/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11930581]

Why is violence immoral lit? I've read so many books about philosophy and I havent found any particularly compelling reasons why violence is immoral.

[Anonymous No.11930590]

It promotes war and destruction, the antithesis of life

[Anonymous No.11930593]

>>11930590
/thread

[Anonymous No.11930598]

>>11930581
It's not

[Anonymous No.11930601]

>>11930593
>unexamined statement
>/thread
Un-philosophical brain. Cue for evaporation.

[Anonymous No.11930604]

>morality

[Anonymous No.11930623]

>>11930601
Implying basic truths are examinable and not subjective value judgments

[Anonymous No.11930654]

>>11930581
where's the based Sorel poster when you need him

[Anonymous No.11930660]

>>11930590
>It promotes war and destruction, the antithesis of life

Horseshit. Life is literally a process founded on war and destruction, the entirely evolutionary process depends upon vast amounts of death, dejected losers and rising champions

[Anonymous No.11930661]

>>11930581
Because it negates consent

[Anonymous No.11930670]

>>11930660
Nope. That's how an filthy sentient animal would view life. Some of us have ascended

[Anonymous No.11930677]

>>11930660
>Life is literally a process founded on war and destruction
Against other life forms, dumbass

[Anonymous No.11930678]

>>11930670
Not an argument. But have fun LARPing as a nu-age hippycunt while you're too afraid to go outside

[Anonymous No.11930680]

>>11930677
>Against other life forms, dumbass
Duuuhhh Yeah no shit, that's the entire point. If there was no intense war for resources life would still be something unworthy of any respect, microbial blobs bumping off each other looking for scraps of hydro-carbons

[Anonymous No.11930688]

>>11930680
He means there is no concept of morality inter-species

[Anonymous No.11930691]

>>11930590
And why is that immoral? If the conservation of life is a virtue, then the removal of humanity through violence should be a moral good, because we are responsible for the extinction of many life forms.

[Anonymous No.11930694]

>>11930688
There was no explicit mention of species. An implication perhaps but a dumb one because that doesn't change the point whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.11930695]

>>11930661
Why is consent a virtue though? Why is the negation of consent immoral?

Furthermore violence is the ultimate tool for enforcing your right to consent. In fact violence is the only practical tool you have to ensure you are never forced to do anything. So if you see consent as an absolute virtue, then you should see violence as a means.

[Anonymous No.11930696]

>>11930678
While your history argument is strong, right? Rubbish my friend. There have been many societies that didn't work on the basis of war, competition and hierarchical force ,or they were minimal.

[Anonymous No.11930703]

>>11930694
To kill an animal for food is not “violence”. To kill an animal for pleasure is violence. Latter is not the foundation of life by any chance.

[Anonymous No.11930706]

>>11930691
Morality can be understood in the context of our species. Without us there is none

[Anonymous No.11930710]

>>11930581
What have you been reading retard? FYI, My little pony story books are not going to to address the basic fundamentals of immortality and violence.
Suggestions:
>Gulag Archepelago
>200 Years Together
>Lord of the Flies

The same argument could be made for anything if you're stupid enough. Why isn't it okay for me to break in your home and take what I want? If you actually cared about them, you would better protect them.

[Anonymous No.11930712]

>>11930696
Name a civilization that has not been based on violence, competition, and hierarchy that has survived as a civilization for an extended period of time. You will not be able to find any, civilization is a structure and tool that helps ensure survival and gives its citizens the opportunity to thrive. If your civilization can't ensure its own survival then its not a good civilization.

[Anonymous No.11930714]

>>11930706
Of course, but while we exist, if preservation of life is a virtue, why is it not a virtue to reduce the number of humans through violence?

[Anonymous No.11930715]

>>11930696
We're talking about life not societies. There is categorically no such thing as life worth speaking about, capable of speaking without violence

>>11930703
I'm sure being eating alive feels pretty fucking violent for the antelope

[Anonymous No.11930721]

Any books argumenting FOR violence?

[Anonymous No.11930726]

>>11930703
What a retarded distinction... based on a moral prejudice and nothing more. Necessitates that the subjective suffering of the animal is worthless and everything hinges on the motivation of the killer. Contrasts "food" and "pleasure", as if the fulfillment of hunger and the taste of meat is not pleasurable, instead of trying to make a distinction between "necessary" and "unnecessary", which is again only in terms of the survival of the individual animal and has no bearing on the other animal's ethic.

