Liberals Understand Human Nature.....Not.

[NYcarbineer]

GD it. I was betting another gays can't make babies thread.

Why is it one gets the clear sense that you Libs hate the thread....
...yet can't find any way to point out any errors in it?

Read it and weep.

I should of said I was hoping for gay baiting rather than "dems are commies." The gay thing is better suited for humor. But I gave you rep for amusing.

For liberals to call themselves intellectuals, yet post nothing in rebuttal to points made in a simple forum thread, belies their intelligence, and their honesty.

I rebut the OP's claim that what she describes is unique to liberalism.

It is not. The Right has a long history of trying to exploit the 'malleable' human mind.

It's happening now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Yup.....Liberals/Progressives/Democrats are,essentially, the same as the communists.

.

Then prove to us that John Kennedy was 'essentially' no different than Nikita Kruschev, or Fidel Castro.

 

[PoliticalChic]

GD it. I was betting another gays can't make babies thread.

Why is it one gets the clear sense that you Libs hate the thread....
...yet can't find any way to point out any errors in it?

Read it and weep.

I should of said I was hoping for gay baiting rather than "dems are commies." The gay thing is better suited for humor. But I gave you rep for amusing.

For liberals to call themselves intellectuals, yet post nothing in rebuttal to points made in a simple forum thread, belies their intelligence, and their honesty.

I rebut the OP's claim that what she describes is unique to liberalism.

It is not. The Right has a long history of trying to exploit the 'malleable' human mind.

It's happening now.

Vapid.

And, as is obligatory for you......false.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I rebut the OP's claim that what she describes is unique to liberalism.

It is not. The Right has a long history of trying to exploit the 'malleable' human mind.

That isn't a rebuttal, it's a presumption.

The flaw of your argument is the contention that this is unique to the Right. It is common on both sides. The inherent problem here is that people wish to assign negative traits to their opponents, when in certain circumstances such traits apply to them as well. The parties aren't willing to allow for free thought, but desire to manipulate the human mind.

It's happening now.

You're right, it is. Unfortunately, you are just as much a victim of this "manipulation" as your fringe counterparts. No offense. If only you could see that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I rebut the OP's claim that what she describes is unique to liberalism.

It is not. The Right has a long history of trying to exploit the 'malleable' human mind.

That isn't a rebuttal, it's a presumption.

The flaw of your argument is the contention that this is unique to the Right. It is common on both sides. The inherent problem here is that people wish to assign negative traits to their opponents, when in certain circumstances such traits apply to them as well. The parties aren't willing to allow for free thought, but desire to manipulate the human mind.

It's happening now.

You're right, it is. Unfortunately, you are just as much a victim of this "manipulation" as your fringe counterparts. No offense. If only you could see that.

Aha, so you admit that it is not a uniquely liberal characteristic!!

Now then go tell your fantasy mom/girlfriend PoliticalChic that she's full of shit for saying or implying otherwise...

...if you have the courage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

GD it. I was betting another gays can't make babies thread.

Why is it one gets the clear sense that you Libs hate the thread....
...yet can't find any way to point out any errors in it?

Read it and weep.

I should of said I was hoping for gay baiting rather than "dems are commies." The gay thing is better suited for humor. But I gave you rep for amusing.

For liberals to call themselves intellectuals, yet post nothing in rebuttal to points made in a simple forum thread, belies their intelligence, and their honesty.

I rebut the OP's claim that what she describes is unique to liberalism.

It is not. The Right has a long history of trying to exploit the 'malleable' human mind.

It's happening now.

Vapid.

And, as is obligatory for you......false.

I'm waiting for your answer to post 62, monkey. Hopefully sans another round of feces throwing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Aha, so you admit that it is not a uniquely liberal characteristic!!

No. I never implied it was unique to liberals, nor have I ever. For me to admit something, I must first have made a flawed contention, such as yours, with no basis in fact.

I didn't make the mistake you did, by attributing it to solely "the Right." We call that prejudgment, you imbecile. You prove constantly that you are wholly incapable of seeing the bigger picture, missing the forest for the trees, as it were, and more content with making stereotypical assumptions of your ideological counterparts.

