Lord of the Flies

I mean, are we practical jokers? If bugs were and plants were as sentient as humans, why should we drive cars? When a fly accidentally hits the windshield or we drive over blade of grass, should it be not deemed the moral equivalent of killing or injuring a human, literally vehicular manslaughter?

I don’t think you are interested in truth, just in spawning countermeasures so you can feel comfortable with your childish delusions.

I might have paid some attention to your counter arguments, but for this stupid remark. BTW, get a course in
English 101. Your grammar sucks.

You are so egotistical and weak all you can say is my grammar sucks. Child mind in an old man’s body…

You prove my points. You have no argument devoid of ad hom.

You are an egotistical delusional maniac. Im sure someone other than me can see it.

And then you post back NOTHING, nothing but a lame ad hom.
And then I remark about that ad hom, and post an ad hom back,and somehow I AM the one who does lame ad homs?
Grow up, kid.

The four posts did nothing to further the OP. I’d suggest it is you who needs to grow up and shed your infantile forms of debate. I’d be happy if you never posted in any of my threads. At least then, they would stay on topic. Pay attention to your grammar; it proves who you are by what you have to say. The only time I’ve seen worse is when I taught high school English classes.

Here we go around again.
I posted a direct response to one of your posts, and rather than continue the discussion, you act like a pathetic coward and pull the “notontopicenoughformystandards” card.
You fail utterly.

Please refrain from posting in my thread.

Bye, woman…

Remember,grammar,not philosphical content, is the most important thing…

Have fun in tard land…

The topic here is whether or not the preadolescent boys, stranded on an island reverted to savagery because of social indoctrination or because of something innate within themselves. Perhaps it could be both?

I’m not a woman.
Philosophical content depends on one’s ability to state philosophy correctly.
If tard land is away from Trixie , I’m all for being there.

Here is the end scene of the film:



More likely, de conditioning of rules of civilization. It’s not that the innate animal within comes to the fore, rather, that changing conditions change the rules of the game.

The children had no knowledge of pre-civilized conditions or behavior, they only reacted to how societal norms degressed as an accompaniment to the brute forces of nature. Their behavior signified a parallel world of natural violence.

The Rousseau project was an attempt to give credence to a wished for society, to counterbalance that violence. This was the age of hope, in the sustenance of an ideal world. I doubt Rousseau saw the noble savage as anything but a useful attempt to counter Hobbes’.

Rousseau gave his children in an orphan asylum! He preached water and drank wine.


Good post. Do you think Hobbes was right? Golding seemed to think so.

Jerkey, please answer the question. Otherwise I will do it for you. :slight_smile:

This is a good point. We have children conditioned to fit into a large set of rules, thrown into a scary situation wheere there are nor rules and they are now the authorities, free to make up rules and behave according often to fear in a new situation. This is not animal nature but a peculiarly human situation. Animals know their environments and how to get food and how to work in groups, if they are that kind of animal. You cannot tear away their culture and see what happens in the same way you can with humans.

We domesticate animals and “tear away their original cultures”.