Throughout human history, and apparently human pre-history, there have been many examples of individuals who, confronting a contest of wills, emotions, or resources with another human, found the solution of choice to be violent eradication of the other.

From the pre-historic skulls with ax marks in them to the ashes of the Federal Building in Oklahoma and the fried corpses of 9-11, we as humans have a long and glorious record of returning to the truth that nothing solves a problem quite like killing other humans.

To argue that this is not the case is to fly in the fast of millennia of human thought and dispute the consensus of millions over the centuries. How could anyone,t herefore, be so wrong-headed as to argue against the selective use of violence against your own species?

---

(Pardon the sarcasm, but the opportunity was irresistible.)

The popularity of theism (mono-, poly- and pan-)is no argument in its favor in a tribunal of truth. Neither is the popularity of pure materialism a supportive argument for its correctness. Authority (scientist or priest) is not an argument. The thing must be decided on its merits, and because of its highly phenomenological nature, probably by each individual for himself.

Ain't nobody else gonna walk it for you.
You gotta walk the lonesome valley for yourself.

A