Defining Evil

@Solace,

"Evil is our animalistic natures."
"Instincts are not intrinsically evil ... but can lead to evil results."

It may be that I am not understanding the argument, but, which is it? Either animalistic natures (instinct) are evil/ or their results are (or under certain circumstances can be).

0 Replies

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

This is the exact point I have been trying to get at. [...]

Evil is our animalistic natures. It is the same definition.

The attribute named `evilness` has nothing to do with animals. Take as example a feral child, a human raised by, let's say, wolves. Would you characterize him as evil just because he acts like an animal (to put it in your words, that he is governed by his animalistic nature) ? Not really, he isn't. Do animals have a malevolent behavior by default ? Nope, not really. You can't even attach the term 'malevolent' to animals since it would require animals being able to think, plan and premeditate.

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

Evil is a result.

Evil is not a result. It's an attribute assigned to the action or nature of a subject. If I feed a stray cat I am characterized by good(-ness), if I kick it, from a cats lover's point of view, I am characterized by evil(-ness), and then again left without a characteristic if not observed by a third party.

The result of my action is either a well fed cat or a limping cat. A side effect of my action is the assignation of the "evil" or "good" attribute to my action or person in the Observer's MIND! Stop trying to objectify or personify `evil`. It's an attribute. Like "kind" or "selfish".

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

Where does the influence come from?

What influence ? To commit actions ? It's what living things DO. They EXIST and since they are not inert they DO stuff. If I am not bound by society's moral code, like that feral boy I've mentioned earlier and I don't have discernment of good and evil (according to society's views) can you still pin those `good` or `evil` tags to me in good faith ?

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

Instincts are not intrinsically evil as you so lovely demonstrated but can lead to evil results.

So if animals are governed by instincts, and by nature they can't be observed as being evil, how would you put the "evil" attribute on their action's results ? Just because they can't foresee the future consequences of their current instinctual action, does that make them evil per se ?

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

All of the acts of Nature you described were not Evil but survival. This is the role of instincts. Instincts are necissary for evolution and survival. But we have evolved to a point where they are no longer necissary. Our logic can tell us that we must eat, we no longer need hunger. "Try feeding a child without hunger... impossible"

My head hurts.

Anyway, I don't see much use of the word "evil" anymore. People say immoral, unjust, unkind, psychopathic, they refer to the human rights, etc. "Evil" is so 1400.

It all comes down to self/group/national interests and selfishness/selflessness/altruism. It's not like there are good people and evil people. It's people with different interests that will take action based on those interests. The whole God/Satan deal is full of crap. From one guy's point of view he's good. From the other guy's point of view, he's evil, and vice versa.

Defining evil ... You're evil if you don't share my interests/values/views on the world and future. How's that ?

1 Reply

@ariciunervos,

I agree that we're not talking about evil. (Although I too am not absolutely certain about what exactly we are talking about.) That was sort of my point in the first place. This is more like morality or something of that nature.

1 Reply

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

Back up and think a little more William.

In all due respect Bin, backing up is not a part of how I think. It is, however, how you think. I see red everytime I encounter dialog that excuses man's behavior by equating it justifiable because he is "animal". That makes my blood boil. It is a self fulfilling prophesy. Treat a man as animal he will act as one. I am getting so fed up with this rationale to justify evil, it is even hard for me to engage in such dialog without becoming enraged. I will try my level best to maintain a decorum and courtesy as I state your entire mind set is absolutely the very cause for evil in the world. You and those like you who think as you do.

It is that "survival of the fittest" insane paradigm that has led us to where we are; on the verge of annilating each other. You think back all you want to, my friend. I choose not to. There is nothing there for me. Your mind set justifies Kings and rulers and instills in the innocent the need to bow to their greatness all the while losing any sense of being or self worth. Please forgive me but you can take your "selfishness is good", "Evil is innate", alpha "king of the hill" logic and put it where the sun don't shine.

I am so very sorry Bin, but you failed to address any part of what I had to say that would enable us to have a "learning" and meaningful discourse. You are "reciting" what you have been taught and totally ignore any reasonable thought to the contrary as you defend and justify the deplorable global state of affairs. They are as they are as a result of this "alpha" mentality alluding to an instinct we have no control over. I'm sorry, but that is a crock. Calm down William. Sorry mods, edit it as you will.

