Themis wrote:I can see why you choose sub as part of your name. Smarter people would easily see I have been referring to humans as a group surviving from one generation to another. This cannot happen without humans working together as a group. Perhaps you can try and find examples of this. I can think of a number of individual who have lived apart from the group for many years.
apart from showing that humans can survive without the group...now it should be understood that reading between the lines is necessary with your posts?
Themis wrote:Again, it's about survivability of the group. If something doesn't work in this regard then a group either has to change or they will eventual die out as a group.
I already posted that link to Darwin's thoughts on that subject. You can reference the complete post here:
viewtopic.php?p=706530#p706530"Turning now to the social and moral faculties. In order that primeval men, or the apelike progenitors of man, should become social, they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings, which impel other animals to live in a body; and they no doubt exhibited the same general disposition. They would have felt uneasy when separated from their comrades, for whom they would have felt some degree of love; they would have warned each other of danger, and have given mutual aid in attack or defence. All this implies some degree of sympathy, fidelity, and courage. Such social qualities, the paramount importance of which to the lower animals is disputed by no one, were no doubt acquired by the progenitors of man in a similar manner, namely, through natural selection, aided by inherited habit. When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other."what i have shown is that SteelHead does not know what he is arguing:http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=706564#p706564
Madeleine has done likewise.
Themis wrote:Some did. I never said people cannot reevaluate what they think as good and bad, especially considering others who were arguing against slavery. Most slave owners didn't think it was bad, and were willing to fight to maintain it
point being you have no coherent reason to explain that "reevaluation". Slavery is either intrinsically bad or it is just conveniently bad...and if it is the latter, then one can not reasonably justify being against slavery, apart from going along with the crowd...a crowd that has no idea why it thinks slavery is bad.
Themis wrote:The fact you left out others parts of my quote(quote mining) suggests intentionally trying to deceive about what I meant. I am not sure why you thought you could get away with this.
where did i misquote you? or are you content to rely on the "no i didn't" rebuttal?
See above
Here is the link to and the actual quote from your original statement that you allege i have "misrepresented":
Slavery is considered good by some groups, even though they would view it bad for them.viewtopic.php?p=706486#p706486seems like i got it correct...what did i miss?
awkward....you may want to check my reference links and quotes...those "baseless assertions" are yours....