You brought it up.

This has been fun. Billy i do respect that you catch things very well. You are talented with a critical eye which keeps me on my toes. I've got more o-chem to take care of and i'll be out for the weekend. enjoy the lively debating, which i do enjoy the livelyness of.

uh huh. i sure did, but just b/c i do something doesnt make it not supid.

Maybe you should work on your communication skills?

Yeah, but if i presented an irrefutable arguement made by having complete evidence, no holes in logic, and common sense then what fun would i be to argue against if there wasnt room for an opposition?

I meant you should clear up what point youre trying to make, 3 pages and I am still only trying to figure out what reason youre saying any of this stuff.

again what is your measure? I never mentioned morality by the way. I assume your addtion of moral reletivism to this line of the discussion demonstrates that your assement of other cultures is based on morality which of course is the slippriest slope of all.

to the original question, no, we have, we are just really good at playing it off or not getting caught.

So am I. As if we're all mindless idiots to go OMG. WE KILLED INJUNS! I AM SO CONTRITE. I'm not for the reasons I previously stated. My standard and quality of life would not exist were it not for the deaths of so many indians (dot not feather).

And I tend to really like flat screen tv's and pimp cars.

The simple fact is that America was a little harsh on the natives. They claimed their manifest destiny, and rolled over lands no matter who was already living there. The indians fought back, as is to be expected. The indians hated the white man because the white man heralded the end of their way of life. But with all things, the strong survive, and the indians were eventually put down, not before many lives were claimed on both sides. Make no mistake, it was not a genocide, it was a war. It was as much a war for territory as any other war in American history, there were treaties among tribes, there were battles, there were heroes, there were everything, the only thing lacking is a name for the overall conflict. In war, people die, villages are plundered, and atrocities are committed, such is the nature of the beast, but genocide is something else entirely, and should not be compared to what happened to the Native Americans.

Am I the only one who finds it tragic that the ideal of Survival of the Fittest is used to claim supperiority over others when Survival of the Fittest leads to a very Savage and Base quality of Human existence?

We dont live like savages or beats, the indians did though.

why does surviving make us beasts? lol. can we not be human and want to survive as well? besides, i think that living only as human being and denying the beast within is what makes existence less than what it could be. not the other way around.

My Grandfather served in World War II and in his memoir, he wrote about seeing a young American play an immaculate rendition of a piano Sonota. One thing that he stresses in his writing is the waste that Warfare is: pointing out that that Mans ability to play the piano would not matter to the Bullet that would tear his flesh.
Humanity does not exist in total war and genocide and Survival of the Fittest reduces us to the level of a troop of apes clubbing each others brains out. It doesn't matter how humane and civilized the combatants may or may not be off the battlefield.

Wha? War is bad? Bullshit! I thought when you went to war they gave you bags of yummy candy!

I guess I can clarfiy that a little as I did kind of make the jump from Survival of the Fittest to War: Trying to apply the idea of Survival of the Fittest to Warfare to any activity or social system is going to be bad for us and lead to degeneration. Lets keep in mind that Survival of the Fittest was intended as a means to explain Evolution, usually amongst lower animals. It's a theory, just that, not a well thought-out philosophical treatise intended to be applied to improve our quality of life. A highly Evolved, Socially organized Animal such as Man will not benifit in any form from trying to apply a theory such as this; doing so will just lead to total barbarianism: You're "lesser" then me in some way, thus you are unfit to survive, so I'll just take whatever I want and do whatever I want to you and leave you for dead. Not only does this create feelings of trauma and guilt in the collective conciousness of the group perpetuating these kind of activities; it also back-fires further when the survivors of a war or genocidal campaign get motivated to attack their former or current oppressors. Further perpetuating a cycle of violence and abuse.
Honestly, I thought that these were elementary philosophical concepts: It's generally a bad idea to gratuitously hurt other people and if you have to defend yourself, do so while doing as little harm as possible.

Without that violence and abuse that you see as such an "elementary" concept (way to belittle us, by the way) you wouldn't be sitting here on your computer and spending hours a day on this website. It's the consequences of these acts of barbarism that allowed your standard of living to exist at all. It's all fine and dandy to condemn the actions when you're sitting pretty and not having to work to survive at all. Basically you live off the survival efforts of those that came before you and relish the luxury of being able to hate on the very things that allow you to be here.

What was that line from A few Good men? "You hate me, and you think im grotesque all the while enjoying the freedom I provide, a simple thanks would do"

I know I mangled the quote...