Why doesn't the scientific community criticize marxism for it's anti-scientific theories more...

>Marx never really made a theory, particularly an economic theory.

>marx never made and economic theory

>not it's YOU that haven't read marx

lol are you really this dumb?

Falsifiability is outdated, cuck!

>>"Of course he was denying evolution whilst also denying he denied evolution

Because he CONTRADICTED HIMSELF COUNTLESS TIMES

Do you know what the word contradiction means? Are you from /b/ or something?

His theory is based off the denialism of human instincts. Are you actually denying what dialectical materialism mean?

>You're the one coming on the science board and meaninglessly posting about Marx.
>DUYURRR HURRR WE SHOULDN'T MOCK HOMEOPATHY ON THE SCIENCE BOARD

Go back to /b/.

>and then a claim that either the ideology of Marxism or the false idea that science does not wholeheartedly reject a political ideology is 'unscientific'.
Holy shit dude, if the theory is based off the denial of science why wouldn't we reject it?

Do you think we shouldn't criticism religious fundamentalist forms of statism on the basis of their unscientific beliefs?

Why are you even on the science board if you're defending pseudoscience?

>Assuming someone is from /b/ because they don't agree with you

Lad, I can tell you're getting frustrated, but I am not going to force you to reply.

I cannot seem to find anything where Marx claimed all human nature, as you have claimed, is dictated by economical conditions. However, even if he had said something to similar effect with the exception of 'all' human behavior, he would be correct, as economic conditions do dictate human behavior in numerous ways. However, it appears as though you took that and made the conjecture that Marx was anti-science because you believed him to be anti-evolution because he said that behavior can be dictated by economic conditions, which it most certainly can be. As you can see, there are many gaps in this line of thinking. However, in doing so, you failed to look at evidence in which Marx claims support of evolution as correct and disregarded it by merely saying he is a liar.

>I cannot seem to find anything where Marx claimed all human nature, as you have claimed, is dictated by economical conditions.
Not him, but that's actually essentially what marxists believe.

Prove to me that Biological Instincts 'exist'.

>>Not him, but that's actually essentially what marxists believe.
i've seen it claimed for certain things like greed. but taking the greed example, where does the behavior of greed exist? in a society of scarcity. if we lived in a post scarcity environment, then it doesn't make sense for greed to exist, since there isn't any sort of extra incentive one would get from engaging in activities like hoarding or resource competition, and that they are logically contradictory to a post-scarcity environment. it's a weird twisted thinking i admit, but something like this could help one understand what the marxists are thinking.

>hold breath
>co2 threshold reached
>gasp for air

>hungry
>find food

>have a lot of children
>kill neighbors
>get aids
>apply for welfare

Mind telling me where Marx says that all human behavior is dictated by economic conditions? Even other later Marxists like Lenin, I'll take those too. I do think that you will have a hard time arguing that, unless what has been written incontrovertibly states something to the effect of "All human behavior is dictated by economic conditions" (with the word 'all' being emphasized, due to the fact that the statement that is asserted to be either essential to Marxism or claimed to have been made by Marx and his followers is largely true once it [the word 'all'] is omitted), Marxism and Marxists believe that economic conditions and economic conditions alone are the root of all human behavior. Even if something suspect is found, the context must be looked at to determine whether or not an out-of-context quotation makes it seem as though something was said that truly isn't being said.

This isn't about defending an ideology, it's about pointing out sloppy thinking. The whataboutism and childish shouting of "Go back to /b/!" is all a distraction.

Not an argument, kid.
Marx critiqued and inverted Smith and Ricardo, he didn't create a theory from first principles in relation to them, he just showed (according to him) the contradictions in the capitalist mode of production.
And yes, you haven't read Marx, it's very clear from your idiot posts.

>Lad, I can tell you're getting frustrated
Heh you're angry defense of marxism in the fact of logic seems to upset you.
>I cannot seem to find anything where Marx claimed all human nature, as you have claimed, is dictated by economical conditions.
Lol dude it's literally the BASIS of dialectical materialism. They believe the capitalist mode of production is what defines all human behavior and needs to be changed to a socialist mode of production then a communist one.

This is exactly what they believe. Are you actually denying this?

>he would be correct, as economic conditions do dictate human behavior in numerous ways.
So does anything else. The economy does not change human instincts no matter how much you marxist teenagers whine about it.

