Oh yeah, I bet you are the kind of person who would hang people for typos. Yeah fuck me.
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.
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)
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.
1) Pepe says that first wars started when the sedentarization of humankind began
1.1) He follows this up by saying "first property = first war"
1.2) Given the context, it is easily deducible that he, therefore, does not mean by property any kind of temporary property that hunter-gatherer nomadic humans might have had, such as territory they were currently on - otherwise why would he be talking about sedentarization and agriculture being the causes of first war because they introduced property?
1.3) He links to a map called "Neolithic agricultural revolution"
1.4) Given this, we conclude that Pepe is of the opinion that agriculture and sedentarization is what caused the first war, and agriculture and sedentarization is when humans first had property (see point 1.2)
1.5) First war means it is the
first war, i.e. there were no wars before that. Since he attributes the aforementioned first war to property, which he attributes to sedentarization, we can therefore draw the conclusion that the property he speaks of is not something that hunter-gatherers had.
2) I say that his conclusion is false, seeing as apes too go to war, yet they have neither agriculture nor any real "sedentarization" to speak of
2.1) Given that they are our closest relatives and have the closest animal societies to what our hunter-gatherer tribes were like, social dynamics and all (including the same things to gain from war as our ancestors would have had), and yet they engage in warfare despite having no "property" (see point 1.2), we can safely assume that said property is far from the only reason to go to war, for us OR for other animals.
2.2) No other finding supports pepe's arguments either and indeed do support mine, but we'll forego this for now seeing as it's beside the point and, really, just redundant with this level of argument
3) You then comment that they frequently fight over territory, "which could be taken as property" - again, see point 1.2. Hunter-gatherer humans also had territory, yet by pepe's definition that was not "property", therefore your point is moot.
4) Your next post to me has nothing to do with anything given points 1.0-3
visitors can't see pics , please
register or
login