>People are bad because . . . because they just ARE, okay???
What a fricking dumbass. Imagine having no knowledge whatsoever of basic sociological/economic concepts.
>People are bad because .
>People are bad because . . . because they just ARE, okay???
What a fricking dumbass. Imagine having no knowledge whatsoever of basic sociological/economic concepts.
> Imagine having no knowledge whatsoever of basic sociological/economic concepts.
That's just a library of excuses. Nature is nature.
>Nature is nature
This is a meaningless statement. What does that even mean? Animals hunt . . . to eat. People steal . . . because they can't afford food . . .. because they're poor . . . because capital is a manmade enterprise. Take your 50IQ slogans somewhere else, moron.
>Animals hunt . . . to eat
That's not always true though. What sociological/economic concept explain the different intelligence levels of dog breeds?
Sorry, do you have another reason as to why carnivorous animals hunt? Absolute fricking moron. And what does dog intelligence have to do with anything discussed thus far? The state of this board. . .
Someone's triggered by facts. Yikes.
> as to why carnivorous animals hunt
Sport, you think a cat eats every single thing it kills?
Not that guy, but yes. Cat's eat everything they hunt. If not immediately, then later. That's why they line them up somewhere to come back to.
Disagree
>Cats are natural carnivores and their wild ancestors are expert solitary hunters that will prey on a range of animals including small rodents, birds and insects. Cats have been domesticated, but they retain many behaviours of their wild ancestors including those associated with hunting and feeding.
Facts will never care about your feelings, okay?
>It’s easy for cat owners to assume their cats hunt because they’re hungry, but this is usually not the case. In fact, one study found domestic cats only eat 30 percent of prey killed. If cats relied on their own catches to sustain them, they would have to catch around 10 to 20 animals per day.
>That’s a tall order, especially when you consider that, on average, cat hunting attempts are successful less than 50 percent of the time. Therefore, for cats being fed by humans, hunting is more of an activity they engage in when the opportunity presents itself, rather than one of necessity.
You’ve never had a cat then, I take it. My barn cats kill birds all summer long, probably hundreds by now, and never eat a single one.
They do not eat everything they hunt. They kill far more than they eat because they enjoy killing. You didn't even look it up before posting such bullshit did you? A bunch of dead songbirds outside my house show me that they don't eat everything. I hate arrogant fricks like you that just assume they know how the world works because the bullshit in their head fits in their childish little bubble.
Black person did you just say YIKES like SOME homosexual, KYS do it now. Run head first as fast as you can into the corner of a wall, Jump in front of a bus, punch your self in the nose so hard that bone fragments shoot up into your brain. Really its that simple and easy you don't even need to think about it kys now and do it fast
kys sheltered homosexual
>People steal . . .
>because they can't afford food . . ..
>because they're poor . . .
>because capital is a manmade enterprise
or
>because they're kleptomaniacs
How is that explained? Perhaps the same way someone could have an impulse to steal, others may have an impulse to commit violence. Perhaps that lack of impulse control is more common among certain populations of humans
This is the only half-way reasonable answer. Except these mental illnesses tend to be fringe in any given population, so the conclusion that human NATURE is at fault here is an erroneous one. Only that our cognitive wiring can on the off-chance produce mutations/mistakes. that's not enough to write off the entire species.
>Except these mental illnesses tend to be fringe in any given population, so the conclusion that human NATURE is at fault here is an erroneous one
That's why I only mentioned mental illness as it pertains to disproving your point that people only commit acts out of pure necessity. Do you think all breed of dogs have the same level of intelligence? Do you think all races of human have the same level of intelligence?
>Do you think all races of human have the same level of intelligence?
So the reason you're an irredeemable moron is because you're using a man-made concept (race) to make essentialist statements about 'intelligence' (a metric in itself measured by VERY faulty and contentious apparatuses). Intelligence is the same across our species. Stay mad.
>breeds exist but race is a heckin myth
hm
>Intelligence is the same across our species
Uh oh, we have an anti-science SCIENCE(tm) believer here
>Groups of humans that are culturally labeled as “races” differ in population structure, genotype–phenotype relationships, and phenotypic diversity from breeds of dogs in unsurprising ways, given how artificial selection has shaped the evolution of dogs, not humans.
Not only are you the anti-science virgin here, you're also probably the stupidest. Yikes.
>here's a 10,000 page book on why breeds exist but races don't
Sorry, reality is reality. People are different and you have to be blinded by years of modern academic indoctrination to be able to not see what's right in front of your eyes. You probably think men can be women
/misc/ is the other way, moron. I don't have time to address all your cognitive dissonances.
>breeds exist but races don't
>men can be women
>war is peace
>freedom is slavery
You're stupid point has been answered and refuted. Remember, the facts DO NOT care about your feelings.
