>for the survival of my people
"My people" is a weasel word.
It does things like equate a failure of future individuals to be born, with mass deaths of already-living individuals. And from this assumption, it could be inferred that failure to reproduce and carry on more individuals with your genes is equivalent to killing already existing people.
You're not really concerned with the static survival
of any individual human or even group of humans. You're concerned with a group of humans surviving that carries a certain pool of traits in them, of which you are a subset.
In other words, it's just certain people's likeness you care about, not the people themselves. You're not really bothered by who lives or dies, just so long as the pool stays the color you want in future generations, whether by default or by artificial means.
>The only problem with that is that you are that group, on the deepest level, right down to your blood. If the group dies you die, your family dies, your people die. We're not talking about a voluntary group that can be abandoned at any time for any arbitrary, or non arbitrary reason. We're talking about who you are on the most existential level.
Neither one of us "are" our race, we're a subset of the genetic pool carried within that group. Just cause there's more variation between than within doesn't mean there can't still be deal-breaking differences within. The only people I can think of that have my back are my immediate family. I've met too many people from within my own race that consider me a disgrace to their very species, and would easily waste me and dump my carcass by the side of a highway if they knew they could get away with it. I ain't laying my life down for them. If they don't let me in, let em suffer.
Not even counting the growing number of people whose own immediate families reject them, you'd be suicidally naive to extend that kind of trust and altruism to people made of the same gunk that you didn't spend your whole formative years around. I do not stab my "race" in the back, they have repeatedly attempted to stab me, and they will easily do the same to you when it becomes expedient.
You wanna talk about survival? I have absolutely nowhere to go but a world where people are approached as atomistically as they are. I know I'm not the only one with no tribe, and I'm not even mixed race.
Any club you think you can count on for your security can and will also snatch that same security away when you least expect just to laugh at your cries, and there will be nothing you can do to save yourself unless you learn to make it as solitary as you can. Few would prefer this path, but it's one necessity imposes upon us.
>I use it because it's an accurate description of who I'm talking to. I don't generally use it as an insult, it's just a hooves descriptor. Besides I'd like someone to explain why it's not a good discriptor for Toy and many other who use this.
Because you've only ever used it in response to someone expressing their devaluing of your own specific version of morality,
as if absolutely no other moral principles are even possible and anything outside your own must be moral nihilism.
And you only use it as a label to invalidate someone else's moral framework/perceived lack thereof. In fact, I don't see a way the term even could
be constructively invoked in the context of this argument because the only thing I could see it implying here is "hue hue hue, looks like you don't believe in anything! Whatever you're arguing must be invalid no matter what your premises and reasoning are, because we just know
the conclusion can't be correct if it's nihilistic compared to my own beliefs!"
You're just taking your own arbitrarily focused-upon morals for granted that everyone else with any conceivable moral framework must
believe them as if they're a universal default, and that there's no room in the vast potential of the human mind to build a framework that sees the issue from a different angle.
What you're doing is insane, really; you're limiting what you say it's possible
for any human mind in existence to believe because of an assumption of the universality of something else, which you've done a really bad job at proving.
Some things may be more ubiquitous than others, but nothing
is just everything.
This post was edited by its author on .