The two pillars of reasoning are fact & opinion. The evolutionists are undermining the concept of opinion, making reasoning dysfunction, leading to catastrophe.

It was in the news that the airtraffic controllers in the USA are hired based on diversity, instead of on merit, leading to incompetent airtraffic controllers.

Because nobody flying, not even billionaires in their private planes, can escape the airtraffic controllers, it is shown that all ideas about a conspiratorial nefarious group of people manipulating policy for their own benefit, are wrong.

It shows that the bad policy is just about mental disorder, mental illness. The bad covid policy, the bad immigration policy, the gender ideology etc. It is all just about mental disorder.

The disorder starts with the psychological pressure for people to do their best. This leads people to mistakenly define choosing in terms of figuring out what is best, instead of defining it in terms of spontaneous expression of the subjective spirit.

This then leads to a pattern of corruption in the mind, of all concepts that are based on choosing. Most importantly, the concept of subjectivity becomes dysfunctional, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental illness.

This pattern of corruption is recognizable in the way people do their best for things, in an exaggerated sort of way. It's because these people have lost the connection to their basic emotions, and only have the feelings left associated to doing their best. So when these people do their best for some cause, it's not really about solving the problem, they are just trying to get some feelings going for their emotional survival.

As for example the steel drive in Mao's China. The socialists contrived to produce more steel, by melting down neccessary farming equipment, resulting in famine. They were hellbent to do it, because of needing these feelings associated to doing their best, in producing the optimal amount of steel.

Another aspect of this disorder, is to objectify emotions and personal character, leading to racism. Because when choosing is explained in terms of figuring out what is best, then the logic is used of as like how a chesscomputer calculates a move. There are no subjective aspects in these computations. So then when this logic of choosing is transposed on to human beings, then the emotions and personal character, must be objectified.

The ultra-darwinist philosopher Dennett, explicitly defines choosing in terms of this logic of how a chesscomputer calculates a move. There is no doubt in my mind, that Dennett must secretly be a racist, because that is a neccessary logical consequenc of his ideas. Although this racism would not neccessarily be the traditional racism, but have more sophisticated ideas about variation.

Natural selection theory, is basically the same logic of a chesscomputer calculating a move. In that there are variants representing options, which then go through a process, with an inevitable result of many variants going extinct, and one variant surviving.

It is because of this similarity to the logic of choosing, that evolutionists use subjective terminology in their theory, differential reproductive "success". And then the entire life cycle of an organism is explained using subjective terminology, in regards to this "success". Which subjective words are all re-assigned an objective meaning. In sexual selection, even the more esoteric subjective words such as "beauty", are re-assigned an objective meaning.

Which obviously undermines the properly subjective use, of subjective terminology, by replacing the subjective meaning, with objective meaning.

Moreover, evolution theory is held in opposition to creationist theory, while the concept of subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept.

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

Where choosing is defined in terms of spontaneity, that a decision can turn out one way or another in the moment. And choosing is the mechanism of creation, how a creation originates. And subjective means, identified with a chosen opinion, and objective means, identified with a model of it.

Accepting evolution theory therefore results in a reduced awareness, of the subjective human spirit choosing things, in human affairs. Which leads to the aforementioned bad personal opinions, resulting in inevitable catastrophe.

The importance of subjectivity in reasoning, is systematically underestimated. Subjectivity is marginalized. But if you don't "care" about the truth, then no matter how much you are focused on the facts, you will not find the relevant facts of the matter. You will then just only find the facts, that quickly gratify, and not find relevant facts that are emotionally difficult to deal with.

So evolution theory basically works as a catalyst on the commonly human error to conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.

"And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.." (C. Darwin, Origin of Species)

To solve the problem, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the use of subjective terminology in science theories must be abandoned, and that creationism must be reinstated.

