forest:
>yes i agree, this putdown someone else in an attempt to eletvate our own
>position can be a tiring position to hold, i did it for many years and there's
>a "teensy weensy" bit of that left in me. i think it stems from male dominant
>competitive animalistic "instinctive" heritage from the past.

And not from meat eating? ;)

> i suggest when that urge comes we attempt to speak for the self what
>works/plays for us with " i" statements rather than pointing the finger with
>what's wrong with "you" statements. this has improved my friendships with
>other men especially and may be an essential evolutionary step to help save
>this planet from the growing number of male dominant men being born each day.

So, we should follow some rules that you made up on how to interact? But
aren't you male? I, for one, would never submit to such male domination. ;)

> seems to me if we carry on this natural "instinctive" male dominantg behavior
>pattern without any modifications or adaptations that it will probably lead to
>a serious threat to the human population and earth. in my mind we are already
>dangling on the edge of that cliff.

The posting style on this list will have NOTHING to do with human
population. Neither do the rules for interaction that has helped you make
friends. Delusions of granduer.

> after observing animal societies for many years now i see this male dominant
>position in nature is quite prevelant, however it is not the only choice. the
>difference between the bonobo chimps society and the other(can't remember
>name) chimp societies more commonly studied by scientists shows to me we
>have options.

forest, is there a male domination list somewhere that might better suit
your obsession with the subject?

> bonobos dissipate their agression with sexuality(sounds kinda fun) while
>other chimp societies dissapate aggression by killing each other and/or being
>submissive to the male dominant leader. i'm not saying one is right and the
>other is wrong, just pointing out that even if our heritage points to certain
>social or dietary behaviors, that doesn't mean they are set in stone and
>cannot be modified over time to account for changing times and environments.
>animals are smart enough to change their behavior patterns to adapt to the
>changing environment, i hope our "instincts" allow us to do the same.

I must have missed something. No one (except perhaps the raw vegans)
consider dietary behaviors to be set in stone, do they?

What has changed in our environment that means we must abandon the range of
our native diets? Fruit has gotten sweeter? ;)

Do I follow the gist  of your repeated thoughts:

The world is a terrible horrifying male dominated place, so

Maybe we can be evolve to a fruitarian diet , so that

Maybe the world will heal in ways that I find appropriate.

Oh, and killing is bad.

Is this the line of reasoning?

Cheers,
Kirt




Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]