Common sense

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Djshakes][quote=Rustico]Should we ban the Christian Coalition?[/quote]
Well, considering this country was found on Judea-Christian values that would be self destructive now wouldn’t it.

If you want women to have no rights than by all means embrace Sharia. Do you embrace Sharia? Do you hate women?[/quote]

Many key founding fathers were also slave owners and upon founding the country, slavery was readily permitted.

Using your logic, slavery should be reinstated.

[OnPoint]

[quote=Rustico]Hitler.[/quote]

You can debate English Common Law all you want, but Godwin’s Law is immutable!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

Impressive response time Rustico!

[OnPoint]

[quote=Rustico]Hitler.[/quote]

You can debate English Common Law all you want, but Godwin’s Law is immutable!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

Impressive response time Rustico!

[OnPoint]

[quote=Rustico]Hitler.[/quote]

You can debate English Common Law all you want, but Godwin’s Law is immutable!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

Impressive response time Rustico!

[OnPoint]

[quote=Rustico]Hitler.[/quote]

You can debate English Common Law all you want, but Godwin’s Law is immutable!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

Impressive response time Rustico!

[OnPoint]

[quote=Rustico]Hitler.[/quote]

You can debate English Common Law all you want, but Godwin’s Law is immutable!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

Impressive response time Rustico!

[CA renter]

[quote=Djshakes]Multiculturalism is not just a recognition that different groups have different cultures. We all knew that, long before multiculturalism became a cult that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about “diversity,” without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits.

In Germany, as in other countries in Europe, welcoming millions of foreign workers who insist on remaining foreign has created problems so obvious that only the intelligentsia could fail to see them. It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious.

“We kidded ourselves for a while,” Chancellor Merkel said, but now it was clear that the attempt to build a society where people of very different languages and cultures could “live side-by-side” and “enjoy each other” has “failed, utterly failed.”

This is not a lesson for Germany alone. In countries around the world, and over the centuries, peoples with jarring differences in language, cultures and values have been a major problem and, too often, sources of major disasters for the societies in which they co-exist.

Even the tragedies and atrocities associated with racial differences in racist countries have been exceeded by the tragedies and atrocities among people with clashing cultures who are physically indistinguishable from one another, as in the Balkans or Rwanda.

Among the ways that people with different cultures have managed to minimize frictions have been (1) mutual cultural accommodations, even while not amalgamating completely, and (2) living separately in their own enclaves. Both of these approaches are anathema to the multicultural cultists.

Expecting any group to adapt their lifestyles to the cultural values of the larger society around them is “cultural imperialism” according to the multicultural cult. And living in separate neighborhoods is considered to be so terrible that there are government-financed programs to take people from high-crime slums and put them in subsidized housing in middle-class neighborhoods.

Multiculturalists condemn people’s objections to transplanting hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families into the midst of people who may have sacrificed for years to be able to escape from living among hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families.

The actual direct experience of the people who complain about the consequences of these social experiments is often dismissed as mere biased “perceptions” or “stereotypes,” if not outright “racism.” But some of the strongest complaints have come from middle-class blacks who have fled ghetto life, only to have the government transplant ghetto life back into their midst.

The absorption of millions of immigrants from Europe into American society may be cited as an example of the success of multiculturalism. But, in fact, they were absorbed in ways that were the direct opposite of what the multicultural cult is recommending today.

Before these immigrants were culturally assimilated to the norms of American society, they were by no means scattered at random among the population at large. On New York’s lower east side, Hungarian Jews lived clustered together in different neighborhoods from Romanian Jews or Polish Jews — and German Jews lived away from the lower east side.

When someone suggested relieving the overcrowding in the lower east side schools by transferring some of the children to a school in an Irish neighborhood that had space, both the Irish and the Jews objected.

None of this was peculiar to America. When immigrants from southern Italy to Australia moved into neighborhoods where people from northern Italy lived, the northern Italians moved out. Such scenarios could be found in countries around the world.