Otherwise we will have an unending chain of catastrophe, which will also affect the evolutionists themselves, just as like the diversity policies for air traffic controllers affect everyone that flies.

mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:

> The two pillars of reasoning are fact & opinion. The evolutionists are
> undermining the concept of opinion, making reasoning dysfunction, leading to
> catastrophe.
>
> It was in the news that the airtraffic controllers in the USA are hired based
> on diversity, instead of on merit, leading to incompetent airtraffic
> controllers.
>
> Because nobody flying, not even billionaires in their private planes, can
> escape the airtraffic controllers, it is shown that all ideas about a
> conspiratorial nefarious group of people manipulating policy for their own
> benefit, are wrong.
>
> It shows that the bad policy is just about mental disorder, mental illness.
> The bad covid policy, the bad immigration policy, the gender ideology etc. It
> is all just about mental disorder.
>
> The disorder starts with the psychological pressure for people to do their
> best. This leads people to mistakenly define choosing in terms of figuring
> out what is best, instead of defining it in terms of spontaneous expression
> of the subjective spirit.
>
> This then leads to a pattern of corruption in the mind, of all concepts that
> are based on choosing. Most importantly, the concept of subjectivity becomes
> dysfunctional, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental
> illness.
>
> This pattern of corruption is recognizable in the way people do their best
> for things, in an exaggerated sort of way. It's because these people have
> lost the connection to their basic emotions, and only have the feelings left
> associated to doing their best. So when these people do their best for some
> cause, it's not really about solving the problem, they are just trying to get
> some feelings going for their emotional survival.
>
> As for example the steel drive in Mao's China. The socialists contrived to
> produce more steel, by melting down neccessary farming equipment, resulting
> in famine. They were hellbent to do it, because of needing these feelings
> associated to doing their best, in producing the optimal amount of steel.
>
> Another aspect of this disorder, is to objectify emotions and personal
> character, leading to racism. Because when choosing is explained in terms of
> figuring out what is best, then the logic is used of as like how a
> chesscomputer calculates a move. There are no subjective aspects in these
> computations. So then when this logic of choosing is transposed on to human
> beings, then the emotions and personal character, must be objectified.
>
> The ultra-darwinist philosopher Dennett, explicitly defines choosing in terms
> of this logic of how a chesscomputer calculates a move. There is no doubt in
> my mind, that Dennett must secretly be a racist, because that is a neccessary
> logical consequenc of his ideas. Although this racism would not neccessarily
> be the traditional racism, but have more sophisticated ideas about variation.
>
> Natural selection theory, is basically the same logic of a chesscomputer
> calculating a move. In that there are variants representing options, which
> then go through a process, with an inevitable result of many variants going
> extinct, and one variant surviving.
>
> It is because of this similarity to the logic of choosing, that evolutionists
> use subjective terminology in their theory, differential reproductive
> "success". And then the entire life cycle of an organism is explained using
> subjective terminology, in regards to this "success". Which subjective words
> are all re-assigned an objective meaning. In sexual selection, even the more
> esoteric subjective words such as "beauty", are re-assigned an objective
> meaning.
>
> Which obviously undermines the properly subjective use, of subjective
> terminology, by replacing the subjective meaning, with objective meaning.
>
> Moreover, evolution theory is held in opposition to creationist theory, while
> the concept of subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept.
>
> 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
> 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
>
> Where choosing is defined in terms of spontaneity, that a decision can turn
> out one way or another in the moment. And choosing is the mechanism of
> creation, how a creation originates. And subjective means, identified with a
> chosen opinion, and objective means, identified with a model of it.
>
> Accepting evolution theory therefore results in a reduced awareness, of the
> subjective human spirit choosing things, in human affairs. Which leads to the
> aforementioned bad personal opinions, resulting in inevitable catastrophe.
>
> The importance of subjectivity in reasoning, is systematically
> underestimated. Subjectivity is marginalized. But if you don't "care" about
> the truth, then no matter how much you are focused on the facts, you will not
> find the relevant facts of the matter. You will then just only find the
> facts, that quickly gratify, and not find relevant facts that are emotionally
> difficult to deal with.
>
> So evolution theory basically works as a catalyst on the commonly human error
> to conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.
>
> "And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all
> corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection."
> (C. Darwin, Origin of Species)
>
> To solve the problem, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the use of
> subjective terminology in science theories must be abandoned, and that
> creationism must be reinstated.
>
> Otherwise we will have an unending chain of catastrophe, which will also
> affect the evolutionists themselves, just as like the diversity policies for
> air traffic controllers affect everyone that flies.
-------------------------------------

I wouldn't call it catastrophic, but your faulty reasoning led to the
screed posted above.

There is no error in the reasoning, otherwise you would have surely pointed it out. You must just be a socialist piece of shit who is found out, that you reject the entire subjective part of reality.