Later,
William

2 Replies

@William,

Quote:

But selfishness is not bad! It only becomes evil when one is overly selfish. One must eat, and earn money so that one can provide for his home and family. What becomes selfish is when one strives for too much wealth and loses sight of what he is actually earning that wealth for. Do you really need a Plasma TV? Would the money not be better used if you gave it to an Orphanage?

The need to provide for one's family doesn't seem selfish - you are doing something for another, or others.

But you bring up an excellent point about degrees, and when you ask if the money for a plasma screen would have been better spent as a donation to those in need. But how far do we go with this exercise? Do you need more than a couple of shirts? Wouldn't the money for that third shirt have been better spent providing someone less fortunate with his first and only shirt?

0 Replies

@Solace,

Evil is obviously an uncomfortable term because it feels very absolute. Black and white, instead of looking at the greyness of it all.
That is the point of this Thread.

It doesn't matter if we were raised by wolves or kings, we still have the same instincts ingrained in us. The difference is, the way these instincts are applied.

When I say that "Evil is a result" I am saying that our Instincts are not intrinsically Evil. Evil is the result of Action.

About "Living things do stuff". Great. Thanks for enlightening me :brickwall:. I never new that! You are such a genious.

Do you desire to do things or simply just do them out of randomness? Most of the cases we have some type of desire that promotes our actions. Where does this desire come from? What is its source? Someone who is raised by wolves that is hungry will go hunt. Someone that is raised by Kings will call the butler or open the fridge. There is the same desire but it is expressed in a different way.

You ask about animals being evil? Animals cannot be evil. You have already established this. They are bound by instinct. A lion that kills for food, or a cat that plays with its food until it dies. Humans, on the other hand, can commit acts of Evil. What is the difference between a Bullfighter and the Cat that plays with its food. The difference is that we are not bound by instinct. We can chose to go against it. And no matter what you do, a cat will always play with its food.

Khethil wrote:

Caustic sarcasm aside, my reply to you seems to be taken as it was intended; a generalized "you're off" statement. I'm glad you got the message.

Yes, I think it generally preferable for individual points to be explored on any given outlook of philosophy; however, what you've posted is so saturated with holes, assumptions and the largest collection of bold-dogma I've seen, that I think it counterproductive to the intent of these forums for me to address in detail. I simply felt it important to note - as gently as I could - that your prophesies, at their most-basic, level are flawed and suggest you re-think them.

As I said, I think those who have the fortitude to engage you in a level of detail manner are doing fine - and they have the thanks of this old man.

Thanks and good luck!

Again, you have made a blanket statement. I could make the same statement against anyone's post. Does it mean that you are correct and I am incorrect because you simply say that I have holes in my Logic. And what kind of Childish person thanks a post like this? Very mature of you. What are my holes? Say something instead of saying that I am wrong. I'm really interested :poke-eye: to read a set of posts that read.. "you are wrong"
"No you are wrong"
"No you are wrong"
"No you are wrong because you have flawed logic"
"No you are wrong because you are just wrong but I dont feel like going into it, just know that you are wrong"

Very helpful :a-ok:

William wrote:

In all due respect Bin, backing up is not a part of how I think. It is, however, how you think. I see red everytime I encounter dialog that excuses man's behavior by equating it justifiable because he is "animal". That makes my blood boil. It is a self fulfilling prophesy. Treat a man as animal he will act as one. I am getting so fed up with this rationale to justify evil, it is even hard for me to engage in such dialog without becoming enraged. I will try my level best to maintain a decorum and courtesy as I state your entire mind set is absolutely the very cause for evil in the world. You and those like you who think as you do.

It is that "survival of the fittest" insane paradigm that has led us to where we are; on the verge of annilating each other. You think back all you want to, my friend. I choose not to. There is nothing there for me. Your mind set justifies Kings and rulers and instills in the innocent the need to bow to their greatness all the while losing any sense of being or self worth. Please forgive me but you can take your "selfishness is good", "Evil is innate", alpha "king of the hill" logic and put it where the sun don't shine.

I am so very sorry Bin, but you failed to address any part of what I had to say that would enable us to have a "learning" and meaningful discourse. You are "reciting" what you have been taught and totally ignore any reasonable thought to the contrary as you defend and justify the deplorable global state of affairs. They are as they are as a result of this "alpha" mentality alluding to an instinct we have no control over. I'm sorry, but that is a crock. Calm down William. Sorry mods, edit it as you will.

Later,
William

Please understand William, I am in no way trying to Justify Evil, I am simply trying to define it. In Fact, I am trying to do the exact opposite. By defining evil and understanding it, we can eliminate it.
Identifying any problem is the first step in fixing it.

And I definately think the opposite. I definately think that we have control over our actions, we just have an evil influence in us all. And this influence can be controlled and erradicated.

I appologise for making your blood boil, but I think you are angry because of a simple misunderstanding.

Truce?

Didymos Thomas wrote:

The need to provide for one's family doesn't seem selfish - you are doing something for another, or others.

But you bring up an excellent point about degrees, and when you ask if the money for a plasma screen would have been better spent as a donation to those in need. But how far do we go with this exercise? Do you need more than a couple of shirts? Wouldn't the money for that third shirt have been better spent providing someone less fortunate with his first and only shirt?

A good question, but that is for each individual person to decide. It is very difficult to draw the line and make a generalized rule. Of course a person is entitled to purchase a Plasma screen instead of giving to Charity, but a better person wouldn't.
I see that we are in agreement though.
At least there is someone who isn't trying to attack every little point I make.

1 Reply

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

When I say that "Evil is a result" I am saying that our Instincts are not intrinsically Evil. Evil is the result of Action.

Do you desire to do things or simply just do them out of randomness? Most of the cases we have some type of desire that promotes our actions. Where does this desire come from? What is its source?

So it is not "evil" you want to discuss about or what it means. So what are we talking about ?

Human behaviourism theory ? (evil as result of actions, actions result from intentions and desires, but where do THOSE come from ?)
Or moral reasoning and ethical theories (how to establish what is evil and what is good) ?

Which one is it you want to discuss ?

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

And no matter what you do, a cat will always play with its food.

Actually you can control its behaviour by applying stimuli. That is, if the cat is doing something you don't like, you apply an electrical shock to it. After 2 or 3 shocks it will "learn" that certain behaviour leads to pain. Even if you never shock the cat again, it will "know" the possibility of getting shocked and never ever engage in said behaviour again.

1 Reply

@ariciunervos,

I will start a Morality thread then, but this discussion is on Instinct as stated in the title. It is the source of actions called "Evil"

1 Reply

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

this discussion is on Instinct as stated in the title.

Small note first, thread title says 'Defining Evil'.

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

[Instinct] is the source of actions called "Evil"

Either you don't understand the definition of "instinct" or we've hit some language barrier here.

Let's imagine a 60 minutes old (also malevolent, according to you, my friend Binyamin) male human baby and have a look at his behaviour. His name is Clean Slate.

Mr. Slate will suck on anything. Give him a soft piece of cloth, he will suck on it. A bottle with a plastic nipple on it, he will suck on it. He will suck his own thumb while he sleeps. Nobody has taught him to do that, he doesn't have any past experiences, so we can call this behaviour instinctual.

It has been experimentally tested and observed that Mr. Slate will instinctively look around searching for human faces and that his attention will be focused on one, once he finds it, without ever seeing a mirror or other faces before. This is also instinctual behaviour. Not much further from this moment, he will also be able to associate facial expressions to emotions like anger or happiness.

Fast forward a few months, still observing Mr. Clean Slate. A toddler now, he crawls around exploring and experiencing the places and objects around him. Again, instinctively,when he encounters a strange, new object, he will look at a familiar face and observe its reaction. Let's imagine a few situations.

