DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

How would you know? And think about what precedence actually causes in society. But more than that, consider that THIS is NOT society at large. THIS is a Philosophy site wherein you seriously need to think more than worship what others have said.

You appear to misunderstand what a bibliography is for. It merely serves to show that you were not lying when you quoted someone. It, in no way, supports the truth of your own assertions. And it certainly doesn’t provide forgiveness of the requirement to define your terms when referring to scientific evidence.

A bibliography in no way represents rationalization for assertions being made in the thesis.

You seem to be caught up in the whole “name dropping” thing used to impress and influence the apes. You really should hold that off, and especially the “patting yourself on the back” bit, until you have provided a solid foundation for your claim. You could have 18 PhDs, 4 Nobel Prizes, and certified letters from Mother Teressa and the Pope, yet none of that would mean anything at all to me or the thinking people on any Philosophy site. You are playing the Fascist.

DNA wise All humans are almost GAURANTEED to be evil.

But how evil? This particular planet, world, and daily life circumstances make them very evil.
At this point, the only way out of this hell is the DnA machine.

Evil is only a social construct.

No. If there was a button that said lighting your foot on fire for a very long time, or getting heavenly spas, it would be evil to push the foot on fire button.

No, it would not be evil, it would be stupid or ignorant or it could save your life or another. We name actions as evil because they endanger , harm or kill family, another individual or society. It is a label for a degree of antisocial behavior. It is a socially constructed label for undesirable action. It is based on herd/pack reactions to a member being highly dangerous to the whole. All social creatures have this. It is not a huma thing and it is just part of life. Life cannot ever be perfect.

Noone enjoys their foot on fire, and Nihilism doesn’t exist.

You can say that not enjoying your foot on fire is a social construct, and good and bad doesn’t exist, but it doesn’t make it so.

You are the one who is „always blabbering“ his „condemnations“ of other „views without any proper arguments nor justifications“. So you are also the one who is not capable of prticipating in „credible intellectual and philosophical discussions“.

Note: I have quoted your problematic statements which can be found in all your threads.

So it seems that you will have to spent probably more than 30 years from now on in order to undertand what Kant was talking about. Your errors are not a ressult of Kant’’s philosophy but of your false interpretation and consequently of your false derivations from it.

If Kant lived today, he would be the first one who agreed with me and said to you: "Du bist nicht vernünftig, sondern doof oder zynisch“.

"Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit. Unmündigkeit ist das Unvermögen, sich seines Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Selbstverschuldet ist diese Unmündigkeit, wenn die Ursache derselben nicht am Mangel des Verstandes, sondern der Entschließung und des Mutes liegt, sich seiner ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Sapere aude! Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung.“ - Immanuel Kant, Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?, 1784.

"Der Mohammedianism unterscheidet sich durch Stolz, weil er, statt der Wunder, an den Siegen und der Unterjochung vieler Völker die Bestätigung seines Glaubens findet, und seine Andachtsgebräuche alle von der mutigen Art sind.“ - Immanuel Kant, Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft, 1793, 4. Stück, 2. Teil, § 2, A 269, B 285.

"Der Mensch ist ein Tier, was eine Erziehung nötig hat.“ - Immanuel Kant, Reflexionen über die Anthropolgie, 1798.

What you are doing here in this webforum is just the oppositie of what Kant wanted his readers to do.

And what you are saying about "silly and stupid“ is nothing else than your self-description. You have given no single argument for your silly and stupid „statements“. Note: You are the one who has opened this thread. So you have to give coherent arguments for your subject. But you have given no single one. That is in fact silly and stupid.

Yes. And the worst thing is that he - by doing that - is almost always misusing a dead phiosopher. :wink:

Where did I say enjoy???

If you don’t enjoy it, it’s evil. Nihilism doesn’t exist.

The discrepancy is when it comes to killing. Can we say for sure if the victim enjoy’s it or doesn’t enjoy it, he could rebirth into heaven or hell 50/50, and some say, forcing that chance is Evil.

But I say, the entire world is evil, because they are forcing that chance by not devoting all energies to studying the afterlife, in order to determine and possibly that outcome. And I say society, is guilty of putting us in a living hell.

So you are a religious person that worships evil and good

I dont worship evil, I worship pleasure.

And why do I worship it? Because I have none of it whatsoever.

You cannot worship one with out the other . The fact you identify evil as you do, is worship.

So if I identity an inbound missile, about to blow me up, I am worshipping the missile as well? If I identity the random guy who robbed me, I am worshiping him too?

Correction; {}
“Btw, I have spent {almost} 3 years full time basis studying Kant and his philosophy …”

I admit I do not know German.
If you insist in using German, then there is something wrong with you.

So far, you have not justified where I am wrong at all.

Just show me, like;
Prismatic567 stated ‘Y is true’ but
the truth as justified is “X”.

Btw, don’t bring language to mess up the issue,
-any difference in terms of language can be reconciled.

Note this;

A certain range of acts that are negative to the well-being of humanity had existed since eons ago and getting worse.

The point here is we need a concept to capture the moral significance of these actions and their perpetrators to enable humanity to address the related effectively.

So evil [defined] as a concept in this sense is not a social construct like institutionalized religions, various ideologies and the likes.

What I have presented is to trace evil [as defined] acts to their ultimate root causes within the DNA and the fetal development of the neurons in the brain.

If humanity were to focus on these ultimate root causes then there is a good possibility of preventing and reducing evil acts within humanity in the future.

At present most people are merely fire-fighting the issues of evil acts by focusing on the secondary causes.

Remove the DNA potential of growing a human who commits acts of evil and you will will have a corpse.

Ignorant again. I am not proposing that we do something to the DNA and neural connectivity now. What is critical is for the majority to understand the ultimate root causes as mentioned in the OP and other posts herein.

Once we are aware of the ultimate root causes we can strive towards dealing with the DNA and neural connectivity in the brain in the future, e.g.

1. Genomics
Within the next 100 years it is possible for humanity to manipulate any DNA factors that contribute to ‘evil’ [as defined].
Obviously there are many potential of complicated side-effects in manipulating the DNA but it is nevertheless a possibility and executable when we have developed fool proofs methods.

2. Connectome
A connectome \kəˈnɛktoʊm\ is a comprehensive map of neural connections in the brain, and may be thought of as its “wiring diagram”. More broadly, a connectome would include the mapping of all neural connections within an organism’s nervous system.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectome

Within the next 100 years, it is possible for humanity to map out all [if not the major and critical ones] the neural connectivity in the human brain.
With various technology, e.g. nano-technology and other advance technology humanity would be able to promote stronger inhibitors that will enable one to modulate the potentially evil impulses before they turned ‘evil’ in reality.

Within the next 100 years or more humanity would be able to have access to a diverse range of advance knowledge, technology and self-development programs to manage their potentially evil impulses.

In the meantime where we have people with ostrich-mentality like you, how are we to progress effectively.

By manipulating the DNA I don’t think we should remove the murder reflex. The murder reflex exists to keep really bad people in check.

When people in society say they are good, yet make your life a living hell, there needs to be a DNA mechanism of hate to keep them in check.

Joker is an example of this, everyday he posts about how evil the world is and politics, but without his hate reflex, he’d be a goodie two-shoes keeping quietly to himself and conforming.

I dont advocate nanobots forcing people to be good, meanwhile the world is a living hell and they aren’t allowed to be violent. And the nanobots prevent them suicide, which is against the geneva convention and is Torture.