[Anonymous No.11930729]

>>11930710
>Why isn't it okay for me to break in your home and take what I want?

I cant think of a reason why this is morally wrong, just like I cant think of a reason why its morally wrong for me to enforce my will through violence (my will being to protect my property and perceived rights). I can think of many reasons why I wouldnt want you to take my things but does me not wanting you to do something make it immoral if you do it anyway?

[Anonymous No.11930734]

>>11930703
Arbitrary semantics, why does one qualify as violence and not the other, both of those actions feel exactly the same for the animal regardless of your intent.

[Anonymous No.11930744]

>>11930726
Hunger is biological. An urge to hurt a livig creature is deviation. The former benefits survival and evolution, the later leads to nothing.

[Anonymous No.11930747]

>>11930721
Anyone?

[Anonymous No.11930752]

>>11930721
Anime and this board. Producing edgy teenagers who make those threads.

[Anonymous No.11930754]

>>11930581
Violence is just a form of domination. Thus it's as moral/immoral as mass media manipulation, law enforcement, etc.

[Anonymous No.11930756]

>>11930752
Stupid nigger give me a rec already

[Anonymous No.11930757]

>>11930721
>>11930747
Its a bit of a meme but Might Is Right is one example of a book in favor of violence.

[Anonymous No.11930760]

>>11930744
Completely missing the point.
You don't just get to write obviously violent acts off because they don't fit your Lefty idea of what's ok or necessary, they remain as they began violent

[Anonymous No.11930762]

>>11930712
Saying "name a society that hasn't (fill in the blank" is quite possibly the dumbest argument you could make. By that logic, name a people who were not enslaved or badly oppressed by another people for a period.. :-/

Irish, Russian, Kazak, Mongolian, Chinese, Italian, Egyptian, African all have been enslaved and opressed at some point in time. With the Africans being the only exception, in that they are still enslaved and opressed, not in America btw. But actually by other Africans in Africa.

The point is the world had changed. Sweden was nearly prestine, that was mostly because it was almost entirely ethnically homogeneous. It wasn't until they took in refugees and immigrants (to be the most progressive and holier than thou country) that they began having rapes, unprecedented murders, robbery and home invasions.

[Anonymous No.11930770]

>>11930757
sounds fine but its not translate to my language

[Anonymous No.11930774]

>>11930762
Redditor trying to virtue signal as redpilled now that he's been called out as a brainlet hippy

[Anonymous No.11930779]

>>11930581
Violence was always a tool for living. Modern violence is absent but it's core mechanism (withdrawal of resources from one class, oppression) are systematized in economy, law, mass media, etc. Some airhead may call it immoral, having no idea that he is constantly and violently getting fucked by his own government. Violence hides behind the masks of virtue and societal needs.

[Anonymous No.11930782]

>>11930762
>By that logic, name a people who were not enslaved or badly oppressed by another people for a period

I can't, and I wouldnt try to, why is slavery immoral? Domination is just an expression of will. All "moral" disagreements are just expressions of different perspectives on will, why is one wrong and the other right?

I said name a civilization that survived that "didn't work on the basis of war, competition and hierarchical force ,or they were minimal." You said there were many societies, so give me an example instead of side stepping the question.

[Anonymous No.11930787]

>>11930729
It's called Law. Societal Norms, and Mores, which would be enforced via Law Enforcement and the Juducial System.

If this is the way you want to live, why not move to the Congo? The whole point is you don't want that (I think) and I don't want that. Because eventually it would devulge into something worse. Like, I wanted to bang your wife and kill her, why can't I do that if I want? Law, and it's barbaric. Go to sudan, if you have something a group of people want there, they will call you a witch, and via mob justice best you, throw a tire around your neck and burn you alive, afterwards taking what they want from you or your family.

[Anonymous No.11930793]

>>11930787
>legal positivism
cringe

[Anonymous No.11930794]

>>11930762
>>11930782
Also in response to this

>Sweden was nearly prestine, that was mostly because it was almost entirely ethnically homogeneous. It wasn't until they took in refugees and immigrants

Why is violence not a solution to the problem of unchecked migrants?

