So hypothetically, if China lost 1 person per year, and assuming that the rate continued fixed at this with never fluctuating.

Then, China's population should be nonexisting in about... err... 2,000,000,000 years from now... lmao...

Fair enough, assuming you aren't stating that war is always "ongoing" even when no "official" war has been declared or made known (e.x. the 90s Bosnia conflict, "cyberwarfare", etc).

How often would you say that a war or conflict considered big or significant enough to be considered a "major" war on our historical time occurs?

(e.x. the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the US Civil War, WWI, WWII, First Gulf War, Second Gulf War, etc etc).

The only primary reason why irrelevant "free will" debates exist within the context of popular debates and media, is because idiots and lowlifes want to use it to affirm fatalistic, "behavioralistic" or "deterministic" nonsense, which they'd ultimately believe no matter what, simply because they want to, even if every thinker was in consensus that free will "exists", in total ignorance or apathy to the vast majority of legal and moral philosophy which is relevant in 1st world countries, from the 19th century and before, all the way up to the present day, and more or less known and considered to be nonsense and silliness even in the outdated days where they were trendy and popular to begin with, as far as serious legal and moral philosophy and the various evidences, reasonings, logic, and axioms which they and/or it were based on to begin with.

Such as associating "addictions" such as cigarette smoking with "brain disorders" to imply that the addict doesn't have the "free will" to quit, when in reality, in practice, people do quit, regardless of whether it was by "free will", or whether they were "pre-destined" or "pre-determined" to quit to being with, while others' weren't, a la Calvinism.

As well as ignoring other aspects of scientific data or research that don't fit their childish and nonsensical agenda or logic, and allow them to peddle snake oil in the form of unhealthy or antisocial dependency to the sheep who fatuously and selfishly consume it to begin with, such as brain neuroplasticity.

The Dissintergration of many a society happened as a result of the lewd decline into sexual depravity. The Romans had their orgies, the Ancient Greek man liked to have sex with young boys, they also like to kill babies if they didnt look normal and parade naked in the streets (check out the meaning of a gymnasium), and in our society today, we have Tinder, Grinder and Dogging. Oh and internet pornography, oh and 2 girls 1 cup. Oh and human slavery for the purposes of sex working. And organised paedophile rings. There may be more I cant think of.

My focus, of late isn't specifically on "sex" so much as fatuous consumerism in general, it merely being a waste of life, but my earnest belief now is that in most time periods, people determined to do so found ways to 'waste' theirs and others lives', and find ways to be miserable even when they didn't or don't have to.

Nothing "fascist" about it, just reality and common sense, unless one things that being against pedophilia makes you a "fascist", and if so, they don't deserve to live to begin with, let alone have an opinion on that, or anything else.

Thanks.

Society is a fabrication fathered by Socrates and Plato. All variations thereof have stemmed from this.
[/quote]
I'm inclined to not believe that. in same ways, the notions of society are innate, or have their roots In genetics.

For example, ants are known create vast "cities" complete with phenomena such as roadways or irrigation systems:

https://www.vnews.com/Allegheny-mound-ants-discovered-in-Temple-29066253

(Obviously not all societies are "the same", or equal, nor is the society of ant colony anything akin to a model of an integrated human society, good, bad or otherwise, or a way or means of distinguishing between archaic, uncivilized, savage society or remnants or elements thereof (e.x. horrible and archaic, anti-intellectual parenting practices) and higher-quality and/or higher level forms of which better societies and their elements thereof take or perpetuate to begin with, such as. a totalitarian state whether ancient or modern, or other morally or intellectually degenerate or worst elements of societ(ies) which function in similar outdated, antisocial, and/or archaic ways, albeit informally and unofficially).

(Much given that any society or attempted mathematical, economic, or financial approximation(s) thereof to begin with, or any deeper or complex knowledge of its laws, institutions, and so and so forth both in, for instance, legal theory and/or as wells as in similar legal or human nature practices. negative, begin or otherwise, is merely as mall window or looking glass into a complex whole or interplay of different individuals, families, businesses, schools, colleges, universities, cultures and so-called "sub-cultures" social groups, medias, villages, towns, cities, nations, international organizations, legal systems, languages, jargons, dialects, and institutions, offline and online social groups or networks, and so on and so forth to begin with, there naturally being no exact science or 'perfect' way to approximate or quantify one to begin with, nor is it reducible necessarily to any one of the above components either).