Now then go tell your fantasy mom/girlfriend PoliticalChic that she's full of shit for saying or implying otherwise...

I will do no such thing. You are just as much guilty of doing the same thing. Physician, go heal thyself.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then prove to us that John Kennedy was 'essentially' no different than Nikita Kruschev, or Fidel Castro.

Nice try with the loaded question, but JFK was, or is, what a conservative would be today. He had nothing in common with Nikita Kruschev or Fidel Castro. He did things liberal Democrats like you would never dream of doing, such as combating a threat, or implementing military force a means of diplomacy. He wasn't a peacenik.

Hopefully sans another round of feces throwing.

Perhaps you shouldn't hog all the shit, or stop eating it, you're putting sewer workers out of jobs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Aha, so you admit that it is not a uniquely liberal characteristic!!

No. I never implied it was unique to liberals, nor have I ever. For me to admit something, I must first have made a flawed contention, such as yours, with no basis in fact.

I didn't make the mistake you did, by attributing it to solely "the Right." We call that prejudgment, you imbecile. You prove constantly that you are wholly incapable of seeing the bigger picture, missing the forest for the trees, as it were.

Now then go tell your fantasy mom/girlfriend PoliticalChic that she's full of shit for saying or implying otherwise...

I will do no such thing. You are just as much guilty of doing the same thing. Physician, go heal thyself.

I never attributed it solely to the right.

Keep reminding us that you're an intellectually bankrupt rightwing hack.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I never attributed it solely to the right.

So you want to play this game?

The Right has a long history of trying to exploit the 'malleable' human mind.

Then explain this. You made it clear, plain as day.

Keep reminding us that you're an intellectually bankrupt rightwing hack.

See? You did it again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then prove to us that John Kennedy was 'essentially' no different than Nikita Kruschev, or Fidel Castro.

Nice try with the loaded question, but JFK was, or is, what a conservative would be today. He had nothing in common with Nikita Kruschev or Fidel Castro. He did things liberal Democrats like you would never dream of doing, such as combating a threat, or implementing military force a means of diplomacy. He wasn't a peacenik.

.

You need to read this and then tell us how much of JFK's agenda was conservative.


New Frontier - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. "Other famous examples of "indigenous wisdom" have also been misrepresented. Black Elk Speaks is one of the seminal texts of the modern environmental movement. Black Elk was an Oglala Sioux, whose recollections were written down and then published in 1932 by the US poet John Neihardt. But Neihardt, and those who followed him, chose to ignore the fact that Black Elk had been a devout Catholic catechist and missionary for 27 years by the time his words were recorded. Furthermore, some of the most quoted passages Neihardt attributed to Black Elk appear to have been the poet's invention, as they do not appear in the original typescripts of the conversations between the two that are held in archives. (15)

The second reason for scepticism is that indigenous spokespeople, like people anywhere, will attempt to present the strongest possible case for the causes they are promoting, such as land claims and sovereignty. They no longer live -- if indeed they ever did -- in a timeless world, totally isolated from developments elsewhere.


.... such self-representations are adversarial constructions and, because indigenous cultures are more malleable than either their adherents or outsiders usually recognise, frequently draw on elements that are not traditional, but that post-date colonial contact and control. (16)

Oblivious to the political intent behind such representations, western environmentalists have left themselves vulnerable to great disillusionment. The most outstanding recent case involves the rock singer Sting, who toured the world with a Kayapo Indian from Brazil in order to save the Amazonian rain forests in the late 1980s. But now, having achieved their aim of protecting tribal lands from outside control, the Kayapo are very keen to obtain the maximum financial reward they can, and have demanded the right to continue their profitable deforestation of their property.

" 'They're always trying to deceive you' says Sting, 'They see the white man only as a good source of earning money ... I was very naïve.' " (17)" http://blog.dailypatriotnews.com/1995/09/tall-green-tales.html



Thirdly, even where it is legitimate to identify a conservation ethic amongst indigenous people, it is hardly ever characterised by the universalism which is an important component of Western environmental concerns. Their interests are invariably local, focusing on their own resource base, (18) and indifferent to the problems that may be faced by people or environments on the other side of the world. " http://blog.dailypatriotnews.com/1995/09/tall-green-tales.html



Human beings.....all pretty much the same, seeing their own, personal, aggrandizement.

