+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine. (/thread-12437.html)
RE: Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine. - Hammerskjold - 08-19-2010
(08-19-2010, 01:37 AM)kandrathe Wrote: His lawyers are negotiating now with the Governor, so we'll see if he's willing to move his mosque out of the close proximity to where a bunch of jihadists murdered the most number of people in the US ever.
Extremism is the real name of the poison. 'Jihadist' is merely the brand name. (Now with more infidel cleansing agent and lemony scent!) But they don't have exclusive rights to the formula.
They can't claim that kind of power. Who the hell do they think they are, Proctor and Gamble? Puhlease.
Quote:What Islamic nation, BTW?
Indonesia, during the Suharto reign. Probably 1 or 2 decades before his ouster.
RE: Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine. - kandrathe - 08-19-2010
(08-19-2010, 10:03 AM)Hammerskjold Wrote:It has a history of peaceful coexistence, but things have been getting increasingly tense for non-Muslims there. I think part of this is due to better worldwide communications. In the past, if a person converted from Islam to Christianity the people might not hear about it for months, if ever. Now, it becomes evening news and everyone is involved.Quote:What Islamic nation, BTW?Indonesia, during the Suharto reign. Probably 1 or 2 decades before his ouster.
RE: Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine. - Hammerskjold - 08-19-2010
(08-19-2010, 06:31 PM)kandrathe Wrote: It has a history of peaceful coexistence, but things have been getting increasingly tense for non-Muslims there. I think part of this is due to better worldwide communications. In the past, if a person converted from Islam to Christianity the people might not hear about it for months, if ever. Now, it becomes evening news and everyone is involved.
It's much more complex than just religion. There's this concept as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pribumi
And economic factors. And the colour of your skin. And regionalism. And education level. Municipal level governance vs national level. Crony capitalism corruption vs micro economics. Generals vs President (who are sometimes surprise surprise ex-military generals) vs Public. Old vs Young. Team Edward vs Team Jacob. All are in play at the same time. Seriously, I'm not being rude here but I have to be blunt.
Stop fixating only on the Islam\religious part. It actually plays a much smaller part than you think. And when it does, it doesn't match up to what you've been talking about.
And I dunno where you get the idea with the modern communication bit vs not hearing it for months in the olden days. One thing people don't hear much and it certainly doesn't get much if any airplay in the west, is that Indonesia is actually a pretty big 'cafe' culture.
It's quite close to the Canadian Coffee\Donut shop culture. Go look up some pictures of 'Warung Kopi' (Coffee stall). When I was there it ranged from portable vendor stands, to brick and mortar vendors\shop\hangouts.
And like any other cafe culture, talks invariably turns to guess what, gossip. Any and all topic to gossip about, just like any other coffee shop.
While it's true that modern communication technology does make things faster, it's not like the coffee clatch communication was that slow. Even without texting or the Inner-nets. One way of gauging that is how fast slang changes. Before the innernets, it was pretty fast, certainly faster than the west. Nowadays, I can't even imagine. Considering that some of the coffee shops are also internet cafes, it'd probably be like adding speed to espresso.
But no, it's not like all people talk about is 'omg did you hear about so and so? She converted! Now let's have a 12 hour discussion about religion, because that's all we do all day.'
Seriously, I dunno where you get your source of info but I suggest looking for better ones. Right now it seems you're watching some SpongeBob then thinking you have a fair handle on what marine life is actually like.
edited fix for grammer rodeo mishap.
RE: Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine. - kandrathe - 08-19-2010
(08-19-2010, 08:06 PM)Hammerskjold Wrote: And economic factors. And the colour of your skin. And regionalism. And education level. Municipal level governance vs national level. Crony capitalism corruption vs micro economics. Generals vs President (who are sometimes surprise surprise ex-military generals) vs Public. Old vs Young. Team Edward vs Team Jacob. All are in play at the same time. Seriously, I'm not being rude here but I have to be blunt.Well, sure. Society is a complex jigsaw puzzle. I like blunt, BTW. Where do I get my sources? Well, international news sources, like Al Jazeera (whom I'd hope would be objective if not slightly Islamic biased). I've never been to Indonesia, and I doubt I'll ever get there. Sorry I'm not up on the cultural nuance. But... Reading the international news, there are lots of articles from the past 4-5 years about rising tensions between Islam and Christianity. Maybe they are the ones spun that way that catch my interest, but I doubt its just total BS. I brought up the Islam\religious part, because that is our topic. It would be strange for me to suddenly begin to discuss out of the blue the continued violence in Maluku since the peace agreement of 2002.
