Because you're attacking a maxim: "There has been a continuous line of human civilization for twelve thousand years now, which is a pretty convincing argument that our better natures win out most of the time… which in turn makes the argument that most people are basically good."

And I'm "attacking" it...

...actually, no, I'm not. I'm disagreeing with it, and refuse to let you paint it otherwise.

...and I'm disagreeing with it because it is not a convincing argument about our better natures. In fact, it isn't even AN argument to that end at all, as you don't even attempt to support the connection between "being here a real long time" and "because of our morally good cores".

For that matter, you take it as a given that our continued existence is, in itself, "good" in some kind of objective way, and that's something else you don't support.

Immorality (such as violence, thievery, selfishness-at-the-expense-of-others, etc.) has as much to do with our continued presence as a race as "our good sides shining through". Depending on how you view history, it is even arguable -- convincingly so -- that our "bad" traits have more to do with us still being here than otherwise (though I don't entirely buy that, either).

"You're essentially saying "it takes society to make society therefore society = bad."

I think that's a very poor interpretation, and I'm trying to keep in check the feeling that it was done purposefully.

I am actually "essentially" saying the same thing I've been saying all along: that I disagree with the idea that people are "basically good", because it is unsupported by the weight of the evidence you've presented, and because there is evidence that seems to indicate exactly otherwise. Such as in situations where people act differently when their wants and needs are not met and they no longer fear the societal counterweight of physical punishment for a "bad" act.

I don't see how you can paint that as a nonsensical tautology, but... shrug.

Anecdotal evidence with an n of 1 does not a trend make. It's not food for thought, it's irrelevant to the discussion for every reason listed above.

"You can't prove that!"

"The guy admitted as much."

"Well now its irrelevant!"

...really?

You're elevating your hand-wavey gut feelings to the logical equivalent of scholarly evidence

earlier

There has been a continuous line of human civilization for twelve thousand years now, which is a pretty convincing argument that our better natures win out most of the time

Pot, Kettle wants a word.

That doesn't fly with anybody. Ever.

Then you understand the source of my disagreement. We agree on something, at least.