It was in later generations, after the children and grandchildren of the immigrants to America were speaking English and living lives more like the lives of other Americans, that they spread out to live and work where other Americans lived and worked. This wasn’t multiculturalism. It was common sense. – Thomas Sowell[/quote]

Good post, Djshakes.

I would love to see someone point to an example where people who were dead-set on “retaining their language and culture” were able to live peacefully and integrate successfully with citizens of the host country (and where people from the host country agreed that it was a “peaceful and successful integration”). Not too many examples (or any) that I can think of. OTOH, history is rife with examples where cultures clashed and people from different backgrounds fought vicious battles over resources and control of governments.

[CA renter]

[quote=Djshakes]Multiculturalism is not just a recognition that different groups have different cultures. We all knew that, long before multiculturalism became a cult that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about “diversity,” without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits.

In Germany, as in other countries in Europe, welcoming millions of foreign workers who insist on remaining foreign has created problems so obvious that only the intelligentsia could fail to see them. It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious.

“We kidded ourselves for a while,” Chancellor Merkel said, but now it was clear that the attempt to build a society where people of very different languages and cultures could “live side-by-side” and “enjoy each other” has “failed, utterly failed.”

This is not a lesson for Germany alone. In countries around the world, and over the centuries, peoples with jarring differences in language, cultures and values have been a major problem and, too often, sources of major disasters for the societies in which they co-exist.

Even the tragedies and atrocities associated with racial differences in racist countries have been exceeded by the tragedies and atrocities among people with clashing cultures who are physically indistinguishable from one another, as in the Balkans or Rwanda.

Among the ways that people with different cultures have managed to minimize frictions have been (1) mutual cultural accommodations, even while not amalgamating completely, and (2) living separately in their own enclaves. Both of these approaches are anathema to the multicultural cultists.

Expecting any group to adapt their lifestyles to the cultural values of the larger society around them is “cultural imperialism” according to the multicultural cult. And living in separate neighborhoods is considered to be so terrible that there are government-financed programs to take people from high-crime slums and put them in subsidized housing in middle-class neighborhoods.

Multiculturalists condemn people’s objections to transplanting hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families into the midst of people who may have sacrificed for years to be able to escape from living among hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families.

The actual direct experience of the people who complain about the consequences of these social experiments is often dismissed as mere biased “perceptions” or “stereotypes,” if not outright “racism.” But some of the strongest complaints have come from middle-class blacks who have fled ghetto life, only to have the government transplant ghetto life back into their midst.

The absorption of millions of immigrants from Europe into American society may be cited as an example of the success of multiculturalism. But, in fact, they were absorbed in ways that were the direct opposite of what the multicultural cult is recommending today.

Before these immigrants were culturally assimilated to the norms of American society, they were by no means scattered at random among the population at large. On New York’s lower east side, Hungarian Jews lived clustered together in different neighborhoods from Romanian Jews or Polish Jews — and German Jews lived away from the lower east side.

When someone suggested relieving the overcrowding in the lower east side schools by transferring some of the children to a school in an Irish neighborhood that had space, both the Irish and the Jews objected.

None of this was peculiar to America. When immigrants from southern Italy to Australia moved into neighborhoods where people from northern Italy lived, the northern Italians moved out. Such scenarios could be found in countries around the world.

It was in later generations, after the children and grandchildren of the immigrants to America were speaking English and living lives more like the lives of other Americans, that they spread out to live and work where other Americans lived and worked. This wasn’t multiculturalism. It was common sense. – Thomas Sowell[/quote]

Good post, Djshakes.

I would love to see someone point to an example where people who were dead-set on “retaining their language and culture” were able to live peacefully and integrate successfully with citizens of the host country (and where people from the host country agreed that it was a “peaceful and successful integration”). Not too many examples (or any) that I can think of. OTOH, history is rife with examples where cultures clashed and people from different backgrounds fought vicious battles over resources and control of governments.

[CA renter]

[quote=Djshakes]Multiculturalism is not just a recognition that different groups have different cultures. We all knew that, long before multiculturalism became a cult that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about “diversity,” without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits.

In Germany, as in other countries in Europe, welcoming millions of foreign workers who insist on remaining foreign has created problems so obvious that only the intelligentsia could fail to see them. It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious.

“We kidded ourselves for a while,” Chancellor Merkel said, but now it was clear that the attempt to build a society where people of very different languages and cultures could “live side-by-side” and “enjoy each other” has “failed, utterly failed.”

This is not a lesson for Germany alone. In countries around the world, and over the centuries, peoples with jarring differences in language, cultures and values have been a major problem and, too often, sources of major disasters for the societies in which they co-exist.

Even the tragedies and atrocities associated with racial differences in racist countries have been exceeded by the tragedies and atrocities among people with clashing cultures who are physically indistinguishable from one another, as in the Balkans or Rwanda.

Among the ways that people with different cultures have managed to minimize frictions have been (1) mutual cultural accommodations, even while not amalgamating completely, and (2) living separately in their own enclaves. Both of these approaches are anathema to the multicultural cultists.

Expecting any group to adapt their lifestyles to the cultural values of the larger society around them is “cultural imperialism” according to the multicultural cult. And living in separate neighborhoods is considered to be so terrible that there are government-financed programs to take people from high-crime slums and put them in subsidized housing in middle-class neighborhoods.

Multiculturalists condemn people’s objections to transplanting hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families into the midst of people who may have sacrificed for years to be able to escape from living among hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families.

The actual direct experience of the people who complain about the consequences of these social experiments is often dismissed as mere biased “perceptions” or “stereotypes,” if not outright “racism.” But some of the strongest complaints have come from middle-class blacks who have fled ghetto life, only to have the government transplant ghetto life back into their midst.

The absorption of millions of immigrants from Europe into American society may be cited as an example of the success of multiculturalism. But, in fact, they were absorbed in ways that were the direct opposite of what the multicultural cult is recommending today.

Before these immigrants were culturally assimilated to the norms of American society, they were by no means scattered at random among the population at large. On New York’s lower east side, Hungarian Jews lived clustered together in different neighborhoods from Romanian Jews or Polish Jews — and German Jews lived away from the lower east side.

When someone suggested relieving the overcrowding in the lower east side schools by transferring some of the children to a school in an Irish neighborhood that had space, both the Irish and the Jews objected.

None of this was peculiar to America. When immigrants from southern Italy to Australia moved into neighborhoods where people from northern Italy lived, the northern Italians moved out. Such scenarios could be found in countries around the world.

It was in later generations, after the children and grandchildren of the immigrants to America were speaking English and living lives more like the lives of other Americans, that they spread out to live and work where other Americans lived and worked. This wasn’t multiculturalism. It was common sense. – Thomas Sowell[/quote]

Good post, Djshakes.

I would love to see someone point to an example where people who were dead-set on “retaining their language and culture” were able to live peacefully and integrate successfully with citizens of the host country (and where people from the host country agreed that it was a “peaceful and successful integration”). Not too many examples (or any) that I can think of. OTOH, history is rife with examples where cultures clashed and people from different backgrounds fought vicious battles over resources and control of governments.

[CA renter]

[quote=Djshakes]Multiculturalism is not just a recognition that different groups have different cultures. We all knew that, long before multiculturalism became a cult that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about “diversity,” without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits.

In Germany, as in other countries in Europe, welcoming millions of foreign workers who insist on remaining foreign has created problems so obvious that only the intelligentsia could fail to see them. It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious.

“We kidded ourselves for a while,” Chancellor Merkel said, but now it was clear that the attempt to build a society where people of very different languages and cultures could “live side-by-side” and “enjoy each other” has “failed, utterly failed.”

This is not a lesson for Germany alone. In countries around the world, and over the centuries, peoples with jarring differences in language, cultures and values have been a major problem and, too often, sources of major disasters for the societies in which they co-exist.

Even the tragedies and atrocities associated with racial differences in racist countries have been exceeded by the tragedies and atrocities among people with clashing cultures who are physically indistinguishable from one another, as in the Balkans or Rwanda.

Among the ways that people with different cultures have managed to minimize frictions have been (1) mutual cultural accommodations, even while not amalgamating completely, and (2) living separately in their own enclaves. Both of these approaches are anathema to the multicultural cultists.

Expecting any group to adapt their lifestyles to the cultural values of the larger society around them is “cultural imperialism” according to the multicultural cult. And living in separate neighborhoods is considered to be so terrible that there are government-financed programs to take people from high-crime slums and put them in subsidized housing in middle-class neighborhoods.

Multiculturalists condemn people’s objections to transplanting hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families into the midst of people who may have sacrificed for years to be able to escape from living among hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families.

The actual direct experience of the people who complain about the consequences of these social experiments is often dismissed as mere biased “perceptions” or “stereotypes,” if not outright “racism.” But some of the strongest complaints have come from middle-class blacks who have fled ghetto life, only to have the government transplant ghetto life back into their midst.

The absorption of millions of immigrants from Europe into American society may be cited as an example of the success of multiculturalism. But, in fact, they were absorbed in ways that were the direct opposite of what the multicultural cult is recommending today.

Before these immigrants were culturally assimilated to the norms of American society, they were by no means scattered at random among the population at large. On New York’s lower east side, Hungarian Jews lived clustered together in different neighborhoods from Romanian Jews or Polish Jews — and German Jews lived away from the lower east side.

When someone suggested relieving the overcrowding in the lower east side schools by transferring some of the children to a school in an Irish neighborhood that had space, both the Irish and the Jews objected.

None of this was peculiar to America. When immigrants from southern Italy to Australia moved into neighborhoods where people from northern Italy lived, the northern Italians moved out. Such scenarios could be found in countries around the world.

It was in later generations, after the children and grandchildren of the immigrants to America were speaking English and living lives more like the lives of other Americans, that they spread out to live and work where other Americans lived and worked. This wasn’t multiculturalism. It was common sense. – Thomas Sowell[/quote]

Good post, Djshakes.

I would love to see someone point to an example where people who were dead-set on “retaining their language and culture” were able to live peacefully and integrate successfully with citizens of the host country (and where people from the host country agreed that it was a “peaceful and successful integration”). Not too many examples (or any) that I can think of. OTOH, history is rife with examples where cultures clashed and people from different backgrounds fought vicious battles over resources and control of governments.

[CA renter]

[quote=Djshakes]Multiculturalism is not just a recognition that different groups have different cultures. We all knew that, long before multiculturalism became a cult that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about “diversity,” without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits.

In Germany, as in other countries in Europe, welcoming millions of foreign workers who insist on remaining foreign has created problems so obvious that only the intelligentsia could fail to see them. It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious.

“We kidded ourselves for a while,” Chancellor Merkel said, but now it was clear that the attempt to build a society where people of very different languages and cultures could “live side-by-side” and “enjoy each other” has “failed, utterly failed.”

This is not a lesson for Germany alone. In countries around the world, and over the centuries, peoples with jarring differences in language, cultures and values have been a major problem and, too often, sources of major disasters for the societies in which they co-exist.

Even the tragedies and atrocities associated with racial differences in racist countries have been exceeded by the tragedies and atrocities among people with clashing cultures who are physically indistinguishable from one another, as in the Balkans or Rwanda.

Among the ways that people with different cultures have managed to minimize frictions have been (1) mutual cultural accommodations, even while not amalgamating completely, and (2) living separately in their own enclaves. Both of these approaches are anathema to the multicultural cultists.

Expecting any group to adapt their lifestyles to the cultural values of the larger society around them is “cultural imperialism” according to the multicultural cult. And living in separate neighborhoods is considered to be so terrible that there are government-financed programs to take people from high-crime slums and put them in subsidized housing in middle-class neighborhoods.

Multiculturalists condemn people’s objections to transplanting hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families into the midst of people who may have sacrificed for years to be able to escape from living among hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families.

The actual direct experience of the people who complain about the consequences of these social experiments is often dismissed as mere biased “perceptions” or “stereotypes,” if not outright “racism.” But some of the strongest complaints have come from middle-class blacks who have fled ghetto life, only to have the government transplant ghetto life back into their midst.

The absorption of millions of immigrants from Europe into American society may be cited as an example of the success of multiculturalism. But, in fact, they were absorbed in ways that were the direct opposite of what the multicultural cult is recommending today.

Before these immigrants were culturally assimilated to the norms of American society, they were by no means scattered at random among the population at large. On New York’s lower east side, Hungarian Jews lived clustered together in different neighborhoods from Romanian Jews or Polish Jews — and German Jews lived away from the lower east side.

When someone suggested relieving the overcrowding in the lower east side schools by transferring some of the children to a school in an Irish neighborhood that had space, both the Irish and the Jews objected.

None of this was peculiar to America. When immigrants from southern Italy to Australia moved into neighborhoods where people from northern Italy lived, the northern Italians moved out. Such scenarios could be found in countries around the world.

It was in later generations, after the children and grandchildren of the immigrants to America were speaking English and living lives more like the lives of other Americans, that they spread out to live and work where other Americans lived and worked. This wasn’t multiculturalism. It was common sense. – Thomas Sowell[/quote]

Good post, Djshakes.

I would love to see someone point to an example where people who were dead-set on “retaining their language and culture” were able to live peacefully and integrate successfully with citizens of the host country (and where people from the host country agreed that it was a “peaceful and successful integration”). Not too many examples (or any) that I can think of. OTOH, history is rife with examples where cultures clashed and people from different backgrounds fought vicious battles over resources and control of governments.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]

No, that isn’t the crux of out debate. It is whether multiculturalism is a failure. I should know, I started the thread.
[/quote]

Back to the article you linked to.

No, multiculturalism is not a failure.

The real failure is not providing the immigrants with a fair and proportional stake in the economy, and hence the culture.

I’m not talking about “giving away” anything to undeserving people. But when a country receives new population, it must build a framework by which the new immigrants can acquire an equity stake in the economy.

The problem with France and Europe it that they have millions of destitute immigrants who are not feeling any liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

France is an “old” country where the political and business elites are nearly all graduates of a few elite universities. Aside from the main state directed economy, there are few viable parallel immigrant communities/economies where immigrants can thrive.

The French system is good for the French but it needs to be reformed to welcome and assimilate the immigrants of a globalized world.

It’s a failure of the French political and economic system, not a failure of multiculturalism. Sarkozy is pandering to the right wing of French voters. Same goes for England and the other countries mentioned in the article.[/quote]

And this is where that “loss aversion” comes into play.

Humans have a herding instinct, and we form groups that we feel will optimize our access to resources and territory. We are territorial, and defend our territories as a herd.

The resistance to “multiculturalism” is basic to human nature. It has nothing to do with religion (or race, or culture), specifically, and everything to do with trying to control certain resources that “belong” to the group.

When a new group with different characteristics (religion, color, language, culture, etc.) encroaches on an existing group’s territory/resources, they are demanding access to the resources that the existing group perceives as their own.

It is about hoarding behavior and access to resources; and it is as basic to human (and animal) nature as eating and procreation. It’s a survival instinct, and it’s ridiculous to think that we can change something that is so intrinsic and essential to our survival.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]

No, that isn’t the crux of out debate. It is whether multiculturalism is a failure. I should know, I started the thread.
[/quote]

Back to the article you linked to.

No, multiculturalism is not a failure.

The real failure is not providing the immigrants with a fair and proportional stake in the economy, and hence the culture.

I’m not talking about “giving away” anything to undeserving people. But when a country receives new population, it must build a framework by which the new immigrants can acquire an equity stake in the economy.

The problem with France and Europe it that they have millions of destitute immigrants who are not feeling any liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

France is an “old” country where the political and business elites are nearly all graduates of a few elite universities. Aside from the main state directed economy, there are few viable parallel immigrant communities/economies where immigrants can thrive.

The French system is good for the French but it needs to be reformed to welcome and assimilate the immigrants of a globalized world.

It’s a failure of the French political and economic system, not a failure of multiculturalism. Sarkozy is pandering to the right wing of French voters. Same goes for England and the other countries mentioned in the article.[/quote]

And this is where that “loss aversion” comes into play.

