Depressing how accurate this is
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
It’s not an instinctive drive toward the abstract concept “undermine this society” - if you dropped them in a society that had porn and hedonism and self-hatred … but somehow was a successful society, I don’t think they’d be trying to infiltrate institutions and outlaw porn and push temperance. I don’t think they’d do that just to be contrarian; just to “undermine” the society.
But that’s a very contrived example. In reality such a society wouldn’t be successful. There’d be nothing to undermine.
What I believe they do have an instinctive drive toward, is what we commonly call “degeneracy” - I think they do just seem to enjoy sick stuff. Their artists write stories about destruction and violation and shit and piss and beautiful things being torn down. That’s their instinct, in my opinion. And it’s just a coincidence that it destroys white civilizations.
Well not quite a coincidence. It is likely an evolutionary adaptation that fosters in-group solidarity. If they lived in white societies and liked whites, they wouldn’t practice as much nepotism, and that would harm their kin. So instead, they act the way they act, and it’s a bond between them so they stick together. Kin selection.
That's called a pattern, but you haven't said anything other than your opinion about why it's innate rather than learned.
You're also completely wrong about it destroying only "white" societies. How many times have they been kicked out? Like 200+?
Well the default hypothesis, whenever we notice any pattern of behavior with an animal, is that the behavior is innate. This is because all animals have genes ...but not all of them have culture.
So for example, if I tell you I'm observing an animal, and I've noticed that it often eats meat, the default hypothesis is that eating meat is coded into its genes. If you want to argue, "no actually, there are no genes for 'eating meat' - that's a learned behavior" then you get to present that argument.
That applies to all behavior, not just the example I gave of eating meat.
Yeah, that's true. They do bullshit like this to non-white countries, and it'll destroy any white or asian country.
But if they did that to, for example, Pakistan, it wouldn't destroy Pakistan, it would actually improve it.
They're human beings, not mere animals. All human beings are a mix of nature and nurture, so your assertion is just false.
Moreover, if you see a cat barking like a dog, the logical assumption is that it was raised with dogs and not that it has barking genetics.
As for what would improve Pakistan, I doubt anything that the Zionists would do to undermine it would have any improvements. Even if they did support importing Japanese people, it would be exclusively criminals or something.
This is the logical fallacy known as “special pleading.” My assertion is true. The default assumption is nature. It’s totally fine if you want to present an argument that a particular behavior is nurture, but that ball is in your court.
That’s logical … but notice, that cat is breaking the pattern - it’s an exception
Above, we were talking about patterns. And now you’re raising an exception.
Furthermore, when you find a cat barking you should not merely assert that it must be nurture. What you should do is start with the assumption that it’s nature, and then disprove that by, for example, finding out if the behavior is only exhibited by cats raised by dogs.
My position here is logical and has survived several challenges. I hope you can admit that.
We agree that Jews (indeed, all races) have certain behavioral tendencies. The default explanation is their relatedness to each other (genes/nature). If you believe otherwise that’s totally fine. But you need to present an argument (show that some of them are raised by dogs who bark, and that the behavior only manifests in those).
If you make another reply where, instead of presenting such an argument, you continue to claim that my position (that nature is the default explanation) is not true (and that therefore you are allowed to assert that the explanation is nurture without an accompanying argument) then I’ll have to assume you have no such argument