"It pisses me off when people don't concede that they were wrong"

In this case, we have saturn exemplifying a pure animalistic instinct of rage. You being pissed off is not an argument that helps the conversation.

Humans are not pets of society because humans are a part of society. You're trying to personalize society, in a similar way that religious freaks try to personalize the universe.

In reality, society is better understood as an emergence of many tribes working together in an economic model. Let me dumb it down:

There is a tribe of programmers. They have their own rituals, their own ceremonies, even their own drugs that they like to take (yay Mountain Dew). They are very good at controlling computers.

Then there is a tribe of people who make pizza. They are good at making pizza, really good. Well, better than most programmers anyway. They eat pizza a lot, and their life revolves around making pizza, eating pizza, talking about how different pizzas are awesome or how they suck.

Now first tribe is all like "hey, we need pizza" so they go to the second tribe and ask that tribe to make them some pizza in return for herding pizzamen's freaky computers that just get out of control all the time.

I think Saturn made two very salient points that contributed greatly to this converstaion.

1. jordan0day was wrong and Saturn expanded on Silverstorms rebuttal in a meaningful way.

2. It would be nice if people owned up to being wrong. Especially when they're "that" wrong.

What was I wrong about? I shouldn't expect humans to be capable of overcoming instinct? I don't think I can ever apologize for having that sort of expectation. I wasn't disagreeing with silverstorm's comment, in fact my comment implies that I agree with silverstorm's point (that human behavior can be heritable). I'd really like you to tell me what I am "that" wrong about. (Not sure why "that" is quoted?)

Additionally, is your second comment directed at me as well? I guess maybe you'll say it applies after what I just wrote above, but it's not like I came back and responded to these other comments wit "NO UR WRONG IM RIGHT!" I haven't been on hn for a few days, so I haven't even had a chance to respond. When I haven't made any additional comments, why is your first instinct (relevant!) to presume I'm refusing to "own up", rather than "given that jordan0day hasn't had any additional activity in this thread, perhaps they haven't read these responses yet?"

"The amazing thing about being human is that we can overcome instinct"

That's not unique to humans, which is fairly obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a minute. I'd even argue that it is, in itself, an instinct.

When anything overcomes instinct, it's never just for the fun of it. Animals (and we are animals, pure and simple) will often override their instinct to attack with their instinct to survive. I won't try to seduce the wife of a man twice my size, despite my primal urge to get laid because the risk outweighs the reward. Nor will a pack animal copulate with the Alpha Males females for the same reason.

There is nothing that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. Humans may have superior intelligence, but we don't have a monopoly on intelligence, we just have the best kind. Arguing that humans are distinct because of our mental faculties hold as much water as saying birds are superior because they can fly. If we point to our dominance in the world as a distinguishing factor, we must then concede that we rank well below insects, bacteria, viruses etc.

Humans are pretty cool animals, but we're still animals.

Your example, though "dumbed down", makes no sense to me at all.

What is a pet? It's a subordinate part of a larger whole. I would submit that the vast majority of men meet this description, where society is the larger group. Society demands a man gets out of bed and goes to work; against his sleeping instinct, man complies.

> a pure animalistic instinct of rage

I would like to think that my annoyance that good arguments did not seem to be carrying the day is more than dumb animal rage? If you heard a group of people agreeing that 1 + 1 = 3 then surely you'd also be guilty of an instinctive opposition. Something has to be true.

>Society demands a man gets out of bed and goes to work; against his sleeping instinct, man complies.

The only case where society actually does demand a man to get out of bed is jail.

Usually, a man gets out of bed not because he is dragged out like a pet but because society offers something in return -- employment, company, money, food, purpose, etc. He can stay in his bed if he really wants to, or he can choose a more flexible schedule and wake up later, or wake up earlier.

It's a system of symbiosis; the man is making a fucking choice.

Regarding 1+1=3, there are several possibilities here:

a) The people are mathematicians, they redefined symbols and are playing around -- it would evoke curiosity in me.

b) The people are children and they're getting a rise out of you -- it would evoke amusement in me.

c) The people are deluded and insane -- it would evoke sympathy.

I don't see how these possibilities require anyone to get aggressive.

I like this example about the man and work.

Why does the man find value in what work gives him in return? Because he feels he needs those things, he can still make the choice not to get them but why would have this choice in the first place, why do those things appeal to him?

The same as how a dog will choose to jump when you train him to expect treats, he could just ignore it but someone he'll do it because treats taste good. Why they taste good is I believe something that is honed by evolution. (Same as how we like things with Fat in it. Fatty stuff taste good for a reason.)

> It's a system of symbiosis; the man is making a fucking choice.

Ridiculous. A "choice" between working and eating, or not working and not eating, is no choice at all. Hey, how about you choose to give me all your money and live, or you choose to get shot with my gun and die? Wow, symbiosis!

Thanks for providing some creative explanations for why people might propose that 1+1=3 but you have entirely missed my point. My point was that some things are demonstrable, objectively false and when people state them - as did a great grandparent of this thread - and are then thoroughly demonstrated to be completely wrong, they should have the basic decency to admit it, and pledge to not waste the group's time with such nonsense in future.

There is of course one grim possibility, which is that the OP was actually category 2 - a child, knowingly stating misinformation to "get a rise" - in which case I would really like you to both leave HN; there are plenty of sites for your lulzy trolling, it's not appreciated here.

Wait, what? What was I wrong about? Finding something amusing? I really don't think I made a very controversial statement, and I certainly wasn't making an "argument". I never said I disagreed with silverstorm's point -- re-reading it, "I'm on the opposite side of that" could sound that way, but I meant "looking from the other direction". silverstorm's point was w.r.t. people thinking that "can behaviors be inherited" hasn't been settled. I presume that it has been.