- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 12,620
- Reputation score
- 30,793
Apparently people think I ban them for disagreeing with me? I don't but hey, here's a thread in a sub where I have no mod powers so disagree without fear! Don't bother with whine about the rules though, I won't respond because fuck you! There are appropriate places for that and this ain't one of 'em.
Onto our first topic, I chose to create this thread instead of respond in a PM because well, this sub's so unused and I like to fite publicly not in PMs. Don't worry about the title, it's late and I'm at a loss for what to call it but I'll come up with something better another time.
Well, first of all comparing anything to the actual process of evolution is just a poor choice as we currently lack the scientific evidence to substantiate any theory. Even if the most popular ( Natural selection; to sum it up when in an environment with limited resources those organisms which are better suited to the environment survive and thrive leaving those ill suited to die out ) were fact, it runs counter to what we've been seeing of late, and indeed the purpose of society; which is to make up for an individual's weaknesses or shortcomings and provide higher chances of survival and later on a higher quality of life.
"But slicer how is increasing the quality of life for minority groups counter to society's purpose" you say. It isn't, until that increase comes at a cost of the majority which we can clearly see with canada's compelled speech bill; some staggeringly small portion of people's feelings are hurt by certain words so now if a normal person uses them they are held legally responsible.
As for it not being directed? A normal healthy person acts in their own interest, perhaps not to the exclusion of interests of others but certainly not to their own detriment. How can you explain people passing laws to their own detriment not directed behavior? Do they suffer from some sort of self-harm disorder? I could see that being the case if it were a handful of people but it isn't, such a large group would need to be manipulated to a great extent. One might even think they were brainwashed like members of a cult.
I agree, thus my previous comment on backlash or to put it a different way: The rights of the many outweigh the feelings of the few.
This just sounds like faux enlightenment attempting to play on the evolution comparison.
Onto our first topic, I chose to create this thread instead of respond in a PM because well, this sub's so unused and I like to fite publicly not in PMs. Don't worry about the title, it's late and I'm at a loss for what to call it but I'll come up with something better another time.
You really shouldn't view social development in a different way than biological evolution - that is a process that is in no way directed.
Calling anything in that process "progressive" or "regressive" is just silly (and is fully subjective).
Well, first of all comparing anything to the actual process of evolution is just a poor choice as we currently lack the scientific evidence to substantiate any theory. Even if the most popular ( Natural selection; to sum it up when in an environment with limited resources those organisms which are better suited to the environment survive and thrive leaving those ill suited to die out ) were fact, it runs counter to what we've been seeing of late, and indeed the purpose of society; which is to make up for an individual's weaknesses or shortcomings and provide higher chances of survival and later on a higher quality of life.
"But slicer how is increasing the quality of life for minority groups counter to society's purpose" you say. It isn't, until that increase comes at a cost of the majority which we can clearly see with canada's compelled speech bill; some staggeringly small portion of people's feelings are hurt by certain words so now if a normal person uses them they are held legally responsible.
As for it not being directed? A normal healthy person acts in their own interest, perhaps not to the exclusion of interests of others but certainly not to their own detriment. How can you explain people passing laws to their own detriment not directed behavior? Do they suffer from some sort of self-harm disorder? I could see that being the case if it were a handful of people but it isn't, such a large group would need to be manipulated to a great extent. One might even think they were brainwashed like members of a cult.
Only time will tell which direction will prevail.
Pulling too hard in either direction should trigger a negative reaction -
I agree, thus my previous comment on backlash or to put it a different way: The rights of the many outweigh the feelings of the few.
humans can handle only so much change in their lives without trauma - but standing still is a suicidal move. The world changes, so we must too.
This just sounds like faux enlightenment attempting to play on the evolution comparison.
Last edited: