[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Cruachan

Because there are moral implications to attacking innocent people with chemical weapons. Either Assad was responsible, in which case he does not deserve to lead those people, or the rebels did it, in which case they deserve to be dismantled and have their toxic influence separated from the general public.

What kind of moral implications?

I merely gave one genetic example, and the way that codons interact with others on the same chromosome is complex. You couldn't simply change a few base pairs and have the perfect person, which is why I said more research must be done. Population genetics is not "randomly chaining facts together.", it's a paradigm of biology. Early man had more or less isolated populations even when you look at it from a meta-population viewpoint, this led to different cultures, ideas and religions which reflected the different lifestyles they'd adopted and survived with for tens of thousands of years. I believe that all lifeforms should be treated with compassion and understanding, but not all humans are equal, they have different propensities. Some are better at the thinking disciplines, others with disciplines of the heart, or those of the physical body, and while none of those are inherently better or worse than the other, they are different and therefore not equal in all regards. Quality > Equality. I agree that anthropology is crude when you extrapolate moral implications from it, which is why I said it should be used as a starting point and not an end all be all.

This block of text had so many contradictions that I have no idea where to start dissecting - if this was a body, as a surgeon I would have stopped at AED and sent the body to the mortuary, ER or no ER. Still, I tried and highlighted those problematic statements.

So you might want to list HOW you are going to determine quality in a SCIENTIFIC writing with ALL point, proof and pertinence present instead of just going about your beliefs on how everyone should subscribe to it because it has got "scientific" backing.

Also, anthropology has got little and nothing to do with moral implications - the brain is still a black box regardless of size and shape. You might want to stick with the argument of how the amygdala size affects the ability to see trust, or that the endocrine system maintains balance in all the hormones and neurotransmitters even if they are disputed facts.

Obeying your own nature is in fact slavery, the only way you can achieve freedom is from using your own will to decide what paths to take. It's natural for all humans to want to survive, so if you defy that will and become a martyr or choose to starve instead of consume living beings (like some monks have in the past) then you attain true freedom. Note that freedom and liberty are not synonymous. The only reason to heed to your nature is so that you might continue surviving until you complete your mission, this is the essence of militarism.

So how is "will" propagated?

I'm not going to take something someone said which was concise and meaningful and then paraphrase it, that's just creating a pointless separation between the person and the idea.

How is it concise when your brief contains little or no proof, which indicates information? In what way is it meaningful to this discussion? And why would paraphrasing separate the person and the idea when the person is referenced only for his circumstance and history that would cause him to say that?

Besides, you are not giving the person credit by naming the person who quoted that phrase.

Look, I would appreciate if you stop beating around the bush and start defining your bloody vocabulary. You are clogging up the thread spinning around cliches with no grounding, then quoting bits of science to attempt to back your findings.

I come here to read opinions - if I wanted a sermon I would have gone to my local religious community. If you have a beef with this post, go to PM - let's stop clogging up the thread.