Pussification in America: Political Correctness is Gay

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,007
138,746
you mean like Russia and brazil? they have the strictest gun laws and the highest attempted homicide rates, infact you're wrong almost all the places that have higher gun control have worse crime, relative to the other countries that have higher gun freedom, if you actually take a look at the statistic that viewpoint is proven wrong systematically across the board.


also specifically the countries with strict gun laws pretty much universally have higher rape rates. I'm for empowering the individual not disarming them.

when you think of guns you've been trained reflexively through television to think of murderers like Aron Hernandez but in reality the people you hurt with gun laws the most are woman and the elderly, the people who can't defend themselves otherwise, it's not called "the great equalizer" for nothing.


read that harvard paper it's all in there.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,007
138,746
That has to do with their cultural values and cultural homogeneity more than any other factor by far. it has nothing to do with access to a gun.

The north koreans are literally the same people different culture even stricter gun control, higher attempted homicide rate.

as for the japanese

Japan is a nation that consists of 98.5% of the population as being pureblood native Japanese.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
fanaskin_sl said:
why not? it's the same concept on a macro scale. It's called deterence, the threat of force is enough for people to reconsider action(and deterence is useless if they aren't real threats to the other party). Not everyone is "good natured" and we will never have a 100% "good natured" society without changing our dna.
Click to expand...
We certainly wouldn't have to change our DNA.
People don't get violent just for the sake of being violent.
Fixing the imbalances in society and assuring that everyone's basic human needs are being met would go a long way to reducing violence, no threats of force or DNA manipulations needed.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,007
138,746
won't change everyone, there's a % of the population that are born narcissists, also read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins, people are literally compelled by dna to act spitefully and aggressivley at times.

dna is trying to survive and outlive the other dna machines on the planet there's many ingrained things that helped our ancestors survive, one of them is rape for instance. Evolutionary it makes sense, so those tendencies weren't weeded out, that's why there's plenty of examples of it with animals in nature.

hey I didn't write our dna so don't look at me for blame. I'm not saying don't act just, and don't strive for a more equal society or whatever. I'm just saying you're viewpoint is a little naive when you add perspective to it. balance your ideas with a viewpoint of looking at man as a beast and as a biological programmed computer, yes our minds are mostly a blank slate at birth but many of our biological systems that produce urges and tendencies where evolved from lizards and shit, we aren't the perfect beings created in the image of god like I was told growing up sadly.


here's 2 books that I found helped increase the complexity of my viewpoint about reality(which is a good thing, it's closer to actual reality than simplified morality arguements)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
^not unflawed but this kind of perspective is closer to reality in my opinion.
"It's the second half of the book that's really worth your money, though, in which Pinker nimbly inverts virtually every Social Constructionist theory to demonstrate that what superficially seem like noble and idealistic (if misguided) principles -- that people are "born good" and it's society/parents/the media that ruins them -- are actually far more nihilistic and bleak in their implications than the much more likely thesis: we're incredibly complex animals whose instincts, while able to be subverted or counteracted by our conscious minds, cannot be completely ignored."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
fanaskin_sl said:
won't change everyone, there's a % of the population that are born narcissists, also read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins, people are literally compelled by dna to act spitefully and aggressivley at times.

dna is trying to survive and outlive the other dna machines on the planet there's many ingrained things that helped our ancestors survive one of them is rape for instance, evolutionary it makes sense, so those tendancies weren't weeded out, that's why it's so prevelant in nature.

hey I didn't write our dna so don't look at me for blame. I'm not saying don't act just, and don't strive for a more equal society or whatever. I'm just saying you're viewpoint is a little naive when you add perspective to it. balance your ideas with a viewpoint of looking at man as a beast and as a biological programmed computer, yes our minds are mostly a blank slate at birth but many of our biological systems that produce urges and tendencies where evolved from lizards and shit, we aren't the perfect beings created in the image of god like I was told growing up sadly.


here's 2 books that I found helped increase the complexity of my viewpoint about reality(which is a good thing, it's closer to actual reality than simplified morality arguements)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
Click to expand...
Yeah, biologically we are nothing but animals, and we undoubtedly have instinctual traces of behavior that got us through the hunter-gatherer days, but we've pretty much reached the point where our instincts are rendered obsolete.
We are raised from birth to be rational beings who make logical choices based on circumstances, and we learn pretty early on not to give in to our primal urges (this is a good thing). It's why men can't just go around fucking whoever they consider attractive, even though their bodies are screaming at them to do just that.
Now there are certainly cases of people who suffer some kind of developmental or inhibitive disability who can't control their instincts, but besides these extremely rare cases people behave how they learn to behave in their communities. If someone grows up in a poor family, surrounded by people who turn to crime to survive, that behavior becomes normalized and it becomes acceptable to act violently towards others. A society where people have their survival needs met is a society where the circumstances that cause someone's "violent" instincts to kick in are virtually non-existent.
Before we get sidetracked here, it's highly,highlyunlikely that we will be able to create a society that provides for everyone's basic needs (I'm talking "Venus project"-level stuff here). I'm just suggesting that it doesn't make sense to say that violence is just part of human nature and that we'd have to change our DNA to get rid of violence. I'm not violent. I doubt any of the posters on this board are violent people. By default, humans try to avoid violence whenever possible. But shitty social circumstances tend to bring out the worst in us.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,007
138,746
Tanoomba_sl said:
Yeah, biologically we are nothing but animals, and we undoubtedly have instinctual traces of behavior that got us through the hunter-gatherer days, but we've pretty much reached the point where our instincts arerendered obsolete.
Click to expand...
LoL no,

you aren't changing human nature with words, i'm sorry, you can encourage good habits and behavior at birth but human nature has shined through every culture and nation throughout history.