Quote:And I dunno where you get the idea with the modern communication bit vs not hearing it for months in the olden days.Not just there. Everywhere. It's hard to be mad at someone to their face, but easier to read some (biased) news report and get all hostile about it. We have a cafe culture where I live too, but people pretty much keep their discussions to local items. Politics and religion would be things considered rude to discuss in polite company. It was just speculation on the internet, and a 24x7 news cycle. More news spun making the politico-zombies crazy, whether they be amped up by Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich on the mega-mosque, or some internet site run by adherents of Abu Bakar Bashir. I just think a significant portion of humanity don't really want to invest themselves in knowing the truth, they just want to believe in someone/something and be told what to do.
Quote:Seriously, I dunno where you get your source of info but I suggest looking for better ones. Right now it seems you're watching some SpongeBob then thinking you have a fair handle on what marine life is actually like.You are a source. Are you good?
RE: Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine. - Hammerskjold - 08-20-2010
(08-19-2010, 08:48 PM)kandrathe Wrote: But... Reading the international news, there are lots of articles from the past 4-5 years about rising tensions between Islam and Christianity.
Ok I've read the links. IMO you have to pick out the truthy bits in between the lines.
Like the ones about tensions the focus IMO is really about the:
-migrant
-business
-social jealousy (kinda nebulous sounding there but my best guess is combination of economic factor with a dash of anti-migrant sentiment)
The xtian vs muslim may or may not be the trigger, but more often than not IMO that's just the surface tension. Xtian v muslim can often be just phrasing to really mean pribumi conflict. Not in all cases, and not in all locations obviously. But just keep in mind when they say this group etc, it may not actually mean that particular group.
It gets complex. It's like a long running soap opera at times. With a dash of The Sopranos.
The thing to watch for (even if unpublished in one of that link) is any mention of government\army agents in play. IMO those are the important power players to watch for.
Quote:Maybe they are the ones spun that way that catch my interest, but I doubt its just total BS. I brought up the Islam\religious part, because
that is our topic.
Well I thought the topic was net neutrality.
Ok seriously now.
Is it total BS, no. It'd be easy to spot if it is. It is IMO, a bit of truth mixed with 'truthiness' and some spin and angle. You answered a lot of your own question really, it's designed to catch your interest because it is catchy and sexy. Religious Conflict! is much sexier sounding than Here's an in depth report on the complex factors and factions at play in a region most people never hear about with analysis from ZZZzzzzz...zzzzz.zzzzz.
Quote: It was just speculation on the internet, and a 24x7 news cycle. More news spun making the politico-zombies crazy, whether they be amped up by Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich on the mega-mosque, or some internet site run by adherents of Abu Bakar Bashir.
The net can be used to foment some real ugly shit for sure. But it can also be used by people to connect and share their experiences an maybe, at least attempt to build a bridge of understanding.
As always, if not more important nowadays, is to verify the info coming in due to the sheer speed and volume we're dealing with.
Look, I mentioned 'pribumi' a couple of times. At the risk of oversimplifying it, it's a familiar tune we should all know by now. Divide, and conquer. If there is nothing to divide with, make something up.
Quote: I just think a significant portion of humanity don't really want to invest themselves in knowing the truth, they just want to believe in someone/something and be told what to do.
Well yeah, where have you been lately?
I don't know if I can be a 'source'. I can only share some of my personal experiences growing up there at that particular time frame and location. Some things might have changed, some things, might not.
When I read these 2 articles for example:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/coffee-made-of-civet-cat-droppings-is-halal-indonesian-mullahs-declare/article1645844/
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1874651,00.html
My spidey sense tells me the news is not that there are extremist mullahs trying to gain a foothold in Indonesia. There's always some faction or someother trying to gain a foothold.
