Of course it is. A claim of a universal can be disproven with even one counterexample. If it's 'inherent' to their being, then it should apply to every single one.
Well then, you're pretty crazy. I'm pretty sure that Clarence Thomas doesn't have daily struggles about whether or not to smash the Supreme Court to bits because he really is a wild animal at heart.
Everywhere Africans exist in any meaningful amount turns to shit very quickly.
Now that's interesting. So they do not when there is not a 'meaningful amount' of them. Why? If it's in their nature to be wild animals, why would the environment make such a difference. If I buy a house for a lion and a lioness, will they suddenly behave themselves?
Of course it is. A claim of a universal can be disproven with even one counterexample. If it's 'inherent' to their being, then it should apply to every single one.
Otherwise, it's not inherent.
So it is inherent after all? And Clarence Thomas is just a wild animal who overcame his nature through willpower and unusual circumstances?
Next question. Can you show me how you determined that this is 'inherent'?
Well then, you're pretty crazy. I'm pretty sure that Clarence Thomas doesn't have daily struggles about whether or not to smash the Supreme Court to bits because he really is a wild animal at heart.
Now that's interesting. So they do not when there is not a 'meaningful amount' of them. Why? If it's in their nature to be wild animals, why would the environment make such a difference. If I buy a house for a lion and a lioness, will they suddenly behave themselves?