Yes, no doubt, it does. But some people will act intelligently.

In the VA Tech event- there were accounts of at least a dozen people
who came up with a plan in the emergency. Like blocking doors or busting
out windows to escape.

If those people (or their less capable classmates) had firearms- a real
defence could have been mounted. It only takes one bullet to stop a
killing spree.


I'm not saying we put guns in the hands of everyone. But their
availability should not be hindered.




Not long ago, there was a psycho who started a killing spree in the
mall. An off-duty cop, who had his gun, fired back and killed the guy.
There's not even a hint of doubt that he saved lives that day.

Fair enough. I never said I'd want them to just flood in- that'd be
disasterous. But we can easily absorb them. Play the cards right, and
they'd be a boon to the economy, not a detriment.

Oh, that it will change you, there's no doubt. But it sure beats the
change that will occure helplessly panicking whilst your friends are
slaughtered around you.

I'm stating the historical FACTS. Not as seen by "america", but as seen
by those who have spent the time to unearth the information. To dig
through millenia old ruins.


"How can we presume know anything, if we can't even get our own
histories right?"- wonder who I quoted for that one. If it's unclaimed,
I want it.

I've read it. It's not applicable. Not *yet* at least. And, frankly,
the media is doing more damage than the schools. When people get their
education from hollywood movies instead of actually LEARNING- problems
are guarenteed to arise.

You say that like I'm the only, or even the first, to get into the
comparative religion points. Although I guess I'm the most thorough.

I read that one in a playboy mag.

Oh. And voil. If you're going to accuse me of something, at least
accuse me of something TRUE. When it comes to me, and my own concious
mind, I *AM* the authority. Unless you've somehow read my mind to come
to these conclusions.

And you've already judged me, voil, and wrongly at that. Whatever else
I may be, I'm no hypocrite.


I said "pragmatism"- that is the authority I'm using. By the laws of
pragmatism, that which is most effective is best.

If you want to use a "spiritual" law, instead of pragmatic, just tell
me- we'll play that instead. I did with abra.


And if someone here is so petty as to disregard me entirely because
they don't like my opinion on one subject- then they don't DESERVE
englightenment of any sort.


I'm listening with an open mind, I've yet to find any compelling points
from your end. I've said myself animals are deserving of consideration-
we can't just slash-and-burn and expect to get away with it. But that
doesn't mean we cannot also be superior. It has relevence to our
position in the global scheme of things, but it doesn't establish the
position of any other lifeform.

Actually, pedophiles aren't that hard to understand. You get three
major types.

Type 1- sadistic. They don't "rape", so much as "sexually torture"-
which is a whole other game. They HATE children.... for whatever
reason.... and inflict harm upon them to make themselves feel better.
That's "personal gain"- and is obviously not a biological or genetic
disorder. It's psychological.


Type 2- sympathetic. These guys are sexually drawn to children. They're
not hateful. In fact, many of them hate themselves for not being able to
control themselves. A lot commit suicide. Others convince themselves
that the child wants and enjoys it. Their desires for children are
really no different than any other orientation, like herero and homo
sexuals.


Type 3- traumatic. These have been molested, themselves. And their
interest in children tie back to that event. They're the most
complicated sort. But are still not "instinctive".

Actually, instinctively, we CAN'T kill.

The only way a human being can kill, or rape, or otherwise inflict
horrible injuries on another- is by convincing themselves that their
victims aren't human, but some kind of lower being. Or that they are
somehow better than human.

The exception to that rule is when the killing has considerable
personal gains. Either by killing someone who is trying to kill us
(staying alive- very understandable goal). Or in order to get wealth,
power, money, the mate of your desire, etc.

Ultimately, murder is not a human instinct. Our instincts try and stop
us from it. Our bodies have extreme reactions to (real) violence, the
injury of others, and death. Vomitting is high on the list. Emotional
breakdowns, too. A lot of people faint at the sight of another person's
blood. You get the idea.

Oh. And my first computer already had windows. You don't have to
*start* with antiquated machinery to learn the modern. But if you master
the modern, you automatically master the antique.

On that, I agree fully. Some human beings aren't much better than
animals. Hell, some are WORSE than animals. When a human being commits a
horrible act of violence or cruelty, he KNOWS it's wrong. Animals can be
bad, no doubt, but only humans have the capacity for evil.


Which is, of course, a take on conciousness and planning. Only human
beings can reject a tangibly better solution for intangible reasons.

Considering that everyone involved in those decisions DIED OF OLD AGE
long ago.... why does it matter?


The world is evolving. They say you can never step into the same river
twice. And it's true, the water keeps on flowing, changing. The same
holds true for countries.

And I agree- our brains very well could be "purely natural". I have no
proof to the contrary. But you don't have any proof it is, either. It's
certainly a powerful tool for us humans, regardless.


Like I said, on the pragmatic level, we win. Pragmatism means "ignore
spiritual or personal value and look merely at functionability."

I came with the "plus" based on the fact that our brains do all the
functions of other animal species, and yet come complete with a higher
series of functions.


What's better? A computer built in the 80s that's merely a word
processor hooked to a monitor with the total memory space of a low-grade
CD?

Or a modern computer that, in the same space, has internet access, a
printer, decent sound cards, a scanner, a place to play with your MP3s,
and enough memory space to hold the complete library of congress?


The low-grade machine might serve everything you'd need (although you
don't need much in that case). But the modern one, by virtue of more
capabilities and superior abilities, is the better machine.

And, yet, you make the "slam bang" conclusion with my statement. I'm
sorry I didn't include pages of information with my conclusions, but
they're not necessary.


Nothing in your post had anything directly to do with our "superiority"
or not, anyways.

Our economy could easily handle unlimited imigration. We're essentially
doing it right now, by all the job outsourcing we've done. There is the
equivilent of about half a billion workers producing "american" goods.
Like our clothing, car parts, etc. Close up the leaks and we have more
than enough in the states. In fact, we'll need to increase immigration
just to fill the job slots.


Oh, and I did some research. American military can be deployed within
the states, so long as they're in non-military functions. Aka- they can
be used for construction labor.... just not as a police force. Except
the national guard, within its own state, of course.

The "pre" wiccans are whatever they happen to be. Probably one (or
more) of the many remaining celtic/gaelic religions.


But wicca includes way too many Eastern and Native American concepts
that never existed in any true celtic heritage. It simply couldn't have
existed in a modern form. You could argue Wicca is like Christianity or
Islam, in that it "evolved" (with a healthy helping by some prophet or
another) from an ancient religion. In wicca's case- about 30 different
religions.


But christianity didn't exist until about 40 or so B.C., despite
Judaism's already ancient status- and Wicca didn't exist until the 20th
century, no matter where the heritage came from.



Although I gotta say I like wicca's "so long as it does no harm, do as
ye will" attitude. Which is the core neo-pagan idea, which wicca
adopted. That concept never existed in any true pagan religion.

Ok. So that was a lot of interpretation of human nature. But that's the
crux, it's only "human" nature. Which is vague at best. But, however
blurred the human line is, it falls -the vast majority of times- above
the much cleaner "animal" line.


Even your own points on the cortex could be used for that statement.
Call us "animals plus", if you like, but we still have that "plus".