5 ms·

It's sad af, but it's human nature. Same shit why we can't trust our grandparents to handle their own money when they get older. Some slimey fuck out there is w

It's sad af, but it's human nature. Same shit why we can't trust our grandparents to handle their own money when they get older. Some slimey fuck out there is willing to put them in a poor grave to make a buck. At this point I just hope the natives eventually make it into the modern world better. Pretty much all there is to do :/

ordu 7y ago
> It's sad af, but it's human nature. Not it is not a nature, it is nurture. One shouldn't use appellation to a nature in such a matters. Compare: rape is bad, but the sad thing it is in a male nature, isn't it? No, rape is bad and intolerable. It doesn't matter what male nature is, because male is perfectly capable to curb his impulses. If some is not, they should use some kind of medication. It doesn't matter what the nature of human is, he is capable to be nice to natives, but he just do not want to, because profits are more desired.
- Itsdijital 7y ago
  Ehhh, unfortunately I don't think it is that clear cut. Otherwise you're left arguing that gays either made a choice to be gay or were raised to be gay.
  - adamsea 7y ago
    Don't think that's an apples-to-apples comparison.
  - ordu 7y ago
    Gays also have a choice. The difference is there is no reason for a society to force them to choose the one specific option. The choice belongs to gays, not to a society. When society thought that gays is bad for a society, it was definitely an equivalent example then. Now society is wiser and do not think that gays are bad for a society. So the analogy breaks now.
    - Itsdijital 7y ago
      Gays might have the choice not to live a gay lifestyle, but I don't think you will find any gay guys who would say they have the choice not to be attracted to men. Assuming you're a straight male, are you able to look at a beautiful woman and not feel any feelings of attraction? My point is that there are behaviors that definitely transcend "nurture". It's ridiculous to claim there aren't.
      - ordu 7y ago
        > Gays might have the choice not to live a gay lifestyle, but I don't think you will find any gay guys who would say they have the choice not to be attracted to men. It is not about to be attracted or not to be attracted. It is a choice between different kinds of behavior, not between different states of mind. It is bad to rob a bank. But it is neither bad nor good to be attracted by the money of the bank. There is neither bad nor good to be sexually attracted by a woman, but it is bad to rape her in any case. I feel attraction to a women regularly, but I'm not raping them. You know, there is an examples of sexual preferences that are forbidden. Pedophilia for example. But if pedophile keeps his preferences to himself, than it is ok, nothing wrong with it. We forbid pedophiles to follow their sexual desires, but we allow heterosexuals and homosexuals to follow theirs (while they respect legal constraints on an age of a partner). What the difference? Why we allow some people to follow their sexual preferences and forbid others to do so? Lets clarify: it is bad to forbid human from following his sexual desires. Not just because he would be unhappy, it is bad for his psychological well-being, it might have harmful long term effects for his mind. As Freud taught there is 8 (or 9?) kinds of psychological defense and only one of them isn't necessary harmful to a person -- sublimation. Which one of those will choose the mind of pedophile? But in some cases we forbid nevertheless despite of damages, why we think that it is ok? It is all about harm to individuals and to a society inflicted by following a desires. Gays are harmless, they are not saints of course, but they are not worse than a heterosexual. There is no reason to harm gays by a ban to a homosexual relationships. Such a ban would inflict damage for some without benefiting others. But pedophile could do a lot of harm to children, so we accept harming pedophiles to protect our children. We accept harming robbers of banks to protect banks. We accept harming rapers to protect women. We do not accept harming heterosexuals, because they do nothing specifically bad. We do not accept harming gays, because they do nothing specifically bad.
- thatoneuser 7y ago
  You aren't even making a counter argument, you're just being emotional. Yeah sorry to tell you - not everyone's going to be nice. If that were the case we wouldn't have to make laws to protect citizens from one another. I'm not condoning anything. You just want to beat your chest and act holier. You're the problem.
  - ordu 7y ago
    No, I'm not being emotional. The question of nature vs nurture from a moral standpoint is a very interesting question which I thought trough length and breadth many times. Therefore I see, that when people start to attribute psychological traits of people to a nature they do it mostly to justify genocide, segregation or something like. To attribute psychological trait to a nature is an emotional argument.
    - thatoneuser 7y ago
      Did you just finish your psych 101 course? Harvard prisoner experiment and whatnot? Because that's what you sound like. You have no depth to your idea you're just stating it and that it's right and taking what you think is the moral high ground. People are intrinsically competitive. If you think white people screwing natives was the first or only time this happened you should look into the history of the natives themselves. It's human nature - you can accept it or cover your ears, the choice is yours.

