Opinion and law, consciousness and instincts.

darkspacesteeldarkspacesteel wrote:
Poroshenko went to the office supply store... Then you can not continue.
A pity, I'd love to read 8)
darkspacesteeldarkspacesteel wrote:
As the Russian government is not the successor of the Soviet, and is the legal successor of the Russian government.
Why not? Is, but within a limited area (excluding all the republics and the States that broke away from the Soviet Union after its collapse).
darkspacesteeldarkspacesteel wrote:
This is the law about drug analogues, at least. What this is here for the derivation of Medvedev: Times the active substance is the same, then the drugs differ only in auxiliary substances. This is similar to brandy and vodka
Hard this analogy &)
Wing42
When we have introduced the Euro, none of the people did not ask. So don't ask not only Russian, but also others )

A. Soldier of Light
Poroshenko went to the office supply store... bought the notebook.... and said... thank you.

darkspacesteel
darkspacesteeldarkspacesteel wrote:
And around there is always some excuse. Even that, though differently. But this excuse is looking for the human mind to justify the actions of their instincts
Instincts is one of those words that illiterate people often use completely out of place and not knowing the meaning. And Yes, for those who still don't know, explain to the person no no instincts.

Gauguin
GauguinGauguin wrote:
in humans there are no instincts, no.
Sure, those instincts - all of Pindos invented! The stone has no instincts, the plant has no instincts - hence people have no. It all fits!

A. Soldier of LightA.Soldier of Light wrote:
When we have introduced the Euro, none of the people did not ask. So don't ask not only Russian, but also others )
Yes, and rightly so. In the country the kind of people that ask makes no sense.

Wing42
Too rude )) Global changes in the country needs to soglasovat with the people. Definitely. We have the bulk is the Estonians, but a third Russian-speaking, and a bit of all other...
GauguinGauguin wrote:
in humans there are no instincts, no.
But what about the desire to proliferate and self-preservation (for his carcass people are afraid, for example, you can intimidate someone, and he will obey for the sake of his safety)... Explain.

darkspacesteeldarkspacesteel wrote:
What are you unclear?
What a shame that people have prematurely left. It would be interesting to know his reaction to what he was the whole day very informative, intelligently and constructively communicated with meaningless sets of words from the generator political speeches...
Спойлерhttps://fish-text.irecomend all - for conversations with young philosophers-the scientists - the most it.

Wing42
Wing42Wing42 wrote:
Sure, those instincts - all of Pindos invented! The stone has no instincts, the plant has no instincts - hence people have no. It all fits!
Clowning does not add points to your already questionable intellectual abilities.

A. Soldier of Light
A. Soldier of LightA.Soldier of Light wrote:
Explain
Let's start with definitions. Instinct is an innate unconditional algorithm, a very clear and specific behavior that occurs in response to the key stimulus. The person of such algorithms is not, well, except for really quite primitive, like sucking and grasping reflexes. Therefore, to speak of instincts in relation to a person only in a poetic way. However, even in the poetic - it is a horrible vulgarity.
A. Soldier of LightA.Soldier of Light wrote:
But what about the desire to reproduce
I find it hard to understand what you mean. Specifically I want to breed not all degenerates enough of the act. Many people these desires are qualitatively different. Plus, people's willingness to have children is not biological nature, and social and divine. About the cultural education of children also should not be forgotten.
A. Soldier of LightA.Soldier of Light wrote:
self-preservation
Suicide says hi.
A. Soldier of LightA.Soldier of Light wrote:
for his carcass people are afraid
I think people have this fear is more of an empirical than a priori in nature.


P. S. the Basic problem that man has free will given by God. A gift or a curse (there are those who think that the second), but one of its features is that it buries all the fables deterministic at the root. Imbeciles claiming to novocell think (or rather dream) that man is a mechanism, which can be calculated, and therefore create their own little world with the instinct, features, etc. But the exact miscalculation will never be possible, except that the tendency, inclination...etc. But that's not it.

ColonelJason
ColonelJasonColonelJason wrote:
It would be interesting to know his reaction to what he was the whole day very informative, intelligently and constructively communicated with meaningless sets of words from the generator political speeches...
...which, however, are virtually indistinguishable from your everyday posts. Apparently, this generator you use often and for a long time.

Gauguin
Once again hats off to your persistent desire to inform others about its inability to attract the opposite gender. It is a pity that masculinity, which require these samoopredelenie acts, and they have also exhausted, and when it comes to going beyond the scholastic verbiage in the area you disgusting reality, we again see only your thrust in jagodichki tail. Perhaps you should stop repeating your short set of memorized phrases, and try to extend the range of his demagogic bleeps - the good , despite the poverty of idealism that he, being created for it, gives in this area a lot of room. And with that mindset you priests will not take.

Gauguin
GauguinGauguin wrote:
Clowning does not add points to your already questionable intellectual abilities.
But that is not the Pindos? And then who invented instinct? Huh? Who? Well the answer is the same. To prove his point. Justify it. Pindos if not, then who? Maybe you even say that Boh is not just a insect?

ColonelJason
ColonelJason wrote:
Once again hats off to your persistent desire to inform others about its inability to attract the opposite gender
I'm glad you finally got rid of the disease of monologue speech and learned to send their illiterate stream of consciousness at a specific address. But here's the thing - started with projections, and too obvious. However, they have also done.
ColonelJason wrote:
in the area you disgusting reality
Reality can and is disgusting to me partly, but not enough to write posts, entering it into a direct conflict, which often transgress you.

Gauguin
You see, the effects of dementia on the basis of spermotoksikoz have cumulative: if you have delighted us quite a standard to vysokodoznogo idealist polemical techniques - blatant lies and casuistic set of template sentences, which you a modest amount and mediocre quality were able to master during your superficial acquaintance with philosophy, but now the history is clearly blooming with complications in the course went rhetorical techniques 2 grade of primary school, in common known as itself is. In order to stop this destructive process until you have reached to the following in this trend, the level of argument - the cat died, tail oblez..., I recommend you to stop waiting for life-saving involuntary nocturnal emissions, and , literally, taking matters into their own hands, to be kind to yourself. I think removing the pressure of foreign substances on the brain, you can from the image obizhenku from primary school, to return to our usual roles of a juggler than a dozen of you misunderstood phrases charlatans of past centuries, Flirty skukozhilas in Agence stylebook of silence whenever your leg is awkward slip of region nurtured on the sidelines of an inferiority complex trying to quote someone else's verbiage, to reasoned debate.

ColonelJason
Judging by the already traditional for you sheet incoherent text, you again decided to enlist the help of a miracle-generator, you probably already well familiar.
ColonelJasonColonelJason wrote:
in the course went rhetorical techniques 2 grade of primary school, in common known as itself is
I'm afraid that very much originality here would be out of place because I speak the simple truth, i.e. just hint to you that not quite correctly (if not gone) to transfer their frustration on someone on the Internet, especially with such specifics, you are clearly incriminating. After all attempts to play in Wang-psihologa say about you much more than about those whom you are trying to project. I sincerely hope that the case came to the dripping of saliva and shaking over the keyboard hands.
ColonelJasonColonelJason wrote:
reasoned debate
Do not flatter yourself, in order to show that you are writing incoherent nonsense frivolous serious argument is required. Enough basic knowledge.

Gauguin
No need to be either Vanga or a psychologist to understand that contempt for the sex (and those who can engage in) experienced you may be producervan solely by the fact that the only desire that the bearer of such thinking caused in women for a very long time (perhaps always), this desire immediately and wash thoroughly.
GauguinGauguin wrote:
Do not flatter yourself, in order to show that you are writing incoherent nonsense frivolous serious argument is required. Enough basic knowledge.
I sincerely hope that someday you these basic knowledge will be typed, and then, finally, to break the endless, at this point, a sequence of attempts to operate panamacanal pieces obsolete demagoguery and dreary Poselkovaya when discussing any issue comes to creatures. By the way, I highly recommend to take a course of this metamorphosis, because having the ability to speak on the substance, you will greatly analyte femininity that prevails in your current patterns of communication, thus you may reduce the degree of disgust that the cause of women.

ColonelJason
ColonelJasonColonelJason wrote:
to understand what contempt for the sex
Conclusion, worthy of you, of course you. Apparently, for you the notorious fuck is really overvalued, but unattainable thing and my version with the projection turned out to be true, because you see allegations of sex where they don't exist, and divert any topic.
Okay, to prevent a new surge in your (probably teenage) fantasy, let's just say the sex I don't hate, otherwise I would have gone into monks and married. Here everything is simple.
ColonelJasonColonelJason wrote:
to understand what contempt for the sex (and those who can engage in) experienced you may be producervan solely by the fact that the only desire that the bearer of such thinking caused in women for a very long time (perhaps always), this desire immediately and wash thoroughly.
Classic coloradosee nonsense that it does not save your demagogic attempts Ala everyone knows and obviously. In fact, the reality is much more prosaic, obsessed with sex only pimply virgins, and the Mature and intelligent people refer to it calmly. And today, you finally proved that you are immeasurably closer to the first than to the second.
ColonelJasonColonelJason wrote:
to the point
For God's sake (or Svyatoy nowoci, it is closer to you), don't say such phrases, you are like a thief who says about honesty. Jarring.

Gauguin
And where is your justification of his words? Where are they? Do not watch them. And why? Because you have again every abstruse the word is farts in the air? Or, in your lousy fucking circle of intellectuals since the scoop is not accepted for the words to answer? As usual run and hold on for points so as not posbivat with you. You're not wow-wow-wow.

Gauguin
Those who call names, the so called. Porukovodit, seriously. Reduction of your attempts to disguise the complexes insults suggests that tactically juice let's grey matter is no worse kind of meningiomas. On the way from Thomas Aquinas to Elena Stepanenko you were transported to the destination.
By the way, based on your assertion that the pleasure of sex is limited to degenerates, the question arises: is your wife a degenerate, or sex with you she gets?

GauguinGauguin wrote:
Instinct is an innate unconditional algorithm, a very clear and specific behavior that occurs in response to the key stimulus.
Error, this is not the behavior and program behavior. Not the behavior itself.
GauguinGauguin wrote:
In humans, no such algorithms
Indeed, one can indicate the lack of full transcripts of all the genes and determining their functions, but you yourself pointed out the reflexes. And if they are, this is also an inherent code of actions on incentives. That is, the variation of instincts)
GauguinGauguin wrote:
I find it hard to understand what you mean. Specifically I want to breed not all,
Yes, I mean the whole range of actions that address the term )
GauguinGauguin wrote:
Many people these desires are qualitatively different.
So.
GauguinGauguin wrote:
Suicide says hi.
Disturbed psyche + intelligence intelligent life forms capable of overcoming the instincts. Elementary.