GloryofGreece wrote: Thu Nov 01, 2018 4:53 am
Can you be the tribesman that talks and negotiates with the other tribe and still be loyal to your group? I mean it sounds like your saying almost anything associated with a curiosity or openness means less in group preference. But I think our obvious explorative genes pushed us forward as well and I don't know how that trait directly ties in to prefering your group or not really. It might be that humans are curious creatures always mucking about and looking for greener pastures. Some more than others and on the extremes you have astronauts and say dudes like Hernan Cortes and all the other "explorers" and foot soldiers we do not know or remember. And fuck if Cortes wasn't a Spainard through and through.
That is not what I am saying.
Being curious is fine. What is not fine is losing group selection, and you lose group selection by losing in-group preferences. But the urban environment selects exactly that over time. The man with strong in-group preferences will find it difficult to reproduce in a city full of strangers who do not belong to his group.
How about the Marxist took over Academia and government offices, which are located primarily in cities...and the infection spread from there....seems pretty simple to me.
Well if the right hadn't spent most of their political capital on pushing for stupid things like creationism, perhaps they wouldn't have lost the battle for Academia.
Great job, dumb asses.
Thy praise or dispraise is to me alike:
One doth not stroke me, nor the other strike.
-Ben Johnson
Being curious is fine. What is not fine is losing group selection, and you lose group selection by losing in-group preferences. But the urban environment selects exactly that over time. The man with strong in-group preferences will find it difficult to reproduce in a city full of strangers who do not belong to his group.
How about the Marxist took over Academia and government offices, which are located primarily in cities...and the infection spread from there....seems pretty simple to me.
Well if the right hadn't spent most of their political capital on pushing for stupid things like creationism, perhaps they wouldn't have lost the battle for Academia.
Great job, dumb asses.
Got an axe to grind do we? yes - Religion is why Marxists were able to infiltrate academia.
Zlaxer wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:23 am
Pretty sure there was a good chance Jesus spoke and could write Latin - wasn't he a scribe for a while in his youth? And I don't think his family would have been considered "poor" - the Bible says they stayed in a manager because there were no rooms, not because Joseph was broke as fuck.
I am skeptical Jesus spoke latin.
Aramaic for the people. Greek for the learned. Latin for the government.
Latin was already a dead language by the time Jesus was giving sermons and flogging money changers at the temple. It was still used in writing much like doctors still do somewhat but the Latin people had long been replaced by Turkish invaders that settled in their countries illegally and out bred them.
TheReal_ND wrote: Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:27 pm
Latin was already a dead language by the time Jesus was giving sermons and flogging money changers at the temple. It was still used in writing much like doctors still do somewhat but the Latin people had long been replaced by Turkish invaders that settled in their countries illegally and out bred them.
Zlaxer wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:23 am
Pretty sure there was a good chance Jesus spoke and could write Latin - wasn't he a scribe for a while in his youth? And I don't think his family would have been considered "poor" - the Bible says they stayed in a manager because there were no rooms, not because Joseph was broke as fuck.
I am skeptical Jesus spoke latin.
Aramaic for the people. Greek for the learned. Latin for the government.
Jesus can speak whatever language he wants to speak.
TheReal_ND wrote: Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:27 pm
Latin was already a dead language by the time Jesus was giving sermons and flogging money changers at the temple. It was still used in writing much like doctors still do somewhat but the Latin people had long been replaced by Turkish invaders that settled in their countries illegally and out bred them.
No.
Little known fact, often covered up. By the time of Tiberius it was basically a bunch of Turkroaches and gauls larping as Romans.
Zlaxer wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:23 am
Pretty sure there was a good chance Jesus spoke and could write Latin - wasn't he a scribe for a while in his youth? And I don't think his family would have been considered "poor" - the Bible says they stayed in a manager because there were no rooms, not because Joseph was broke as fuck.
I am skeptical Jesus spoke latin.
Aramaic for the people. Greek for the learned. Latin for the government.
Jesus can speak whatever language he wants to speak.