Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 10-07-2011, 09:00 AM   #1
Cowperson
CP Pontiff
 
Cowperson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A pasture out by Millarville
Exp:
Default The Decline Of Violence

Interesting New York Times look at a new book titled: "Better Angels Of Our Nature" where the author documents evidence of the decline of violence through history, from cave men through to today, which is generally the safest period in history.

Feel free to discuss if you wish. From the book review:

The central thesis of “Better Angels” is that our era is less violent, less cruel and more peaceful than any previous period of human existence.

The decline in violence holds for violence in the family, in neighborhoods, between tribes and between states. People living now are less likely to meet a violent death, or to suffer from violence or cruelty at the hands of others, than people living in any previous century.

Pinker assumes that many of his readers will be skeptical of this claim, so he spends six substantial chapters documenting it. That may sound like a hard slog, but for anyone interested in understanding human nature, the material is engrossing, and when the going gets heavy, Pinker knows how to lighten it with ironic comments and a touch of humor.

Pinker begins with studies of the causes of death in different eras and peoples. Some studies are based on skeletons found at archaeological sites; averaging their results suggests that 15 percent of prehistoric humans met a violent death at the hands of another person. Research into contemporary or recent hunter-gatherer societies yields a remarkably similarly average, while another cluster of studies of pre-state societies that include some horticulture has an even higher rate of violent death. In contrast, among state societies, the most violent appears to have been Aztec Mexico, in which 5 percent of people were killed by others. In Europe, even during the bloodiest periods — the 17th century and the first half of the 20th —­ deaths in war were around 3 percent. The data vindicates Hobbes’s basic insight, that without a state, life is likely to be “nasty, brutish and short.” In contrast, a state monopoly on the legitimate use of force reduces violence and makes everyone living under that monopoly better off than they would otherwise have been. Pinker calls this the “pacification process.”

It’s not only deaths in war, but murder, too, that is declining over the long term. Even those tribal peoples extolled by anthropologists as especially “gentle,” like the Semai of Malaysia, the Kung of the Kalahari and the Central Arctic Inuit, turn out to have murder rates that are, relative to population, comparable to those of Detroit. In Europe, your chance of being murdered is now less than one-tenth, and in some countries only one-fiftieth, of what it would have been if you had lived 500 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/bo...review.html?hp

Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
Cowperson is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cowperson For This Useful Post:
Old 10-07-2011, 09:29 AM   #2
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

It would be nice, but violence and mass violence goes in cycles, and we're ramping up to another period of high levels of stress on individual, family and national groupings. As the economy gets more frazzeled, and other factors come into play we'll see another major conflict.

Man's history is littered with periods of relative calm, but our nature is based around dominance
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Ace
Old 10-07-2011, 09:35 AM   #3
Kybosh
#1 Goaltender
 
Kybosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: An all-inclusive.
Exp:
Default

Sounds like a great book. Thanks for the recommendation.
Kybosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 09:43 AM   #4
Weiser Wonder
Franchise Player
 
Weiser Wonder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moscow, ID
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
It would be nice, but violence and mass violence goes in cycles, and we're ramping up to another period of high levels of stress on individual, family and national groupings. As the economy gets more frazzeled, and other factors come into play we'll see another major conflict.

Man's history is littered with periods of relative calm, but our nature is based around dominance
That's too simplistic. Man's nature isn't necessarily based on dominance. Only in certain individuals is the basis dominance. Other individuals that is not the case. As violence is more and more no longer part of the experience of people, it will become less of a factor. Humans as a species are growing more and more cooperative on the whole.

Nature doesn't insist on dominance, rather it was the best way to get to this point. Now cooperation is the way to go, so it is likely humans will continue to shift towards that. It's a myth that humans are necessarily violent.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
Weiser Wonder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 09:48 AM   #5
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
It would be nice, but violence and mass violence goes in cycles, and we're ramping up to another period of high levels of stress on individual, family and national groupings. As the economy gets more frazzeled, and other factors come into play we'll see another major conflict.

