>>32
lol someone's not thinking things through. Or trolling. Either way you're a dumbass.
"Fuck your sociological theories, ethical behavior is simply a by product of improving probability of gene expression, protecting your family and to a further extent humanity is nothing more than your genes trying to continue their proliferation."
Ok, and what would give you the greatest chance of gene proliferation? That's right! Interaction with other human beings! Helping each other! Forming society! What other animal has been as successful as human beings in expanding and multiplying? Right, our genes realized that by forming groups and using tools etc. would proliferate the species. So basically you're saying we're evolutionarily inclined to forming society. And any society needs to have ethical codes and human rights in order to survive. So we are evolutionary inclined to creating human rights, because it is beneficial for the species as a whole. At least, according to your logic.
"Do primates express 'ethical' behavior? We can be certain that they don't give a ratfuck about the lesser male who gets killed for coming too close to the Alpha. Do they think that the ape had the right to live? Hardly."
That's right! And now, think about why they are still living in trees in fucking jungles in Africa. That's totally more preferable then what we have now, right? No? OH OK
"What I find funny is how humanists want to call humankind so very grand and having these 'rights' inherent to them and only them, that everyone of their species should protect and venerate, when they are so very similar to other creatures that are not given the same rights. Humans reproduce like other organisms, they age like other organisms, they metabolize like other organisms, and yet the defining factor is we deem ourselves possessing 'reason'."
Yes. We're more important because of the fact that we can reason, or at least most of us do(you seem to be one of those that don't possess a drop of reason). I don't see anything wrong with that.
"Ethical behavior is not necessary for a society, an anarchic, lawless society is still a society, and believe it or not, some people prefer that kind of society."
Even people advocating anarchy don't think it would be logical or sane to let people do whatever they want, unless your talking about 16 year old suburbanites who are bored out of their minds. You're probably one of them, so you know what I'm talking about. Anyone who's ever talked about anarchy as a legitimate system of government actually don't advocate the total loss of government. Someone needs to be there to protect the citizens from each other. Even in total anarchy, without a government, people will eventually band together forming their own little societies, within which people agree not to try and kill and steal from each other. So even in anarchy, rights to life and property would pop up.
"I appreciate you calling be a liberal tool, It really shows how fucking naive you are. Human rights will be stomped on and nobody will fucking care, much less do something about it. Last time I checked, the Chinese killed plenty of their own people in Tiennamen, and yet the rest of the world still fucking trades with them."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'd like to see you try to instill a revolution to overthrow whatever government you live in. See how little people care about their rights then. There's a reason why anarchy isn't exactly popular -- people like the rights they've been given. Take them away, and you'll find yourself in a shitstorm.
"Cry fucking more about your human rights, they will be ignored, evil will prevail, and you live in a delusion. You won't do shit to stop it, even if you could."
Oh no, I could do something to stop it. I could tell you to kill yourself. Seriously, you're not worth anyone's time. I think we agree that you don't deserve your right to life.