the consequences of your actions when your own son or daughter is on the line, he didn't know it was "too late" at the time because in that situation you don't think like that.[/QUOTE] Fairly certain the only thing going through his head, aside from tens of thousands of volts, was [I][B]MY SON IS IN THAT BUILDING I [U]MUST[/U] GET HIM OUT [U]NOW.[/U][/B][/I]

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42761835]Fairly certain the only thing going through his head, aside from tens of thousands of volts, was [I][B]MY SON IS IN THAT BUILDING I [U]MUST[/U] GET HIM OUT [U]NOW.[/U][/B][/I][/QUOTE] I think that was his point. The father would have been reacting entirely on emotion and instinct and would have clouded his judgement. The policeman, being relatively unbiased, would be operating on the logic of "If this man goes into that building he WILL die, and I should stop him." Can't say that either side acted incorrectly in my opinion.

If the police let him go into the building, his family could sue civilly for not doing their jobs.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42761480]humans are naturally peaceful and seek cooperation as well as egalitarianism, not inequality and war. [editline]5th November 2013[/editline] that works whether 20-50 people or 6 billion.[/QUOTE] Uh, no. Absolutely not.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42756160]As much as this isn't goin to be a popular opinion, maybe the police just saved his life. Maybe the house was being consumed by fire and going in there would've been suicide. I'm sure the police know more about how bad housefires are more than the average homeowner.[/QUOTE] If somebody wants to die trying to save another human being, especially their own offspring, who is anybody to stop them? Against all the odds, what if he did save him even at the cost of his own life? Sure it seemed impossible, but miracles can happen no matter what the circumstances.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42761480]humans are naturally peaceful and seek cooperation as well as egalitarianism, not inequality and war. [editline]5th November 2013[/editline] that works whether 20-50 people or 6 billion.[/QUOTE] If we were naturally peaceful, then how'd we discover that we can take our neighbors shit by hitting them with a rock.

[QUOTE=LSK;42762178]If somebody wants to die trying to save another human being, especially their own offspring, who is anybody to stop them? Against all the odds, what if he did save him even at the cost of his own life? Sure it seemed impossible, but miracles can happen no matter what the circumstances.[/QUOTE] Betting on a miracle with your own life on the line isn't the smartest idea. Especially when even if he did get to him, there is no guarantee that he was even alive still. Also saving someone at the cost of your own life really doesn't help much, you get posthumous praise you will never hear, and the number of people to survive the ordeal is the same.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42762183]If we were naturally peaceful, then how'd we discover that we can take our neighbors shit by hitting them with a rock.[/QUOTE] that's a very complicated question with a complicated answer i don't feel particularly qualified to explain. i believe agriculture played a very large role because with agriculture eventually evolved the idea of "property" and the hierarchy/inequality that stems from having "property". having areas densely populated with low levels of organization and fewer relationships that cross group boundaries can also lead to conflict.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42762348]that's a very complicated question with a complicated answer i don't feel particularly qualified to explain. i believe agriculture played a very large role because with agriculture eventually evolved the idea of "property" and the hierarchy/inequality that stems from having "property". having areas densely populated with low levels of organization and fewer relationships that cross group boundaries can also lead to conflict.[/QUOTE] So basically us progressing caused us to be more violent? Once a group grows beyond a certain size, it is impossible for everyone to know each other well enough to avoid conflicts. But in growing that large it gains the ability to support more people by advancing their technologies to the point where people can do less individually and rely on each other indirectly. Yeah it creates a conflict capacity, but risks and rewards comes into play, I'd say being able to get to our current level of technology and population sustainability is quite the reward. If there is more to gain from an action than the perceived risks, people for it. Combine with incentive to advance by those that can post a reward(those which have more property as you call it), you can create competition to advance further without direct conflict. Without that incentive, it is pretty difficult to get anywhere. Pretty much the flaw of what you are arguing is scarcity, so long as everyone does not have all the things they want, there will be competition to fulfill those wants. If the benefits of escelating that competition are too little for their risks conflict doesn't occur

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42762348]that's a very complicated question with a complicated answer i don't feel particularly qualified to explain. i believe agriculture played a very large role because with agriculture eventually evolved the idea of "property" and the hierarchy/inequality that stems from having "property". having areas densely populated with low levels of organization and fewer relationships that cross group boundaries can also lead to conflict.[/QUOTE] Property would have existed long before that though in the form of tools and homes, albeit not on a legal level. Hell, even something simple like someone having a more advanced tool than someone else could easily have created a sense of inequality between people. I don't think humans are as predisposed to equality and the benefit of all as you seem to think.

