They don't do "precisely that", though. We see riots by some leftists in a small percentage of the country where politicians and the corporate press deliberate inflame racial tensions. This is not "human nature". This is demagoguery. If every single person in those cities suddenly decided to go rioting, then you might have a point. But it's not everyone. It's mostly people from out of town that Democrats truck in, anyway. These are either professional rioters or opportunists. The vast majority of people in these cities aren't rioting and stealing from each other. They're just trying to live their lives.
I didn't refer to any survival scenarios, nor did I make any such claim as you did in your second sentence. I think you're arguing more with yourself than with me. Try engaging with my comments instead of the ones you make up in your head.
They don't do "precisely that", though.
So Britain, France, and Spain colonializing the planet is fake news? The Mongolian Empire is make believe? The Roman Empire is a figment of our imagination? The Ottoman Empire is a conspiracy theory? Dude, you're making it difficult to take you seriously.
I literally never said any of these things. Just because some groups of people in times past have conquered other groups, doesn't mean that in every single instance, or even in most instances, the "strong" will always seek to conquer the "weak". I think you see some examples and assume that they apply universally. They do not. It's not a rule that every single time someone is stronger, they will conquer everyone who is weaker unless they are stopped from doing so.
You're committing basic logical fallacies that, while I believe you're serious, I find that you're not terribly intelligent. I believed things like this when I was younger, but as I grew older, I realized that the world wasn't as simple as I wanted it to be.
I literally never said any of these things.
Of course you didn't, because that's not how people who ply their trade in the margins and shadows afforded by vagueness and ambiguity operate. Those things, are, however the logical implication of your premise. Now is when you move the goal posts and say, "I never said it would never happen, just that it won't always happen."
That's when I say, "Thank you for conceding my point. Since we don't have a crystal ball to tell us when and how such a thing will happen, we have to be prepared for it if we're to have any hope of avoiding it. We have to be prepared for it to happen at any moment lest we be caught unprepared. An effective plan will plan for resisting the strongest possible adversary. 'Plan for the worst, hope for best' as the saying goes."
You're committing basic logical fallacies
Name one and walk us through it.
(post is archived)