[Anonymous No.11930800]

>>11930726
Too many words to say nothing of value
>>11930734
Same-ish. He could rephrase as "for the human value system killing animals for survival is not regarded as violence" . Nothing changes on what he's saying. Congrats your pedantry really illuminated the problem!

[Anonymous No.11930801]

>>11930760
>Lefty idea
Yeah, making idiotic and false assumptions. Retarded /pol/ tourist.

[Anonymous No.11930803]

>>11930782
The edge on this. My God.

[Anonymous No.11930804]

>>11930787
>its called law

Laws are enforced by threat of violence, why is violence moral when its expressed through an entity like the judicial system? Its arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.11930808]

>>11930581
Try The Virtue of Selfishness. Rand is pretty much the mother of the NAP.

[Anonymous No.11930809]

>>11930782
I can't, that's the point I was making. Just like you can't name a society that has not enslaved another people. Just because "you can't name a society that hasn't ...." does not make it good or an argument.

Say honestly, do you really want to live in a mad max world? The homeless in CA describe how being homeless is like a mad max world. If someone wants your shoes, or blanket, they just take it, or rob you while you're sleeping. Is that the world you want? And IF SO, then why do you want it?

[Anonymous No.11930810]

>>11930712
No civilization ever was built on a sheer violence, your fucking poltard. The reasons for civilizations to expand were always the same, the lack of resources (food) and borders safety. Violence is NOT THE REASON, it’s a TOOL. Fucking mong.

[Anonymous No.11930814]

>>11930803
Im not in favor of violence, Im just trying to understand why its immoral, I just cant find a moral axiom to explain why violence is wrong beyond "Violence is bad because I dont like it" which is weak.

[Anonymous No.11930832]

>>11930804
I'll tell you what. You give me your ideal then, tell me what you think would work, or what you would prefer.

[Anonymous No.11930836]

>>11930804
Yes it is in barbarians that need an authority to exploit them and protect them from self destruction. The freer a society the less violence you need because people subject willingly

[Anonymous No.11930838]

>>11930809
You're confusing my line of questioning with the things I actually want personally. I don't want violence, but Im trying to construct a solid argument for the immorality of violence. The only way we avoid violence is through threats of violence, what makes one expression of will moral and one immoral when its expressed through the same means.

>>11930810
>No civilization ever was built on a sheer violence

Thats not true, all civilizations are held together through threats of violence from the state and all states perpetuate themselves through expressions of violence and domination, but I dont think that inherently makes the state immoral.

[Anonymous No.11930845]

>>11930814
Is it immoral for nogs to break in your mothers house, gang rape and kill her then laugh about it? Why or why not?

[Anonymous No.11930852]

>>11930832
I think states generally work, violence is a tool that aids them in existing in perpetuity, which is the goal of any system. I think violence is a practical tool and perhaps not immoral or moral.

[Anonymous No.11930858]

>>11930845
>Is it immoral for nogs to break in your mothers house, gang rape and kill her then laugh about it? Why or why not?

I agree its a horrible horrible thing, and I hate the idea of it, but I cant think of a solid argument for it being immoral beyond "this upsets me and breaks my personal moral code", it just doesnt seem like a particularly strong argument.

[Anonymous No.11930869]

>>11930838
>all civilizations are held together through threats of violence
This is not true. Prove it. Give examples and explain mechanisms how known civilizations did it.

[Anonymous No.11930880]

>>11930869
Law enforcement is achieved through violence or threats of violence. The basis of society, adherence to the social contract, is achieved through violence. You cannot have a state that can exist in perpetuity without violence or threats of violence. A states sovereignty depends on violence to enforce its will. If you think thats not true you're willingly ignorant. You cannot separate the state from violence, I dont think that makes states immoral though.

[Anonymous No.11930884]

Also I can appreciate that there are many practical reasons not to use violence, however I dont think practicality of violence or lack there of makes it moral or immoral.

[Anonymous No.11930886]

>>11930869
>Give examples and explain mechanisms how known civilizations did it.

lol dude, what do you think happens once you start taking other peoples stuff

[Anonymous No.11930892]

>>11930858
Define your use of the term "immoral"

[Anonymous No.11930894]

>>11930838
You can't grasp it because you model this after yourself and your serf mentality. There have been indigenous tribes that weren't organized hierarchically. Or maybe the Spanish anarchists. I bet there are more examples but, indeed, sadly, they are short lived under outside pressure.