we have to account for human nature not pretend it doesn't exist.

that's what is so subversive about your angles of talking, you constantly pretend human beings are perfect and it's society that 100% causes people to do bad things inherently.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
fanaskin_sl said:
LoL no,

you aren't changing human nature with words, i'm sorry, you can encourage habits and behavior at birth but human nature has shined through every culture and nation throughout history.

we have to account for human nature not pretend it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
What's human nature?
A couple of people I used to work with tried to tell me that war is part of human nature. I call bullshit.
I don't want to fight in a war. You don't want to fight in a war. Even the people fighting in wars don't want to fight in wars.
Some higher-ups tell us we don't have a choice, manipulate us by painting a picture of "the enemy" and send us all off to kill each other. "Human nature" is not a factor here.
What's your definition of "human nature"?


fanaskin_sl said:
that's what is so subversive about your angles of talking, you constantly pretend human beings are perfect and it's society that 100% causes people to do bad things inherently.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. Nobody is inherently "evil" (except the super-rare people whose brains have developed abnormally).

Edit: Quit editing your post, dammit!
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,007
138,746
here's some examples

If you're starving you'll kill for food or die ( and be taken out of the gene pool )

If you're are physically threatened you'll defend yourself ( or die and your genes will be taken out of the pool )

you will kill and you will go to war if the right conditions are met (or be taken out of the pool)

evolution is mostly a deductive process not additive.


let's also take a look at the hippie movement in the 70's why did the hippies fail? well they found out that absence of rules the dominant alpha personalities bullied socially(sometimes physically) the rest of the people in the communes.

that's human nature as well pack behavior.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
fanaskin_sl said:
here's one example

If you're starving you'll kill for food or die ( and be taken out of the gene pool )

If you're are physically threatened you'll defend yourself ( or die and your genes will be taken out of the pool )
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I'm saying.
Of course you'll kill for food if you're starving. A society that ensures you'll never starve is a society you'll never have to kill for food in.
Of course if you're physically threatened you'll defend yourself. But being physically threatened is not something that happens for no reason. That guy threatening you is a product of the society he was raised in. He wasn't born a bad guy. If he had his basic needs met, he probably wouldn't be threatening you in the first place.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,007
138,746
Tanoomba_sl said:
If he had his basic needs met, he probably wouldn't be threatening you in the first place.
Click to expand...
Then why do the richest people commit the worst atrocities? bankers, corporations(the board) and despots have killed millions of people in the last 50 years alone, yet their basic needs where more than adequate met.

Why did the Roman emperors commit the worst sins imaginable like Caligula or Nero? they had all the security and safety in the world, why do despots like *(will edit in name when I find exact name) kill millions? he literally had a country as a play thing.
 
T

Triangular_sl

shitlord
233
0
grammar is also a feature of innate ability of human beings. there is actually an academic conscious whereby they conclude that we are all born with sets of grammar in our brain and none of it is actually a coincidence. i think they call it universal grammar.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
fanaskin_sl said:
evolution is mostly a deductive process not additive.
Click to expand...
Dude, we've cheated evolution several times over.
The weakest of us are no longer guaranteed to be weeded out of the gene pool, especially since the ways we conventionally achieve success have little to nothing to do with our physical composition.
We accommodate for the handicapped and the frail, we keep the elderly and alive as long as possible. We don't have to fight anyone to ensure that our genes will survive, we just have to make sure we can make enough money.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,007
138,746
Tanoomba_sl said:
Dude, we've cheated evolution several times over.
The weakest of us are no longer guaranteed to be weeded out of the gene pool, especially since the ways we conventionally achieve success have little to nothing to do with our physical composition.
We accommodate for the handicapped and the frail, we keep the elderly and alive as long as possible. We don't have to fight anyone to ensure that our genes will survive, we just have to make sure we can make enough money.
Click to expand...
OK and that's why we strive for a just society, because we can meet those needs, however the tendencies remain, and will remain and ignoring them is insane.

also please answer if it's purely based on "lack of access to needs" why do the richest and most powerful people commit the worst atrocities?
 
Famm

Famm

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
11,041
794
Tanoomba_sl said:
Dude, we've cheated evolution several times over.
The weakest of us are no longer guaranteed to be weeded out of the gene pool, especially since the ways we conventionally achieve success have little to nothing to do with our physical composition.
We accommodate for the handicapped and the frail, we keep the elderly and alive as long as possible. We don't have to fight anyone to ensure that our genes will survive, we just have to make sure we can make enough money.
Click to expand...
http://evolution.about.com/od/Natura...-Selection.htm

Although Charles Darwin did use this phrase in a revised edition of his book On the Origin of Species, it was not intended to create confusion. In Darwin's writings, he intended for the word "fittest" to mean those who were most suited to their immediate environment. However, in the modern use of language, "fittest" often means strongest or in best physical condition. This is not necessarily how it works in the natural world when describing natural selection. In fact, the "fittest" individual may actually be much weaker or smaller than others in the population. If the environment favored smaller and weaker individuals, then they would be considered more fit than their stronger and larger counterparts.
Click to expand...
http://www.materials-talks.com/blog/...test%E2%80%9D/

In addition to its origins, the term 'Survival of the fittest' is also widely misrepresented in popular literature. It does not, as many assume, simply refer to the physical prowess of a species. In fact, the classic business term 'fit for purpose' is far more precise. In nature, brain development is as important as brawn and the ability to adapt quickly following environmental change can make that critical difference between survival and extinction - just ask those dinosaurs!
Click to expand...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...ptions_faq.php
 
You must log in or register to reply here.