Moderation Questions

I don’t share your fatalism or nihilism.

If the climate had a voice it might have something to say to you about that. Instead, all it can do is throw increasingly violent protests at you while you and your extremist ilk look the other way.

There's nothing fatalistic or nihilistic about making an objective observation about how human nature works. It only becomes fatalistic or nihilistic to you because that's not how you want it to work.

Also, there's nothing inherently leftist about wanting to do something about anthropogenic climate change, despite Luciom's assertions to the contrary.

Now that sounds like me. Well done!

Nonetheless the argument based on the 'left ignores human nature' is bogus. Soem do but no more than some on the right do or some in the middle do.

Oh well, that settles it then. Thanks for taking the time to deign to resolve this for us.

Human nature isn’t something as fixed as you seem to think it is. If you had any experience of people in different societies apart from shitholes like Russia, the Us and the UK you would know that.

Just a pointer mate.

It's not even the case that those claiming superiority have some better grasp of human nature

Until you've holidayed in North Korea or Maoist China, you haven't really seen the world.

Stupid post displaying the predicted ignorance.

Ah, the good ole "Capitalism = Nazi Germany", good one.

The quality of my responses generally tends to mimic the quality of their prompts.

parodying your left wng = N Korea

well done for now realising it is nonsense

C'mon now you're just directly stealing my material

Ok, so where is it I need to go in the world to witness the magical efficacy of leftism first hand?

Chez, you don't have any "material". You have a budget, not a bankroll.

I know about history and pre-history and it looks quite fixed.

Neolithic farmers routinely genocided other tribes thousands of years ago to take their land (and women).

The foundational myth about Rome is based, among other things, on the mass kidnapping of women from a neighboring tribe.

China had to fend off invaders who wanted to take chinese stuff for centuries, after it fought a genocidal bloody battle domestically which ended in unification.

It's always, everywhere, about greed. And because in many cases it's easier to take what someone else has than to make it yourself, it's always and everywhere about violence used to attempt to steal stuff and women from other human groups.

We are a genocidal, ultra-violent species. With immense capacity to coordinate in-group, all while fighting numerous 0 or negative sum games among ourselves for dominance, because dominance translates into more and better partners and more and better children that survive more often, so that's what nature selected us for across the millennia.

Everyone alive today has a long list of genocidal, murderous rapists among his male ancestor bloodline, because those were the people who sired more children and had the resources to let them reach adulthood.

It's ok d2, you aren't really to blame for being propagandised by some of the worst regimes in the world, or for being born too incurious to see beyond that.

d2, You are allowed to think. Use your great understanding of human nature as a startign point

Personally I'd recommend not taking a line that would have you arguing that the roman empire was the only way to do it.

at least that's not my material this time.

Care to list countries that didn't use widespread violence to become dominant in their area and/or to acquire more resources from neighbors, that didn't cease to exist very quickly? You can go back a lot in time looking for them if you want

lol countries