It was, next to the other given reasons, also done semi-intionally targeted against the "heathen pagan religions of old". In the past, there were many Christian and Muslim groups actively despising or destroying pagan monuments (even still in the modern era, see the Taliban for example).

There is a difference between "how you feel" and "how you act". A stoic wouldn't argue to not feel, or force themselves to feel everything as okay. Rather, they would investigate why they feel this way and try to find the root cause and think of the most fitting action. Therefore, they make their emotions constructive rather than destructive.

That's a complete misinterpretation of what he actually says in the book (or the interview). I'll stop arguing with you, it will not lead anywhere.

I still have a feeling that we read a completely different article...

Which article did you read? I read someone that does actually question our current motivation, kind of a fundamental question don't you think?

That's one form of stoicism, but it can also be different. For me, accepting my emotions is part of accepting the world, so stoicism is not necessarily about controlling them by subduction (even though it is often practiced or explained this way).

Stoicism is more about yourself not being controlled by your emotions.

I'd rather call that discussion, a debate is more when you have a dichotomy.

It was not yet clear how much (dark) behavioral patterns are passed on due to genetics vs due to upbringing, this article contributes to this insight.

Also, "this is trivial" is bad science, we need to always test our hypotheses before we can be sure™ (we can never be 100% sure, but we can make it probable borderlining certainty). I hate these "this was trivial anyway" statements every time I see them.

That's not really a debate though, that's just science.

The nature vs nurture debate is rather outdated in general, we know that a lot of traits are genetic, but that upbringing also has significant effects.