>>11930858
It is morally wrong because no form of violence serves the affirmation of life. You can have preservation of life as a biological function under violence or threats or covert state violence, but it will not be the life of a fully realized human being. The more you have, the more animal like you are.
It is ultimately a matter of basic axiomatic worldview which in turn is a manifestation of your early life experience

[Anonymous No.11930898]

violence is everywhere. even the most peaceful and serene forest is a competition of thousands of lifeforms trying to eke out survival for another day. WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY, so violence is bad, because an act of violence endangers the society. but since you a part of the society, you're also endangering yourself, which is one of the reasons why it's "bad". violence is also the lowest form of communication that there is, because even non-conscious beings commit acts of violence. so my personal goal is to transcend violence, even though it will certainly take actual use of violence to get there

[Anonymous No.11930899]

>>11930880
You can't see difference between a cause and a consequence. Violence is not the reason civilization formed and the law is the consequence of civilization.

[Anonymous No.11930900]

>>11930894
>serves the affirmation of life.
>biological function
>fully realized human being
>a basic axiomatic worldview which in turn is a manifestation of your early life experience

Please stop posting you fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.11930907]

>>11930880
More mature societies have citizens that willingly submit to the rule. That renders the notion of violence moot

[Anonymous No.11930908]

>>11930899
Civilization began on aggriculture. Those individuals who decided to leave behind gathering food from day to day to devote their time to a vulnerable plot of land they had to invest the entire year in cultivating, gathering a harvest from and defend the harvest the entire winter months before a new crop could be grown.

Without a clear demarcation of personal sovereignty and the willingness to conduct violence to defend others from taking what you have decided is yours then civilization is not possible
Law enforcement was merely a division of labor of this fundamental will to claim land

[Anonymous No.11930916]

>>11930894
>they are short lived under outside pressure

That makes them shitty civilizations, if your civilization cant do the one thing its supposed to do (Perpetuate itself), then its a shitty civilization, a civilization needs to maintain itself regardless of outside pressure because there will always be outside pressures. I asked for examples of civilizations that have existed for an extended period of time for a reason, because I think the time that a civilization can maintain itself speaks to the practicalities of it.

>it is morally wrong because no form of violence serves the affirmation of life

Why is the affirmation of life a virtue here?

>>11930899
>You can't see difference between a cause and a consequence

Civilization is a consequence of violence because its the manifestation of collective will, which uses violence to enforce the social contract and protects civilians from the violent will of those who may not adhere to the social contract. Violence is a cause and a consequence.

[Anonymous No.11930917]

>>11930660
Get on with times grandpa, the Darwinian theory had an overemphasis on competition.

[Anonymous No.11930920]

>>11930907
>That renders the notion of violence moot

It doesn't because the threat still exists and the willingness of the citizens to abide by it is founded upon that threat.
Its like there were plenty of slaves in the South who were happy to be slaves but that doesn't mean they weren't slaves

[Anonymous No.11930921]

>>11930907
>willingly

No. They submit because there is a threat of violence if they dont submit and adhere to the social contract. It doesnt render violence moot, it renders violence that goes against the social contract impractical, but I dont think that affects the morality of violence.

[Anonymous No.11930922]

>>11930900
Riveting response.

Ayn Rand and Jordan Peterson am I right? Everything is struggle and we the philosopher kings are burdened to lead. Wink wink.
What a wanker. Stop posting if you have nothing to say

[Anonymous No.11930925]

>>11930916
>Civilization is a consequence of violence
>which uses violence
>Violence is a cause and a consequence
Jesus, and i thought at least on /lit/ i can have meaningful discussions. Ok, you win.

[Anonymous No.11930927]

>>11930922
I'm not making any sort of political argument here, just pointing out everything you say is a garbled mess of feintly held and ill-connected truisms. Go read a book you fucking nigger

[Anonymous No.11930933]

>>11930925
Does it even matter if violence is or isnt the cause of civilization? I'm not sure it effects the morality of violence either way, which is meant to the be the main focus of the discussion, we got a bit side tracked.