My take is that even these mullahs don't dare to try a complete ban on smoking, because Indonesians love their tobacco. And the government don't mess around when it comes to serious tax revenues from tobacco. (That's probably one of their big and secure source of cash money.) Because srsly guys, guys srsly, Indonesians love their smokes.
Second, some of these mullahs 'declarations' I suspect are equivalent to that oddball crazy extremist priests who wants to boycott cheerleaders in a football game because it's immoral and sinful. Ie: no one really gives a flying flock in most cases. More so if it happens to be in a football crazy town.
And when they say 'many observant muslims', it might not mean the majority. It may mean, the flocks who observes and follow the anti-cheer priest rantings. Even the Westboro Baptists Church have some followers.
Personally, what I would monitor are the power players in gov'mt and or the army. Nothing gets a toehold, let alone a foothold in their turf without their knowledge.
Consider it more like a gang looking out over their own turf, not necessarily out of concern for the citizens. Their priority is usually power, and how to get more of it for themselves. If they are consulting or allowing some extremist ugly stirrings, my first suspicion is they're trying to create a distraction for something else. (Time to count the silverware in the presidential palace.) So what else is new, this kind of thing is not unique to Indonesia after all.
edited for spelling missed steak.
edited ps.
The 'approvals announcements' of some of these extremist mullahs...are almosts laughable. Most of them can be categorized as attempted power play, or attempt to gain support. Mostly they seem to be along the same lines as the Vatican approving the Beatles and The Blues Brothers amidst the child abuse scandal. Anyone with an ounce of healthy skepticism would either yawn, or do an eye roll.
RE: Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine. - kandrathe - 08-20-2010
(08-20-2010, 01:28 AM)Hammerskjold Wrote: When I read these 2 articles for example:Now... See, I didn't know they made coffee from beans partially digested by Civets. I read up on it, and it seems there are about 450Kg of it processed each year. And... It's good to know that it's ok (halal) if the beans are washed. No shyte! Literally! Bwahahaha!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/coffee-made-of-civet-cat-droppings-is-halal-indonesian-mullahs-declare/article1645844/
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1874651,00.html
My spidey sense tells me the news is not that there are extremist mullahs trying to gain a foothold in Indonesia. There's always some faction or someother trying to gain a foothold.
Anyway, I despise the whole social control "Sin Police" aspect. Like, burning shops that refuse to close during prayer time (or closing bars on Sunday). Contrasting to modern protestantism for a minute, they leave penitence for sins between a person and their God, although there are always some who want to legislate morality here as well. We still have a ways to go to liberate our society from our puritanical history.
RE: Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine. - Hammerskjold - 08-20-2010
(08-20-2010, 07:02 PM)kandrathe Wrote: Now... See, I didn't know they made coffee from beans partially digested by Civets. I read up on it, and it seems there are about 450Kg of it processed each year. And... It's good to know that it's ok (halal) if the beans are washed. No shyte! Literally! Bwahahaha!
Don't get me wrong here, at least when I was there, that coffee (kopi luak) is considered a rare, expensive, delicacy. Emphasis on 'expensive'. You probably won't find it in most warung kopi. (I never had it, not out of any squeamishness but due to the price and rarity.)
So my suspicion when I hear some of these mullahs 'halal declaration' on that coffee, is they might be less interested in Allah, and more interested in the almighty Dollah. Read: They're very very interested in getting a cut of the action.
I don't want to overminimize the danger of extremism, in the form of overzealous theocracy, or any other extreme idealogy here. Suharto's ouster left a power vacuum that signalled various factions to try to make a move for the throne.
But in Indonesia's case, the more real dangers are the entrenched corruption, cronyism, military oppressing it's own citizens, and kleptocratic government. Suharto is kicked out, but IMO it remains to be seen if the rest of the problems and shadow players were also thrown out.
RE: Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine. - kandrathe - 08-21-2010
(08-20-2010, 08:17 PM)Hammerskjold Wrote: Emphasis on 'expensive'.$190 / Lb isn't too expensive considering the cost of other 'rare' drugs. .5 oz of coffee beans ground per 6 fl. oz. cup of coffee, with 32 servings per pound, so each cup of coffee costs $5.95. Starbucks price!