Op dinsdag 9 januari 2024 om 20:02:34 UTC+1 schreef Dexter:
> mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The two pillars of reasoning are fact & opinion. The evolutionists are
> > undermining the concept of opinion, making reasoning dysfunction, leading to
> > catastrophe.
> >
> > It was in the news that the airtraffic controllers in the USA are hired based
> > on diversity, instead of on merit, leading to incompetent airtraffic
> > controllers.
> >
> > Because nobody flying, not even billionaires in their private planes, can
> > escape the airtraffic controllers, it is shown that all ideas about a
> > conspiratorial nefarious group of people manipulating policy for their own
> > benefit, are wrong.
> >
> > It shows that the bad policy is just about mental disorder, mental illness.
> > The bad covid policy, the bad immigration policy, the gender ideology etc. It
> > is all just about mental disorder.
> >
> > The disorder starts with the psychological pressure for people to do their
> > best. This leads people to mistakenly define choosing in terms of figuring
> > out what is best, instead of defining it in terms of spontaneous expression
> > of the subjective spirit.
> >
> > This then leads to a pattern of corruption in the mind, of all concepts that
> > are based on choosing. Most importantly, the concept of subjectivity becomes
> > dysfunctional, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology, and mental
> > illness.
> >
> > This pattern of corruption is recognizable in the way people do their best
> > for things, in an exaggerated sort of way. It's because these people have
> > lost the connection to their basic emotions, and only have the feelings left
> > associated to doing their best. So when these people do their best for some
> > cause, it's not really about solving the problem, they are just trying to get
> > some feelings going for their emotional survival.
> >
> > As for example the steel drive in Mao's China. The socialists contrived to
> > produce more steel, by melting down neccessary farming equipment, resulting
> > in famine. They were hellbent to do it, because of needing these feelings
> > associated to doing their best, in producing the optimal amount of steel.
> >
> > Another aspect of this disorder, is to objectify emotions and personal
> > character, leading to racism. Because when choosing is explained in terms of
> > figuring out what is best, then the logic is used of as like how a
> > chesscomputer calculates a move. There are no subjective aspects in these
> > computations. So then when this logic of choosing is transposed on to human
> > beings, then the emotions and personal character, must be objectified.
> >
> > The ultra-darwinist philosopher Dennett, explicitly defines choosing in terms
> > of this logic of how a chesscomputer calculates a move. There is no doubt in
> > my mind, that Dennett must secretly be a racist, because that is a neccessary
> > logical consequenc of his ideas. Although this racism would not neccessarily
> > be the traditional racism, but have more sophisticated ideas about variation.
> >
> > Natural selection theory, is basically the same logic of a chesscomputer
> > calculating a move. In that there are variants representing options, which
> > then go through a process, with an inevitable result of many variants going
> > extinct, and one variant surviving.
> >
> > It is because of this similarity to the logic of choosing, that evolutionists
> > use subjective terminology in their theory, differential reproductive
> > "success". And then the entire life cycle of an organism is explained using
> > subjective terminology, in regards to this "success". Which subjective words
> > are all re-assigned an objective meaning. In sexual selection, even the more
> > esoteric subjective words such as "beauty", are re-assigned an objective
> > meaning.
> >
> > Which obviously undermines the properly subjective use, of subjective
> > terminology, by replacing the subjective meaning, with objective meaning.
> >
> > Moreover, evolution theory is held in opposition to creationist theory, while
> > the concept of subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept.
> >
> > 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
> > 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
> >
> > Where choosing is defined in terms of spontaneity, that a decision can turn
> > out one way or another in the moment. And choosing is the mechanism of
> > creation, how a creation originates. And subjective means, identified with a
> > chosen opinion, and objective means, identified with a model of it.
> >
> > Accepting evolution theory therefore results in a reduced awareness, of the
> > subjective human spirit choosing things, in human affairs. Which leads to the
> > aforementioned bad personal opinions, resulting in inevitable catastrophe.
> >
> > The importance of subjectivity in reasoning, is systematically
> > underestimated. Subjectivity is marginalized. But if you don't "care" about
> > the truth, then no matter how much you are focused on the facts, you will not
> > find the relevant facts of the matter. You will then just only find the
> > facts, that quickly gratify, and not find relevant facts that are emotionally
> > difficult to deal with.
> >
> > So evolution theory basically works as a catalyst on the commonly human error
> > to conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.
> >
> > "And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all
> > corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection."
> > (C. Darwin, Origin of Species)
> >
> > To solve the problem, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the use of
> > subjective terminology in science theories must be abandoned, and that
> > creationism must be reinstated.
> >
> > Otherwise we will have an unending chain of catastrophe, which will also
> > affect the evolutionists themselves, just as like the diversity policies for
> > air traffic controllers affect everyone that flies.
> -------------------------------------
>
> I wouldn't call it catastrophic, but your faulty reasoning led to the
> screed posted above.

