You peppered your comment with some really nonsensical assumptions about me and my position, but I’ll single out just this one:
If hate is inherent
This most directly shows your inability to hold a serious dialogue. Not once did I even imply this ridiculous idea to be true. I criticised your position, but you could only assume that I hold the mirror opposite view, and not perhaps some position outside of Disney love-vs.-hate morality altogether. There is no room for nuance with you, all that can be discussed is the mystical “inherent human nature”, and any other way to conceive of human behaviour is simply impossible. This is even more radically closed-down than usual religious thinking.
If you can’t respect just the basic literal meaning of the words I wrote and instead have to make up what I said, there can be no dialogue.
You peppered your comment with some really nonsensical assumptions about me and my position, but I’ll single out just this one:
This most directly shows your inability to hold a serious dialogue. Not once did I even imply this ridiculous idea to be true. I criticised your position, but you could only assume that I hold the mirror opposite view, and not perhaps some position outside of Disney love-vs.-hate morality altogether. There is no room for nuance with you, all that can be discussed is the mystical “inherent human nature”, and any other way to conceive of human behaviour is simply impossible. This is even more radically closed-down than usual religious thinking.
If you can’t respect just the basic literal meaning of the words I wrote and instead have to make up what I said, there can be no dialogue.
Go sealion somewhere else.
I don’t believe that you are this obtuse. Someone shouldn’t have to explain the entirety of multiple subjects just to appease a bad faith argumenter.
I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you obviously don’t want to engage in good faith, you’ve made this abundantly clear.
I’m out, cheers troll.