Human Nature

[Ivan Denisovich]

I would have thought the comparison was obvious. You suggested that if we had an ounce of good in us there wouldn't be genocides or even a word for it. I disagree. I think that statement is factually wrong for the same reason and in the same way as the others I offered. I think we can effect genocides..or make a damned good try at them at least, entirely by accident, utterly in ignorance, when we try to help..and..sometimes...for reasons not knowable by us. That all of these ways to effect those types of outcomes vastly outweigh the singular claim of strong misanthropy.

You keep returning to the idea of this being god-alike..which I guess is a code word for wrongbad.....but again, as factually wrong as it may in fact be, the idea that human beings are generally good natured but deeply compromised along predictable lines beyond their control or remit is the opposite of the christian view of mans nature or the moral view of christian ethics. It has quite a bit of explanatory power. We could run an experiment (which would be wildly unethical) by starving one group of people, leaving one group of people completely alone, showering another with cash...and then observing outcomes and decisionmaking ability between the groups. None of us will be surprised when the people we shower with cash are more charitable, when the people left alone are more or less us, and the ones starving start loading rifles. In fact we have run much less ambitious versions of this. The results do seem to imply that we're genuinely compelled to do what passes for good to us, and that this behavior becomes less pronounced and eventually inverts as duress increases.

Genocide by accident. Go troll someone else, I'm not interested in further (or fuhrer) "discussion".