Man's history is littered with periods of relative calm, but our nature is based around dominance
What do you base this on exactly? Most social scientists and statistics seem to back up everything claimed in this book. Even taking into account the various wars and atrocities of the 20th century, violence as a whole has declined.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 09:51 AM   #6
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

I keep wanna calling you weiner because I keep misreading your name.

I don't think that its too simplistic at all. Human Nature is based and built around violence. Our greatest accelerations forward have come during periods of great violence. Whether its instinctive for us to cull the weak and take what we posses, even the most pacifistic of men can either be moved to violence, or cause violence directly or indirectly. I don't buy that its something that will no longer happen and that humanity will become more cooperative as time passes. As we move further into the crisis states caused by the economy, declining food stocks, declining resources, man will devolve to what he knows best, and thats to take from and exploit the weak. And whether its direct physical acts of violence or non physical acts of violence propagated by the threat of violence, its going to happen.

And yes Nature insists on dominance and is built around a system based on the strong surviving. Even cooperative actions are usually parasitic in nature.

And humanity being non violent is the exception over our time line, at our best we're killer angels with a sword in one hand, and the other hand reaching out to help.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 09:55 AM   #7
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
What do you base this on exactly? Most social scientists and statistics seem to back up everything claimed in this book. Even taking into account the various wars and atrocities of the 20th century, violence as a whole has declined.
I don't buy it because technology has given us the ability to be more selective in our application of violence. Wars will probably have lower casualty counts but will be every bit as destructive on an economic scale. If you look at the two wars that the American's fought recently, the casualties were far lower then what you saw in previous wars because of the use of technology.

Lets be honest, if you look at the brutallity of WW2, it was a cleaner war in a lot of ways then WW1, which was cleaner then the wars in the past where artillary was indescriminant and the action was extremely close quarters.

We're not becoming less violent, we're getting more proficient at it.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 10-07-2011, 09:57 AM   #8
troutman
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
 
troutman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Crowsnest Pass
Exp:
Default

Don Cherry didn't get the memo.
troutman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 10:12 AM   #9
VladtheImpaler
Franchise Player
 
VladtheImpaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
I don't buy it because technology has given us the ability to be more selective in our application of violence. Wars will probably have lower casualty counts but will be every bit as destructive on an economic scale. If you look at the two wars that the American's fought recently, the casualties were far lower then what you saw in previous wars because of the use of technology.

Lets be honest, if you look at the brutallity of WW2, it was a cleaner war in a lot of ways then WW1, which was cleaner then the wars in the past where artillary was indescriminant and the action was extremely close quarters.

We're not becoming less violent, we're getting more proficient at it.
Very very soon, "boots on the ground" will involve very few humans, so the casualty figures (for the "good" guys) will keep going down. There are already hardly any humans in the air hunting AQ and T in Pakistan. Soon, I imagine, it will be robotic tanks and soldiers on the ground.
__________________
Cordially as always,
Vlad the Impaler

Please check out http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...94#post3726494

VladtheImpaler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 10:23 AM   #10
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

This is a very complicated question, yet I am struck by the simplicity, and naivete of Pinker's methods. Does he really think it's all convincing to look at victims of violence as an overall decreasing percentage over human history? Is this some sort of joke?

I am almost certain, knowing Pinker through his other books, that this is exactly it, and all that he did. If you read the literature of human violence, especially Thucydides, you find that the conditions of violence are constant: self-interest, fear, and a desire for glory. This is the cause of every human conflict, be it a mugging, or a world war.

The conditions for decreasing violence depend upon a fragile foundation, namely the spread of globalization, material wealth, and cultural pluralism. Due to technology, and its efficiency, we (meaning the West) has managed to do this to a degree unprecedented by imperial civilizations that have come before us. Yet, the events of this century, filled with mankind's greatest horrors (like a good social scientist, I am sure Pinker dismisses the Holocaust as an externality), must make us reflect on the overall thesis of Pinker's utopian futurism, and most likely reject it.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 10:28 AM   #11
jammies
Basement Chicken Choker
 
jammies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Default

What we really need is a good alien menace. That'll give a socially acceptable outlet for all that inherent aggression.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
jammies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 10:31 AM   #12
troutman
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
 
troutman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Crowsnest Pass
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies View Post
What we really need is a good alien menace. That'll give a socially acceptable outlet for all that inherent aggression.
To what extent has sports replaced inherent aggression? Instead of sending soldiers to combat the other, we send athletes.
troutman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 10:44 AM   #13
jammies
Basement Chicken Choker
 
jammies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Default

I'm sure that is somewhat the case, Troutman, in the sense that boys who would want to be warriors, instead decide to try to be sports stars.

