[FiveofSwords]

This doesn't make sense, though you have managed to put "domestication" and "survival" into a sentence.


Not only does the domestication-created dog create nothing of valuable to other species, but it has lost its ability to survive through the domestication process. Instead, it has been bred to "depend on" a host.

If humanity does (or perhaps already has done) the same thing to itself, our extinction clock is ticking...

Well domestication was just a beneficial adaptation to circumstance just like all adaptations are. It is not different in essence to finches evolving different beak shapes depending on which nuts they consume.

You could say that if humans ceased to exist then domestication would no longer be useful...but that is always the case. Any radical change in the environment is going to be difficult for any life form and require adaptations. Domestication is nothing special in that sense.

[Pants-of-dog]

We were once wild before wheat and other grains domesticated us.

[QatzelOk]

Well domestication was just a beneficial adaptation to circumstance ...

Yes. It's an adaptation to socially-constructed circumstances.

Survival, according to Darwin, would adapt to natural conditions rather than the arbitrary socially-constructed ones.

Thus, our discussion has revealed mankind's fatal mistakeTM that Darwin noticed and noted for us.

Mankind has been in denial ever since.
Extinction-triggering denial.

[FiveofSwords]

Yes. It's an adaptation to socially-constructed circumstances.

Survival, according to Darwin, would adapt to natural conditions rather than the arbitrary socially-constructed ones.

Thus, our discussion has revealed mankind's fatal mistakeTM that Darwin noticed and noted for us.

Mankind has been in denial ever since.
Extinction-triggering denial.

I don't really think there is a fundamental difference between 'socially constructed' circumstances and other kinds of circumstances. Just like predators wouldn't exist if their prey didn't exist, I suppose that animals who built a dependence on humans exist in the same sort of way. What distinction do you make and why?

[SpecialOlympian]

Glad you are so empathetic and self-critical and have all the right answers. What could go wrong?

How was my take empathetic? I was specifically insulting you, and therefore taking on the role of the cruel father forcing you to grow up.

Your idea of politics is, "All politicians want to be my mommy or my daddy. One ignores or punishes me, the other coddles me."

You are reducing all politics to traditionally feminine and masculine roles in parenting. Which, again, is reductive and stupid.

How can you fault me for stepping in as a stern father figure? I am simply engaging in politics in a way that you refuse to because you insist on being a child who must be governed. Bow before your daddy.

I'm not your step father. I'm the man who stepped up.

[QatzelOk]

I don't really think there is a fundamental difference between 'socially constructed' circumstances and other kinds of circumstances...

Let me give you an example that explains this important difference.

Under Darwin's survial rules, animals that let nature kill them with diseases... will eventually evolve away from these diseases.

Under social construction, diseases are fought with chemicals and surgeries... that require impoverishing other people in order to keep biologically-weak people alive and plentiful.

Driving the biggest and fanciest car (SUV) is depicted as *strong* and yet it makes our entire species (and many others) weak to the point that we might go extinct.

And yet, if you look at the ads (social construction happening live)... the actors look healthy and survival-oriented. Which they are not. And the social-construction is a lie... like all social-construction.

Try surviving by buying a boardgame called "Survivor." Can this game help you?

No it can't because it's a socially-constructed object meant to take your money.

Just like predators wouldn't exist if their prey didn't exist, I suppose that animals who built a dependence on humans exist in the same sort of way. What distinction do you make and why?

My prey exists (meat) and yet I'm a vegetarian. Why am I able to survive?

A billion meat-eaters - all thinking they are survival-oriented - have created a level of pollution (from the meat industry) that might end human life because of its scale.

There is no such thing as "prey." This is another social construct.

[Unthinking Majority]

How was my take empathetic? I was specifically insulting you, and therefore taking on the role of the cruel father forcing you to grow up.

Your idea of politics is, "All politicians want to be my mommy or my daddy. One ignores or punishes me, the other coddles me."

You are reducing all politics to traditionally feminine and masculine roles in parenting. Which, again, is reductive and stupid.

How can you fault me for stepping in as a stern father figure? I am simply engaging in politics in a way that you refuse to because you insist on being a child who must be governed. Bow before your daddy.

I'm not your step father. I'm the man who stepped up.

You weren't empathetic, I was being sarcastic and clearly insulting you.

You have not quite framed correctly and are making overgeneralized claims about my idea. But yes, some people, especially on the left, want to be taken care of by the state and want the state to take care of others they see as weaker. In the former, they are behaving like dependents (children), in the latter they are behaving like like a feminized mothering figure. I think there are some flaws in the the former, and nothing particularly wrong with the latter, as long as it focuses on helping people who truly need it and doesn't incentivize unnecessary longterm dependence.

If you want to act like a misbehaving child throwing insults and tantrums when you disagree with someone just because they aren't thinking exactly how you want them to think then I'm also willing to step in as the strong masculine parental figure you clearly didn't have growing up and continue disciplining your bratty behaviour until you start acting like a mature adult. I'll let you know when your social reconditioning is complete.

[SpecialOlympian]

Your insistence on referring to government as either being a coddling maternal figure or a neglective, but secretly hoping you succeed, paternal figure is moronic and reductive. You are literally eating up slop from idiots like Bill Maher who explain politics in the dumbest way possible so they can read low rent podcast ads for Casper Mattresses.

Tell me if this is maternal or paternal: it is illegal for your employer to not provide easy egress from your place of work in case of a fire. We have this law on the books because once upon a time a factory owner didn't want his employees sneaking off for breaks, so he locked the exits.

Is the idea of a business owner being obligated to have fire alarms or fire exits a loving, maternal regulation? Or is it a strong and stern paternal regulation, where government wants business owners to man up and do things right?

Do you see how this is a stupid and arbitrary binary that does not help you approach anything in a meaningful way? Were the fire exits put there by our loving governmental mommy, or did stern strong daddy come in and tell our boss he'll take them behind the shed if there's no fire alarms? I can frame this either way, because it's fucking meaningless.