Situation 1. The Slate family is out in the house garden, enjoying the free air, lying down in the grass. Mr. Clean Slate is crawling around, sees a Giant Black Hairy Spider and reaches to touch it while observing his mother. His mother, who just now notices both the Giant Black Hairy Spider AND her child extending his hand to touch it, will display a certain type of facial expression and emit certain sounds in a certain tone and pitch (i.e. she will freak out).
Situation 2. The Slate family has a new dog who hasn't been potty trained yet, and this dog has just taken a big dump in the middle of the carpet. Mr. Clean Slate, crawling around, arrives at the fresh present the dog left on the carpet, extends his little hand and looks at his mother. She will again (more or less) freak out.
Outcome 1. What has Mr. Clean Slate's mind deduced and assimilated from these two experiences of observing his mother ? That both dog poo and Giant Black Hairy Spiders are contrary to his well being and survival. At this point he is no longer a "clean slate". He has been led to believe that avoiding poo and Giant Black Hairy Spiders is in his best interests.

Situation 3. Let's modify Situation 1 for a bit. Let's say the mother is a specialist in arachnology, the science which studies spiders. Because of her domain of expertise she can safely judge that Giant Black Hairy Spider must be a pet tarantula with the fangs removed, and that this tarantula presents no harm. So she picks it up, and in a calm tone of voice explains to Mr. Slate what spiders are, what species is this spider, etcetera, etcetera.
Outcome 2. In this case, young Mr. Slate will only avoid poo, but won't be afraid Giant Black Hairy Spiders.

Let's fast forward a few years. The child is 6 years old now and encounters, lo and behold, a Giant Black Hairy Spider. If he is the kid that experienced Outcome 2, he will ignore it. If he is the other kid, the one in Outcome 1, he will fear it and distance himself from it or try to kill it with a stick.

Now, if I was the Giant Black Hairy Spider I sure as hell would consider someone hitting me with a stick for no apparent reason as being pure evil. But is 6 years old Mr. Slate-which-experienced-Outcome-1 evil ? On top of that, is he doing it instinctively ? The answer is NO to both questions. Mr. Slate hits me with the stick because he has been led to believe, by an authoritative figure in his live, that I present a danger or that whatever else about me is contrary to his well being and interests.

I'm sure you can adapt this little story to slave owners, their children and slaves, as a child who has grown amongst a slave owning family will not see slave owning as being an evil (immoral) act and be able to later on sleep soundly and carefree at night owning slaves himself.

2 Replies

@ariciunervos,

Nice post ari. I have to agree that behaviour, whether it ends up classed as good or evil, is more often taught than instinctual.

1 Reply

@Solace,

"[Instinct] is the source of actions called "Evil""

The problem seems to hinge on what the author means by this statement, which is ambiguous by its very generality. The first question to be answered seems to be what "source of actions" means, and the second question is whether the statement is to be taken in a universal sense ("all" or "some").

Reading through the discussion, it seems unclear whether "instinct" is meant to be the defining characteristic, or cause, of evil actions, or something accidental to such actions. If the latter, that its introduction seems to be misleading and extraneous to the real discussion, if the former, then it certainly needs a more thorough warrant for our assent than has been presented.

i

0 Replies

@William,

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

Identifying any problem is the first step in fixing it.

And I definately think the opposite. I definately think that we have control over our actions, we just have an evil influence in us all. And this influence can be controlled and erradicated.

I appologise for making your blood boil, but I think you are angry because of a simple misunderstanding.

Truce?

Bin, the above statement that I have highlighted is where we are vastly separate in our thinking. In the beginning perhaps there was a survival mechanism in man he "instinctively" had to appeal to in order to survive. That is not evil. That is innate. Evil is when survival is no longer an issue, yet his survival is held at the will of another as a means of control. That's evil my friend. Not the consequences of what man has to resort to to survive as a rebellion to that control. Therefore under in the context in which you believe, evil can neither be understood, controlled or erradicated. It will only worsen to a degree of which you could never imagine. What must go is the effort to control man to do the bidding of another. That's the answer.

Bin, any fundamental ideology that has set such mandates in place that force man to be selfish in order to survive is wrong. Utterly and totally wrong.

The Universe is not selfish. it is infinitely harmonic and survival is not part of that paradigm in any context. Survival is a autonomous construct of man. The more selfish we are as it pertains to our very survival of life, the more we alienate those precious senses were endowed with (past tense) that will enable us to fully appreciate what "human" life is all about. The most precious of which is the mind we have. That is our link to the Universe, or "limitless" you allude to, from which we were created. To assume a "lord and master task master" is an illusion of man reflecting his own selfish motives as he equates his selfish wants to God. How so very wrong.

