• intensely_human
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nobody [should] have to defend themselves in the first place. There shouldn’t be any threats at all.

    What are you seven?

    Consider this: somebody ought to tell nature about how “no threats existing” is a better state of affairs, because literally every organism in existence has weapons.

    If it’s a better strategy to just “say no to threats”, nature wouldn’t waste enormous quantities of energy arming literally every living thing.

    • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What are you seven?

      No.

      Consider this: somebody ought to tell nature about how “no threats existing” is a better state of affairs,

      This is a naturalistic fallacy.

      because literally every organism in existence has weapons.

      That is objectively not true.

      If it’s a better strategy to just “say no to threats”

      You have fundamentally failed to understand what I am suggesting.