Really? So where is my logic lacking, exactly?
Also, you do not say" lack of thereof", you say "lack thereof"
Oh yeah, I bet you are the kind of person who would hang people for typos. Yeah fuck me.
False, apes don't have "property" yet they too go to war.
At this point we started discussing that apes fight between each other because they have properties to fight for, hence the first property = first war comment made by pepe earlier.
And you think hunter-gatherer humans didn't have territory? You think nomadic humans would let other groups of humans drive them off from their current land? No? Then how is that relevant? Let me tell you how: it isn't.
Word of the day, Nightmare, is context.
Care to elaborate what was the point of this comment? Those people still fought for same reasons apes fight between each other (with some adjustments)
Then why are you talking about "sedentarisation" being the cause of first wars and linking to agricultural revolution maps?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but chimps have no agriculture.
There, this is where your logic broke.
The point was that it does not matter whenever it is a wheat field or a fruit tree they fight for, it is still the case of fighting for property.
Unless there was a deeper meaning under this that I did not notice, I thought we are talking about how similar are reasons for nations and apes for fighting between each other.
And then you go out and indirectly call me stupid for a reason unknown to me.