[QUOTE=deadoon;42762420]So basically us progressing caused us to be more violent? Once a group grows beyond a certain size, it is impossible for everyone to know each other well enough to avoid conflicts. But in growing that large it gains the ability to support more people by advancing their technologies to the point where people can do less individually and rely on each other indirectly. Yeah it creates a conflict capacity, but risks and rewards comes into play, I'd say being able to get to our current level of technology and population sustainability is quite the reward. If there is more to gain from an action than the perceived risks, people for it. Combine with incentive to advance by those that can post a reward(those which have more property as you call it), you can create competition to advance further without direct conflict. Without that incentive, it is pretty difficult to get anywhere.[/quote] just because everyone doesn't know each other doesn't mean they can't be organized or cooperate. [quote]Pretty much the flaw of what you are arguing is scarcity, so long as everyone does not have all the things they want, there will be competition to fulfill those wants. If the benefits of escelating that competition are too little for their risks conflict doesn't occur[/QUOTE] according to some anthropologists(take a look at that book i linked to earlier) scarcity actually encourages cooperation instead of conflict. a group of people can't really afford to have enemies when resources are scarce. [QUOTE=JeanLuc761;42762462]Property would have existed long before that though in the form of tools and homes, albeit not on a legal level. Hell, even something simple like someone having a more advanced tool than someone else could easily have created a sense of inequality between people. I don't think humans are as predisposed to equality and the benefit of all as you seem to think.[/QUOTE] when i say "property" i am referring specifically to "private property".

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42762507]just because everyone doesn't know each other doesn't mean they can't be organized or cooperate. [/QUOTE] Many people can work together [QUOTE] according to some anthropologists(take a look at that book i linked to earlier) scarcity actually encourages cooperation instead of conflict. a group of people can't really afford to have enemies when resources are scarce. [/QUOTE] Scarcity is a key point of choices, when it comes down to a persons needs(necessities), people are willing to share to help others fulfill their needs. When it comes to competition for wants(non-necessities), people and businesses are much more competitive, the incentives for people are fulfilling their own wants(goods and services), and for businesses they seek what people are willing to give up to fulfill their own wants(money, which is a token of societal value one has been given). There are even immaterial wants, such as revenge. Wants are something that is unneeded but people want. [QUOTE] when i say "property" i am referring specifically to "private property".[/QUOTE] And that changes what he said how?

[QUOTE=deadoon;42762564]Many people can work together [/quote] yea when they become organized. [quote]Scarcity is a key point of choices, when it comes down to a persons needs(necessities), people are willing to share to help others fulfill their needs. When it comes to competition for wants(non-necessities), people and businesses are much more competitive, the incentives for people are fulfilling their own wants(goods and services), and for businesses they seek what people are willing to give up to fulfill their own wants(money, which is a token of societal value one has been given). There are even immaterial wants, such as revenge. Wants are something that is unneeded but people want. [/quote] can you rephrase this because i don't really understand the point of what you are trying to say here. [quote]And that changes what he said how?[/QUOTE] because his examples were not related to private property. a home isn't private property nor is a tool.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42761480]humans are naturally peaceful and seek cooperation as well as egalitarianism, not inequality and war. [editline]5th November 2013[/editline] that works whether 20-50 people or 6 billion.[/QUOTE] I nominate this for most optimistic post of the year.

