1 "Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?" What is Man in himself? What is his nature? Man is a relatively large primate, one of the five existing species of great ape, and the only mammal with pronounced frontal lobes of the brain. This region gives rise to exquisitely complex behavior and an unmatched capacity for learning, which charactaristics set Man apart from the other animals. Behaviorally speaking, Man is a hunter-gatherer, and in his natural habitat drifts about the margins of African woodlands in troops of about 30 to 60, foraging for fruit and occasionally preying upon other beasts. Because he cannot survive alone in this environment Man, like other social animals, has powerful insticts that compel him to behave in a mannar that benefits the group. Hence, if we injure a female of this species, she she makes a distress display which evokes a protecive response from the males of her tribe. Similarly, an injured infant of this species evokes protective responses from adults. This is what gives crippled baby stories their powerful emotional tug. Man, like other animals of his type, is posessed of powerful territorial drives. Males especially are enraged by the presence of foreign males, and will attempt to drive off or destroy these, thus preventing their females from being fertilized by outsiders. This accounts for the behavior of Arab males toward European males, European males toward African males, and countless other unsightly episodes of violence. We observe that Man naturally has both attractive, protective social instincts (which cause him to get all emotional over spina bifida babies, for example) and repulsive social instincts (which cause him to get all worked up over unbearded infidels). Neither of these is more "human" than the other.

2 Ladies and gentlemen. Shannon has just displayed the epitome of cynicism by describing man only in his most primal state using his obsession with "spina bifida babies" as his only example of the best of human traits, compassion, by implying or portraying it is a "fault" or "aberration". I suppose it was folly to have shown such compassion for Helen Keller or Beethoven or any number of those who overcame great odds to inspire further compassion or optimism. Let it go, Shannon, let it go.

3 What Shannon doesn't and can't explain is why so many other humans DON'T exhibit the heartlessness noted therein. That's because that the explanation offered, while perhaps technically correct, is incomplete at best, misleading and belying of an anarchic cynacism at worst. Basically, it's sophmoric foolishness. Intellect with no wisdom, deserving no more attention than just enough to be quickly discredited and dispensed with.

4 I find Shannon a bit too "creepy" in an odd intellectual way. He's difficult to place - its not that he's wandering all over the map - its that he's clearly "fixed" on points all over the map.

5 Yet none of you can refute anything he said in his post, but merely criticize him for saying it, with the word "cynic" thrown in, sounding a lot like "heretic". Honestly, I'm disappointed in you guys, because you're treating him like a liberal leper rather than engaging him in rhetorical conversation, of which he is obviously capable, unlike the average non-conservative that swings by here. You may not agree with his view, but at least hear him out as long as he doesn't start pasting in quotes from leading libtard traitors. The reason intellectual discourse creeps you out is because you all use the right side of your brain more than the left, whereas people like Shannon and I tend toward the left side, i.e. the logical side. Most people depend more on their right hemisphere more than the left, and this is the birthplace not only of human compassion and creativity, but also of baseless hysterical fear of the unknown. Shannon and I may seem short on compassion, but actually we're just long on logic, though we may arrive at different conclusions based on myriad factors. I learned long ago not to make decisions based on emotion, but rather logic, and it has served me well, though it has won me few friends along the way. If I have to forego the approval of the mob for the sake of making the right decision, then I will do so without hesitation. Let us not forget that So-crates, (damned filter), was murdered for corrupting the youth, because he taught them how to think. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

6 Maxie, chill out. Nobody refuted what he said because there is fact there. The manner in which it is presented, coupled with past comments, however, is not beyond criticism. All that I myself brought up is Shannon's cold, calculated manner in which he approaches subjects. He stated the obvious without regard to that which is less obvious - human nature as it is applied to nuance and a million other factors which make us all unique. Shannon didn't say anything that we couldn't have gotten from any text book or college lecture on the origin of man's intellect. There is no evidence that a proclivity for left brain thinking is better than right brain thinking. A balance between the two is the ideal. For a complete reliance on one is what produces hysterical, and illogical fear or a total lack of compassion and inability to think in the abstract. So with all due respect, sir, because I do respect you - cram it.

7 Comments noted and crammed, but instead of just criticizing him, why not engage him? He's definitely not a moonbat, so maybe he just needs to hear the humanitarian perspective. Then again, maybe you also need to hear the cold, calculating perspective too? A different view is good from time to time. /devil's advocate mode off.