You should probably kill yourself, you're a creationist.

>Prove to me that Biological Instincts 'exist'.
Please leave Veeky Forums.

>in a society of scarcity. if we lived in a post scarcity environment, then it doesn't make sense for greed to exist
Yes, if we magically lived in a post scarcity society. We don't though.
and greed would still exist in this society, but it wouldn't be as prevalent as it is now

>engaging in activities like hoarding
You mean savings? The lifeblood of the economy?

Anyone who loves science should treat marxists the same way we treat fundamentalist christians.

These people are insane cultists that want violence.

>Mind telling me where Marx says that all human behavior is dictated by economic conditions?

You're embarrassing. I literally googled for two seconds and pulled this up.
study.com/academy/lesson/economic-determinism-and-karl-marx-definition-history.html

Marxists DO believe in this.

In fact when arguing with marxists online this is the MAIN thing they bring up.

Why do you keep denying this?

>Not an argument, kid.
You didn't have an argument in the first place, I was simply mocking your utter lack of an argument.

>Marx critiqued and inverted Smith and Ricardo, he didn't create a theory from first principles in relation to them, he just showed (according to him) the contradictions in the capitalist mode of production.
Yes and not only was he horribly wrong, he also created a THEORY.

Are you a marxist or something, you seem pretty determined to defend it?

>you haven't read Marx,
This is what EVERY SINGLE marxist teenager says when you criticize their childish ideology.

Marxists actually believe that creating a massive authoritarian state, this state will be able to socially engineer humanity and then will magically "wither away".

How fucking retarded is that?

I'm not angry, lad. And the Marxists seem to disagree with your definition.

marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm

Also, now you're shifting the conversation away from behavior which is influenced by economics, instincts, as well as many other social and biological factors, and now saying, in your own words "The economy does not change human instincts...", when originally the conversation was about human behavior and whether or not Marxism is anti-science due to the OP and subsequent posts in which an individual or individuals understanding Marxism as being anti-evolution because someone, with no primary source, has been claiming that the idea that ALL human behavior is dictated by economic conditions is a tenet of Marxism.

Once again, you still won't give me the quote where the founders of Marxism claim that ALL human behavior is dictated by economic conditions. That is, after all, the crux of this problem, as once 'all' is removed, there is nothing incorrect about that statement.

I'd just like to point out that nowhere in any of the links posted has anything said that Marxism believes humans don't have instincts

>And the Marxists seem to disagree with your definition.

>posts a glossary from a marxist website with no context
What are you even trying to say?

Marx literally believed in economic determinism and laws of history.
study.com/academy/lesson/economic-determinism-and-karl-marx-definition-history.html

In fact laws of history is a marxist thing.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history
>The Marxist theory of historical materialism sees human society as fundamentally determined at any given time by the material conditions—in other words, the relationships which people have with each other in order to fulfill basic needs such as feeding, clothing, and housing themselves and their families.
It's like you can't even grasp marxism 101.

>Also, now you're shifting the conversation away from behavior which is influenced by economics, instincts, as well as many other social and biological factors, and now saying, in your own words "The economy does not change human instincts..."
You mean I'm DIRECTLY ADDRESSING THE SUBJECT AT HAND? It's literally what we are discussing I am not shifting the conversation whatsoever. Can you not read?

>when originally the conversation was about human behavior
Yes, the conversation and thread was about marxists denying human instincts and instead believing all human behavior was the result of economic forces. Which marxists DO BELIEVE.

>with no primary source, has been claiming that the idea that ALL human behavior is dictated by economic conditions is a tenet of Marxism.
I already provided plenty of links showing this.

I can't believe I'm even arguing this with you. It's like you're saying Muslims don't believe in allah.

Why are you defending an evil ideology that murdered millions of people?

>"economic forces and only economic forces shape human societies"

>b-b-but marx said humans have evolutionary instincts that define them

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Anyone with a functioning brain realizes that marxism is retarded pseudoscience.

It's quite a shame that universities have been infiltrated by marxists and cultural marxists that deny science.

R. E. K. T.
E.
K.
T.

>>Yes, if we magically lived in a post scarcity society. We don't though.
yes that is true, but im playing a thought experiment to show how the idea of greed and its ever present existence in human nature changes when we put the idea in the context of a scarcity and a post-scarcity environment.