[QUOTE=Diet Kane;42762634]I nominate this for most optimistic post of the year.[/QUOTE] it's not really more optimistic than anyone else. the anarchist is optimistic about human nature, cynical about government. the statist is cynical about human nature, optimistic about government. [editline]5th November 2013[/editline] i mean when someone says government has the potential to provide for the needs of the people that seems insanely optimistic to me. it's just a difference in where you place your optimism rather than a different amount of optimism.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42762619]yea when they become organized. [/QUOTE] And how do you suggest getting them organized without contradicting your previous statements? [QUOTE] can you rephrase this because i don't really understand the point of what you are trying to say here. [/QUOTE] Need: Necessary, people are more likely willing to help those unable fulfill their needs.(giving to beggars) Want: Unessary, people are less willing to fulfill another's wants without compensation that fulfills their own. If a persons needs are fulfilled, they can focus on their wants, and may be willing to give up things that they do not need to fulfill more of their own wants. They may be willing to risk giving up things greater than their wants to get them, such as what this thread's case was. The point is, if they do have a competitor for needs that causes a shortage, they may risk themselves to remove them to fulfill their needs and possibly some of their wants as well. Like I said, humanity is based around risk and reward, so long as the reward is greater than the risk in their eyes, they will go for it usually. [QUOTE] because his examples were not related to private property. a home isn't private property nor is a tool.[/QUOTE] Mind explaining how?

[QUOTE=deadoon;42762303]Betting on a miracle with your own life on the line isn't the smartest idea. Especially when even if he did get to him, there is no guarantee that he was even alive still. Also saving someone at the cost of your own life really doesn't help much, you get posthumous praise you will never hear, and the number of people to survive the ordeal is the same.[/QUOTE] You're right, I just don't know if it was the cops place to make that choice for him. I'm not saying that just because he's a police officer, it could have been anybody and it wouldn't make much of a difference unless they were family. I guess it really doesn't matter now anyways, it's been done. [editline]5th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42762348]that's a very complicated question with a complicated answer i don't feel particularly qualified to explain. i believe agriculture played a very large role because with agriculture eventually evolved the idea of "property" and the hierarchy/inequality that stems from having "property". having areas densely populated with low levels of organization and fewer relationships that cross group boundaries can also lead to conflict.[/QUOTE] How is it complicated? Violence was always there, plain and simple. NOTHING that is alive is naturally peaceful, not even plants when you get down to it.

[QUOTE=a-cookie;42758717]but there wasn't even a chance, it was too hot for a fully trained fireman in full gear to go in.[/QUOTE] While I agree with what the cop did, the guy had enough adrenaline pumping through him to take three fucking taser shots, he might actually have been able to save the kid depending on how far into the house it was.

[QUOTE=deadoon;42762689]Need: Necessary, people are more likely willing to help those unable fulfill their needs.(giving to beggars) Want: Unessary, people are less willing to fulfill another's wants without compensation that fulfills their own. If a persons needs are fulfilled, they can focus on their wants, and may be willing to give up things that they do not need to fulfill more of their own wants. They may be willing to risk giving up things greater than their wants to get them, such as what this thread's case was. The point is, if they do have a competitor for needs that causes a shortage, they may risk themselves to remove them to fulfill their needs and possibly some of their wants as well. Like I said, humanity is based around risk and reward, so long as the reward is greater than the risk in their eyes, they will go for it usually.[/quote] yea and in most cases reward is higher through cooperation and it's also more palatable to people since it involves building longer lasting relationships with other people. [quote]Mind explaining how?[/QUOTE] no i won't. i'v explained it many times before and it's a long topic of discussion that i don't really want to get into again. "In political/economic theory, notably socialist, Marxist and anarchist philosophies, the distinction between private and personal property is extremely important. Which items of property constitute which is open to debate. Personal property includes "items intended for personal use." (e.g., clothes, homes, & vehicles. Some include money.) It must be gained in a socially fair manner, & the owner has a distributive right to exclude others. Private property is a social relationship between the owner & persons deprived. (Not a relationship between person & thing.) e.g., artifacts, factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts, seas, etc. Marxism holds that a process of class conflict and revolutionary struggle will result in victory for the proletariat and the establishment of a communist society in which private property and ownership is abolished over time and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community. (Private property and ownership, in this context, means ownerships of the means of production, not private possessions). To many socialists, the term private property refers to capital or the means of production, while personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services" marx believed personal property and private property were differentiated between the social relationships that the two create. proudhon believed it was a matter of utilization and extension of a person. i personally think it's a combination of the two.

[QUOTE=Crimor;42762745]While I agree with what the cop did, the guy had enough adrenaline pumping through him to take three fucking taser shots, he might actually have been able to save the kid depending on how far into the house it was.[/QUOTE] adrenaline doesn't stop your skin from melting.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;42760962]So if someone wants to jump off a bridge the police should just let them because its what they want to do?[/QUOTE] Yes..as long as the jumper won't cause a mess. Free will and natural selection at its best.