I would say the deciding factor is that violence has lost profitability in the developed world. You can't set yourself up as a warlord in Kansas, so the struggle between different factions promoting their own Big Man doesn't occur; however in Somalia that struggle continues and deaths from war are doubtless much the same hazard as they ever were. Similarly, murder rates decline because it is much more difficult to successfully kill someone in order to take their wealth, usurp their position and enslave their family, so instead the morally vacant become corporate officers, investment bankers and politicians instead of killers.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
jammies is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Old 10-07-2011, 10:48 AM   #14
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
I keep wanna calling you weiner because I keep misreading your name.

I don't think that its too simplistic at all. Human Nature is based and built around violence.
You're stating this as if it's fact when most of the scientific evidence available to us refute this.

Quote:
Our greatest accelerations forward have come during periods of great violence.
Again, this doesn't jive with what we know. Our greatest accelerations forward have actually come within the last century, often during times of peace.

Quote:
Whether its instinctive for us to cull the weak and take what we posses, even the most pacifistic of men can either be moved to violence, or cause violence directly or indirectly. I don't buy that its something that will no longer happen and that humanity will become more cooperative as time passes. As we move further into the crisis states caused by the economy, declining food stocks, declining resources, man will devolve to what he knows best, and thats to take from and exploit the weak. And whether its direct physical acts of violence or non physical acts of violence propagated by the threat of violence, its going to happen.
I don't think the point of his thesis is that we'll see the end of violence. That would be absurd. He's merely challenging the view held by many that we live in extraordinarily violent times. Did you read the entire article?

Quote:
And yes Nature insists on dominance and is built around a system based on the strong surviving. Even cooperative actions are usually parasitic in nature.
And again, there is no scientific basis to this statetment. We can see numerous examples of cooperative nature, not to mention the fact that basic nature hasn't been nearly as crucial to human survival as the development of culture has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
I don't buy it because technology has given us the ability to be more selective in our application of violence. Wars will probably have lower casualty counts but will be every bit as destructive on an economic scale. If you look at the two wars that the American's fought recently, the casualties were far lower then what you saw in previous wars because of the use of technology.
Wars also aren't being fought on the large scale that they were previously. Every American conflict after WW2 (possibly excluding Vietnam) has been fought against a foe who isn't marginally close to being the superpower the U.S. is.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 10:52 AM   #15
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler View Post
Very very soon, "boots on the ground" will involve very few humans, so the casualty figures (for the "good" guys) will keep going down. There are already hardly any humans in the air hunting AQ and T in Pakistan. Soon, I imagine, it will be robotic tanks and soldiers on the ground.
I've thought about that alot, and I doubt that it will ever happen, because while machines can be very efficient, they don't have the same instincts and survival instincts, and reasoning abilities that men have, they also don't have the hero factor that the odd human has.

MAchines also don't have the moral function that people do. Pretty much if you tell them to take that hill, they'll destroy anything in their way to take that hill, whereas a human will not only take steps to avoid casualties to his brothers, but he might try to avoid civillian casualties as well.

Plus, we've all seen the AI programming for soldiers in video games, the war would never get started because all of your robot soldiers would be stuck in the corner of a field, while your airplanes dive into the ground at mach 5 and your tanks drive off of cliffs while some human general giggles and sends a owned message to his enemy.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 10:54 AM   #16
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
This is a very complicated question, yet I am struck by the simplicity, and naivete of Pinker's methods. Does he really think it's all convincing to look at victims of violence as an overall decreasing percentage over human history? Is this some sort of joke?

