totalitarian architecture, they will destroy Mecca!

[sen-no-sen]

You kick in touch. Memetics is therefore a scam.

I'm not kicking in touch but your examples have no validity. Children love animals as much as they are capable of causing them to suffer, so it's anything but a demonstration.
In reality, cases of animal sympathy far outweigh perverse behavior, but in the latter case can it be imitated by a wacky parent?

It was not a demonstration, but questions, three in number. Your answer which isolates one at the expense of the other two is not valid, therefore.

Children only break their toys if they are poorly educated, the same goes for delinquents who burn cars or bullies who beat up their wives ...
For the 3rd point, I don't see any connection with the notion of global warming, ocean acidification, rampant town planning or deforestation ???
So it's up to you to demonstrate that human beings have genes that push them to self-destruction.

[GuyGadebois]

So it's up to you to demonstrate that human beings have genes that push them to self-destruction.

Let's see what's been happening in this world (arbitrarily) for 2000 years ... the memes ( ) at work * are indeed replicas of the destructive nature of man.

* The story is an eternal restart because a majority of assholes do not want to evolve, they would lose too much.

Ps: I find it particularly inflated to dare to ask to produce evidence while you bring your explanations to us (convoluted, abstruse but apparently indisputable ... which borders on belief) by basing your demonstrations (almost only) on a theory more than a smoker ... So, professional deformation or neo-religion?

[Ahmed]

Whether memetics annoys you or that you absolutely want to understand nothing about it, I can admit it, but why make it a cheese?

[GuyGadebois]

Whether memetics annoys you or that you absolutely want to understand nothing about it, I can admit it, but why make it a cheese?

Fortunately, you're there as a good second knife to defend this potential scam!
If I make it a cheese it is because some use it to explain and define all (or almost) the problems encountered on this forum.
I spent (not 15mn) but several hours to compare the texts illustrating memetics, of the supporters and opponents of this theory, it emerges (arbitrarily, for me) that it is useless, does not add anything more to what we already know and only narrows the spectrum of understanding we have of human cognitive functions instead of enriching it. For me, memetics is of the same order as iridology, numerology or parapsychology. Basically, memetics offers us an explanation of "human destiny" through blinders, focusing on one factor, sweeping away the others. A false revolution bordering on the whirling dervish. And again, with the dervishes one arrives at a trance which can bring the light.

[sen-no-sen]

Let's see what's been happening in this world (arbitrarily) for 2000 years ... the memes ( ) at work * are indeed replicas of the destructive nature of man.

How do you explain that the human population has gone from around 1,1 billion inhabitants in 1800 to 7,6 billion today?
Natural selection would quickly have eradicated the human race if it were endowed with a destructive nature.
Besides, you don't define any term, what is a destructive nature? What are the mechanisms? How did they appear etc ...
The question is oh how much more complex than a history of destructive tendency ...

I find it particularly inflated to dare to ask to produce evidence when you we bring your explanations (convoluted, absconses but apparently indisputable ... which borders on belief) by basing your demonstrations (almost only) on a theory more than smoking ... So, professional distortion or neo-religion?

Ah listen to you it looks like the forum yours! Are you an administrator?
And it is true that the number of your messages (1200 in 4 months!) We could deduce that you would like to saturate the site with your presence ...

[GuyGadebois]

Too strong! I summarize: "Who do you think you are? You piss off, fuck yourself asshole".
Marketing is beautiful ...

[Ahmed]

I don't think sarcasm can be considered an argument. That memetics disgusts some is not original, it is the lot of all thought. This does not prevent it from constituting a new tool endowed with great explanatory capacities, capacities which have already been illustrated here by numerous examples, without exhausting the subject. Admittedly, the concept of learning is close, but the use of the latter is situated in a different, specific and limited context.
I am surprised that your curiosity, however broad, blocks this point, especially since, unlike your main argument of opposition, it is in no way obscure ...