For that matter, the idea that society or humanity whether in East or West "began" solely with the ancient Greeks is rather fallacious as well, though it does mark a historical milestone.

As an example, there are still pre-literate tribes of hunter gatherers, such as the Sentinelese, who live or exist in some co-operative capacity, as presumably have or did many other ancient cultures or tribes, regardless of whether or not there is anything akin to a "formal" or written law.

Your argument, to me sounds like popular anarchist mythos.

I haven't seen anything akin to a cohesive mathematical approximation of any society, or the exact point where one begins and other ins, or the multitudes of 1000s of different families, individuals, businesses, social groups, legal institutions, medias, physical locales, and so on and so on which combine to create a society in a delicate and complex interplay; most childish, archaic, anti-intellectual, and offensively simplistic and/nonsensical approximations of societ(ies) to begin with leave much to be desired, but then again some if not many care very little about it or such contemporary and truthful notions to begin with, preferring instead to show little to no interest in it to begin with, beyond perhaps the paltry and selfish bare minimum, other than perhaps their own immediate families of social groups, both in theor(ies) as well as in practices.

You made that assertion, but I have no reason to believe you are "right".

Sex is part of life, and how different societies address it has a big role in shaping them.
[/quote]

The reality is that there are couples who married who "get tired" of having sex; much as there are notable men and women historically, who in practice may have never married, and actually found other endeavors, such as life, career or intellectual pursuits more satisfying (Newton and Adam Smith immediately come to mind).

I said nothing about "whites" and "English speaking people", why do keep changing the topic? When you replace one population with a different one, you get a different society, that applies everywher. I.e. when China replaces Tibetan and Uigur populations with Han Chinese populations, the societies of Tibet and Xinyian change drastically. Again, I am simply stating a fact --- I don´t know what you do not understand or disagree with here.

And what's your point, and how would the number of birth rates have anything to do with it?

Whether or not the USA's population number stayed the same, or dropped by 1/2, it would be a different "society" regardless.

Likewise, any cohesive attempt at defining at what point any society or nation "begins" or "ends" to begin with has yet to be done (e.x. a nation called "China" exists today, but obviously it is not considered the same "China" as Ming Dynasty China).

You're not making any point.

1. You haven't lived in a "warrior society", and I suspect that much of this is over-romanticized in media and popular folk wisdom (there is a serious book on the subject of "violence" and actual violent combat by Rory Miller if you are interested).

My understanding is that any "elite warrior" no matter which "society" you're talking about was always a minority, and not the "average" man at all, much as how men (or women) who have served in live combat or special forces are not the "average" person, nor even the average officer or enlisted in US or other modern militaries; with "most" men and women having comparatively "average" jobs.

Not to mention, 1st world countries are not "polygamous" at least as far as law and social institutions and philosophies go; unless you count "hooking up" or "casual" sex as "polygamous" or "polyamorous"), which seems to be a civilizational philosophy and phenomena not necessarily exclusive to any specifically "religious" institution or phenomena.

2. You again seem to reduce the "Incel" phenomina solely to a "sexual" thing, as opposed to a psychological or character thing.

Or view the proposal that they do something remotely productive with their life other than obsess over women who think they're creepy, as totally out of the question.

"Democracy", to me just seems like a popular buzzword, since none of the governments of 1st world nations were ever intended to be "democracies" to begin with, but rather a system including checks and balances, such as to prevent mob rule and society's lowest common denominator associated with said morally degenerate and unlawful phenomena, rather than pander to it.

I'd argue your statement is not particularly relevant here, in asserting that there's no "Golden Rule", or whatever your point is or was.

I said "if". It depends on the society. For example, in a society that practises polygamy, by defintion there is a surplus of incels.
[/quote]

If your making these assumptions on the bases of hypothetical "warrior" societies, then it's probable that male death rate is much higher than average, which might help to "even things out" a bit.

Same applies for a society with selective abortion of female babies (i.e. China with its 1 child policy). These are simple demographic facts.

I believe you've failed to use these "facts" in anyway which resembles a meaningful point you are trying to make.

Especially when the "incel" cult or subculture seems to be more delusional or "pride" focused (e.x. obsessing over stereotypically "hot chicks" with a media following), and not simply attempting to "get laid" or "get a girlfriend" with something akin to similar 'common interests' such as theirs.