Heroin goes for about $100 / gram, or about $45,400 / Lb, but you need to consider the enhanced consequences for getting caught with it.
RE: Net Neutrality--Google--Fairness Doctrine. - Hammerskjold - 08-21-2010
(08-21-2010, 01:29 AM)kandrathe Wrote:(08-20-2010, 08:17 PM)Hammerskjold Wrote: Emphasis on 'expensive'.$190 / Lb isn't too expensive considering the cost of other 'rare' drugs. .5 oz of coffee beans ground per 6 fl. oz. cup of coffee, with 32 servings per pound, so each cup of coffee costs $5.95. Starbucks price!
5.95 in what price though? US dollars? That's a lot for a cup of java, in Java. If we translate it to rupiah (dunno what the exact rate is at the moment), that's even more expensive.
And the price on that link is 75$ US for a package. It's expensive. Maybe not for a Suharto crony elite, but for the average Indonesian, uhm. Hell no.
Kopi susu (coffee with sweetened condensed milk) or es kopi (coffee with ice cubes) is a more realistic frame of reference. Not sure why you brought up the rare drug comparison though, kopi luak is not exactly heroin. We're not talking about a poppy field in Afghanistan situation here.
Indonesia and Tobacco - ShadowHM - 09-02-2010
(08-20-2010, 01:28 AM)Hammerskjold Wrote: My take is that even these mullahs don't dare to try a complete ban on smoking, because Indonesians love their tobacco. And the government don't mess around when it comes to serious tax revenues from tobacco. (That's probably one of their big and secure source of cash money.) Because srsly guys, guys srsly, Indonesians love their smokes.
Heading off on a tangent here, but an article in today's 'odd news' section reminded me of this:
Indonesia's smoking toddler kicks habit
What struck me (with my oh-so-western sensibilities and education
) was this comment in the article: Quote:Ardi's case has highlighted the tobacco industry's aggressive marketing to women and children in developing countries like Indonesia, where regulations are weak and many people do not know that smoking is dangerous.No mention of the lack of incentive for regulation of a lucrative source of government income, but I have little doubt that it applies also.
RE: Indonesia and Tobacco - Hammerskjold - 09-02-2010
(09-02-2010, 02:36 PM)ShadowHM Wrote: What struck me (with my oh-so-western sensibilities and education
Quote:Ardi's case has highlighted the tobacco industry's aggressive marketing to women and children in developing countries like Indonesia, where regulations are weak and many people do not know that smoking is dangerous.No mention of the lack of incentive for regulation of a lucrative source of government income, but I have little doubt that it applies also.
I think the 'many people do not know that smoking is dangerous' part might be a bit misleading. From what I remember during my time there at least, most people do know it's not necesarrily healthy.
I don't doubt the increasing marketing push towards women. There's likely more than just one factor at play, but the majority of smokers in Indonesia tends to be males at least when I was there.
The lack of incentive and weak regulation thing, I'd personally say most likely to some people having significant interests\stake in the matter. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are remnants of 'Suharto INC'. (Made up of his family\relatives, and their cronies, and the cronies to the cronies, and the entourage to that cronies of the cronies etc etc etc Russian dolls style.)
Like this example. Even though this is from 1990's.
http://www.hamline.edu/apakabar/basisdata/1990/12/31/0005.html
"Indonesia has established a clove trading monopoly controlled
by President Suharto's youngest son despite fierce opposition from
major clove cigarette manufacturers."
Though I want to clarify something here. It's not an Indonesian custom to give a toddler cigarettes. I do remember seeing some street kids (approx 9-teens upwards) smoking but I'd hazard a guess that's more to do with poverty and other factors. (And something I saw in Canada and the US as well, with 'tweens lighting up anyway.)