>You mean savings? The lifeblood of the economy?
All of that and the likes. Those sorts of activities logically do not make sense in a hypothetical post scarcity environment.

>No context

It has the phrase you used defined, and it's different, meaning that the Marxists themselves do not define it the way you claimed Marxists defines it.

Second, economic conditions fundamentally have an impact on behavior. To say that it doesn't is objectively false. Nowhere have you proved that Marxism does not believe that biological beings do not have instincts. Plus, if you were actually thinking, you'd realize that instincts are about survival in a world where resources are finite, you know, an economy of resources. I thought that I might be going back and forth with someone that understood that, but now I believe I see what you are doing. Haha, guys, Marx thinks you get thirsty because of economic conditions! Lol! He's so wrong! He's probably anti-science
Also
>Saging the thread in an attempt to let it slide
>Virtue signalling

Are you the boogeyman you are trying to warn me about?

>creating a massive authoritarian state
I get the impression that they're closer to the anarchists and for abolishing the state, but maybe I misread that.

>yes that is true, but im playing a thought experiment to show how the idea of greed and its ever present existence in human nature changes when we put the idea in the context of a scarcity and a post-scarcity environment.
Yes, but as I said. Living in a post-scarcity environment won't eliminate greed.

>It has the phrase you used defined, and it's different, meaning that the Marxists themselves do not define it the way you claimed Marxists defines it.
They define it exactly as I had said it.
You want more proof.
>However, in the sixth Thesis on Feuerbach (1845), Marx criticizes the traditional conception of "human nature" as "species" which incarnates itself in each individual, instead arguing that the conception of human nature is formed by the totality of "social relations". Thus, the whole of human nature is not understood, as in classical idealist philosophy, as permanent and universal: the species-being is always determined in a specific social and historical formation.

>Second, economic conditions fundamentally have an impact on behavior.
No shit they can have an impact on human behavior. Nobody is denying this.

We're only calling you religious fundamentalists retarded for thinking ALL human behavior is the result of economic forces and the "mode of production".

It's entirely unscientific and denies the very basics of human evolution and instincts.

Embarrassing.

>To say that it doesn't is objectively false.
Lol I NEVER said that.

>Nowhere have you proved that Marxism does not believe that biological beings do not have instincts
Except the countless quotes and websites I keep posting, but keep going.

>Marx thinks you get thirsty because of economic conditions
Marx claims basic biological functions like needing water food and sleep are biological. Everything else is based on economic forces.

>>Saging the thread in an attempt to let it slide
I was about to ask how you know I'm saging, but I forgot this is one of the slowest boards.

>I get the impression that they're closer to the anarchists and for abolishing the state
For some delusional reason marxists believe that the massive authoritarian state that controls almost all aspects of human life will somehow magically "wither away" once they've socially engineered everyone.

It's pretty fucking stupid.

Why are you even defending marxism in the first place?

>>Yes, but as I said. Living in a post-scarcity environment won't eliminate greed.
I would like to know how. Maybe intangible things like power or control people will covet, but it could be argued that the power of those abstract things come from monopolizing some other resource people need but lack, which circles back to the the things I just said.

>I would like to know how.
You live in post scarcity and you're playing monopoly with your friends.

Greed.

"Marx claims basic biological functions like needing water food and sleep are biological. Everything else is based on economic forces"

And Marx is essentially correct.

"Except the countless quotes and websites I keep posting, but keep going"

They give a definition of a term that within its definition mentions nothing about instincts.

wtf I'm a Marxist now. Thanks OP and friends.

>Why doesn't the scientific community criticize marxism for it's anti-scientific theories more?

It does. As with all political idioligies its received its fair share of scrutiny.

The mistake you seem to be making is thinking that the entire scientific community is one person. Its not. Scientists are rarely overly opinionated on subjects outside their remit.

Fucking this.

None of that is evidence of 'biological instincts' 'existing'. Rather, it is simply an observation of a pattern of actions which seemingly occur in high probability.

>And Marx is essentially correct.
Are you honestly serious right now?

Why are you even on the science board if you're going to believe such pseudoscience?

The fact humans find things cute is because of capitalism and not a hard wired instinct?