Nothing could be more false than "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
The 'collective' is not the answer to societal needs.


So, Liberalism is based on all sorts of misrepresentations, myths, and outright lies.....

There are no 'noble savages' who live/lived in harmony with nature

Human nature is not malleable, no matter the laws, regulations, restrictions, of punishments that Liberals/Progressives can come up with.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I never attributed it solely to the right.

So you want to play this game?

The Right has a long history of trying to exploit the 'malleable' human mind.

Then explain this. You made it clear, plain as day.

Keep reminding us that you're an intellectually bankrupt rightwing hack.

See? You did it again.

Had I said what you're dishonestly claiming I said, I would have said

"ONLY the Right has a long history of trying to exploit the 'malleable' human mind."

Learn English.

 

[NYcarbineer]

13. "Other famous examples of "indigenous wisdom" have also been misrepresented. Black Elk Speaks is one of the seminal texts of the modern environmental movement. Black Elk was an Oglala Sioux, whose recollections were written down and then published in 1932 by the US poet John Neihardt. But Neihardt, and those who followed him, chose to ignore the fact that Black Elk had been a devout Catholic catechist and missionary for 27 years by the time his words were recorded. Furthermore, some of the most quoted passages Neihardt attributed to Black Elk appear to have been the poet's invention, as they do not appear in the original typescripts of the conversations between the two that are held in archives. (15)

The second reason for scepticism is that indigenous spokespeople, like people anywhere, will attempt to present the strongest possible case for the causes they are promoting, such as land claims and sovereignty. They no longer live -- if indeed they ever did -- in a timeless world, totally isolated from developments elsewhere.


.... such self-representations are adversarial constructions and, because indigenous cultures are more malleable than either their adherents or outsiders usually recognise, frequently draw on elements that are not traditional, but that post-date colonial contact and control. (16)

Oblivious to the political intent behind such representations, western environmentalists have left themselves vulnerable to great disillusionment. The most outstanding recent case involves the rock singer Sting, who toured the world with a Kayapo Indian from Brazil in order to save the Amazonian rain forests in the late 1980s. But now, having achieved their aim of protecting tribal lands from outside control, the Kayapo are very keen to obtain the maximum financial reward they can, and have demanded the right to continue their profitable deforestation of their property.

" 'They're always trying to deceive you' says Sting, 'They see the white man only as a good source of earning money ... I was very naïve.' " (17)" http://blog.dailypatriotnews.com/1995/09/tall-green-tales.html



Thirdly, even where it is legitimate to identify a conservation ethic amongst indigenous people, it is hardly ever characterised by the universalism which is an important component of Western environmental concerns. Their interests are invariably local, focusing on their own resource base, (18) and indifferent to the problems that may be faced by people or environments on the other side of the world. " http://blog.dailypatriotnews.com/1995/09/tall-green-tales.html



Human beings.....all pretty much the same, seeing their own, personal, aggrandizement.

Nothing could be more false than "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
The 'collective' is not the answer to societal needs.


So, Liberalism is based on all sorts of misrepresentations, myths, and outright lies.....

There are no 'noble savages' who live/lived in harmony with nature

Human nature is not malleable, no matter the laws, regulations, restrictions, of punishments that Liberals/Progressives can come up with.

Since you're implying that human nature is neither good nor malleable,

you're making a very good case for those who desire a civilized nation to work to impede human nature.

You are making that case that the civilizing of a people must include reining in their baser instincts.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I never attributed it solely to the right.

So you want to play this game?

The Right has a long history of trying to exploit the 'malleable' human mind.

Then explain this. You made it clear, plain as day.

Keep reminding us that you're an intellectually bankrupt rightwing hack.

See? You did it again.

Had I said what you're dishonestly claiming I said, I would have said

"ONLY the Right has a long history of trying to exploit the 'malleable' human mind."

Learn English.

