/lit/ - Literature

>>17245574
>very simple evolutionary "logic"

This is the most problematic aspect of your argument. Natural selection is obsolete in humans, you're taking the logic of a system which no longer applies. We no longer exist in nature, we live in civilization, and attempting to justify your actions using barbaric rudimentary processing of guess-and-check that is natural selection is itself illogical.

Humans abandoned natural selection 4,000 years ago with the advent of animal husbandry. We have surpassed the point where natural selection has any value, there are very few checks for validity (living disabled people/fat people/those who don't survive in the wild), and the fact that the inadequate are not culled means that natural selection no longer functions. Reproduction without culling the invalid is the definition of a cancer.

Defending "natural selection" in modern society is defending that which is logically a cancer due to the fact that there is no selection. There is no "survival of the fittest" there is simply survival of that which is willing to reproduce without any semblance of quality control. This is the logic that defines a cancer, and according to prevailing opinion, cancer is generally seen as bad because it is defined by a dereliction of quality which induces death due to the inability of that which has reproduced without quality control to perform the actions which it must do in order to survive. This is not a viable or functional reproductive model.

The modern human reproductive model is scientifically cancer, and this remains true despite the fact that in every other domesticated animal the use of animal husbandry and selective breeding has produced cultivars of each animal which produce immensely improved yield and value when compared to the wild counterparts.

We have proven that we have the capacity to reproduce animals in a manner which reliably increases quality to a profound and unprecedented degree, but instead of using this scientifically proven system which has been the cornerstone of human civilization by enabling agriculture, we instead preach the value of the modern reproductive system which is defined by the same logic that defines malignant tumors and terminal cancers. That's the logic you're preaching. That's the logic of "have sex", it is literally "be cancer".

That's the tragedy of human reality, that's the tragedy of these vestigal instincts that cause you to reproduce like savages. That's the tragedy of these maladaptive instincts of self-preservation which prevent you from applying to your own species the science which is proven by 4,000 years of success and the entirety of human civilization.

Can you understand the folly? Can you understand that these things are problematic?

>as a dog-fucker projecting his sexual proclivities

Dogs are produced by artificial selection to produce the most attractive dogs. Humans are produced by cancer. Which do you think has higher quality aesthetic on average?

>>16906798
It is futile to attempt to gain the ultimate prize. There is no winning possible at this point, at least without modifying my approach substantially, at which point if I become a real threat to the status quo I am killed. I don't enjoy appealing to the everyman because I'm not good at it. The truth is not appealing because it is cruel and harmful, it is bitter.

The truth is what causes small children's bones and organs to be crushed when they are run over by cars. Clearly the everyman is not going to be fond of the truth. The World Controllers are attuned to the minds of the peasants and understand how to play that fiddle to get the peasants to dance to the master's tune. This is an art developed through hundreds of years of studying the craft of propaganda, and something I am not particularly educated in.

My methods are the childish schoolbook method of "Speak the truth, expect results." which is powerless when the everyman cannot understand the truth, and even if he could, he would be so psychologically, instinctively, ethically, and morally disgusted by the truth that he would condemn the truth as evil and run away from it, much as is seen today in the post-truth idealistic world.

That being said, while I cannot win, I can enjoy myself, I can attempt to win, despite the futility. It does not cost me much money to make these arguments online, and that is my entertainment. It may be as petty as the peasants shouting at the football game, telling the quarterback what to do, but I do it for the same reasons that they do it. It's instinct to try and correct error when you see it, so it's an act of desperation and an almost involuntary reaction to my powerlessness, the mentally ill man writhing, attempting to escape the straight-jacket, despite the inherent futility in his actions.

All people are largely fueled by delusions, and in my case I seek to stir the shit enough to where something happens. I may not be able to bring forward progress to the world, but I can at least hope for some small prize form playing these scratch-off tickets of shitposting. Hoping for a small win, gambling for fun, that's what my life is reduced to. Maybe some sort of silly bullshit which lets me know my words were not entirely pointless.

Intelligence makes people understand the dangers of their actions, and this makes them reluctant to do anything. The intelligent are naturally so concious of danger that they are unwilling to make physical action necessary to accomplish anything, thus the heavy reliance upon being able to convey ideas unto peasants, who with less intelligence have much less inhibition and are far more willing to act upon that which they have been told.

The computer has effectively segregated the intelligent, who are drawn to words and lack of danger and other low-risk low-reward situations offered by this medium, and thus have no physical contact from which to shepherd peasants who enjoy high-risk high-reward physical actions.