Damn user I feel sorry for you.

>wtf I'm a Marxist now.
Good, continue being a creationist. You should join the westboro baptist church while you're at it.

>Everyone that points out sloppy thinking on the part of someone that is attacking X must therefore be defending X

Good job!

>mfw there are literal evolution denialists on Veeky Forums right now

No, non-marxist defends marx that hard bro.

you seem to be under the impression that all marxists want a soviet style state and that anarcho-socialists and anarcho-communists don't exist.

>tl;dr: Shit thread, inherently and objectively.

Agreed, sage

>you seem to be under the impression that all marxists want a soviet style state
No I'm not.
Most marxists are actually in favor of a soviet style state.

Classical marxism though demanded a violent revolution and a socialist state which would eventually turn into communism.

t. angry leftist defending pseudoscience

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
>In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available.

Try to learn how to separate personal feelings for a topic from your understanding of it. You'll learn to understand the other people you disagree with a lot more.

The guy I'm agreeing with literally admitted he believes in instinct denialism though.

Marx's theories are unfalsifiable. He makes predictions that are clearly meant for only a few generations after him, his predictions blow but his followers will stick by them. Since no time restriction was made, maybe the socialist revolution will work in the year 2500 (protip: it won't). Hilarious when you think about how obsessed he was with putting the "scientific" label in his version of socialism.

Falsifiability is a meme.

Please stop pushing it, thanks.

So far all you've done is

1. Prove that Marx is right about economic factors influencing behavior
2. Saying I'm defending pseudoscience (when I'll I'm doing is attacking the sloppy thinking of OP and friends)
3. Hurling out childish remarks

What part of "Marx is anti-science because I claim he's an evolution denier based off of a definition of a term that doesn't mean what I mean it means because I incorrectly understood it to mean that Marx doesn't believe in biological instincts except I had to walk that part back because as it turns out Marx both wrote about his support of evolution and because economic conditions, or the condition of resources and their allocation, do in fact influence behavior and our instincts because our instincts exist as a biological survival tool in a world where resources are finite"

And why is that? I'm not defending Marxism. I'm not advocating for the abolition of capital and the state. All I've done is point out that OP and friends are criticizing the scientific community (which is not one person) for not doing something that they wish they would do based on their own and incorrect understanding that Marxism is anti-science through a convoluted and flawed mental-gymnastics routine that somehow leads from "Economic conditions have an impact on behavior" to "Marx is anti-science" via "Marx incorrectly believes instincts are a product of economic conditions" which, as it turns out, is quite correct as resource availability largely drives our instincts.

He was using his contemporary understanding of "science", as in a formal systematic study of some particular topic. You'll find that many others before his time used the word science similarly.

>Marx's theories are unfalsifiable. He makes predictions that are clearly meant for only a few generations after him, his predictions blow but his followers will stick by them. Since no time restriction was made, maybe the socialist revolution will work in the year 2500 (protip: it won't). Hilarious when you think about how obsessed he was with putting the "scientific" label in his version of socialism.
This.

and they were wrong.

>1. Prove that Marx is right about economic factors influencing behavior
I've constantly proved YOU and marx wrong this entire thread and now you're back for more punishment?
You don't even believe in human instincts. WHY ARE YOU ON THE SCIENCE BOARD?

>What part of "Marx is anti-science because I claim he's an evolution denier based off of a definition of a term that doesn't mean what I mean it means because I incorrectly understood it to mean that Marx doesn't believe in biological instincts except I had to walk that part back because as it turns out Marx both wrote about his support of evolution and because economic conditions, or the condition of resources and their allocation, do in fact influence behavior and our instincts because our instincts exist as a biological survival tool in a world where resources are finite"

Uh? Care to complete this run-on sentence? lol

>I claim he's an evolution denier
He is.
If you only accept part of evolution and not the entire thing, you are an evolution denialist. Christfags do the same thing.

>based off of a definition of a term that doesn't mean what I mean it means
Wrong lol

>because I incorrectly understood it to mean that Marx doesn't believe in biological instincts
He literally stated this.
I don't know how I can drill this into your head even more.

Literally all of the marxists on the internet CONSTANTLY say this. You're denying basic economic determinism is a thing marxists believe, when it is.
Holy shit contain your autism.