[Anonymous No.11930937]

>>11930916
>Civilization is a consequence of violence because its the manifestation of collective will, which uses violence to enforce the social contract and protects civilians from the violent will of those who may not adhere to the social contract. Violence is a cause and a consequence.
It's /pol/tards absolutely can't into logic episode.

[Anonymous No.11930942]

>>11930937
Nothing he said there was wrong. Feel free to have an argument

[Anonymous No.11930947]

>>11930937
There is violence without civilization. In order to tame the chaos and uncontrolled violence of the uncivilized world, violence is used as a tool, and directed to enforce a set of rules.

How exactly is that untrue? How does that not make violence both a cause and a consequence?

[Anonymous No.11930949]

>>11930927
Not my fault if you can't follow elementary lines of argument. Or perhaps, even worse, you can't even entertain a different idea than what your refrigerator mind holds.
Be ignorant as much as you like but please accept you sometimes may come across superior others. Pleb kisses xoxoxo

[Anonymous No.11930951]

>>11930942
This

This >>11930937
was a complete joke of a response

[Anonymous No.11930955]

>>11930949
>Implying platitudes are elementary lines of argument

pseud alert

[Anonymous No.11930957]

>>11930747
Hindu texts

[Anonymous No.11930958]

>>11930747
>The bible
>The quaran

[Anonymous No.11930964]

>>11930958
did u make peace with geths or wipe out the geths or have quarians get btfo by geths

me personally i made peace so i can get that sweet tali pussy (hells ya)

[Anonymous No.11930975]

>>11930964
Bioshit made the choice too one sided when they decided the Geths dindu nuffin

[Anonymous No.11930980]

>>11930975
Legion side-quest was based though

[Anonymous No.11930990]

>>11930980
It had cool stuff but it would have felt meaningful if there were actual stakes involved instead of making it bluntly apparent that Geths is the religion of peace

[Anonymous No.11930994]

>>11930990
its a video game just turn your brain off bro

[Anonymous No.11931019]

>>11930916
It is not black or white but more of a spectrum. Some societies are built on violent coercion alone, others on complete willingness (absence of violence) and others are in between. The degree of violence indicates how much farther from animals its citizens have come.
All these shitty arguments revolve around a version of historical Darwimism. I don't believe that because something is successful then it's also moral.

Also we need not to jump around. The hop towards state violence is a big one already and introduces many variables. In its pure form, "might makes right", do you think violence is moral? What moral values does it serve?

[Anonymous No.11931038]

>>11931019
Defending yourself and your property through the use of violence is morally correct. Defending the lives and wellbeing of innocents through the use of violence is also morally correct.

[Anonymous No.11931050]

>>11930660
Natural selection is a secondary process in evolution. You read like a juvenile.

[Anonymous No.11931054]

>>11931038
What about the kind that is self serving and offensive. I want to understand the value system of those that think it's also moral.
(Probably bog standard might makes right/there are no values just power)

[Anonymous No.11931112]

>>11931050
>Natural selection is a secondary process in evolution.
It really isn't. This is just liberal feel-good pseudo-science. Selection is the only significant cause of evolutionary change

[Anonymous No.11931151]

It makes no sense to make these sweeping statements. Generally speaking, imposing your will upon others with threat of violence, or with violence itself, is not an act that would be acceptable in many respectable moral systems.

But then most people that turn to violence, at least politically, don't feel there is any other way and, in fact, they are right.

[Anonymous No.11931231]

Do you mean violence as a swift, intense force, or:

'an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws'

Just from the definition you can see violence is immoral. It means to violate a person or his or her rights or property.

However, once violence is committed, the aggrieved is not committing violence when they use violent force in their defense. This is because they are not the ones violating. They are resisting violation. They can fight with violence or violent force, but this is not violence.

[Anonymous No.11931251]

It isn’t. The whole “violence solves nothing” is a modern meme created to make the public passive. Violence solves literally everything. If you don’t believe me, ask a Native American. They got their asses raped.

[Anonymous No.11931257]

>>11931231
Sounds like commie gobbly gook.

[Anonymous No.11931270]

>>11931054
>What about the kind that is self serving and offensive.

It's brutality committed by immoral actors wether they are conscious of it or not

> I want to understand the value system of those that think it's also moral.

Understanding reckless hate is easy: a person or group of people are convinced they are the victims of injustice and have no moral recourse to correct the situation except the application of violence.

