Not really a counter argument, because it presumes that there has been no human based change to the climate. Human based change to the climate has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I know people love to quote the 3% of scientists that believe there is either not enough information or that the other 97% are involved in a secret global conspiracy to make people believe in climate change, but lets be realistic. If you went to a doctor and he said there is a 97% likelihood that you will die if you do not change your lifestyle, would you be willing to bet on the 3%?

When you have people that have devoted their lives to studying a branch of science getting choked up with emotion at the likelihood that we will have a catastrophic incident in the next few decades, should you ignore them or try to come up with reasons why they might have a statistical gap of 3% of being wrong?

You can't get 100% of people to agree on anything, it's impossible simply due to human nature. But if you have a scientific result that is within a -3 percent of certainty, it's illogical to prevaricate.

it's funny perhaps because when you're young those little moments, glimpses of infidelity seem so much bigger, more dramatic than the actual impact it has on your life before adulthood. It feels almost like mock passion; how one thinks one should respond. But it is a pure and naive response; romantic and tragic.

Also, honest and hurt and emboldened to make a video to send as a form of retribution. Yet what retribution did she really have? She threw a bracelet which she only momentarily cherished into a riverbed, as if it were the wedding ring worn for thirty years, now tarnished by her husband's revealed secrets.

It's funny because of it's contrast with our adult experiences and understanding, having experienced or known of this early form of love betrayal in our youth, we are now mature and knowing of human nature, but now reminded in an amusing way because of what she doesn't know yet that we know: irony.

Perhaps a scandal to all of her 12 year old classmates, to some it is frivolous and others an amusement. Something to acknowledge and also chuckle at, but also to admire in her self worth and conquering spirit. It's beautiful, I think. I'm with eric on this: you go girl! hahaha!

Slightly off-topic, but that's a pretty optimistic approach. Most of us wouldn't spend 10 euro to save the life of a faceless unknown person on another continent.

Some of us would do it, but only if we got personally thanked by that person.

It's not evil, it's just human nature that we care more about people to whom we have a closer connection.

Good morning, Worm, your Honour... the Crown will plainly show, the prisoner, who stands before you, was caught red-handed showing... feelings... showing feelings of an almost... human nature...

...this will not do.

Probably fake, but the technology is absolutely mature enough.

Self-driving cars are a solved problem. It's a matter of regulation, not research at this point.

In fact, once they reach critical mass, the problem actually becomes a lot easier from a technological standpoint. If all the cars on the road are AI, their behaviour becomes much more predictable, and a highway full of self-driving cars could easily communicate with each other, allowing increased traffic flow and reducing accidents.

Think about a simple scenario right now. You're driving in the fast lane on a multilane highway and your exit is coming up in a km or two. You need to cross 3 lanes, so you indicate and wait for a safe gap. You're completely dependent on the drivers in the other lane to let you in. But human nature being what it is, they might not want to let you in. Even if the first lane lets you through, the outer lanes have no idea what you want until they see you, so you have to repeat this manoeuvre a few times.

But with a highway of self-driving cars? Your car broadcasts its intentions on a localised network, and the other cars create a gap all the way to the exit. You move through and traffic resumes.

"...world view allows for the human nature of some people being good, some people being turd-nuggets, and allowing them to make their own decisions, and the invisible hand of market forces to mitigate the damage..."

Is this just his description? Or a generally agreed upon one by folks with his political viewpoint?

I'm prejudice but that's because its human nature. I find black women disgusting ugly. But that's just me, I can't see them any other way. Its ugly. I don't like dark tanned women either.

Moron political correctness sjw mongs need to quit labeling preference as racism. I personally find idea of 2 guys rutting gross, heck even Jim carrey puked in his movie after seeing it. Many find it gross, but that's just personal preference.

I won't tell others how to live, but I want to live my way and no sjw PC retard will get me to do otherwise.

Political correctness sjw, want to force everyone into collectivism. That is the sheep herd mentality, unable to think for yourself, everyone copies same morals and ethics and tolerates all.

That is not human

Individualism is human, individual choices, prejudices, morals, ethics and do not tolerate those that try to brainwash you into collectivism.

Even Morgan Freeman recently stated humans are bigoted and must be so its our nature and has allowed our survival and evolution and progress. If we eliminate bigots and force collectivism human progress stops. Evolution ends, no more survival of the fittest, but Mike Judge's idiocracy comes true in a collective political correct society.

Political correct and sjw should be banned and instantly removed for being antihuman, anti freedom and anti individualist. Sjw and PC are true hate groups more lethal and crazier than any fundamental religion.

They are the real terrorists

I never said weak nations 'should' be invaded, but instead that they would, it's a distinct difference. I very much disagree with what human nature leads to more often than not, but I won't deny it is as it is. If a nation has anything valuable and isn't willing and able to fight to keep it, any nation that is willing and able to fight to take it will take it the moment they judge that the taking will gain them more than they lose fighting for it.