RE: Indonesia and Tobacco - ShadowHM - 09-03-2010
(09-02-2010, 10:11 PM)Hammerskjold Wrote: Though I want to clarify something here. It's not an Indonesian custom to give a toddler cigarettes. I do remember seeing some street kids (approx 9-teens upwards) smoking but I'd hazard a guess that's more to do with poverty and other factors. (And something I saw in Canada and the US as well, with 'tweens lighting up anyway.)Hi
It was quite clear from the tone of the news story that it was quite far from normal for a toddler to be smoking. However, the rest of the story also made it clear that tobacco smoking is, as you described, rampant in Indonesia. Here it is (finally) on the decline although I, too, have seen youngsters smoking. Now that we know how it is harmful to your health, it seems it is part of that adolescent 'I need to show off how invulnerable I perceive myself to be' behaviour that so often comes out at that age.
At least it is not quite as quickly fatal as other types of such behaviour.
RE: Indonesia and Tobacco - --Pete - 09-03-2010
Hi,
(09-03-2010, 12:09 AM)ShadowHM Wrote: . . . it seems it is part of that adolescent 'I need to show off how invulnerable I perceive myself to be' behaviour that so often comes out at that age.
I bow to your superior experience, but I would humbly disagree.
(Me? Humble? Waits for laughter to die down)
I think that things that are forbidden are especially attractive to teens. Which is why countries that have no age limit for drinking have much less trouble with drunk teens. My theory is that the way to raise kids is to prohibit what you want them to do and encourage the behavior you want them to avoid. Of course, you need to switch up every now and again just to keep them off balance and confused.
Just my humble opinion.
--Pete
Handicap Principle - ShadowHM - 09-03-2010
(09-03-2010, 03:36 AM)--Pete Wrote: Just my humble opinion.
--Pete
With all due respect, Pete, my sons have managed to find dangerous and stupid things to try out that nobody ever dreamed of telling them not to do. We had assumed it was self-evident.
Now, that my youngest is just entering those years, I am resigned to the knowledge that he will certainly come up with a new fine way to show his invulnerability off. As with the others, I can only hope that my admonishments to him and his friends that they all need to look after each other will get him home safely afterwards.Edit: This kind of behaviour has been called "The Handicap Principle". Quoting from the Wikipedia entry (bolding mine):
Quote:The theory predicts that a sexual ornament, or any other signal, must be costly if it is to accurately advertise a trait of relevance to an individual with conflicting interests. Typical examples of handicapped signals include bird songs, the peacock's tail, courtship dances, bowerbird's bowers, or even possibly jewellery and humor. Jared Diamond has proposed that certain risky human behaviours, such as bungee jumping, may be expressions of instincts that have evolved through the operation of the handicap principle. Zahavi has invoked the potlatch ceremony as a human example of the handicap principle in action. This interpretation of potlatch can be traced to Thorstein Veblen's use of the ceremony in his book Theory of the Leisure Class as an example of "conspicuous consumption".[29]
The handicap principle gains further support by providing interpretations for behaviours that fit into a single unifying gene-centered view of evolution and making earlier explanations based on group selection obsolete. A classic example is that of stotting in gazelles. This behaviour consists in the gazelle initially running slowly and jumping high when threatened by a predator such as a lion or cheetah. The explanation based on group selection was that such behaviour might be adapted to alerting other gazelle to a cheetah's presence or might be part of a collective behaviour pattern of the group of gazelle to confuse the cheetah. Instead, Zahavi proposed that each gazelle was communicating to the cheetah that it was a fitter individual than its fellows and that the predator should avoid chasing it.
The theory resonates for me because this 'seek out dangerous things to do' behaviour does seem to emerge in adolescence, just as the young men are starting to get into that 'seek out a mate' mode and the accompanying search for status-conferring behaviour.
RE: Handicap Principle - --Pete - 09-04-2010
Hi,
(09-03-2010, 11:35 AM)ShadowHM Wrote: With all due respect, Pete, my sons have managed to find dangerous and stupid things to try out that nobody ever dreamed of telling them not to do.
I'm sure. My post was mostly in jest. But it does seem that people of all ages, from baby to ancient, want what the shouldn't have the most.
Quote:Edit: This kind of behaviour has been called "The Handicap Principle". Quoting from the Wikipedia entry (bolding mine):
Quote:Instead, Zahavi proposed that each gazelle was communicating to the cheetah that it was a fitter individual than its fellows and that the predator should avoid chasing it.