It says what is says.

The phrases and terms "the Right," "long history," and "exploit" suggest otherwise.

Don't presume to lecture me on the finer points of the English language when you cannot even acknowledge your own blatant faux pas.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are making that case that the civilizing of a people must include reining in their baser instincts.

So what happens if one is simply governed solely on his base instincts? What need would there be of governance between men? Or is it simply human nature to organize and delegate power between themselves?

you're making a very good case for those who desire a civilized nation to work to impede human nature.

Actually, government as defined by liberals like you, inherently impedes human nature by defining what is or isn't human nature. In some cases human nature is used as an excuse for actions and decisions which are not human nature. In other cases the converse is true.

If someone makes a decision outside of the established norm, suddenly it is dubbed abnormal, or not of human nature. Say, someone who bucks the liberal trend. Oh, how viciously and aggressively does a party attack and dehumanize those who step out of line or contradicts their way of thinking. See? Now, even our very own politics are trying to place a definition on human nature.

Human nature has no definition, it is human nature. PC is right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. "Other famous examples of "indigenous wisdom" have also been misrepresented. Black Elk Speaks is one of the seminal texts of the modern environmental movement. Black Elk was an Oglala Sioux, whose recollections were written down and then published in 1932 by the US poet John Neihardt. But Neihardt, and those who followed him, chose to ignore the fact that Black Elk had been a devout Catholic catechist and missionary for 27 years by the time his words were recorded. Furthermore, some of the most quoted passages Neihardt attributed to Black Elk appear to have been the poet's invention, as they do not appear in the original typescripts of the conversations between the two that are held in archives. (15)

The second reason for scepticism is that indigenous spokespeople, like people anywhere, will attempt to present the strongest possible case for the causes they are promoting, such as land claims and sovereignty. They no longer live -- if indeed they ever did -- in a timeless world, totally isolated from developments elsewhere.


.... such self-representations are adversarial constructions and, because indigenous cultures are more malleable than either their adherents or outsiders usually recognise, frequently draw on elements that are not traditional, but that post-date colonial contact and control. (16)

Oblivious to the political intent behind such representations, western environmentalists have left themselves vulnerable to great disillusionment. The most outstanding recent case involves the rock singer Sting, who toured the world with a Kayapo Indian from Brazil in order to save the Amazonian rain forests in the late 1980s. But now, having achieved their aim of protecting tribal lands from outside control, the Kayapo are very keen to obtain the maximum financial reward they can, and have demanded the right to continue their profitable deforestation of their property.

" 'They're always trying to deceive you' says Sting, 'They see the white man only as a good source of earning money ... I was very naïve.' " (17)" http://blog.dailypatriotnews.com/1995/09/tall-green-tales.html



Thirdly, even where it is legitimate to identify a conservation ethic amongst indigenous people, it is hardly ever characterised by the universalism which is an important component of Western environmental concerns. Their interests are invariably local, focusing on their own resource base, (18) and indifferent to the problems that may be faced by people or environments on the other side of the world. " http://blog.dailypatriotnews.com/1995/09/tall-green-tales.html



Human beings.....all pretty much the same, seeing their own, personal, aggrandizement.

Nothing could be more false than "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
The 'collective' is not the answer to societal needs.


So, Liberalism is based on all sorts of misrepresentations, myths, and outright lies.....

There are no 'noble savages' who live/lived in harmony with nature

Human nature is not malleable, no matter the laws, regulations, restrictions, of punishments that Liberals/Progressives can come up with.

Since you're implying that human nature is neither good nor malleable,

you're making a very good case for those who desire a civilized nation to work to impede human nature.

You are making that case that the civilizing of a people must include reining in their baser instincts.

"You are making that case that the civilizing of a people must include reining in their baser instincts"

Pity you are ignorant of American history....it's like talking to a child or a Liberal


Read Federalist #51
The Constitution commemorates our revolution, and, as Madison states in the ‘Federalist,’ is the greatest of all reflections on human nature…human beings are not angels.”

a. Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution.


And this...
Federalist 51- checks and balances, to keep passions in check.

