Is culture really all about terror management?

It's not only sparta and japan. Like I said, study your world history.

It's not only the Japanese. Study world history.
Here's a good start: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=countries+that+have+fought+civil+wars&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Speaking of civil wars, they make even less sense than inter national wars. That includes ours (US) . Don't even Think that I'm defending slavery but I've never understood the consensus that Lincoln was such a great president for forcing that war. That was a destructive and terrifying war in every sense and I think it perpetuated racism rather than cured it. There was a far better solution to preserving the union and ending slavery than war.

Another assh*le heard from. So-called state troops of Florida and Alabama seized Federal property In Florida in the first week of January, 1861, two months before Lincoln was inaugurated. So-called state troops of South Carolina fired on Star of the West, an unarmed civilian transport, a few days short of two months before Lincoln was inaugurated. These acts were unprovoked. While serving as Secretary of War, in 1860, John Floyd sent more than 100,000 stand of muskets to southern armories, which were, of course, snapped up as southern states left the union.

Congratulations, you've drunk the "war of northern aggression" kool aid. The south started a war they could not win, they got their asses kicked, and they've been whining about it ever since. Their greatest victory has been to convince people (not very bright people) that Lincoln started the war. That is utter bullsh*t.

I've never understood why you insist on spelling bullshit and asshole with an asterisk.

Dodging the issue of your profound ignorance, huh? I'm not surprised.

It's amazing how you're able to decide in the 21st century what occurred in the early 1800's. Some times, hindsight is 20/20, but in your case, it's 200/200.

You are a very frustrating fellow CI. I don't know if you are deliberately obtuse, handicapped in your replies because you don't actually read or comprehend the posts to which you respond or in some way addled.

The beginning of our exchange was your comment:



To which I replied



And then from you



And from me



Now finally this from you



I defy you, or anyone for that matter, to explain what sense you have made in this exchange and why you shouldn't be seen as circling back on yourself and agreeing with the point with which you started off in disagreement.

(I also wish someone would explain to me why, despite repeatedly vowing not to, I keep pointing out to you how you make no sense. Maybe I feel like if I shake you hard enough it will loosen the cobwebs' hold on your mind. No vows this time. I'm obviously incapable of keeping them which is frustrating as well)

Because you suffer from a lack of world history knowledge and myopia, you would never comprehend what I'm trying to say.
Here's a good start on civil wars on any search engine: civil wars of the world

That must be it. You are too profound for me to understand.

You actually don't have a point...
...while I can agree some cultures may be more prone to violence I still don't see any evidence that culture specificity per se is the cause of violence. CI is actually right when he says it has happened everywhere.

Culture specificity may induce violent behaviour but violence is not born with culture alone. Human beings are genetically selected for competing and taking the opportunity when one presents itself.

This not to mention that "violence" is a very broad term that is not only restricted to killing. People are violent in the most varied possible manner even and often with loved ones. The problem of violence is better fitted in the context of power struggles to control the resources and ensure group dominance over other groups. We are by "design" gang people, and gangs, yes you guessed it right, do fight.

Nothing wrong with it prevented it doesn't become a social disease. US is a very good example of social violent culture and still I don't think sorting all the gun problem in the US would change human nature all that much.
Every country everywhere, has had in its past or present, very shady, very dark, moments, not because of culture specificity but because the opportunity to profit with violence was there.

As for cultures, they often the result of more profound causes then the causers themselves of anything, they reflect other elements at play often poorly identified. A good example of this is blaming religion and religious cultures for terrorism, when the actual cause of terrorism is way harder to pin point. A society that has for the most part dropped ethics and moral regarding industry, trading, and corporations behaviour at large, and in which the Law does no longer work to protect the citizen but serves corporate interests will have its feedback in violent terrorist behaviour, for one because it hits back and works. Curiously enough most terrorists are born in the countries they end up attacking. The wave of terror we live with is a cry out of no hope in any sort of dignified future that the latest generation of youth in its fringes degenerated into violent to the extreme behaviour. The difference between a terrorist and the "movement against the 1%" public riots, is that the other 99% in the riots shouting and kicking against the state of affairs of our world are not psychotic...psychotics now have the perfect world and instruments to justify their need for destruction.

Yes Historical opportunity generates violence, culture just feeds it.

Nothing profound about understanding civil wars. There are plenty of resources available to learn about them.

Well, I don't know how you can determine whether or not I have a point when you don't seem to be able to comprehend the very basic comment I made.

If fact, you've made my point rather nicely.

CI commented that killing each other has nothing to do with culture.

Please show me where I argued that culture is the only cause of violence.

I refuted his comment, and in reading your post here it seems you do too.

Culture has something (not everything) to do with violence and vice versa if you prefer.



If culture feeds violence then I think it would be rather obvious that is has something to do with humans killing each other.

My point is subtle in this and yet again you miss it, yes culture has something to do with violence but you have made it look like is due to culture that people behave like they do, and this is bluntly false. Culture feeds peoples own genetic trends, it creates opportunities for us to unleash the primordial beast within, but culture is not the mother of all evils. The same mistake has been done regarding religions and terrorism. Finally if that was not your intention then your contention with CI was unnecessary, your correction is minimalistic. His simple straight forward comment was not far off. If all cultures had one way or another its historical violent moments somewhere sometime then clearly culture specificity is not to blame.

Simply put, it's in the nature of humans to be violent.

Thank heavens, I was beginning to think it was just me that thought CI was shorthand for 'Circular Insults'.

Your point isn't at all subtle. My how you do love to flatter yourself.

My point isn't subtle either; it's very simple and yet again you miss it.

It's too simple to require yet another explanation. Think what you want.

Now you say:But previously you told me it was amazing how I could know what happened back then:

More & more 'Circular Insults'...

That's your reply ? K bye !

Who is Manored?