Yes that's the one. It's loaded with all sorts of interesting literature and philosophy.

Hopefully my thoughts on this quote were useful.

Figure it out. If it has to be explained, you won't get it. — Frank Apisa

If you can't explain it in a clear and concise way as you would to a child you don't understand it yourself. How can he be expected to take you seriously if you are unable to provide evidence for your claims, or even a general explination?

How is reproducing not an instinct when even organisms without a brain do it?

What natural interests?

Eating and continued survival would be the best examples.

Also, this example is oddly eugenic sounding.

It was meant to. This isn't an implication of right or wrong though. What I'm trying to get across is the original question here must be answered in a clinical and biological way. If we fail to do that then I suppose every action must be viewed as part of or a contribution to ideology.

To reiterate, my argument is having a child is approving of a certain lifestyle (the current society) and thus society becomes an ideology for parents.

Is it though? What if you have a child outside of societies bounds and raise it disdain society?

To expand on my disagreement, the assent to perpetuate society is not an instinct, it's just a consequence of being a social animal. The instinct is the drive to pass on your genes.

Is the assent to perpetuate society (through procreating more people) an instinct? I say no.

I disagree.

It is a preference and thus something that can be deliberated and reflected upon. In other words, we can choose to follow an ideology (perpetuate society) or we can choose not to. This is unlike instinct where there is no choice. There is no ideological animal instinct.

Eating is undoubtedly an instinct of all creatures that do it. That being said, in captivity wild animals will often starve themselves. Why do they do this? Are they deliberating on this choice? If they are is eating no longer an instinct? I would say this isn't the case. Maybe the lack of ability to fulfill one instinctual obligation will cause you to neglect another. Maybe the ability to deliberate can cause you to act against your own instinct and therefor your own self interest. It's something I personally like to call the curse of philosophy.

To go deeper, a severely disabled person could easily imagine that passing on their genetic material could curse somebody to the troubles of the same disability, thus making their life worse by default as well as poisoning the gene pool. On the opposing end one could argue that being able to think in this way means they are a value to the gene pool but a detriment to their own natural interests.

I hope this explanation illuminates my point.

Your question has gnawed at me for hours now. Thank you for that, sincerely. If I answered as a social animal I'd say no, if I answered understanding the differences in the many societies existing today I'd say yes.

It's our instinct to group together and live cohesively, how we do that is the question. When the how is imposed on you it's natural to feel it's arbitrary and capricious. I don't know that I can equate instinct to ideology, but I can say it's the progenitor of ideology.

My response to this is that I have a cure for partisanship. We simply take a left wing politician and a right wing politician, remove their brains, bisect them, swap and sew together each half of brain reinserting them into the bodies. With any luck this will create a well reasoned political thinker.

I think if you truly believe the 2nd amendments answer to the monopoly of force what you said is the correct answer.

Poverty is not the determining factor in criminality, it's the disregard for the law. That's why there are anti 2nd politicians. As to how the government could let that happen I answered your question in 2 ways. One is that all institutions of man have the same flaws as man. Two is that the second amendment answers it's not the governments responsibility but that of the citizenry. If you want the how from that point I'd say a lack of understanding of what the ideals of our system are.

I fundamentally don't agree with this question. If you see my above post you can see my opinion is that the 2nd amendment is an answer to the question of the monopoly of force. He asked how, not who. So asking "who" seams a really partisan question to begin with. Partisanship can't answer this question, only questions you may have about the OP's own partisan ideals. If you just start from the how it's quite clear that all institutions of man are subject to the failings of man. This neither supposes the amendment is right or that can render the best possible results, it just answers how the system could do that.

It can't be too obscure. I was first made aware of this quote from a cartoon created in an eastern nation. Guess that shows my less than scholarly background.

I'd like to start by quoting Heinlein. "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst."

Supposing this to be true we ask the question of the monopoly of force. Who gets the ultimate right to exercise force. Most nations have answered that the state should have a monopoly on force. Why do they do this? They presuppose that peace and order are above liberty in a hierarchy of human needs. The 2nd amendment is unique in that it answers the question of monopoly by giving it to the citizens. This presupposes that liberty stands higher than peace and order in a hierarchy of needs. What this essentially means is that you can be happy even if you haven't known peace, and that the pursuit of happiness isn't tied to peace.

The first question is one you should ask yourself. Do you value peace and order most, or do you choose liberty even if it has a dangerous cost? Now to your question. In so many words how can the state choose peace and order over liberty, right? The state is an institution of man, man is selfish, these values allocate more power to the state. It's really just that simple.

You want my opinion? I think liberty is better. So there's my answers for you, I hope they are of value.

Firstly, please excuse my writing style, I'm not formally educated.

Now to the meat and potatoes. Ortega is a dead man, we can never know without asking the man himself. With the proverbial gun to my head though I think I can make an informed guess. He's referring specifically to the wager. If you subscribe to the wager you are not necessarily a good person. You're not a bad one either, but the crux is this. The wager, as well as the punishment of hell itself are a threat. A psychopath could easily live the Christian, or any, view of good if the outcome of not doing so is eternal suffering. It becomes a cold and logical choice to live well under such wager. It lacks genuine altruism, And therefor isn't a mark of a possible objective good. This isn't to say people who believe the wager or religion are bad. What it does say is the person who believes in nothingness at the end of life yet still acts in an altruistic fashion would be easier to peg as "good" if we assume such a thing is objective. From this perspective it's clear to say he doesn't "hate" Pascal, rather he is weary of him, his ideas, and there implications. This is why I have long since learned, as a measure of elementary hygiene, to be on guard when anyone quotes Pascal.