Ultimately, I am not inclined to be very sympathetic; life is not all about "sex", and the type of men who would be able to date a "hot celebrity chick" like Taylor Swift or Angelina Jolie are a very small minority to begin with, most people, at least on some level manage to cope with this reality and realization, if they can't or won't because of their psychopathy and lack of anything resembling a margin of self-awareness, that, is ultimately on them.

Not to mention the realties that "marriage" even for people who invest their time in getting married or starting a family is far from a "walk in the park", with many couples ending up miserably married or quite less "happy" than the begin ideals, to the point that some even regret getting married after the fact, so obviously the psychological dysfunctions with "incels" are likely on a much more and deeper level, and not something that can simply or be easily resolved through their ridiculous and/or absurd "solutions", such as demanding that governments 'subsidize hookers" for them or whatnot.

---
And as far as "population rates", ignoring the crap above, you've yet to substantiate when and why they are relevant, or how much "population" any given nation or society needs to begin with.

So-called "whites" and English-speaking peoples are already a "minority" globally, compared to China and India's populations; nor does everything which currently "is" necessarily even need "replacement", and in some cases would likely be better off just to die and disappear on its own accord. So on this, again what is the point you're trying to make?

I fail to understand what your saying, or what this has to do with "Romanticism"; as far as Islam in specific, I haven't studied it in depth.

Well of course. Democracy is about discovering truth and basing life decisions on truth. Religion is not.
[/quote]
Well, when you say "democracy", none of the governmental systems in the US, UK, or Europe are "direct democracies", and were never intended to be; the US is considered a "democratic republic", or a "federal Constitutional republic".

I also fail to see the correlation between "democracy" and "discovering truth", or why "religion" as is ambiguously and probably incorrectly being defined is exempt from that.

Democracy is about human excellence, religion might strive for that but the way it attempts to achieve that is very problematic because it is not based on truth.

I don't understand what that means, what difference is there in a religious moral "truth" such as prohibition of murder, and a "secular" system such as Common Law asserting a moral truth or rule against murder?

The dichotomy is somewhat false, given that many "religious" systems were also legal systems, and even "secular" systems developed out of systems which were considered "religious" and incorporated various truths or axioms from them.

The basic premise or philosophy of the law is the "golden rule", which is an axiom that is also part of world religions, and as far as "truth" goes, I'm not sure how one could "prove" this axiom to begin with in a religious or a secular context, it's something which one either merely has to accept or not, or run the risk of punishment or retribution from the law if they decide to break it or ignore it.

I'm curious what you mean by "secular" vs "religious" matter; in practice most of those popular dichotomies are false.

For example, the Common Law system evolved from older ones, including "religious ones", though most would call it "secular" and not belonging to any specific religion or "sect", despite the influence of Christianity and other systems such as Roman on its development.

This is not about individual situations, this about society in general. The vast majority of young males are heterosexual and are thus looking for females. With a general 50/50 male/female ration that generally works out.
Now if you have large surplus of males, you inevitably have a number of young males looking for females but unable to find one... thus, incels.

That there any number of indivial situations is a given... I am not talking about that. I was talking about society as whole. So hard to understand? — Nobeernolife

No, I don't understand.

What are you saying, society in general has a "surplus" of males? Or that every young man (or woman) has no life goals or priorities beyond sex, masturbation, and pornography, and can't so much as find something akin to a productive hobby or life goal?

Nor do I understand any rational reason why a person would "identify" or fame themselves on the basis of how much "sex" they're getting (or not), unless they're a severely emotionally stunted individual with nothing akin to any meaningful goals, hobbies, values, life priorities, and so on.

If you want me to be "sympathetic" to some imagined and self-entitled "plight" which to me is more narcissism than anything else, I'm not particularly inclined to be, no. I've been with enough women that the adolescent thrill of 'hooking up' or 'getting laid' is gone, and a 'hedonistic' worldview in which all of life's meaning is reduced to "sex", or even "marriage", isn't particularly appealing, much as my observation has been that in happily married, as opposed to mediocrely-miserably married couples, marriage or relationships are just a part of an otherwise well-rounded and fulfilled live, not life's so end in and of itself.

Actually, you brought up mathematics, not I. And yes, education is increasingly girl-oriented to the detriment of boys. This is about the learning environment, not about the choice of topics. You might want to check out Jonathan Haidt, who has researched this extensively. Also you might want to read the paper that got James Damore fired from Google for addressing exactly the same issue (in regard to work environment at Google, not at schools, but it is the same issue).