I am almost certain, knowing Pinker through his other books, that this is exactly it, and all that he did. If you read the literature of human violence, especially Thucydides, you find that the conditions of violence are constant: self-interest, fear, and a desire for glory. This is the cause of every human conflict, be it a mugging, or a world war.
I think you bring up a good point when you question his definition of violence, because fear and intimidation can't be measured through scientific means in the same way that personal injury can be. An argument could be made that our increased education and ability to reason may increase these factors because we're much more aware of what we should be afraid. The rise of secularism probably also contributes to this because there are much fewer people willing to trust that some force of spirituality will protect.

Quote:
The conditions for decreasing violence depend upon a fragile foundation, namely the spread of globalization, material wealth, and cultural pluralism. Due to technology, and its efficiency, we (meaning the West) has managed to do this to a degree unprecedented by imperial civilizations that have come before us. Yet, the events of this century, filled with mankind's greatest horrors (like a good social scientist, I am sure Pinker dismisses the Holocaust as an externality), must make us reflect on the overall thesis of Pinker's utopian futurism, and most likely reject it.
I really don't think it's a teleological thesis, but maybe I missed something.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 11:15 AM   #17
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
You're stating this as if it's fact when most of the scientific evidence available to us refute this.
We're debating here, but I think his conclusions are flawed. the wars that we saw to close the century were incredibly violent conflicts, but the casualty counts were lower because the technology is better, and battlefield trauma medical care was different.

While you could argue that the last two wars were not on an equivalent level, there were still mass numbers of troops in the field, but one of the great equializers was that civilian casualties for example were greatly reduced because of the advancement of ranged weapons. During WW2, you had casualty counts in the 10's of thousands per day, now you have them in the dozen's tops, but thats not because the war fare is any less violent.

Plus statistically, I can apply the casualty figures of WW2, and WW1 and the holocaust and compare them to today and say, look we're less violent, but that ignores that we're still getting into conflicts on a more regional basis, but the conditions for a global conflict haven't been ignited yet, or don't happen, not because peace has broken out or we've evolved , but because of the overall threat of mass extinction based violence by the super powers.





Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
Again, this doesn't jive with what we know. Our greatest accelerations forward have actually come within the last century, often during times of peace.
Rocketry, aviation, theoretical physics and math, medical treatment and trauma based treatment and surgery, naval sciences, all went through their greatest periods of acceleration thanks to warfare or the threat of warfare.





Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
I don't think the point of his thesis is that we'll see the end of violence. That would be absurd. He's merely challenging the view held by many that we live in extraordinarily violent times. Did you read the entire article?
Yes I read the article, and yes we live in extremely violent times, and I merely stated that as we see the economies of more nations collapse and resources become even a greater commodity that we'll start seeing the return of super nationalism like we saw in the era between WW1 and WW2.

So I argue that this century will probably be a good one if you're dealing in weapons.





Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
And again, there is no scientific basis to this statetment. We can see numerous examples of cooperative nature, not to mention the fact that basic nature hasn't been nearly as crucial to human survival as the development of culture has.
Sure there are examples of co-operative developments in nature, but nature is about the food chain, about territorial dominance, and about parasitic relationships.





Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
Wars also aren't being fought on the large scale that they were previously. Every American conflict after WW2 (possibly excluding Vietnam) has been fought against a foe who isn't marginally close to being the superpower the U.S. is.
True, I stated thats why his theory of man's violent nature decreasing is wrong. The wars might be smaller but the destructive power is far greater then WW2 for example and the ability to precise target removes the mass casualties of other conflicts.

But we have the Chinese arming themselves and looking at building their ability to project power. We have the Russians doing a crash rebuilding program based around their Blue Water Navy and long range tactical aviation.

At some point the American's will accelerate their military build up because its the quickest way to boost their economy, because we all know that the gun side of the guns and butter argument allows you to buy more butter.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 11:27 AM   #18
Cowperson
CP Pontiff
 
Cowperson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A pasture out by Millarville
Exp:
Default

"A good war never hurt nobody" - old Wall St. saying.

Factually, there are fewer conflicts.

Large global conflagurations like WWI and WWII have gone out of style with the ability to obliterate each other several times over in a few seconds.

In the Cold War, proxy conflicts were the substitute, asking other people to kill each other to make a point, but died out (pun) with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Most conflicts these days are based on ancient tribal or religious differences, typically in populations with cultures that are long-lived but nevertheless primitive.