Nando Ronteltap wrote:

> Op dinsdag 9 januari 2024 om 20:02:34 UTC+1 schreef Dexter:
> > mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > The two pillars of reasoning are fact & opinion. The evolutionists are
> > > undermining the concept of opinion, making reasoning dysfunction, leading
> > > to catastrophe.
> > >
> > > It was in the news that the airtraffic controllers in the USA are hired
> > > based on diversity, instead of on merit, leading to incompetent
> > > airtraffic controllers.
> > >
> > > Because nobody flying, not even billionaires in their private planes, can
> > > escape the airtraffic controllers, it is shown that all ideas about a
> > > conspiratorial nefarious group of people manipulating policy for their
> > > own benefit, are wrong.
> > >
> > > It shows that the bad policy is just about mental disorder, mental
> > > illness. The bad covid policy, the bad immigration policy, the gender
> > > ideology etc. It is all just about mental disorder.
> > >
> > > The disorder starts with the psychological pressure for people to do
> > > their best. This leads people to mistakenly define choosing in terms of
> > > figuring out what is best, instead of defining it in terms of spontaneous
> > > expression of the subjective spirit.
> > >
> > > This then leads to a pattern of corruption in the mind, of all concepts
> > > that are based on choosing. Most importantly, the concept of subjectivity
> > > becomes dysfunctional, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology,
> > > and mental illness.
> > >
> > > This pattern of corruption is recognizable in the way people do their
> > > best for things, in an exaggerated sort of way. It's because these people
> > > have lost the connection to their basic emotions, and only have the
> > > feelings left associated to doing their best. So when these people do
> > > their best for some cause, it's not really about solving the problem,
> > > they are just trying to get some feelings going for their emotional
> > > survival.
> > >
> > > As for example the steel drive in Mao's China. The socialists contrived
> > > to produce more steel, by melting down neccessary farming equipment,
> > > resulting in famine. They were hellbent to do it, because of needing
> > > these feelings associated to doing their best, in producing the optimal
> > > amount of steel.
> > >
> > > Another aspect of this disorder, is to objectify emotions and personal
> > > character, leading to racism. Because when choosing is explained in terms
> > > of figuring out what is best, then the logic is used of as like how a
> > > chesscomputer calculates a move. There are no subjective aspects in these
> > > computations. So then when this logic of choosing is transposed on to
> > > human beings, then the emotions and personal character, must be
> > > objectified.
> > >
> > > The ultra-darwinist philosopher Dennett, explicitly defines choosing in
> > > terms of this logic of how a chesscomputer calculates a move. There is no
> > > doubt in my mind, that Dennett must secretly be a racist, because that is
> > > a neccessary logical consequenc of his ideas. Although this racism would
> > > not neccessarily be the traditional racism, but have more sophisticated
> > > ideas about variation.
> > >
> > > Natural selection theory, is basically the same logic of a chesscomputer
> > > calculating a move. In that there are variants representing options,
> > > which then go through a process, with an inevitable result of many
> > > variants going extinct, and one variant surviving.
> > >
> > > It is because of this similarity to the logic of choosing, that
> > > evolutionists use subjective terminology in their theory, differential
> > > reproductive "success". And then the entire life cycle of an organism is
> > > explained using subjective terminology, in regards to this "success".
> > > Which subjective words are all re-assigned an objective meaning. In
> > > sexual selection, even the more esoteric subjective words such as
> > > "beauty", are re-assigned an objective meaning.
> > >
> > > Which obviously undermines the properly subjective use, of subjective
> > > terminology, by replacing the subjective meaning, with objective meaning.
> > >
> > > Moreover, evolution theory is held in opposition to creationist theory,
> > > while the concept of subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept.
> > >
> > > 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
> > > 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
> > >
> > > Where choosing is defined in terms of spontaneity, that a decision can
> > > turn out one way or another in the moment. And choosing is the mechanism
> > > of creation, how a creation originates. And subjective means, identified
> > > with a chosen opinion, and objective means, identified with a model of
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Accepting evolution theory therefore results in a reduced awareness, of
> > > the subjective human spirit choosing things, in human affairs. Which
> > > leads to the aforementioned bad personal opinions, resulting in
> > > inevitable catastrophe.
> > >
> > > The importance of subjectivity in reasoning, is systematically
> > > underestimated. Subjectivity is marginalized. But if you don't "care"
> > > about the truth, then no matter how much you are focused on the facts,
> > > you will not find the relevant facts of the matter. You will then just
> > > only find the facts, that quickly gratify, and not find relevant facts
> > > that are emotionally difficult to deal with.
> > >
> > > So evolution theory basically works as a catalyst on the commonly human
> > > error to conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best.
> > >
> > > "And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being,
> > > all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards
> > > perfection." (C. Darwin, Origin of Species)
> > >
> > > To solve the problem, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the use of
> > > subjective terminology in science theories must be abandoned, and that
> > > creationism must be reinstated.
> > >
> > > Otherwise we will have an unending chain of catastrophe, which will also
> > > affect the evolutionists themselves, just as like the diversity policies
> > > for air traffic controllers affect everyone that flies.
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> > I wouldn't call it catastrophic, but your faulty reasoning led to the
> > screed posted above.
>
> There is no error in the reasoning, otherwise you would have surely pointed
> it out. You must just be a socialist piece of shit who is found out, that you
> reject the entire subjective part of reality.
>
-------------------------------------