>>and they were wrong.
They weren't wrong so much as the understanding of the word became more exclusive.

Marxism is a religion, OP. Their faithful are all over university, that's why.

>there are ACTUALLY people that deny human instincts on this board

No, man, why are you talking about Marx on the science board?

Like I was trying to say where I accidentally dropped part of my sentence (which I appologize for), what part of your messed up chain of logic actually makes sense to you?

Also, you're going back to the "MUH HUMAN INSTINCTS!", when we've already established that Marx believed in biological instincts like needing to sleep and eat and drink. However, you now seem to be denying the fact that resource scarcity, an aspect of economics, contributes to human instincts.

>understanding of the word evolved
There are countless marxists today that still believe in this despite our modern words.

You're STILL wrong.

This you autists. What is political science.

>Still samefagging

There's a post counter. It hasn't gone up in over ten posts. It's only gone up by five new posters since around the 20 post mark.

Are you lads new to Veeky Forums? Did you forget how post counts work? Did you forget that announcing your sages can get you banned?

resource scarcity is a fact of human life, not an aspect of economics.

*Poster counter

>>There are countless marxists today that still believe in this despite our modern words.
wouldn't say that this is limited to marxists. You'll hear people say "the science of X", or that mathematics is a science, or computer science, even though they don't fit with our current understanding of science dealing with empiricism and empirical falsification

>>there are ACTUALLY people that deny human instincts on this board

>instead of debating I will false-flag as someone else!!!

Retard

Economics - the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.

Guess what? Allocating finite resources is a part of economics.

>No, man, why are you talking about Marx on the science board?
>why are you talking about an ideology that claims to be scientific on the science board

So we call talk about it and dismiss it as pseudoscience? There are other pseudoscience threads. Cry more.

>when we've already established that Marx believed in biological instincts
Why do I have to repeat myself to you.
HOLY SHIT just GOOGLE THIS SHIT YOURSELF

I already fucking destroyed you on this. Marx believed only the most basic of human instincts existed(eating, sleeping, drinking water) and everything else was determined by the mode of production.

Can you even DEFINE the word mode of production?

You FUCKING CAN'T. You know nothing about marxism.

>However, you now seem to be denying the fact that resource scarcity, an aspect of economics, contributes to human instincts.
LOL WHAT THE FUCK
Resource scarcity contributes to human BEHAVIOR, not human instincts.
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Are you actually saying economic conditions change the hard wired instincts in your brain?

WHAT THE FUCK
I'm literally laughing irl right now. What the fuck are you even saying?

>Implying you didn't just make a double false-flag

>there are actually autists ITT RIGHT NOW that are upset that people are calling them out on denying human instincts

The scientific community is laughing at you.
Go be a creationist somewhere else.

>samefag
So what? lol

I already debated.

The other guy lost.

Do you ALSO deny human instincts?

The fuck are you doing on the science board?

I never claimed Marxism was scientific, OP claimed it was anti-science. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about what's going on here.

Based off your caps-lock rage and your need to exclaim how hard you are chuckling, I imagine you are doing anything but laughing.

>if you deny biological 'instincts' you are a creationist

What is it like being retard?

I have already asked you and you have given no reply.

Prove to me that biological instinct exist.

scarcity exists both in virtue of the fact that resources are finite and the fact that human desire in infinite. You seem to be under the impression that it is something contingent that could be solved by the economy. No, it's a fact of life.

Why are you on the science board if you can't understand that economics determine instincts?

MAYBE YOU SHOULD LEAVE THE SCIENCE BOARD, RETARD.

SCIENCE IS ABOUT DEBATE, NOT ABOUT FORMING AXIOMS, THERE ARE NO AXIOMS IN SCIENCE RETARD, ONLY THINGS WE BELIEVE TO SEEMINGLY OCCUR ON A REGULAR BASIS AND FORM A CONTINUITY, A UNIFORMITY OF NATURE.

GO BACK TO RIBBIT.

Why doesn't the right wing want to ban socialistic institutions like the military?

Economy isn't man-made. It exists in nature. Lesser animals and humans have instincts that are fundamentally based on this economy. The fact is that this economy has an impact on instincts.

seems like hume is coming up this half hour. its time to call it a night

>I never claimed Marxism was scientific
Marxists do.