You are right Didymos, a man providing for his family in no way should be of a selfish motivation, but he will if he has to. The fact is he should never have to.

This IMO, truth I speak is not by any means, a measure to justify what man "has done" to survive, but to lay the groundwork that will enable him to realize a life not hell bent on survival, but living. Living the life we were created to live. All of us, not just those who have the money to buy that right of passage. The Earth and those who live here ARE NOT FOR SALE. Never have been, nor will they ever be, and that is the root cause of all man's ill's that have been surmounting for thousands of years. It's time to change. We are not fighting with slingshots anymore.

Bin, please, if you don't mind, refrain from equating man's behavior with that of the beast. Please. We are more than that. Please allow me this courtesy. If it is essential in the minds of some to use these insane analogies, it is so very wrong for it is the way of beast. Have you ever heard that phrase before?

William

3 Replies

@William,

There's another 3 pages long thread of Bin's about instinct being the source of evil in the Philosophy of Religion sub-forum called Defining Evil. Maybe a mod could merge these two and move the resulting thread to the ethics section ?

1 Reply

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos wrote:

There's another 3 pages long thread of Bin's about instinct being the source of evil in the Philosophy of Religion sub-forum called Defining Evil. Maybe a mod could merge these two and move the resulting thread to the ethics section ?

That's ok with me. They do have a commonality. I am surprise they haven't done something already. It might be more problemsome that we know.

Good idea though,
William

0 Replies

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos wrote:

Either you don't understand the definition of "instinct" or we've hit some language barrier here.

...
Situation 1. His mother, who just now notices both the Giant Black Hairy Spider AND her child extending his hand to touch it, ... will freak out

Situation 3. Let's modify Situation 1 for a bit. Let's say the mother is a specialist in arachnology, ... Because of her domain of expertise she can safely judge that Giant Black Hairy Spider must be a pet tarantula with the fangs removed, and that this tarantula presents no harm. So she picks it up, and in a calm tone of voice explains to Mr. Slate what spiders are, what species is this spider, etcetera, etcetera.

I understand what you are saying, but take the same examples above and look at the mother's instinct. She wants to protect her child from danger. That is instinctual and is found throughout the animal Kingdom. If she percieves a danger she will "freak out" and if she doesnt then she will remain calm.

I am assuming you are male, if I am correct in my assumption, I will give you a challenge for your instincts.
Try not to look at women or check out a girl for 24 hours. Why is it difficult? What is giving you the desire to look at women? Where does this come from?
In Jewish culture it is called protecting your eyes and all men are supposed to observe this practice every day. I know from experience that it is one of the most difficult things to do and it goes directly against instinct.
I dont know what the "Terminology" problem is, maybe I am refering to something that you disagree would be called instinct.
Instinct is the only word I can think of that would come close to this.

Lets give another example.

The most beautiful woman you have ever seen is watching you play volleyball at the beach. What began as a friendly game, begins to be more competitive. Suddenly winning is more important to you and to all of your friends that have also noticed this stunning mistress.
Why?
Think about the "Alpha instinct" I identified in my first post. In the wild the alpha is established through physical confrontation. And the Alpha is the one who passes on his seed. This ensures the strength of the species. Here too, you are trying to prove your supperiority over your friends so that you can be the Alpha.
Similarly why do Women throw themselves at Rockstars?
Elvis was the "King" of rock. Could he walk down the street without being chased by a crowd of women?
His daughter must have aquired her father's alpha game. She would have looked for a mate that was also a "King" in the realm of music.
Big suprise when Lisa Marie and Michael Jackson got married?
Not from the instinctual domain.

This post is really to identify instinct and how they cross into the realm of "Evil" (A term that I also dont like to use but it is the best term I can come up with)

2 Replies

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Quote:

Defining Evil

"We become that which we define!"

1 Reply

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

She wants to protect her child from danger. That is instinctual and is found throughout the animal Kingdom.

So there is some evil outcome if I instinctively pull my child from in front of a speeding car ?

Protecting own progeny is not and can not intentionally cause evil.

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

I am assuming you are male, if I am correct in my assumption, I will give you a challenge for your instincts. Try not to look at women or check out a girl for 24 hours.

Looking is not evil.

