by FREEaquaticdancelesson » Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:52 am
by Nobel Hobos » Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:01 am
by Offenheim » Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:12 am
by FREEaquaticdancelesson » Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:16 am
Offenheim wrote:You've failed to mention the part where humans have the genes of bonobos that push towards the sex impulse, and don't have the chimpanzee gene that pushes towards violence.
by Rambhutan » Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:53 am
by Natapoc » Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:40 am
Nobel Hobos wrote:To say that chimp or bonobo society is "set in stone" is quite unjustified. Why are you so sure that their society isn't learned behaviour ... and don't say "because they don't have language"
*throws faeces*
by Ryadn » Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:41 am
Offenheim wrote:You've failed to mention the part where humans have the genes of bonobos that push towards the sex impulse, and don't have the chimpanzee gene that pushes towards violence.
by Ryadn » Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:45 am
by Camicon » Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:48 am
Country of glowing hearts, and patrons of the artsThe Trews, Under The Sun
Help me out
Star spangled madness, united sadness
Count me out
No human is more human than any other. - Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire
Don't shine for swine. - Metric, Soft Rock Star
Love is hell. Hell is love. Hell is asking to be loved. - Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton, Detective Daughter
by Altimaea » Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:55 am
Castleclose wrote:
by Ex-Brogavia » Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:58 am
by Natapoc » Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:15 pm
Ryadn wrote:I thought any time anyone even referenced bonobos would be a happy day. I have been proven wrong.
This is quite a stretch to make an analogy when far better analogies already exist.
The last paragraph was particularly facepalm-worthy. Any time I see "human nature" invoked it makes me shudder, but now, not only are we influenced by "human nature", there's also no such thing as "chimp nature" or "bonobo nature", it seems.
by Hresejnen » Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:17 pm
Nobel Hobos wrote:To say that chimp or bonobo society is "set in stone" is quite unjustified. Why are you so sure that their society isn't learned behaviour ... and don't say "because they don't have language"
*throws faeces*
Offenheim wrote:You've failed to mention the part where humans have the genes of bonobos that push towards the sex impulse, and don't have the chimpanzee gene that pushes towards violence.
by Soviet Haaregrad » Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:54 pm
by Ryadn » Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:23 pm
Natapoc wrote:Ryadn wrote:I thought any time anyone even referenced bonobos would be a happy day. I have been proven wrong.
This is quite a stretch to make an analogy when far better analogies already exist.
The last paragraph was particularly facepalm-worthy. Any time I see "human nature" invoked it makes me shudder, but now, not only are we influenced by "human nature", there's also no such thing as "chimp nature" or "bonobo nature", it seems.
I don't think he/she intended it to be as serious as you are taking it. Chimps as conservatives and liberals as bonobos is funny. Now I'm going to step back and see how you two resolve this issue:
If you hug or rub eachothers genitals to make up then you are CLEARLY Liberals.
If you make loud noises and aggressive posturing after which one of you submits then you are clearly a conservative.
by The Black Forrest » Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:48 pm
by The Black Forrest » Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:50 pm
Rambhutan wrote:I really recommend the book Baboon Metaphysics and How Monkeys See the World to see some of the parallels between their social behaviour and our own. One of the things that seem quite common is that there are separate hierarchies for males and females. For males your position in the hierarchy is very mobile depending on how you did in your last confrontation - so you can go from being the top of the hierarchy to the bottom in a very short amount of time. Females generally have less social mobility and status is generally inherited, so if your mother was high up in the social order you will be too (interestingly if a mother has several daughters the youngest is higher rank than the next youngest and so on). I do wonder if a similar thing goes on in human society?
by KatBoo » Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:51 pm
by FREEaquaticdancelesson » Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:18 pm
KatBoo wrote:I think this implies deeply concerning things about the sexual proclivities of liberals.
by KatBoo » Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:37 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Big Eyed Animation, Cerula, DuBoisa, El Lazaro, Glorious Peoples Republic of Yolostan, ImperialRussia, Kannap, Nanatsu no Tsuki, New Prussianstan, Nu Elysium, Page, Pale Dawn, Sodor and Seljaryssk, Statesburg, Sutalia, Tamocordia, Tarsonis, The Black Forrest, Uiiop, Zetaopalatopia, Zurkerx
Advertisement