Yeah... but also from the other perspective (the victim / target) - bitterness about the past is poison and for your own good, forgive.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/evolution-the-self/2...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/evolution-the-self/2...
We have the innate capacity to love and hate, to feel attracted or repulsed etc.
If the capacity to be bitter has survived millions of years of natural selection, perhaps it serves a function, however hard we tell each other to look down on it.
Clearly natural selection has selected for this capacity.
You pretend to disprove the adaptive nature of a trait by trotting forth "fatal cancer in infants" which clearly natural selection would not systematically select for without good reason. Perhaps artificial human doctrines have the capacity to selectively advantage "fatal cancer in infants" but brutal natural selection wouldn't. Natural selection is the abacus of the grim reaper.
You may call it a dark calculation, but do you know whats worse than a "fatal infant cancer"?
Two or more cases of this "fatal infant cancer"!
I know almost no one who has "fatal infant cancer", yet I have never met a person without the capacity for bitterness.
Your argument is devoid of logic.
Me neither. Perhaps you and I don’t hang out in the same places as those who died in infancy.
the rate of incidence of "fatal cancer in infants" is extremely low compared to the rate of incidence of the capacity to feel bitter.
unlike the statistics for "fatal cancer in infants" the capability to feel bitter is essentially universal, so clearly it serves some purpose.
Your debate approach of declaring my position to be the opposite of what I say is no fun. I'm not going to continue.
See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education for one of many contributing causes.
Regardless of the myriads of contributing causes producing such cancers, natural selection eliminates these cancers, especially fatal childhood cancers.
> Your debate approach of declaring my position to be the opposite of what I say is no fun. I'm not going to continue.
The fact that I deduce a statement from your position which contradicts another of your positions is not a bad debate approach but simply an example of the principle of explosion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
That is what happens if you build a strawman: you pretend my argument relies merely on "the existence of a property" ignoring that occurence rates and probabilities actually span a spectrum, from marginally close to the impossible 0% to marginally close to a 100% certain. If the capability to emote bitterness is nearly universal among a species then it is a trait, not "existence of a property".
Deterrence being one obvious function.