Your reasoning isn't worth my time refuting because it's utterly
unintelligable.
You've expressed your views countless times over the years and the result is
few people care to respond anymore. It seems you believe this proves your
position is unassailable. I cannot speak for anyone else but I find your posts
to be florid nonsense. Make what you will of that. I couldn't possibly care
less.

Indeed you would totally suck at "caring" for anything, because of your clueless about how subjectivity works.

You're just another complete asshole who refuses to look at the evidence for how subjectivity works, the rules that are used with subjective terminology, in common discourse. Which is, you know, straightforward evil. The expression on your face that you have, when you reject the truth about how subjectivity works, is the face of pure evil.

People don't like the truth about how subjectivity works, so they throw it out, and then have catastrophe, because of the ensuing bad subjective opinions. You don't see the connection between ignorance about how subjectivity works, to bad subjective opinions, bad judgment.

Op maandag 15 januari 2024 om 16:37:40 UTC+1 schreef Dexter:
> Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> > Op dinsdag 9 januari 2024 om 20:02:34 UTC+1 schreef Dexter:
> > > mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > The two pillars of reasoning are fact & opinion. The evolutionists are
> > > > undermining the concept of opinion, making reasoning dysfunction, leading
> > > > to catastrophe.
> > > >
> > > > It was in the news that the airtraffic controllers in the USA are hired
> > > > based on diversity, instead of on merit, leading to incompetent
> > > > airtraffic controllers.
> > > >
> > > > Because nobody flying, not even billionaires in their private planes, can
> > > > escape the airtraffic controllers, it is shown that all ideas about a
> > > > conspiratorial nefarious group of people manipulating policy for their
> > > > own benefit, are wrong.
> > > >
> > > > It shows that the bad policy is just about mental disorder, mental
> > > > illness. The bad covid policy, the bad immigration policy, the gender
> > > > ideology etc. It is all just about mental disorder.
> > > >
> > > > The disorder starts with the psychological pressure for people to do
> > > > their best. This leads people to mistakenly define choosing in terms of
> > > > figuring out what is best, instead of defining it in terms of spontaneous
> > > > expression of the subjective spirit.
> > > >
> > > > This then leads to a pattern of corruption in the mind, of all concepts
> > > > that are based on choosing. Most importantly, the concept of subjectivity
> > > > becomes dysfunctional, leading to bad personal opinions, weird ideology,
> > > > and mental illness.
> > > >
> > > > This pattern of corruption is recognizable in the way people do their
> > > > best for things, in an exaggerated sort of way. It's because these people
> > > > have lost the connection to their basic emotions, and only have the
> > > > feelings left associated to doing their best. So when these people do
> > > > their best for some cause, it's not really about solving the problem,
> > > > they are just trying to get some feelings going for their emotional
> > > > survival.
> > > >
> > > > As for example the steel drive in Mao's China. The socialists contrived
> > > > to produce more steel, by melting down neccessary farming equipment,
> > > > resulting in famine. They were hellbent to do it, because of needing
> > > > these feelings associated to doing their best, in producing the optimal
> > > > amount of steel.
> > > >
> > > > Another aspect of this disorder, is to objectify emotions and personal
> > > > character, leading to racism. Because when choosing is explained in terms
> > > > of figuring out what is best, then the logic is used of as like how a
> > > > chesscomputer calculates a move. There are no subjective aspects in these
> > > > computations. So then when this logic of choosing is transposed on to
> > > > human beings, then the emotions and personal character, must be
> > > > objectified.
> > > >
> > > > The ultra-darwinist philosopher Dennett, explicitly defines choosing in
> > > > terms of this logic of how a chesscomputer calculates a move. There is no
