The hatred thrown back and forth on this site is why I don't use it often
The hatred thrown back-and-forth on this site is why I don’t use it often
That’s the exact reason I do use this site. It’s real. People do hate each other. If you want to make change, this is the place to do it, not someplace where you’re arguing with likeminded people.
Poochy boy is the most despicable asshole I’ve ever met. But you can’t run away. You need to call him out every day and never stop.
One of your recent debates said that FromWithin would die from natural selection (along with his “kind”). It’s my understanding that he is an older guy and a father (genes passed on). That means there is no basis for your debate other than to suggest evolutionary inferiority, which is a common insult.
I hope you understand that I really do get your point, yet maintain that FromWithin truly is someone who natural selection would weed out undeniably. First of all natural selection is different for all creatures, because natural selection is nature itself. Nature governs the survival of all things, not just that which is living. That is to say, "nature" ultimately means "everything", and "death" is merely an extension of "entropy". The conditions that influence and shape a human's psyche are all a part of nature, and that is why there is no "human nature" because a human's nature is determined by the nature of their experience, and the more complex the brain of the organism is the more subject to various "natures" they are. Of course there is a finite extent to the "natures" that a human can embody, but not to the extent that one could pinpoint a specific universal "human nature" because many humans are opposite to others in many fundamental ways. But more to the point, what humans do by their very collective nature, through their individual nature without the larger perspective of a coordinated collective nature, (a sub-socialist culture) is argue amongst themselves. All the while the more collectively conscience but less individually conscience ( "Animal" or pre-type zero) cultures spend more time optimizing their survival strategy and less time bickering. That is to say, humans invent many points of contention between other groups of humans within the web of cultural bullshit that humans tend to develop, and FromWithin is someone who is very much a victim of this web of bullshit. In other words his "nature" (conditioning) is that of one who has a very limited perspective, a very narrow and dogmatic worldview, and thus he can only survive in a very specific environment, one which encourages the mentality of a brainwashed fool.
FromWithin truly is someone who natural selection would weed out undeniably.
Natural selection did not weed him out. To say that it will weed out his kind is to make predictions of a highly complex nature with no more evidence than supposition. So no, it is not undeniable.
The conditions that influence and shape a human's psyche are all a part of nature, and that is why there is no "human nature" because a human's nature is determined by the nature of their experience
The fact that specific predictions can be made about how specific conditions will shape the human psyche is an example of the existence of human nature.
Of course there is a finite extent to the "natures" that a human can embody, but not to the extent that one could pinpoint a specific universal "human nature" because many humans are opposite to others in many fundamental ways.
Making reference to human nature is not making reference to a narrow, specific nature that encompasses all humans. Perhaps herein lies the disagreement. Reference to human nature is reference to that which is natural to a human being. It is not reference to a narrow list of traits that are necessary and sufficient to define a human. It is human nature to be bi-pedal. This does not mean that a person who has no legs due to environmental circumstances is not human, but simply that having legs is natural and common to humans.
Some characteristics that are natural to humans are universal, but not sufficient to categorize a human. Most characteristics that are referred to as “human nature” are traits that are predominant across humanity and independent of culture or geography. The few exceptions notwithstanding. This is what is referred to in any organism whose nature is studied. To claim that there is no human nature is to maintain a specific, narrow definition that would force us to conclude that no organism has a nature, yet here we are with plenty to study.
All the while the more collectively conscience but less individually conscience ( "Animal" or pre-type zero) cultures spend more time optimizing their survival strategy and less time bickering.
Regardless of what may be among the variety that is human nature, some things are outside of that variety. In other words, some things are not natural to humans and they are said to go against human nature. We don’t have wings, for example. We also do not have a “collective conscience”, but rather an “individual conscience” empathy included. It’s not merely that humans are individuals, it’s that we cannot physically be otherwise. As such, groups of humans will never find themselves in total agreement. This individualist “bickering” is essential to reaching optimal outcomes for the groups such individuals compose. Of course functional groups disagree much more amicably than mere bickering.
The rejection of the individual nature of huamity and the subsequent fetishization of the day-dream of a collective conscience, is exactly why collectivist attempts decline into centralized tyranny. When the reality that people are always individuals and are rarely unanimous dashes collectivist hopes, those with enough strength in numbers will suppress or eliminate dissent as they always have. The collectivists are, afterall, the rational ones of a supposed collectivist mind, so the dissenters are necessarily irrational and outside the collective. They might as reasonably declare shapes to be without a nature as they cram that square peg into that round hole.
That is to say, humans invent many points of contention between other groups of humans within the web of cultural bullshit that humans tend to develop, and FromWithin is someone who is very much a victim of this web of bullshit.
If you believe yourself to be above that framework, you are merely blinder than those who know they are not.
and that is why there is no "human nature" because a human's nature is determined by the nature of their experience
Right. That's why PUA works on every woman who isn't gay and straight men all look when a hot woman walks in a room. Even gay people look when they see a hot person of the same sex.
Let me guess Nom, some clueless, dumbass beta male convinced you alpha males don't exist to make themselves feel better about being a weak, pathetic loser...and there is no "human nature" to make staying fucked up seem okay...
The sickest part of radical Leftists such as yourself, is that you absolutely hate any person who shines a light on your barbaric nature.
Fools such as yourself speak about natural selection weeding out those who do not think as you.
It's amazing that people like you who support KILLING VIABLE UNBORN BABIES FOR ANY REASON, have the nerve to speak of natural selection.
You give none of those innocent lives a chance to be naturally selected. You barbaric people play God, and in your darkest most evil nature take it up on yourselves to decide who gets to live and who gets to be dismembered, all for selfish convenience.
The tolerance from the Left is afforded only to those who bow down to your radical extremism. The rest of us can die for all you care.
Tolerance for diversity? LOL, what complete hypocritical phonies!