If you're talking about K-12 education, my opinion is that given that the "bare minimum" level one will attain from this education is ultimately not very significant, given that it's oriented toward an average 100 IQ and 6th grade reading level, I find many of the claims histrionic, especially in regards to people pursuing self-learning higher level education or career pursuits and so on.

Overall, my opinion of it as a whole is not particularly good to begin with, nor are the experiences of young people reducible to what they learn (or don't learn) in K-12, given that a variety of other factors such as family, parents, culture, media, peers, the person themselves will ultimately play a huge role on their development.

Tough to say, I'd argue that "fun" is more mindless, lazy, idyllic, carefree "pleasure" than a more "serious" form of pleasure, hobby pastime, etc, such as organized sports, competitive games, and so on and so forth.

I'd argue that nothing outside of pure mathematical theory will ever be "true" in said axiomatic sense; presumably all theories no matter their content being constructed or approximated from mathematics.

Regarding your claims about "incels", I'm curious and wondering?

How does one prove that they or someone else is an "incel" to begin with? How many girls do they have to ask on a date, or attempt to 'seduce' and get rejected by in order for them to qualify as an "incel"?

Are they 'hitting on' girls or women with... similar interests or life goals, whether we are talking anime, Minecraft, webcomics about fascist frogs, Pokémon, "My Little Pony fandom", or anything else stereotypically 'nerdy' or 'unpopular', or are they hitting on the top 10% of the world's hottest chicks, a la John Hinckly Jr. or some other self-styled "gentleman" who thinks Taylor Swift is entitled to date him because he's "nice" or something aesthetically repellant like that?

if they are simply motivated by "sex", have the attempted to go "gay", and if they refuse simply because of preference for a woman, does that still make them an "incel"?

Please elaborate, I refuse to associate with them or their so-called "communities" beyond mere voyeuristic curiosity, given that I don't think my aesthetic and cultural sense could stomach it; particularily if we are talking about 50+ year old man children with a serious case of arrested development or maturity, rather than merely angsty tweens who got rejected by their HS crush.

In what little contact I had the misfortune of making with those of said depraved and archaic mindsets and aesthetic defectiveness and attempting to make sense of the logic or rational behind their disaffected "worldview' or "perspective", I attempted to talk about of common sense or rationality to them, but I personally find that most of them are too dysfunctional to help, at least for a wannabe "good Samaritan" like me, and their worldview is predicated on the breeding of disaffectedness and complete lack of self awareness, or even basic economic sense as much as what the so-called "red pill" economics' axioms are based or predicated on to begin with.

Then again, from what I've seen, the "average" mediocrly married, if not outright miserably married and pending to become yet another of the 50% divorce rate statistics, were simple pragmatics not a dissuading favor in it, doesn't have any particularly good 'advice', intuition, or 'insight' about the matter either, particularly when anything relating to the term "feminism" in all of its ambiguous and inconsistent uses is discussed or brought up by men or women of either "side" or camp, with some degree of 'griping', resentment, or 'misunderstanding' of the other sex seeming to be quite ubiquitous, if not 'perennial', given that apparently the same types of gripes and complaints, and marital spats or quarrels have been documented since ancient history, per Plato and other thinkers.

On this, any universal worldview which is essentially nihilism about "the other sex" or relationships, boyfriends, girlfriends, fiancés, marriage in general, I rejected; I believe that some people are married or couples who are "happy" enough without it degenerating into something akin to "Jerry Springer" or "Maury" material, but realistically some people may simply not, at least where they are in life, be cut out for marriage, let alone children, whether one wishes to reference St. Paul or any other thinker or author on the topic, along with the "delusion" that any marriage is "perfect", which to me, at least if one has any level of common sense, or has read anything akin to mature marriage or relationship advice from any era under the sun, would know or pick up on without any silly and hyperbolic "red pill" paranoid required, unless they are incredibly naïve or ignorant, most likely willfully.

Back to the discussion now that alcontali is out:

With anecdotal evidence, you can "prove" whatever you want. I am talking about society in general.

Anecdotal evidence is, in most if not all ways, superior to other forms of evidence, such as inferior so-called "empirical" evidence, or what is often so erroneously claimed to be such, or based on such, by many, if not most, particularily ignorant members of uneducated or undereducated "masses".