There is also mob mentality in which normal people who wouldn't hurt anyone else go apeshit with violence.

[Anonymous No.11931275]

>>11930800
Because I'm not "saying" anything retard, I'm criticising someone else's incoherent half-baked thought.

[Anonymous No.11931280]

If you reduce an argument to violence you can no longer determine who is right only who is stronger, e.g. you say "Why is violence immoral lit?" and I smack you over the head with a pipe we haven't come any closer to resolving the question. As coming closer to truth through debate is generally seen as a social and personal good use of violence in this specific (but common) case is immoral.

[Anonymous No.11931281]

>>11930721
my diary desu

[Anonymous No.11931319]

>>11930581
I don't believe violence is inherently immoral. It's a tool. It is immoral if the recipient of violence is unjustly targeted. The only justification of violence being to minimize suffering caused by toxic people.

[Anonymous No.11931349]

>>11930590
Violence doesn't "promote" anything. It just is. There is nothing right or wrong about an act in a vacuum, unless you've tricked yourself into believing ad hoc secular utilitarian moralizations somehow represent a set of transcendent truths.
Violence is a necessary component of life. Does the tiger not commit an act of violence when he needs to eat? Do humans not commit millions of acts of violence each day so that they can eat?
Violence is a given, and you see violence or the threat of violence in everyday life whether you realize it or not. It's just a matter of who is using it for what ends; or, a question of whose threats of violence are credible enough for us to obey their will.

[Anonymous No.11931381]

>>11931112
Even the neodarwinian synthesis posits random mutation as the principle driver of evolutionary change. It is completely uncontreversial that natural selection is a secondary process to change. You are a giant brainlet that knows nothing about evolution, it's not surprising you espouse retarded right wing ideaology concurrently. That's ignoring all of the findings of the 21st century that leave the neodarwinian model wholly insufficient as a description of evolution, Evo devo, niche construction, biosemiotics, ect.
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.11931420]

>>11931381
what do a few random mutations matter for the sake of large-scale evolutionary change if they are out-replicated by genes that are largely remaining the same as they pass through generations? random mutations drive evolution because they sometimes lead to traits that lead to higher rates of survival and reproduction in an environment. remove selection pressure and any random mutations get muddied out and we remain stuck in the never-ending regression to the mean that we are in now.

[Anonymous No.11931452]

>>11931420
Do you not understand what secondary means?
First off, random mutation is merely one of many primary drivers of change.
Second, natural selection happens after change. Variation needs to happen before selection. Does your tiny right wing brain lack the capacity for temporal thinking?

[Anonymous No.11931458]

>>11931381
>>11931452
You miss the fuel for the engine. Any mutations or variations which are not met by radical selectionary pressure are meaningless and will subsumed almost instantaniously by genetic regression

[Anonymous No.11931473]

>>11931452
none of this addresses anything i've said, and your ad hominem attacks are an inadequate cover for your lack of an argument.
>random mutation is a driver of change
>natural selection occurs after change, which random mutation is a part of
>this is exactly what you are saying
>but you are wrong and stupid because your orientation to the problem seems vaguely right-wing
t. biomed undergrad with 2.5 gpa

[Anonymous No.11931483]

>>11931458
I never said NS wasn't vital I said it happened second to the living parts of life. Selection being a negation, is a rather complex relation that happens after the fact. Life doesn't have anything to do with natural selection, insofar as it is alive. That's doesn't mean natural selection is not important, it means it happens secondary to life as it exists hic et nunc.

[Anonymous No.11931494]

>>11931483
>I said it happened second to the living parts of life

Oh you mean things dying comes second to things being alive. Woah, you're opening some big ideas to me here

[Anonymous No.11931498]

>>11931381
>Neodarwinian synthesis

That synthesis sought to reconcile Mendelian genetics and Darwinian gradual evolution. It doesnt say anything about whether random mutation is the principle driver or not.
Secondly, there actually isn't a consensus on whether "random mutation is the principle driver of evolutionary change". Mutations themselves do not drive evolution, they simply supply the genetic substrate that evolution can use. But they themselves do not drive evolution.

Also the synthesis isn't really contemporary anymore, because evidence for horizontal gene transfer in pro- and eukaryotes as well as the importance of epigenetics has damaged the old synthesis, and has prompted people like Huneman to abandon it and look for a new synthesis.