Tocqueville tells how centralization of power can lead to despotism. Beware of government by experts and beaurocrats.

Progressive Woodrow Wilson, in his essay “What is Progress?” he compares the Founders ideas of checks and balances as the construction of a government as one would construct an orrery, and based on immutable laws as in Newton, while he contends that government should conform to Darwin. “ It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.”

 

[TemplarKormac]

13. "Other famous examples of "indigenous wisdom" have also been misrepresented. Black Elk Speaks is one of the seminal texts of the modern environmental movement. Black Elk was an Oglala Sioux, whose recollections were written down and then published in 1932 by the US poet John Neihardt. But Neihardt, and those who followed him, chose to ignore the fact that Black Elk had been a devout Catholic catechist and missionary for 27 years by the time his words were recorded. Furthermore, some of the most quoted passages Neihardt attributed to Black Elk appear to have been the poet's invention, as they do not appear in the original typescripts of the conversations between the two that are held in archives. (15)

The second reason for scepticism is that indigenous spokespeople, like people anywhere, will attempt to present the strongest possible case for the causes they are promoting, such as land claims and sovereignty. They no longer live -- if indeed they ever did -- in a timeless world, totally isolated from developments elsewhere.


.... such self-representations are adversarial constructions and, because indigenous cultures are more malleable than either their adherents or outsiders usually recognise, frequently draw on elements that are not traditional, but that post-date colonial contact and control. (16)

Oblivious to the political intent behind such representations, western environmentalists have left themselves vulnerable to great disillusionment. The most outstanding recent case involves the rock singer Sting, who toured the world with a Kayapo Indian from Brazil in order to save the Amazonian rain forests in the late 1980s. But now, having achieved their aim of protecting tribal lands from outside control, the Kayapo are very keen to obtain the maximum financial reward they can, and have demanded the right to continue their profitable deforestation of their property.

" 'They're always trying to deceive you' says Sting, 'They see the white man only as a good source of earning money ... I was very naïve.' " (17)" http://blog.dailypatriotnews.com/1995/09/tall-green-tales.html



Thirdly, even where it is legitimate to identify a conservation ethic amongst indigenous people, it is hardly ever characterised by the universalism which is an important component of Western environmental concerns. Their interests are invariably local, focusing on their own resource base, (18) and indifferent to the problems that may be faced by people or environments on the other side of the world. " http://blog.dailypatriotnews.com/1995/09/tall-green-tales.html



Human beings.....all pretty much the same, seeing their own, personal, aggrandizement.

Nothing could be more false than "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
The 'collective' is not the answer to societal needs.


So, Liberalism is based on all sorts of misrepresentations, myths, and outright lies.....

There are no 'noble savages' who live/lived in harmony with nature

Human nature is not malleable, no matter the laws, regulations, restrictions, of punishments that Liberals/Progressives can come up with.

Since you're implying that human nature is neither good nor malleable,

you're making a very good case for those who desire a civilized nation to work to impede human nature.

You are making that case that the civilizing of a people must include reining in their baser instincts.

"You are making that case that the civilizing of a people must include reining in their baser instincts"

Pity you are ignorant of American history....it's like talking to a child or a Liberal


Read Federalist #51
The Constitution commemorates our revolution, and, as Madison states in the ‘Federalist,’ is the greatest of all reflections on human nature…human beings are not angels.”

a. Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution.


And this...
Federalist 51- checks and balances, to keep passions in check.

Tocqueville tells how centralization of power can lead to despotism. Beware of government by experts and beaurocrats.

Progressive Woodrow Wilson, in his essay “What is Progress?” he compares the Founders ideas of checks and balances as the construction of a government as one would construct an orrery, and based on immutable laws as in Newton, while he contends that government should conform to Darwin. “ It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.”

Game set match.