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

In Jewish culture it is called protecting your eyes and all men are supposed to observe this practice every day.

Jewish culture should allow you to get laid more often, you'd see less evil around. Also sex is good for the brain, and I said brain as an organ not mind.

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

The most beautiful woman you have ever seen is watching you play volleyball at the beach. [...] prove your supperiority over your friends so that you can be the Alpha.

Bros before hoes, man, bros before hoes. I am not an animal and sure as hell don't think as one, thank you very much. Even if I did, where would there be the evil in a little competition ? It's not like sports are evil. It's not like people's houses get burned down.

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

Similarly why do Women throw themselves at Rockstars?

Don't starting asking questions about what or how women think, not even themselves can answer.

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

Big suprise when Lisa Marie and Michael Jackson got married?

So because they share an interest for music and they are both belonging to the same social category (for lack of better word) there is something instinctual and, by default, evil about their marriage ? Do you suspect her of Electra-like behavior ? :poke-eye: Or maybe they wanted a kid with good music genes. Also would a king marry a beggar ? Why would he ?

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

This post is really to identify instinct and how they cross into the realm of "Evil" (A term that I also dont like to use but it is the best term I can come up with)

Well so far you've done a piss poor job at associating (animal) instincts with evil actions. Try harder.

Thanks for trying.

1 Reply

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos wrote:

So there is some evil outcome if I instinctively pull my child from in front of a speeding car ?

Protecting own progeny is not and can not intentionally cause evil.

If you read my earlier post.. it was even directed at you!

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

Ariciunervos!
Instincts are not intrinsically evil as you so lovely demonstrated but can lead to evil results.

Understand? I never said instincts were intrinsically evil, but before we can discuss if instincts lead to evil or not, we must first agree on what "instincts" are. So lets just focus on that.

ariciunervos wrote:

Looking is not evil.

Not saying that it is (I thought we would stop using that word). I am however saying that it is Instinctual. Again.. read please

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

I will give you a challenge for your instincts.

ariciunervos wrote:

Jewish culture should allow you to get laid more often, you'd see less evil around. Also sex is good for the brain, and I said brain as an organ not mind.

First of all, I'm married, so I do get laid. Second do you have a scientific source backing up your claim that "sex is good for the brain"? Because my sources say the opposite, that it is physically detremental if overly exagerated.

ariciunervos wrote:

Bros before hoes, man, bros before hoes. I am not an animal and sure as hell don't think as one, thank you very much. Even if I did, where would there be the evil in a little competition ? It's not like sports are evil. It's not like people's houses get burned down.

Nice sloggan, but you could at least admit to the example. Not to your personal reaction but to an instinctual male reaction. And competition is not intrinsically evil, that is the whole point, but the instinct can lead to evil in other places if it is not confined.

ariciunervos wrote:

Don't starting asking questions about what or how women think, not even themselves can answer.

I'm not, but I am talking about the instinctual female attraction to the alpha male. That's not thinking, that's instinct.

ariciunervos wrote:

So because they share an interest for music and they are both belonging to the same social category (for lack of better word) there is something instinctual and, by default, evil about their marriage ? Do you suspect her of Electra-like behavior ? :poke-eye: Or maybe they wanted a kid with good music genes. Also would a king marry a beggar ? Why would he ?

Please re-read what I said and consider the "instinct". I only brought this as an extreme example that we all know of in order to demonstrate "instinct"

ariciunervos wrote:

Well so far you've done a piss poor job at associating (animal) instincts with evil actions. Try harder.

Thanks for trying.

Wasn't trying yet.. as I previously explained. Once we've established the "Instinct" then we will establish how "Instinct" can lead to evil.

0 Replies

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

"We become that which we define!"

Interesting quote? Care to provide the source? Care to provide proof of this statement? Is this the best attempt at an insult? You are very childish and petty. We are trying to have a grown-up conversation here and you bring in name calling. I thought I left high-school but I guess you never did.

And good job on "Thanking" a childish comment like this. Is this "argument for the sake of truth"? Or is it "Argument for the sake of causing trouble"?

Both of you, please grow-up.

2 Replies

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

Both of you, please grow-up.

Nuh-uh!

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

Once we've established the "Instinct" then ...

Go on then. "Establish the instinct".

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know