[quote[
And there are real, very demonstrable and very obvious differences between genders and age groups. In human society. Which really should be obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology.
[/quote]
Unless you can provide some actual context in which the differences matter or are practically relevant beyond pure speculation or 'folk wisdom', as far as society in general goes, rather than just stating that the differences "exist" in a vaccum without understanding what that actually means, in theory or practice, I'm not particularly interested.

As far as your other claims, like I said, I've heard people make both kinds of claims, whether it's you claiming education is "girl-oriented", or claims that it is "boy-oriented" due to its emphasis on mathematics, and a presumably inferiority in that area on the part of girls or women due to testosterone's positive correlation with higher level mathematical and spatial reasoning ability.

Regardless of this, I'd say it's not practical reason to discriminate against a girl or a woman who is a mathematician or a chess player, which is why anecdotal evidence, in this regard, is superior as far as a holistic view on human nature is concerned, as opposed to merely stating the "existence" of the differences as though to win an argument, or to ignore or discriminate against those to whom the "differences" don't actually apply in practice.

But "government" of some type has been in existence for all of human history, and even in modern hunter-gatherer societies, where presumably no "formal" government or law exists in writing, there is still informal "governance", "hierarchy", and whatnot.

Much as in the context of a family, and whatever formal or informal 'rules' the family follows or sets for themselves, their children, and so on; the anarchist view would eventually simply degenerate into nihilism (e.x. a parent parenting or disciplining their child is a form of "aggression" or "force" imposed on another without their "consent"), with the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement being the only viable and consistent option, were they not foolish, liars, or hypocritical.

[/quote]
By "anarchist, "i'm thinking primarily of a nonsensical "anti-government" stance.

I don't see how the idea that power has to be justified is "anarchist" to begin with, since the basis of every legal system in civilized, 1st world countries as predicated or based on checks and balances.

The "anarchist" stance is generally just a pretentious, antisocial attitude toward government as a "whole' (often ignoring that even in 'pre-literate' hunter gatherer societies with presumably no "formal" law or government, there still would have been some type of informal government or hierarchy, just as there is or would be within families or any other social institution, whether or whether not it is officially or legally recognized as a "state" to begin with). Often predicated on an "end justifies the means" or "might makes right" view towards promoting anarchy, whether through violence, force, or aggression, or via intentional lies, deception, dishonesty, and so on and so forth.


I also like Nietzsche's assessment of power, which you don't mention. I recommend doing so if you're interested in the subject.
[/quote]
Can you summarize it for me?

The story I heard is that his sister was a Nazi sympathizer and edited his work and concept of the 'overman' to make it something overtly white or racial supremacist. As far as women go, i'm not sure.

I'm also tempted to argue that most of the so-called "red pill" stuff which has a cult following on social media, is kind of a dumbed down, adolescent, poor man's version of Nietzschean existentialism, rather than anything particularly 'original' or not obvious and commonsensical enough to merit taking a "red pill" to begin with, that hasn't existed or been said in some variety or another by a myriad of different authors, or predicated on simplistic, childish stereotypes and conflations that have little to no bearing on reality to begin with, outside perhaps of some childish Jungian archetype or symbolism of sorts, usually having nothing in reality to do with "religion" or anything else that anyone above and beyond a 6th grade reading level would have been though to be readily aware of, in theory and in practice.

If agree, if "we don't matter" then there's nothing wrong with believing that we "do matter", if on the other hand, one is contradicting themselves and saying the meaning of life is for everyone to believe it's meaningless, then that's a laughable oxymoron.

If it's meaningless, I can believe in or do whatever I want for any reason I want, including believing in Santa Claus, Tooth Fairies, or anything else (assuming we accept that 'elective belief' is true).

I find Nietzsche views to be somewhat flawed and based more on stereotypical views of human nature or perhaps some overly romanticized views of "the past", ancient Greece, and so forth. (Such as the difference in theory and practice of having "status" or whatnot within the actual context of an organization and its values, rather than a simple romanticized or 'idolized' picture of a 'famous' historical figure "in a vaccum" or artistic portrayal, devoid of any of the actual context or understandings thereof which would make said 'status' meaningful, or able to exist at all to begin with).

I'm also very skeptical whether or not Nietzsche himself would fit the definition of "overman", given that he was primarily just known for writing and popularizing his ideas, rather than any of the stereotypical accomplishments he made.