 

[NYcarbineer]

13. "Other famous examples of "indigenous wisdom" have also been misrepresented. Black Elk Speaks is one of the seminal texts of the modern environmental movement. Black Elk was an Oglala Sioux, whose recollections were written down and then published in 1932 by the US poet John Neihardt. But Neihardt, and those who followed him, chose to ignore the fact that Black Elk had been a devout Catholic catechist and missionary for 27 years by the time his words were recorded. Furthermore, some of the most quoted passages Neihardt attributed to Black Elk appear to have been the poet's invention, as they do not appear in the original typescripts of the conversations between the two that are held in archives. (15)

The second reason for scepticism is that indigenous spokespeople, like people anywhere, will attempt to present the strongest possible case for the causes they are promoting, such as land claims and sovereignty. They no longer live -- if indeed they ever did -- in a timeless world, totally isolated from developments elsewhere.


.... such self-representations are adversarial constructions and, because indigenous cultures are more malleable than either their adherents or outsiders usually recognise, frequently draw on elements that are not traditional, but that post-date colonial contact and control. (16)

Oblivious to the political intent behind such representations, western environmentalists have left themselves vulnerable to great disillusionment. The most outstanding recent case involves the rock singer Sting, who toured the world with a Kayapo Indian from Brazil in order to save the Amazonian rain forests in the late 1980s. But now, having achieved their aim of protecting tribal lands from outside control, the Kayapo are very keen to obtain the maximum financial reward they can, and have demanded the right to continue their profitable deforestation of their property.

" 'They're always trying to deceive you' says Sting, 'They see the white man only as a good source of earning money ... I was very naïve.' " (17)" http://blog.dailypatriotnews.com/1995/09/tall-green-tales.html



Thirdly, even where it is legitimate to identify a conservation ethic amongst indigenous people, it is hardly ever characterised by the universalism which is an important component of Western environmental concerns. Their interests are invariably local, focusing on their own resource base, (18) and indifferent to the problems that may be faced by people or environments on the other side of the world. " http://blog.dailypatriotnews.com/1995/09/tall-green-tales.html



Human beings.....all pretty much the same, seeing their own, personal, aggrandizement.

Nothing could be more false than "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
The 'collective' is not the answer to societal needs.


So, Liberalism is based on all sorts of misrepresentations, myths, and outright lies.....

There are no 'noble savages' who live/lived in harmony with nature

Human nature is not malleable, no matter the laws, regulations, restrictions, of punishments that Liberals/Progressives can come up with.

Since you're implying that human nature is neither good nor malleable,

you're making a very good case for those who desire a civilized nation to work to impede human nature.

You are making that case that the civilizing of a people must include reining in their baser instincts.

"You are making that case that the civilizing of a people must include reining in their baser instincts"

Pity you are ignorant of American history....it's like talking to a child or a Liberal


Read Federalist #51
The Constitution commemorates our revolution, and, as Madison states in the ‘Federalist,’ is the greatest of all reflections on human nature…human beings are not angels.”

a. Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution.


And this...
Federalist 51- checks and balances, to keep passions in check.

Tocqueville tells how centralization of power can lead to despotism. Beware of government by experts and beaurocrats.

Progressive Woodrow Wilson, in his essay “What is Progress?” he compares the Founders ideas of checks and balances as the construction of a government as one would construct an orrery, and based on immutable laws as in Newton, while he contends that government should conform to Darwin. “ It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.”

Nothing you said has anything to do with what I said.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are making that case that the civilizing of a people must include reining in their baser instincts.

So what happens if one is simply governed solely on his base instincts? What need would there be of governance between men? Or is it simply human nature to organize and delegate power between themselves?

you're making a very good case for those who desire a civilized nation to work to impede human nature.

Actually, government as defined by liberals like you, inherently impedes human nature by defining what is or isn't human nature. In some cases human nature is used as an excuse for actions and decisions which are not human nature. In other cases the converse is true.

If someone makes a decision outside of the established norm, suddenly it is dubbed abnormal, or not of human nature. Say, someone who bucks the liberal trend. Oh, how viciously and aggressively does a party attack and dehumanize those who step out of line or contradicts their way of thinking. See? Now, even our very own politics are trying to place a definition on human nature.

Human nature has no definition, it is human nature. PC is right.

Human nature? The nature of the human male is to mate with as many females as possible to have the most number of offspring carrying his genes.

Gays are called abnormal. By whom? Liberals?