I think Zahavi is projecting. Or, at least, the way it is reported here is incorrect. In the gene based theory of evolution, the gazelle communicates nothing. And the cheetah would not read such a communication even if it existed.
Quote:The theory resonates for me because this 'seek out dangerous things to do' behaviour does seem to emerge in adolescence, just as the young men are starting to get into that 'seek out a mate' mode and the accompanying search for status-conferring behaviour.
Well, yes. No matter how you take your evolution, species survival depends on the procreation of the fittest. That evolution is about 10,000 years behind civilization makes many of our motives obscure. Using sloppy terminology, a woman wanted a man who would survive to help her through the pregnancy and the child rearing. She wanted a survivor who wouldn't get killed on a hunt, but still a brave man who would take part of the hunt. Doing stupid things and surviving them was one way boys could show prospective mates that they were both brave and survivors. The ones that died improved the species be eliminating one form of weakness. The ones that didn't compete improved the species by removing a different form of weakness.
The problem is, the selection factors of then applied to the situation of now doesn't really make sense. Or work out. For one thing, they lived in a three mile per hour world, we live in a sixty (or more).
--Pete
RE: Handicap Principle - ShadowHM - 09-09-2010
Hi Pete
I have been thinking about this:
(09-04-2010, 03:48 AM)--Pete Wrote:ShadowHM Wrote:Instead, Zahavi proposed that each gazelle was communicating to the cheetah that it was a fitter individual than its fellows and that the predator should avoid chasing it.
I think Zahavi is projecting. Or, at least, the way it is reported here is incorrect. In the gene based theory of evolution, the gazelle communicates nothing. And the cheetah would not read such a communication even if it existed.
I think you are mistaken. Regardless of your theory of evolution, there is constant communication between prey and hunter. The prey that manages to communicate that it less likely to be worth the energy spent to catch it is most likely to survive. Behaviour (like stotting) that communicates this is hence more likely to permit the prey to survive long enough to procreate. Now, it may be that the stotting serves some other purpose, but the premise is reasonable.
RE: Handicap Principle - kandrathe - 09-09-2010
(09-09-2010, 12:45 PM)ShadowHM Wrote: Now, it may be that the stotting serves some other purpose, but the premise is reasonable.Perhaps there are multiple purposes. Communicating virility not only to the predator, but also the herd, and jumping aloft would certainly give you a better eyeful of the battlefield.
Imagine you are at a concert looking for someone... Other than the embarrassment of looking so dorky, jumping 15 feet straight up into the air would be pretty convenient.
RE: Handicap Principle - --Pete - 09-09-2010
Hi,
(09-09-2010, 12:45 PM)ShadowHM Wrote: I think you are mistaken. Regardless of your theory of evolution, . . .
I have no theory of evolution. I simply follow what I understand from popularizations and Science News. Heck, I've never even had a good course in biology.
Quote:. . . there is constant communication between prey and hunter. The prey that manages to communicate that it less likely to be worth the energy spent to catch it is most likely to survive.
Yes. How much of this is learned behavior, how much genetics? How well established is it that the cheetah doesn't go for the flamboyant gazelle? What if the behavior is rewarded by protecting the genetic line somehow? Perhaps by getting the cheetah to chase an animal he can't catch? Or, perhaps, by causing the slower young to be eaten before they can reproduce?
My point is that the behavior can be observed and reported (although that is often poorly done, consider the lion and the hyena). But to assign that behavior 'purpose' is a tricky thing. Especially since, at the genetic level, there is no purpose. Just success or failure.
Quote:Behaviour (like stotting) that communicates this is hence more likely to permit the prey to survive long enough to procreate. Now, it may be that the stotting serves some other purpose, but the premise is reasonable.
The premise is reasonable. So are many others. When somebody states a reasonable premise as 'the explanation', then that is wrong. Of course, the more common thing is that a person's speculations are reported, after having passed through a few sets of ears, as a definite fact.
Related aside: it appears that dogs and humans are genetically attracted to each other. The proposed reason is that dogs who got along well with humans and humans who got along well with dogs helped each other, especially in the hunt, and so out-breed those that didn't get along. The first sentence is a fact (almost), the second is a speculation. Maintaining that distinction is a basis for science.
--Pete