Talk:Jat Kusar/@comment-163.172.132.199-20180531212840/@comment-2A00:1768:6001:1D:0:0:0:5-20180601010401

So I get the "some other bs".

@ Cebian that definition is wrong, pure and simple. Innate specfically means "not learned" an "essential part of the character..." can be learned. Further it applies only to specific "things" and not to any "thing" as suggested and most certainly can not apply to inanimate objects. It specifically applies to "things" that can learn. The definition is clearly incorrect. Everything you read on the internet is not true by default, show some judgement for goodness sake.

@Finner no, in it's usual context "innate" is a behavioural science term. And in it's usual context innatism is a philosophical term, not a behavioural science term. Neither are appropriate for describing attributes of inanimate objects and it beggars belief that you are insiting with this. I challenge you to provide a quality publication demonstrating your argument, I have looked (yes really) and can't find one. I do appreciate the Wiki but if the contributors are too precious to objectively handle valid criticism they are simply not suitable to take part in publication. God only knows why you want to go here anyway.

p.s. you can't spell by the way.