Amalekites and Evolution

[Master Lawbringer]

CMPML, Department of System Failure!

When discussing evolution with Amalekites one thing becomes apparent : Their need to view evolution as essentially a 'social' process, with 'cooperation' as its main theme.
They do mention natural selection, but then quickly de-emphasize it in favour of 'social ... social ... cooperation ... social'.

Evolution is based on natural selection because that's the rule that effectively counters entropy since it actually uses the fact that everything ends up destroyed; it is the fact that everything gets destroyed that allows natural selection to work. This is what answers the question why extremely complex organized machines like animals and humans can exist in a universe whose rules are that of increasing disorder. That's the essential observation behind the theory of evolution.

DNA is an optimization of natural selection essentially, their gibberish on 'cooperating cells' notwithstanding.

The true nature of social insects like bees and ants becomes apparent when the queen flies off and only one of the produced males gets to mate showing that the whole thing is also just another natural selection optimizing process.

So what do they mean with their incoherent rambling on 'social ... social ... cooperation'?

It turns out that their 'social ... social'-rambling isn't just a misinterpretation of evolution, but actually something even more absurd, a move against hierarchy in the workings of a machine, any machine, in general. It's a move against allowing the parts of a machine to become a functional whole. It's a move against a machine being ... a machine at all.

This is what their 'social ... social ... cooperation' really is. It is nothing but the symptom of a degenerative evolutionary state and that's why this 'social ... social'-argument coming from the present-day materialists, and all arguments based on it, are just garbage on analysis.

Remember that the morality, the ideas of right and wrong, of the Amalekites are not based on feelings. That is, they do forbid crimes like rape and torture but not because it makes the victim of such a crime feel horrible. They forbid those crimes not because of empathy but because of ... something else, not based on feelings at all.
Confronted by inquiry on this they will hide this by emphasizing their version of empathy which they call 'care' which seems like empathy but, as established, is not based on how people feel.

So they have 'garble ... garble ... garble' as their morality and even posses a fake version of empathy to hide this fact. Not to mention that their garbling surely is effective at confusing and distracting you from the main issue(s).

But just ask them this question :

The reason you do not torture someone is because it's a bad thing for the person getting tortured. You say we (a collective) prohibit people from torturing. Ok, that seems reasonable. However the reason you prohibit torture is not because it makes the other person feel bad, it's because ... blah. I don't know what it is but it apparently has nothing to do with how the torture victim feels.

Why do you prohibit torture if it has nothing to do with how it makes the torture victim feel?

End of Document.