ordu 7y ago

> It's sad af, but it's human nature. Not it is not a nature, it is nurture. One shouldn't use appellation to a nature in such a matters. Compare: rape is bad, but the sad thing it is in a male nature, isn't it? No, rape is bad and intolerable. It doesn't matter what male nature is, because male is perfectly capable to curb his impulses. If some is not, they should use some kind of medication. It doesn't matter what the nature of human is, he is capable to be nice to natives, but he just do not want to, because profits are more desired.

Itsdijital 7y ago
Ehhh, unfortunately I don't think it is that clear cut. Otherwise you're left arguing that gays either made a choice to be gay or were raised to be gay.
- adamsea 7y ago
  Don't think that's an apples-to-apples comparison.
- ordu 7y ago
  Gays also have a choice. The difference is there is no reason for a society to force them to choose the one specific option. The choice belongs to gays, not to a society. When society thought that gays is bad for a society, it was definitely an equivalent example then. Now society is wiser and do not think that gays are bad for a society. So the analogy breaks now.
  - Itsdijital 7y ago
    Gays might have the choice not to live a gay lifestyle, but I don't think you will find any gay guys who would say they have the choice not to be attracted to men. Assuming you're a straight male, are you able to look at a beautiful woman and not feel any feelings of attraction? My point is that there are behaviors that definitely transcend "nurture". It's ridiculous to claim there aren't.
    - ordu 7y ago
      > Gays might have the choice not to live a gay lifestyle, but I don't think you will find any gay guys who would say they have the choice not to be attracted to men. It is not about to be attracted or not to be attracted. It is a choice between different kinds of behavior, not between different states of mind. It is bad to rob a bank. But it is neither bad nor good to be attracted by the money of the bank. There is neither bad nor good to be sexually attracted by a woman, but it is bad to rape her in any case. I feel attraction to a women regularly, but I'm not raping them. You know, there is an examples of sexual preferences that are forbidden. Pedophilia for example. But if pedophile keeps his preferences to himself, than it is ok, nothing wrong with it. We forbid pedophiles to follow their sexual desires, but we allow heterosexuals and homosexuals to follow theirs (while they respect legal constraints on an age of a partner). What the difference? Why we allow some people to follow their sexual preferences and forbid others to do so? Lets clarify: it is bad to forbid human from following his sexual desires. Not just because he would be unhappy, it is bad for his psychological well-being, it might have harmful long term effects for his mind. As Freud taught there is 8 (or 9?) kinds of psychological defense and only one of them isn't necessary harmful to a person -- sublimation. Which one of those will choose the mind of pedophile? But in some cases we forbid nevertheless despite of damages, why we think that it is ok? It is all about harm to individuals and to a society inflicted by following a desires. Gays are harmless, they are not saints of course, but they are not worse than a heterosexual. There is no reason to harm gays by a ban to a homosexual relationships. Such a ban would inflict damage for some without benefiting others. But pedophile could do a lot of harm to children, so we accept harming pedophiles to protect our children. We accept harming robbers of banks to protect banks. We accept harming rapers to protect women. We do not accept harming heterosexuals, because they do nothing specifically bad. We do not accept harming gays, because they do nothing specifically bad.
thatoneuser 7y ago
You aren't even making a counter argument, you're just being emotional. Yeah sorry to tell you - not everyone's going to be nice. If that were the case we wouldn't have to make laws to protect citizens from one another. I'm not condoning anything. You just want to beat your chest and act holier. You're the problem.
- ordu 7y ago
  No, I'm not being emotional. The question of nature vs nurture from a moral standpoint is a very interesting question which I thought trough length and breadth many times. Therefore I see, that when people start to attribute psychological traits of people to a nature they do it mostly to justify genocide, segregation or something like. To attribute psychological trait to a nature is an emotional argument.
  - thatoneuser 7y ago
    Did you just finish your psych 101 course? Harvard prisoner experiment and whatnot? Because that's what you sound like. You have no depth to your idea you're just stating it and that it's right and taking what you think is the moral high ground. People are intrinsically competitive. If you think white people screwing natives was the first or only time this happened you should look into the history of the natives themselves. It's human nature - you can accept it or cover your ears, the choice is yours.