I think it is important also to note that the original fighting in 1948 was not Israel vs. Palestinians, but instead a civil war between Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians. It was a war over land and rights. It was a war both sides thought they could win. When the UN proposed a two state solution, the Jewish side declared it's independence and accepted the borders. The Arab side though gained the backing of every neighboring Arab state who all jointly committed to driving the Jews into the sea. This was in 1948, just after the holocaust, and each Arab country badly outnumbered the newly declared state of Israel. Israel none the less triumphed in the war. Some of it through straight up fighting, but most of it was simply agreement with the neighbouring states of Syria, Jordan and Egypt to simply not try and fight to protect large portions of Palestinian territory along their borders. As in, Syria, Jordan and Egypt happily seized and picked up portions of land for themselves at the expense of the Arab Palestinians too.

The relationship between Israel and it's neighbours is layered beyond belief. I still stand by the observation that they absolutely do face a life/death decision in maintaining military superiority. They must walk the line of having enough ability and will to fight to make it simply not worthwhile for it's enemies and neighbours to try and attack it. To suggest or claim otherwise is simply absurd and in contradiction to all of human history.

Not the wording: the definition. Exploit does not mean hate, and at no point was I defending misogyny or abuse or hatred of anyone. But this odd definition of exploitation of women being re-labeled as 'hatred' has always struck me as an awkward manipulation of reality. To me, it's akin to redefining being punched in the face as 'rape'. Both things are terrible, but repurposing a worse word to apply to a lesser one is over-exaggerating the situation only to draw attention to the crime.

As for exploiting people, that's just getting into a Freudian psycho-analysis, the nuances of which could honestly make everyone guilty of exploitation just by human nature. But we should bypass that because the subject isn't applicable and is wide and deep enough to spawn a hundred websites just dedicated to just that topic alone, and no one in this tier of human evolution will ever find a conclusion to that conversation.

But this is something different. This is an intentional action to belittle others for the sake of social or personal insecurity. I am entirely against that, but I have to draw the line at blowing things out of proportion for the sake of drawing attention to the issue, especially when it's done on a culturally-wide level, because that makes all of us collectively dumber in the end. I demand progress through honesty.

And some boys would do the slap. You only saw the ones who didn't.

Human nature. This isn't a gender thing -- except to the extent that that poor young girl was subjected to this whole thing. At least four times.

Yuck yuck and double yuck.

It's a demonstration of human nature, really. That's exactly how human men are genetically encoded to treat women.

I'd argue that our genetic encoding would make us treat women as resources and in a much more violent fashion too.

I think the "don't hit a girl" attitude is a construct of our societal/cultural nature and it's an attempt to civilise the animal instinct to "take a mate" without regard to the females wishes at all.

I would imagine that over a long period of time, this was an important first step. Yes, it's still misogynistic, but I'm guessing it's preferable to simply fighting over females and then mating with them.

But you'd hope that we'd have moved past that by now.

Otherwise, you're just an animal that happens to walk upright.

It would be nice if we were animals that had learned how to think as well, but I fear Terry Pratchett got it right with this quote:

The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens ('wise man'). In any case it's an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.

I had that same reaction. I felt odd the entire time that she's just standing there like a slab of beef for them to look at and touch. "Look at this thing we brought out for you. Do you like it? Do you want to touch it? Oh, by the way, it happens to be a person, so treat it like a fragile little thing that you might break please."

It's a demonstration of human nature, really. That's exactly how human men are genetically encoded to treat women. But I am preferential to cultures and humans that seek to elevate human behavior beyond blindly or happily submitting to every animal instinct/impulse that oozes out of the brain.

Otherwise, you're just an animal that happens to walk upright.

@enoch,

I'm afraid you are the one misunderstanding. Hijacking and redefining anarchy to mean support for essentially a different flavour of grassroots democracy isn't clever or insightful. It's an abuse of the language. That is merely a semantic complaint though. The deeper problem is that it's an effort to build an argument atop a contradiction. Namely, anarchy with some form of overall governing structure. Starting from such a contradiction allows you defend or tie anything and everything back to your core statement. That's why I declared it intellectually dishonest.

You advocate your position as 'anarchy' but then proceed to describe a government of the people, by the people and for the people. You've described democracy, not anarchy. You advocate absolute freedom of the people from the tyranny of rulers. You declare no more wars of aggression, but who's rule is that except your own? I'm afraid that history shows that a large portion of your free people will most assuredly gather together and agree on waging a war of aggression, and the only stricture holding that back is the rule made by the ruler against it, in this case the ruler being yourself.

In short anarchy only fares as well as human nature can be trusted, which is not far at all. Redefining it as democracy light isn't honest, it's just rejecting the burden of defending the specific changes and improvements one would propose. It's an ancient trick used endlessly throughout history and one I refuse to accept.

But seriously, it has to suck to feel like a piece of zebra meat walking through a lion's den all the time.

It's obviously a cultural thing that makes that behavior acceptable. It's human nature for men to have obscene thoughts about what looks to them like a hot piece of ass, but it's an unspoken agreement among "those people" that it's okay to actually act on those thoughts.

My wife has often been the target of strangers' attention, but I think neither she nor I would consider it harassment per se, though she has many times felt uncomfortable, ignored people, and tried to get away from them.

War & Human Nature: Crash Course World History 204 has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

The Cold War: Crash Course World History has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

Crash Course: World War II has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

Crash Course: World War I has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.