8 Damn, you took that well. I was starting to feel bad last night about telling you where to put things. Frankly, I'd be more interested in a dialog not about primal human drives, which is an undisputed subject in my book. We know the harsh world man was born into made many of these basal and aggressive instincts primary to survival. What would interest me more is the changes in certain societies which have somewhat supressed many of these hard wired instincts and the societies that have not progressed beyond them and other societies which have gone so far as to attempt their complete supression and the disasterous results of that. What would interest me more is the differences between the male and the female of the species and the push in many societies toward an androgenous society and its repercussions. I don't think Shannon is a moonbat or even a liberal, and never made a comment in that regard about him. You may have me confused with someone else on this board. If you'll re-read my response, perhaps I didn't engage him in the classic sense, but I did challenge him. And I end up talking to you. That's okay, but I want to make myself understood. (I had this typed out this morning, but got sidetracked and forgot to submit it. Just got home and found it still on my screen. So if it gets missed, well, I tried.)

9 I didn't say that you did anything you didn't do, I was just pointing out what I saw. Now, as to suppressed instincts etc., you have broached an important subject. What we see happening to the West since the rise of Christianity in the beginning, and feminism in the end, is the death of masculinity and with it the slow death of society. The only societies in the world that are expanding right now are the ones that have not fully civilized yet, and it seems that civilization is a contributing factor to the decline of society, because societies, like people, can only prosper when they're willing to get their hands dirty. What we are seeing now is the third great decline of Western culture, with Europe and America in a race to see who can collapse their civilization first. We're also seeing the fourth ascendancy of Eastern culture, led by the Chinese, with the Arabs and other primitives neither ascendant nor declining, but merely breeding like rats and infesting everyone else's space. The world will look drastically different in a hundred years, with primitives in control of all major urban areas in the West, which will become de facto wastelands, as Detroit is today, and the few remaining civilized people forced to live in small rural enclaves which they will have to defend vigilantly if they want to survive. This may sound like a sci-fi scenario, but it actually began around one hundred years ago with the flight of white urbanites from northeastern cities with the waves of Eurpean immigrants, and is continuing as the civilized world is overrun by the modern version of the barbarian hordes. Anyone who disagrees should go to Detroit for a visit, but make sure your life insurance is paid up first, because it's all blacks and muslims, and a white person who sets foot there is likely to not return.

10 Whew, that was a mouthful. I won't try to sum up the history of the world here, but I will take one subject you mentioned. I'm a firm believer that women have a role and so do men. One is no more or less important than the other. I never understood feminism, well, I do understand, I just never could advocate most of it. Why some women feel the need to invade every aspect of male society from Boy Scouts to the men's room is effed up and affirms their inferiority/superiority issues and a sprinkle of paranoia. Demanding special consideration beyond common sense or reason (affirmative action is one example), perpetuating the notion that hostility toward women is rampant (which is sort of a self-fufilling prophesy) and propagandizing women as a whole to be kinder, smarter, superior and in tune with mother earth. Sure - I can raise children right and be a lawyer - Horseshit. I know some pretty rotten women - and they're not even feminists. Just naturally rotten bitches. But the worst of them have taken the whole feminist movement way too seriously and do a lot of subtle damage to those they come in contact with along their way. These women can't think individually. Their biology tells them one thing and society tells them another and they can't reconcile the two because they ignore and don't understand the former. So they continue to blame men. That day is long past. No one told them the world moved on in the mid sixties. The best women I know don't celebrate their vaginas. They're feminine in the classic sense and psychologically secure in it and they don't feel a need to beat you over the head with it. What's happening is that we're fighting a lot of different battles on a lot of different fronts trying to preserve western culture. Feminism is only one of the battles. And we're losing. This "Us or Them" philosophy becomes clearer to me every day.

11 Point of order to Shannon. Humans aren't an order of great ape, the two evolutionary lines diverges ~6M years ago.

12 diverged

13 Why would So-crates be filter-bait, Improb? Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: So-crates What is so questionable about the name of a famous philosopher? Is the filter set to uber-paranoid or something? Will it censor the word Massachusetts? How about Dick Cheney?

14 Okay, it didn't. I still don't get it.