"nature vs. nurture" is false-dichotomy, "nurture" subjectivist absurdity....

Below-copied by ap submitted, CENSORED/deleted by kike, Unz, at comments, http://www.unz.com/tlynch/three-iden.../#new_comments

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Nurture" Is Absurd; Nurture Vs. Nature Mere False Dichotomy
(Apollonian, 30 Jan 19)

Get a clue, buddy: "nature vs. nurture" is FALSE DICHOTOMY, for even if it were true there's such thing as "nurture," then that would simply be the program of nature. All the "nurturists" are attempting is to pretend that nurture is the REAL "nature," that things are malleable and subject to human whim, etc.--subjectivism.

Real question, at root, is reality or not--is reality objective (Aristotle)--or not?--like in subjectivism or mysticism. But objectivity is the only way things could be, objectivity the foundation of logic, science, etc. If there was no objectivity, then there's nothing--we'd be Gods in a subjectivist universe, making-up things as we go-along, deuces wild.

The purpose of "nurture" fallacy is just a disguised attempt at same old subjectivism/Satanism, making oneself to be the God creating reality--Satanism by definition.

Thus to pretend reality can be changed by human will (subjectivism) follows fm the non-existent presumption of "good-evil"--which "good-evil" is what Satanists/subjectivists use to control children. And such "good-evil" pretext is why Satanists/subjectivists want to keep people dumbed-down so they stay children, believing in such childish "good-evil" and perfectly "free" will, etc., suffering fm inferiority-complex and esp. guilt-complex.

Reality could ONLY be objective (given absurd alternatives), hence totally DETERMINIST (absolute cause-effect, no perfectly "free" will), thus historically CYCLIC, as we see it is and must be. Any possible, conceivable "empiricism" would ONLY be possible in an objective reality, hence no "experiment" could possibly conclude to non-objectivity. Q.E.D.


-------------------above by ap in response to below-copied--------------------

# 52 T1970 says:
January 27, 2019 at 3:01 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Stephen Paul Foster

“I watched the film and was struck by the very obviously different personal aura or vibration I perceived off of each of the boys. Clear three unique and whole human spirits, whose shared genetics simply allowed their skin suits and brains to match their inherent spiritual qualities, present before birth.”

Hmmm …. a New Age, Oprah-esque perspective, not often seen in these parts.

You could not more inaccurately describe my worldview than calling it “oprahesque”. I read articles around here all the time. On the other hand, I believe humans to be fundamentally spiritual beings temporarily occupying a material body, a common belief. Not to be argumentative, but I am genuinely curious; is anyone who believes in a soul disqualified from being interested in the nature/nurture question?