>Based off your caps-lock
>HE'S YELLING AT ME IN CAPS LOCK

>I only believe in 1/3rd of the theory of evolution
Yes, you're a creationist.
>Prove to me that biological instinct exist.
Holy shit go back to Veeky Forums I can't believe you people even exist.

>haha i got btfo, ill just go to bed

Sounds about right :^)

>Why are you on the science board if you can't understand that economics determine instincts?

>hey guys the only reason you think that baby is cute and don't want to kill and eat it is because you live under capitalism

holy fuck

>>I only believe in 1/3rd of the theory of evolution

Where did I say that?

You think evolution requires instincts :^)?

Define 'instinct'

Except Marx believes humans have instincts.

books.google.com/books?id=xnVKCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=marx instincts&source=bl&ots=Z_zH5v8tIE&sig=fAylmYiewIIMcw-6jU3guSTKCkA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq_eSvhcTRAhVS6GMKHYFYCVoQ6AEILDAD#v=onepage&q=marx instincts&f=false

>hey guys, the only reason you think the baby is cute and don't want to kill is because of a collection of matter in the form of atoms interacting with one another

holy fuck AHAHAHAHAHHAHA

>being this mad over being btfo
why?

le anime reply

LMAO, right on time

Well actually, before I do that. I need to put words in other people's mouths and knocking down self-made strawmen. Still got quite a bit of shitposting to save face.

>hey guys I'm going to not have an argument at all and be really mad about it

You seem like the type of person that might have multiple voices in your head.

You are accusing the person that you are arguing with of saying things that they did not say. Then you make fun of them for saying the things they didn't say (that you made up). You might as well be having a make believe conversation with yourself.

To me, I just see a giant thread of garbage. This is not a scientific conversation.

It's just a bunch of random opinions vomited out to get attention.

The post beforehand literally posted an argument in the exact same form.

If you are that poster, kill yourself.

>>hey guys, the only reason you think the baby is cute and don't want to kill is because of a collection of matter in the form of atoms interacting with one another
It's like you didn't even try to refute anything he said.

I agree with him. Do you not realize your entire concept of thinking things are cute is because you evolved that way? Pretty incredible some people will outright deny this.

So, basically what all the people shitting on Marx have been doing by calling everyone they don't agree with Marxists, creationists, and Christians?

>no argument
>still angry

>still denies evolution

The I actually had a fucking point.
You actually think the only reason people think things are cute is because they live under capitalism?
How fucking stupid and unscientific is that?

You didn't even have an argument you just strung a bunch of random words together.

You should probably just close the tab.

>is because you evolved that way?

Prove it, retard.

Your form of causality is very shaky, I hope you realise that. I suggest you stop watching YouTube videos and gain a proper knowledge of the methodology behind psychology studies and the history of epistemological thought and scientific method.

If you think what you just said is a definitive fact, you ought to kill yourself.

>You actually think the only reason people think things are cute is because they live under capitalism?

I never made the Economics argument.

There are multiple posters here, idiot. Not everyone is the same.

No one here is denying that, though. The only issue is that even though Marx wrote about the existence of instincts, OP and friends have decided that Marx doesn't believe in instincts (which he wrote about existing) and therefore didn't believe in evolution (which he also wrote about and supported) and is therefore anti-science. It's not hard to see who is on the losing side.

>You are accusing the person that you are arguing with of saying things that they did not say.
Wrong.

But keep believing that with no evidence.

>This is not a scientific conversation.
Because you're denying science.

>Prove it, retard.
>PROVE SOMETHING ALL FUCKING SCIENTISTS BELIEVE

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

HOLY SHIT ARE YOU ACTUALLY THIS RETARDED?

I can't BELIEVE I ACTUALLY have to do this.

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/why-are-animals-cute/
people.rit.edu/jtsgsh/PAPERS/oncuteness.pdf
news.psu.edu/story/141179/2005/11/21/research/probing-question-why-are-babies-cute
nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/06/cute-babies-have-an-evolutionary-advantage-in-life.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260535/
blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sciencecommunication/2013/08/26/the-science-of-cuteness/
quora.com/Is-cuteness-an-evolutionarily-advantageous-trait
stuffyoushouldknow.com/blogs/babies-cute-explained.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness

We need to ban people like you from this board.