Much as I see no reason, why Jesus would not, ironically, be considered more of an 'overman' than Nietzsche himself, ih terms of his lasting accomplishments and legacy, regardless of whether or not one believes he is the "son of God", or anything else.

Likewise, a 'meaningless' view of the world, to me, wouldn't be particularly conductive to the note of being an "overman", or any feeling of drive or obligation to be so; beyond uncontrolled, meaningless impulses which would just as well be subordinated rather than gratified - for many, if not most, if life is "meaningless", it would be in one's more immediate interest to do as little to nothing as possible.

Lol, are you suggesting that if he wasn't fat or ugly he wouldn't have been such a prime suspect?

People take it for granted, but even to merely exist in a civilized or 1st world country, we are already living in "restraint" of the lower or purely physical impulses.

For example, on a biological level, polygamy or polyamory in men and women isn't "unnatural", but in civilized societies, monogamy is considered a cultural evolution up from archaic polygamous practices, which are often associated with 3rd world countries, ills like child marriages, and so forth.

The entire philosophy of the law and civilization itself is predicated on this; such as how the law denotes between crimes of "passion" or committed while in an impulse and irrational state of mind, versus more serious pre-meditated crimes which are rationally calculated and planned out.

Denying this is simply denying what the law and its legal and moral philosophy has been since the 19th century (if one uses Oliver Wendell Holmes as an example of a legal philosopher), if not even before that, within the context of older legal or 'religious' systems of law and government which modern law and legal philosophy evolved out of, ranging from the Bible, to Ancient Rome.

Also for what it's worth, the state can't force a person to marry, cohabitat, or start a family at least in a 1st world country anyway; many famous historical people such as Adam Smith or Newton are reputed to have never married, with this having any goal on their higher-level intellectual careers or life-goals; which is why reduction of everything purely to "survivalistic" nonsense, reproduction or pure fatuous 'materialism' and/or aesthetically repellant consumerism, in general is rather nonsensical and anti-intellectual in practice to begin with, maybe this tends to be more of the case among societies "underclass" or anti-intellectual and/or serially disaffected demographics, but definitely not in the case of superior thinking men and thinking women.

I honestly find it a pointless discussion in practice, since regardless of whether it "exists" or not, people still behave the same way (e.x. whether people did it out of 'free will', or were 'predestined' or pre-determined to do it, people still stop smoking, and so on). It's like a "who came first, the chicken or the egg debate" which makes no practical difference either way when making an omelet.

Sadly, the "free will does not exist" nonsense will just be used by anti-intellectual media and its consumers to justify fatalistic thinking (e.x. I can't quit smoking because I'm 'addicted' or lack 'free will' in the matter, even though this doesn't change the fact that some people do indeed quit smoking, 'free will' or no...)

It's hard for me to discern what you are talking about here. However, as far as society being an ideology, my point is that by having more children, people are trying to force a way-of-life onto a new person (the person being born)
[/quote]
So what do you propose? Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement

It's hard for me to discern what you are talking about here. However, as far as society being an ideology, my point is that by having more children, people are trying to force a way-of-life onto a new person (the person being born). It is such an assent (YES!) to society (life) that they want OTHER PEOPLE to live it and will make the decision that they should do so on their behalf.

I think you're conflating various things, such as cultures and ideologies with biology.

Obviously on some sub-rational level, the impulse or desire to physically reproduce exists independent of any specific culture or ideology.

Much as animals, such as ants, presumably have nothing akin to human rationality or rational notions such as law, society, culture, and so forth, but still reproduce on a purely instinctive level. (If people were 100% rational all of the time, then unplanned pregnancies or "sex" just for pleasure would presumably not exist).

Basically, your views sound "anarchist" to me. Yes, obviously on some basic level, in civilized nations and societies, a bare minimum of morality or "conformity" is imposed on people by force, assuming they can't or won't on their own accord (e.x. laws against rape, murder and things of those nature), but your anarchist view would somehow argue that "forcing" a rapist not to rape, or a murderer not to murder is "wrong", despite such behavior being based on force and disregards for others' life, rights, autonomy, and so forth.

Well, I'd argue that, if we use biology as an example, such as a unified body composed of different individual parts which function together in some way with each filling uni
This is somewhat false dichotomic, and unrelatable to theory and practice, given that different degrees and variety of "sociality" will exists in individual communities and people (e.x. dichotomies about extroversion vs introversion); and in some ways, dichotomies about "groups" vs "individuals" are false as well.

