• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I am puzzled as to what exactly you mean. I watched the video until min 17 out of 19, then realized it’s got no deeper message beyond that point so stopped it. Lad spoke about philosophies, how different philosophers thought people were good or others thought they were bad then had a weird intermezzo blaming imperialism. The weird part was the style change not the actual blaming, mind you - that’s all valid, but still serves to prove an actual human nature.

    Spoke some stuff about look at all cultures in Africa being friendly, and then babbled on about how humans aren’t good or bad but they are victims of their circumstances.

    Overall a mediocre video from an argumentation standpoint, but figured hey, why not give it a shot?

    I never said we’re all willing participants. Active or passive participants - willing or unwilling. Still participants. Maybe it clears it up, hm?

    Paraphrasing the video it does indeed say that humans aren’t bad or good, but their actions are due to the social environment. Do tell me how this is completely disconnected from what I said? I took it a couple of steps further.

    Social environment bad (somehow, not tied to human nature because social environments come into being by themselves and exist even without humans, if I’m understanding this as you mean it - cause otherwise, if people were responsible, they would be bad people. but the video tells us there are no bad people);

    BUT people not bad or good means it’s basically not their fault for anything cause they aren’t bad if they do bad stuff. But look people are good because they come together sometimes.

    I honestly don’t understand what point you are trying to make. If it is that human nature isn’t a thing and that’s it, well… best of luck to ya. Is it not in your nature to argue with random people on the internet?

    Maybe if you are trying to make a point don’t just drop a youtube link and expect people to understand the same thing as you did or expect them suddenly be enlightened. Did you understand it? Care to elaborate on what you understood from it? I did. Let’s compare notes.

    Edit: Obligatory I’m not your bro, guy.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Social environment bad (somehow, not tied to human nature because social environments come into being by themselves and exist even without humans, if I’m understanding this as you mean it

      I’ve said this three times: neither I nor Andrew said societies are not created by people.

      if people were responsible, they would be bad people. but the video tells us there are no bad people);

      They are indeed bad people. I don’t know why you think i would disagree, or that the video suggests people can’t be bad. Of course they can.

      What??

      But look people are good because they come together sometimes.

      Stick to your point. You were first claiming it said people aren’t inherently bad or good. That’s right. Then you slipped it to people can’t be bad or good. That’s a totally different statement no one claimed. Now, somehow the claim has morphed to saying that people are inherently good.

      What?

      Maybe if you are trying to make a point don’t just drop a youtube link and expect people to understand the same thing as you did or expect them suddenly be enlightened. Did you understand it? Care to elaborate on what you understood from it? I did. Let’s compare notes.

      I can’t decide if you’re trolling or genuinely incompetent. It’s not hard to understand.

      Human nature is not a fixed concept. It’s a buzzword thrown around by people trying to sell their philosophy to you. People do what they can based on their material conditions. We are not inherently pulled toward being pro social or anti social.