It is true that modern medicine keeps the body count down relative to other eras when a wound would generally be fatal . . . . . but generally, on a global basis, there's a lot less going on than there used to be in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

So . . . . . no more global conflagerations killing 50 million at a pop and fewer localized conflicts, modern weaponry or not.

In addition, violent crime statistics in modern societies are generally trending lower, probably based on aging populations and less on nicer people.

All of this in spite of there being twice as many people on the planet as there were in 1970.

It's more of a question of whether or not this is a temporary lull or a genuine trend.

I can't wait for the the rise of Kahn and the Eugenics War.

Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
Cowperson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 11:37 AM   #19
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
We're debating here, but I think his conclusions are flawed. the wars that we saw to close the century were incredibly violent conflicts, but the casualty counts were lower because the technology is better, and battlefield trauma medical care was different.

While you could argue that the last two wars were not on an equivalent level, there were still mass numbers of troops in the field, but one of the great equializers was that civilian casualties for example were greatly reduced because of the advancement of ranged weapons. During WW2, you had casualty counts in the 10's of thousands per day, now you have them in the dozen's tops, but thats not because the war fare is any less violent.
But that's pretty much the heart of his original argument. We are less likely today to die at the hands of another person than at any other time in history. It also states in the article that this isn't because we've evolved into a higher species, but has more to do with our ability to reason. I'd argue that the use of long-range weapons for the purposes of avoiding civilian casualties is perfect example of this.

Quote:
Plus statistically, I can apply the casualty figures of WW2, and WW1 and the holocaust and compare them to today and say, look we're less violent, but that ignores that we're still getting into conflicts on a more regional basis,
Again, you're kind of making his point here. We get into regional spats (still far fewer than what occured in prior to the 20th centruy) but these generally don't occur between the world's major powers because it's more beneficial to negotiate.
but the conditions for a global conflict haven't been ignited yet, or don't happen, not because peace has broken out or we've evolved , but because of the overall threat of mass extinction based violence by the super powers.

Quote:
Rocketry, aviation, theoretical physics and math, medical treatment and trauma based treatment and surgery, naval sciences, all went through their greatest periods of acceleration thanks to warfare or the threat of warfare.
True, but the improvements we've seen in social areas such as civil rights, medicare, education, etc. had very little to do with warfare (though in some cases they may have occured at the same time as certain wars).

Quote:
Yes I read the article, and yes we live in extremely violent times,
Maybe, but I think his point that violence at an individual level has decreased substantially is backed up pretty well by what we know.

Quote:
and I merely stated that as we see the economies of more nations collapse and resources become even a greater commodity that we'll start seeing the return of super nationalism like we saw in the era between WW1 and WW2.

So I argue that this century will probably be a good one if you're dealing in weapons.
I doubt it, but I know you're a tad older than me and it's pretty common to start delving into millenialism when you get to a certain age

Quote:
Sure there are examples of co-operative developments in nature, but nature is about the food chain, about territorial dominance, and about parasitic relationships.
Nature is about self-preservation and reproduciton. How that's achieved varies from species to species.

Quote:
True, I stated thats why his theory of man's violent nature decreasing is wrong. The wars might be smaller but the destructive power is far greater then WW2 for example and the ability to precise target removes the mass casualties of other conflicts.

But we have the Chinese arming themselves and looking at building their ability to project power. We have the Russians doing a crash rebuilding program based around their Blue Water Navy and long range tactical aviation.

At some point the American's will accelerate their military build up because its the quickest way to boost their economy, because we all know that the gun side of the guns and butter argument allows you to buy more butter.
Except that in the past, whoever had the best army would throw their weight around with very little regard for consequences at the human/individual level. This certainly isn't the case anymore.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2011, 10:25 AM   #20
troutman
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
 
troutman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Crowsnest Pass
Exp:
Default

Canada's Homicide Rate Declines To 44-Year Low

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10...n_1032646.html

Author (Steven Pinker) from OP on Colbert:

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the...rt/#clip554968

Last edited by troutman; 10-26-2011 at 10:29 AM.
troutman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:16 AM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy