(Evolution of Coalitionary Killing) , Richard W. Wrangham. ABSTRACT: Warfare has traditionally been considered unique to humans. It has, therefore, often been explained as deriving from features that are unique to humans, such as the possession of weapons or the adoption of a patriarchal ideology. Mounting evidence suggests, however, that coalitional killing of adults in neighboring groups also occurs regularly in other species, including wolves and chimpanzees. This implies that selection can favor components of intergroup aggression important to human warfare, including lethal raiding. Here I present the principal adaptive hypothesis for explaining the species distribution of intergroup coalitional killing. This is the ‘‘imbalanceof-power hypothesis,’’ which suggests that coalitional killing is the expression of a drive for dominance over neighbors. Two conditions are proposed to be both necessary and sufficient to account for coalitional killing of neighbors: (1) a state of intergroup hostility; (2) sufficient imbalances of power between parties that one party can attack the other with impunity. Under these conditions, it is suggested, selection favors the tendency to hunt and kill rivals when the costs are sufficiently low. The imbalance-of-power hypothesis has been criticized on a variety of empirical and theoretical grounds which are discussed. To be further tested, studies of the proximate determinants of aggression are needed. However, current evidence supports the hypothesis that selection has favored a hunt-and-kill propensity in chimpanzees and humans, and that coalitional killing has a long history in the evolution of both species.
(The Plausibility of Adaptations for Homicide) , Joshua D. Duntley and David M. Buss
Theory or fact? Go to a location where the local paper is owned by the big boys and the neighboring paper is independent. One supports all the ridiculous dirty projects of the corporations, claiming 2 to 4 times as many jobs as actual while putting all in the community at risk. The other tries to expose. Is there any independent major media? No. Why do you pay any attention to it at all? You could spend the time on a side biz to pay for the stuff someone else is paying for. I mean to pay for someone else's free stuff under Socialism. The reluctance to want to do that is what always causes Socialism to fail the people and work out great for the bureaucrats and the crony companies... until there is just one company owned and controlled by the state with you at its mercy.
How witness credibility plays into the NFL’s disciplinary process is unclear. In a letter to Elliott informing him that he had been suspended for six games, the league said that advisors to league commissioner Roger Goodell had found “substantial and persuasive evidence” that Elliott had been violent toward Thompson. (The NFL’s personal-conduct policy says that a player who has not been charged with a crime can still be disciplined if there is “credible evidence” that he violated the policy.) An NFL spokesperson, asked what the “substantial and persuasive” standard means and how it compares to a preponderance-of-evidence one, was unable to clarify the issue for Deadspin.