Nor does it substantiate what not being a "social animal" is or would even mean (in the sense that every animal has some desire to reproduce, sans maybe those which reproduce asexually, all would be "social" animals in this sense)

Likewise, in human (and possibly other) societies, groups, "tribes", and so on and so forth, it's not reducible solely to the desire to physically reproduce (e.x. a non-violent community of monks or nuns practicing celebacy, or a community of artists, musicians, or athletes which serves more of a creative purpose than a "surivial" purpose would be examples.

The notion of "mattering", whatever that means is something philosophical.

Nor is any of the sentiment in the OP particularly insightful or even original, given that even the most ancient scientists and philosophers, such as in Ancient Greece or before, would have wrestled with the same problems and existential questions, yet such a conclusion had no bearing on their thoughts and insights, nor "pop cynicism / nihilism" in general, which in some variety would have always been around, whether in the days of Epicurus, or the regurgitation or re-incarnation of said thoughts or varieties of thinking even today.

By fear, if you mean on a biological level, then it isn't necessarily "bad" and serves useful purposes (e.x. if a person didn't experience fear, they might stand in the middle of a highway with an 18-Wheeler driving towards them at 60 MPH and not feel any impetus to get out of the way).

Though it is well documented, that much of mass media is sensationalist and primarily about selling fear or anger to people like a "drug" of sorts, much as how people acting emotionally, impulsively, or in "the heat of the moment" regards of "politics" or "ideology" tend to think and act less rationally under said conditions.

True, but this wasn't a case of "famine", starvation, or survivalism as one might see in hunter-gatherer societies, or impoverished areas of the world like Sub-Saharan Africa..

It was about egotistic conquest; much as how a person buying a Ferrari with a top speed of 200 MPH (which they can only legally drive at up to 60 MPH) isn't simply about "needing a ride to the local Walmart".

Although some wars are ideology based (such as the recent wars in Nicaragua, in Viet Nam, in Cuba), most wars are economics-based. Scarce resources or the control over them are fought for.
[/quote]
Don't think so, this is only the case in the most impoverished areas of the world; the majority of wars in the civilized world are fought over ideology, national pride, and so on.

WWI, for example, started over the assassination of a lone political political figure, and cost far more in material resources to wage than the loss of the politican amounted to; it's resources for the war, not silly myths like "war for resources", the war in an end in and of itself.

(Even in the animal kingdom, this myth has been debunked, with it being documented that animals such as dolphins and others fight or kill "for sport", rather than "resources" or pure material "survival").

Non sequitur, likewise the definition of "human" to begin with, based on an irrelevant zoological taxonomy which simply groups organisms on the basis of shared similarities and difference on the biological or physical level, is rather flawed.

Whatever higher traits define and distinguish humans; assuming they existed within some other context, such as a hypothetical android which exhibited the same higher reasoning, intuition, and higher emotions, with the primary difference solely being the arrangement of material particles which compose it on the physical level, wouldn't necessarily matter "less" in terms of said inherent traits, on the sole basis of an arbitrary, constructed title of "human", which is irrelevant outside of said zoological taxonomy and what limited pragmatic uses it has, anyway.

Regarding

I think he should stop making silly threats of 'violence', such as in the "sexual ethics" thread.

Lately I'm not inclined to reply to things like this, because of all the falsehoods, false dichotomies, and so on which come up when people, mostly one's who've never read or cared about the basic structure of the government, judicial interpretation philosophies, and so on, use bad or simplistic rhetorical arguments on it, its origins, its interpretation.

"Originalism" is one of the ones I've seen most bastardized (sometimes a simple argument from authority fallacy regarding an oversimplified or idolatrous depiction of the "framers" or the "time period" they came from; such as the arguments that the Framers only owned "muskets" or 18th century firearms), much as most or many of the arguments don't even bother to distinguish between federal law, state laws, and so on. (The Constitution, for example contains no restriction or prescription on state laws, beyond the Amendments in the Constitution itself).

When even this isn't the actual philosophy of "originalism" to begin with, as per Justice Scalia and other authors on it (e.x. originalism acknowledges that practical updates which incorporate the technology of the times are a reality, and that much as the Constitution was designed to be amended and changed, this is naturally always a possibility; the main theme being that the Constitution should be formally amended or changed in regards to cultural values, not simply "ignored" or re-interpreted without any restrictions). That's my synopsis anyway.