And why bring politics into this when it's unwarranted? You some kind of redditor or something?

[Anonymous No.11931517]

>>11931494
I'm saying you are logically wrong in saying that life is all about death. When you are talking about matters of what life is and how exactly evolution works such things are of supreme importance.
I'm skeptical that I will ever open your mind to anything, because you have shown yourself as an imbecile. Just accept that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.11931545]

>>11931517
>I'm saying you are logically wrong in saying that life is all about death.
Strawman.
My point was that death, and not only death but struggle, was an integral engine in the development of advanced forms of life

[Anonymous No.11931613]

>>11931498
>That synthesis sought to reconcile Mendelian genetics and Darwinian gradual evolution. It doesnt say anything about whether random mutation is the principle driver or not.
>Secondly, there actually isn't a consensus on whether "random mutation is the principle driver of evolutionary change".
Please note that I never meant to say or imply that random mutation is seen as the principle driver of evolutionary change. What I meant is it is seen as the principle producer of variation. Basically exactly what you meant by, "simply supply the genetic substrate that evolution can use."
My point is variation happens before NS in the process of evolutionary change, and that variation is the part that actually has to do with life insofar as it lives. Variation is more elementary than NS.
I'm well aware that the MS isn't I'm fashion, even among the geneocentric crowd. Whom I find disaggreable to say the least.
>Why are you bringing politics
I'm not, anon was using psuedoscientific interpertations of evolutionary theory to support his faggy ideaology. All I did was simply call them out for it.
>>11931545
>My point is death.
Death has nothing to do with life itself, by definition death is what happens after life.
>Struggle
Psuedoscientific projection. "Struggle" is not a good term, the proper term for the creative, meaning-making properties of life is semiosis. "Love" is equally applicable as "struggle" here, if not moreso.

[Anonymous No.11931631]

>>11930907
Why should I pay taxes? because If I dont im in trouble with the law, and the reason im afraid of that is because they have guns and can track me down.

[Anonymous No.11931633]

>>11931613
>Death has nothing to do with life itself, by definition death is what happens after life.
>Psuedoscientific projection. "Struggle" is not a good term, the proper term for the creative, meaning-making properties of life is semiosis. "Love" is equally applicable as "struggle" here, if not moreso.

Literally not a single argument here

[Anonymous No.11931648]

>>11931633
>Life is literally a process founded on war and destruction, the entirely evolutionary process depends upon vast amounts of death, dejected losers and rising champions

This is not the case and nothing in your childish "argument" supports this supposition.

[Anonymous No.11931654]

>>11931648
>its wrong because I say so
Not an argument. You've already admitted that natural selection is the engine for population change, everything else you've said at this point is hoping to hide under semantic distractions

[Anonymous No.11931668]

>>11930581
Because the people who created morality would lose a war if actually forced to fight.

[Anonymous No.11931675]

>>11930654
This
>>11930710
It's painfully obvious that you lack the self-awareness and reflective capabilities of a real human being.

[Anonymous No.11931702]

>>11931654
You say evolution *depends* on death and death and destruction. Death and destruction are secondary processes in evolutionary change.
You are saying that the process of evolution depends on it's product. You are claiming that an antecedent is caused by its conclusion.

[Anonymous No.11931712]

>>11931613
>Death has nothing to do with life itself, by definition death is what happens after life.
Not him, but death decides what ends. Death is the absence of life. You are acting as if death does not influence anything, which is mad.
You have driven yourself into an impossible corner that you can only escape by changing the subject, purposely misinterpreting, or using shallow ad hominem and strawman attacks. I garunee your reply will be one of the three.

[Anonymous No.11931749]

>>11930892
I don't like it

[Anonymous No.11931762]

>>11931712
>Death decides what ends
>The end decides what ends.
Absurd
Death is the conclusion and life is the antecedent. Death is necessarily caused by life.
Both of you would benefit immensely from an introduction to philsophical logic. Which is prerequisite to any productive theorhetical investigation in the life sciences. Also if you spent any time in the lab or field and we're familiar with science.

[Anonymous No.11931803]

>>11931702
>>11931762
Dude just stop posting, you've been proven wrong over and over and are relying on the cheapest of coward tactics.
Answer the question here: Could advanced forms of life have emerged on this planet without intense competition over resources.