Re: Wars.

This does not take into account that more people are actually killed in wars today, than in wars in the past.

Important point. Forgot to mention that.

There *may* be less wars today, but more people are killed. I think it evens out and nullifies any point to such facts

As I said, the fact that modern wars are much more destructive than anything before, I think is the most important reason why less wars are fought today...

I don't see how a farce innovation like the United Nations suddenly put us in a new, literal era.

...not the usual bullshit explanations attributing it to values (human rights), expansion of democracy, international institutions (like the UN) or expansion of trade and economic links.

It has created more or less a one world government - a new world order - and has made other nations and peoples comply using force. Not beautiful feminist peace. It's been done with force, violence, and intimidation. And "international law" is a fascist policy in itself that it expects all cultures and countries to comply with a very strict set of laws which govern many things - not just how one nation deals with other nations.

Completely agreed.

And in a double whammy, the only way to kill the UN now would be for the USA to decide to quit it (thus depriving it of funding and probably even of its seat in New York). Now, it would be good for the world, and good for the USA people too, but it's very bad for USA politicians so it's so unlikely to happen.

There's no successful religion, political system, empire, or culture that has lasted by not using war. The idea that major positive changes happening today, or ones from the past, have been spread peacefully and with love is a sheer fantastical delusion.

True. The Roman Empire (and a few other empires) are held as paragons of peaceful rule. But usually forgotten, Rome's peaceful rule came about after two centuries of Roman wars, and although the main parts of the empire were peaceful for centuries, the Empire border ("limes") was never peaceful. Same for all others that have been compared.

With blacks, Latinos, and other minorities being violent, it's simply just that - they are minorities, and oppressed ones at that. More than oppressed, they are also poor, and nobody really cares to help them. They seem to still be feeling the results of the oppression that occurred at the hands of Europeans and Americans long ago, and that's understandable. Poverty is to blame for much of the world's problems, and throughout history. Very easy factors tell us why humans suffered from so much poverty in the past, and those were also violent times. You simply cannot expect humans to act proper or rationally when faced with poverty and famine. The last thing we need is to blame certain minorities for this. From what I've heard, even gays were violent during certain periods in history where they were oppressed. But that is not really the case today, at all.

I don't agree with everything there, but mostly, yes, you are right.

My point was, though, that if you're using crime statistics that say men commit more crimes to argue men are naturally and invariably more violent than women, then you'd better be prepared for others to use the same crime statistics to say that non-Whites are naturally and invariably more violent than Whites. You can't have it both ways.

At that, you are right in your other post too. Faced with poverty, lack of opportunity and stagnating or lowering standards of living, people will turn to crime that otherwise wouldn't have. At the individual level, though, and yes, probably because of entrenched gender roles, it works a little different. Women will still try to be provided for, which avoids or at least minimizes their direct exposure to crime. Men, as providers, will have to be the ones to commit the crimes. It is not gratuitous that Tony Montana refused to kill the wife and kids of a drug czar.