>Instinct is inextricably bound to unreasoning impulses, and

No.

No. Instinct (including sexual urges) is only bad when it leads to horrible consequences. But it's wrong that instinct should be eliminated completely.
For example, instincts such as urges to murder should obviously be eliminated, or, at the very least, controlled (be it via punishment or, if appropriate, the use of special tranquilizing chemicals for those who committed murder)
But instincts which are good, such as our natural curiosity and the will to explore, and to care for one another shouldn't be eliminated.

Half-Life 2 was a very cool game though, and Breen's speeches were produced very well and are of high quality. They show how far one can get with pure rhetoric and sophism. Breen uses a form of rhetoric called ethos. He tries to make himself seem like some kind of a representative of rational thought and science, and make people respect and obey him (and the combine, who are his puppet masters).

......

File: Vort_Ep2.jpg (68KB, 448x714px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 448x714px

>>7953629
The Freeman is wise in his words.

File: IYkMFmZlsUE.jpg (60KB, 473x600px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 473x600px

>>7953602
indeed

>>7953582
I suppose you thought Nazi rhetoric made a lot of sense as well. Brainlet.

>>7953668
>>for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are chemicals
>implying the brain can't have self reference
Jesus fucking christ mickey what the fuck are you smoking

>>7953685
Self referencing doesn't guarantee error free Thinking
The Chemicals could missguide you twice

>>7953582
>Breen's Schopenhauer-ish thinking makes an awful lot of sense, actually.
Why do people always say things like this? The whole point is that it's supposed to sound like it makes sense while actually having sinister intentions. It's manipulation. Everyone who says something like this about some fictional oppressive philosophy is just saying "lol look at me I took the bait I'm being manipulated."

>>7953582
>would eliminating sexual urges genuinely improve the human condition?
No, it would drastically destroy it. Personality isn't a unique trait to humans, and other herd animals exist that don't share the primate trait of anger, so we can see the evolution is capable of removing the trait on its own even if we do nothing. There's a fallacy somewhere in his argument, that much is clear for studying the Bayesian evidence, but until we know *where* the fallacy is, aiming blindly is a dangerous proposition that seems to have no real value.

File: shinometa.jpg (224KB, 675x658px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 675x658px

>bunch of unverified facts leads to a conclusion
>it's true because it sounds good

It begins with the a priori assumption that all instinct is bad. Which is wrong.

>>7953602
>They show how far one can get with pure rhetoric and sophism

And the backing of a huge alien invasion force, you mean?

Overpopulation is a problem. Acknowledging something allows. Response, talented distribution of this knowlege can urge a instinctual move by the masses tilted gently to reason. Instinct is usefull, in varied ways.

>>7953629
>>7953660
golden boys good job

>>7953582
>would eliminating sexual urges genuinely improve the human condition?

>would eliminating one of the most important parts of the human condition genuinely improve the human condition?
no and you should feel retarded for even considering this

>don't marry and reproduce
Whites aren't people causing overpopulation anyways

>>7954921
Overpopulation is not a problem in any time period that I've been to. Maybe it becomes a problem in a world where idiot human fakes trust the wrong guy to alter things, but I can think of only one reason that doing so would result in overpopulation.

>>7955522
Here social engineering helps refine the genepool where low quality genes are magnified by a system that allows the physically ill and mentally handicapped to live full lives and generations of the slighty off breeding with the slighty off has resulted in underlying weakness and instability in some developed nations. While some places in the world the earth cannot support the number of people in the local, despite the natural buffering in those places of the weak. Not only is population a problem, quality of population is a problem. Are we due for another plague, yes but we have stopped global sick from scrubbing us clean again.

>>7955522
So even if the timeline arcs to better, right now yes there's problems. Also have you looked at our genepool we are already a bit inbred how many bottlenecks can we go through before we learn to maintain balance in general?

File: 1458138843746.png (206KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 604x604px

>>7954829
>>7955522
Try writing twice as many sentences.

>>7953582
hello

>>7953582
What does it mean to improve human condition?
Removing sexuality from our lives removes one big source of fun, intimacy and excitement.
This I'd see as making the human condition worse, as it would make our lives just much more boring without significantly improving anything.

I'd actually argue the opposite, becoming to reasonable and controlling your feelings and instincts all the time significantly reduces your quality of life.
Sadly, most people don't know how to correctly let go of controlling their feelings and even if they think they don't control them, they still do so.

Seeing feelings and instincts as something coming and going without become attached to them is ideal.
All else leads to feeling bad about feeling bad and worrying about worrying, which leads to nothing.

>>7955933
Giving out free and diverse birth controls would help for now with the functional woes of a otherwise ok and nice thing.