Humans have a herding instinct, and we form groups that we feel will optimize our access to resources and territory. We are territorial, and defend our territories as a herd.

The resistance to “multiculturalism” is basic to human nature. It has nothing to do with religion (or race, or culture), specifically, and everything to do with trying to control certain resources that “belong” to the group.

When a new group with different characteristics (religion, color, language, culture, etc.) encroaches on an existing group’s territory/resources, they are demanding access to the resources that the existing group perceives as their own.

It is about hoarding behavior and access to resources; and it is as basic to human (and animal) nature as eating and procreation. It’s a survival instinct, and it’s ridiculous to think that we can change something that is so intrinsic and essential to our survival.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]

No, that isn’t the crux of out debate. It is whether multiculturalism is a failure. I should know, I started the thread.
[/quote]

Back to the article you linked to.

No, multiculturalism is not a failure.

The real failure is not providing the immigrants with a fair and proportional stake in the economy, and hence the culture.

I’m not talking about “giving away” anything to undeserving people. But when a country receives new population, it must build a framework by which the new immigrants can acquire an equity stake in the economy.

The problem with France and Europe it that they have millions of destitute immigrants who are not feeling any liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

France is an “old” country where the political and business elites are nearly all graduates of a few elite universities. Aside from the main state directed economy, there are few viable parallel immigrant communities/economies where immigrants can thrive.

The French system is good for the French but it needs to be reformed to welcome and assimilate the immigrants of a globalized world.

It’s a failure of the French political and economic system, not a failure of multiculturalism. Sarkozy is pandering to the right wing of French voters. Same goes for England and the other countries mentioned in the article.[/quote]

And this is where that “loss aversion” comes into play.

Humans have a herding instinct, and we form groups that we feel will optimize our access to resources and territory. We are territorial, and defend our territories as a herd.

The resistance to “multiculturalism” is basic to human nature. It has nothing to do with religion (or race, or culture), specifically, and everything to do with trying to control certain resources that “belong” to the group.

When a new group with different characteristics (religion, color, language, culture, etc.) encroaches on an existing group’s territory/resources, they are demanding access to the resources that the existing group perceives as their own.

It is about hoarding behavior and access to resources; and it is as basic to human (and animal) nature as eating and procreation. It’s a survival instinct, and it’s ridiculous to think that we can change something that is so intrinsic and essential to our survival.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]

No, that isn’t the crux of out debate. It is whether multiculturalism is a failure. I should know, I started the thread.
[/quote]

Back to the article you linked to.

No, multiculturalism is not a failure.

The real failure is not providing the immigrants with a fair and proportional stake in the economy, and hence the culture.

I’m not talking about “giving away” anything to undeserving people. But when a country receives new population, it must build a framework by which the new immigrants can acquire an equity stake in the economy.

The problem with France and Europe it that they have millions of destitute immigrants who are not feeling any liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

France is an “old” country where the political and business elites are nearly all graduates of a few elite universities. Aside from the main state directed economy, there are few viable parallel immigrant communities/economies where immigrants can thrive.

The French system is good for the French but it needs to be reformed to welcome and assimilate the immigrants of a globalized world.

It’s a failure of the French political and economic system, not a failure of multiculturalism. Sarkozy is pandering to the right wing of French voters. Same goes for England and the other countries mentioned in the article.[/quote]

And this is where that “loss aversion” comes into play.

Humans have a herding instinct, and we form groups that we feel will optimize our access to resources and territory. We are territorial, and defend our territories as a herd.

The resistance to “multiculturalism” is basic to human nature. It has nothing to do with religion (or race, or culture), specifically, and everything to do with trying to control certain resources that “belong” to the group.

When a new group with different characteristics (religion, color, language, culture, etc.) encroaches on an existing group’s territory/resources, they are demanding access to the resources that the existing group perceives as their own.

It is about hoarding behavior and access to resources; and it is as basic to human (and animal) nature as eating and procreation. It’s a survival instinct, and it’s ridiculous to think that we can change something that is so intrinsic and essential to our survival.

[Author]

Posts