>>
>breeds exist but race doesn't
The reason why OP is so flustered is because his worldview is fundamentally broken
One more quote for you, just to make sure you're well and truly seething kek.
>Race, as it is now generally accepted by scientists, is not a biological reality but rather reflects the cultural and social underpinnings originally used to justify slavery and that live on in a myriad of ways. Instead of race, geneticists now prefer the term genetic ancestry.
Oh no no no. YOUR worldview has been broken. You got too wienery thinking race was real lmfao.
brooo, my bodies melanin production was totally started by slavery!!!! it had nothing to do with my environment across 150,000 years, and was totally the result of capitalism!!!!!
>Races" are not usually recognized as biologically valid entities. This is due to a number of factors. The most important is probably based on a paper by R.C. Lewontin (1972) arguing that genetic diversity within human groups is greater than that between groups; consequently, human "races" are not biologically meaningful. However, see Edwards (2003), summarized here, for an opposing view. The second is the observation that, among the "races", Africans have a much higher level of genetic diversity than the other races combined. If there were meaningful human "races", most of them would be African.
" are not usually recognized as biologically valid entities
Modern academia is anti-reality
No, you're just incapable of adjusting to reality. That's why you're sexless too, funnily enough.
Men much smarter than you from a time much more open to acknowledging the real world around them, disagree
Holy kek, are these the idols rightoids are worshipping these days? How sad. THey've been relegated to the dustbin of history.
I know the truth hurts
>but rather reflects the cultural and social underpinnings originally used to justify slavery
>white people were never slaves stop talking about it
>pay reparations
Yea there is really no point in arguing with someone who genuinely believes all humans are the same
Could you please stop arguing in bad faith like a mentally ill twitter troony ?
>The most important is probably based on a paper by R.C. Lewontin (1972) arguing that genetic diversity within human groups is greater than that between groups; consequently, human "races" are not biologically meaningful.
There are people moronic enough to actually believe this logical fallacy.
>There are vast differences between individual dogs
>Therefore, dogs as a species doesn't exist!
What a load of shit. Paper explaining the fallacy in case you're too smoothbrained to get it.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12879450/
Bait or genuinely cognitively impaired beyond anything from nature or man-made.
>Animals hunt . . . to eat
Categorically wrong
but the titular crime in the novel is murder, not theft
Kind of falls down when people aren't stealing food to eat. Why does being poor mean you have to rape someone, or play the knock out game on an old person, or steal a car and set fire to it(the local kids round my way like to do this)?
And of course not all crime is committed by poor people.
Humanism is a mental illness frfr.
>All problems in the world are simple cause and effect
Explain trolling then. It amazes me how someone can post on a mongolian fable forum and not realize that people are fricking dicks who do evil shit for no reason sometimes.
Elephants commit murder
>Criminal psychopaths who kill for fun are doing that out of necessity.
This is your brain on Darwinism. Everything is bound up in a battle royal teleology of kill or be killed, existence for the sake of continued existence and for no other reason. It's fundamentally flawed, which is exactly why Dostoyevsky is so great. He deconstructs secular philosophy without ever directly attacking it.
What if I want more than the commune is willing to offer?
> People steal . . . because they can't afford food . . .. because they're poor
This is literally critiqued in the book. Did you even read it?
no it isn't. Provide evidence now.
>Animals hunt . . . to eat
cats will literally hunt bird species to extinction for the sole purpose of their own amusement
How the frick was that the message you took from Crime and Punishment? It's literally about sympathizing with a murderer and seeing his human soul come back from the dead even after all of the evil its contended with. If anything, the message would the exact opposite of "all people are le evil!!!1!"
I think there are three entire twenty page sections where Raskolnikov monologues and explains the meaning of his actions and hence the theme and purpose of the book, which is:
Hegel's concept of the historical hero and how most men simply cannot handle the burden of it. Whether that be due to the fact they lack the spirit, can't conceptualize higher action, can't put aside law, or, can't ascend past morality and the heavy consequences of their actions as they ascend to hero status.
How the frick did you get this from the literal hamfisted (though well written and meaningful) passages?
sometimes i think even a mushroom would have more understanding than some plastic reddit people. Some kind of absolute cut off from any sense of metaphysics. And at the same time any lack of modesty. I read SCIENCE articles and a couple of books I understood everything about the subject. Dostoevsky simply lacked basic knowledge of sociological/economic concepts. He should have followed this thread on twitter so he wouldn't have to mess up the paper.
It’s overhyped garbage.
People ARE bad. Sometimes. They're also good. Sometimes. People are amoral. They simply choose what they believe to be the best strategy that is available to them. Whether that is a pro-social, pro-cooperation (good) strategy, or an anti-social, anti-cooperation (bad) strategy depends on the circumstances.
In other words, human behavior can be adequately explained by game theory.