> > > > doubt in my mind, that Dennett must secretly be a racist, because that is
> > > > a neccessary logical consequenc of his ideas. Although this racism would
> > > > not neccessarily be the traditional racism, but have more sophisticated
> > > > ideas about variation.
> > > >
> > > > Natural selection theory, is basically the same logic of a chesscomputer
> > > > calculating a move. In that there are variants representing options,
> > > > which then go through a process, with an inevitable result of many
> > > > variants going extinct, and one variant surviving.
> > > >
> > > > It is because of this similarity to the logic of choosing, that
> > > > evolutionists use subjective terminology in their theory, differential
> > > > reproductive "success". And then the entire life cycle of an organism is
> > > > explained using subjective terminology, in regards to this "success".
> > > > Which subjective words are all re-assigned an objective meaning. In
> > > > sexual selection, even the more esoteric subjective words such as
> > > > "beauty", are re-assigned an objective meaning.
> > > >
> > > > Which obviously undermines the properly subjective use, of subjective
> > > > terminology, by replacing the subjective meaning, with objective meaning.
> > > >
> > > > Moreover, evolution theory is held in opposition to creationist theory,
> > > > while the concept of subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
> > > > 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
> > > >
> > > > Where choosing is defined in terms of spontaneity, that a decision can
> > > > turn out one way or another in the moment. And choosing is the mechanism
> > > > of creation, how a creation originates. And subjective means, identified
> > > > with a chosen opinion, and objective means, identified with a model of
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Accepting evolution theory therefore results in a reduced awareness, of
> > > > the subjective human spirit choosing things, in human affairs. Which
> > > > leads to the aforementioned bad personal opinions, resulting in
> > > > inevitable catastrophe.
> > > >
> > > > The importance of subjectivity in reasoning, is systematically
> > > > underestimated. Subjectivity is marginalized. But if you don't "care"
> > > > about the truth, then no matter how much you are focused on the facts,
> > > > you will not find the relevant facts of the matter. You will then just
> > > > only find the facts, that quickly gratify, and not find relevant facts
> > > > that are emotionally difficult to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > So evolution theory basically works as a catalyst on the commonly human
> > > > error to conceive of choosing in terms of figuring out what is best..
> > > >
> > > > "And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being,
> > > > all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards
> > > > perfection." (C. Darwin, Origin of Species)
> > > >
> > > > To solve the problem, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the use of
> > > > subjective terminology in science theories must be abandoned, and that
> > > > creationism must be reinstated.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise we will have an unending chain of catastrophe, which will also
> > > > affect the evolutionists themselves, just as like the diversity policies
> > > > for air traffic controllers affect everyone that flies.
> > > -------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I wouldn't call it catastrophic, but your faulty reasoning led to the
> > > screed posted above.
> >
> > There is no error in the reasoning, otherwise you would have surely pointed
> > it out. You must just be a socialist piece of shit who is found out, that you
> > reject the entire subjective part of reality.
> >
> -------------------------------------
>
> Your reasoning isn't worth my time refuting because it's utterly
> unintelligable.
> You've expressed your views countless times over the years and the result is
> few people care to respond anymore. It seems you believe this proves your
> position is unassailable. I cannot speak for anyone else but I find your posts
> to be florid nonsense. Make what you will of that. I couldn't possibly care
> less.