Fun times with Mr. FS

I'll start with a simple thing. You seem to be very infatuated with "liberals" and everything they're doing to society (One of my first red flags indicating to me that a person is, as I said before, a nutjob, but I'll reel in the vitriol so long as you keep things civil in turn).

What is, by your definition, a liberal, or what are liberal beliefs? You anti-liberal types always have different definitions each, so it always pays to clarify this before you ever really begin. It is also always prudent with you people for me to point out that I do not fit most people's definition of liberal, so do try and squash any powerful urges you might have to presume that I am one.

I also looked at your Mikraite skepticism thread. There's a couple of things here we could start off with as well, that I'd like clarification on.

1. You seem to state that liberalism is what causes the decline of successful cultures throughout time. Is this what happened with empires such as the Roman and Ottoman empires? Or what about the British? Also, why does liberalism seem to cause this to happen? What is the mechanism of action behind this decline?

2. "An understanding of evolution shows how this belief system actually causes evolutionary decay in the population." First, I need you to define "evolutionary decay", this is not a term we biologists use ourselves (or, I've yet to encounter it, at least. Things like "reduction in fitness" or "decay of a gene" are much more prevalent.) so it needs to be more properly defined. Second, through what mechanism of action does liberalism cause this "evolutionary decay"?

Definitions are overrated.  How do you define "dog" or "cat"?  Nouns are used to classify things and "liberal" is a classification as is "dog" and "cat".  Nouns are better described than defined.  You can read my description of liberalism here.

Yes liberalism caused the decline of the Roman and British empires.  I am not familiar enough with the decline of the Ottoman empire to comment on that.

I suppose "evolutionary decay" could be defined/described in 2 ways.  One is a decline in what are traditionally considered virtues, things like intelligence, integrity, etc.  A more precise definition would be a decline in traits needed for survival which, in the case of humans, particularly refers to traits needed to win wars.  I believe these 2 definitions are basically the same since traditional virtues are traits that are valuable in war.

The mechanisms for both cultural and evolutionary decay are described here.

"The fact is that Liberalism supports adultery and does everything in its power to promote adultery." Clear example of liberalism promoting adultery?

"Two of the issues mentioned in this video are drug laws and anti-prostitution laws.  These are usually not seen as Liberal laws, but in fact they are.  When America was primarily a Christian nation, neither of these were illegal.  They became illegal when America became more Liberal."

Very strange. It's the religious people in New Zealand that tend to hate drugs and prostitution, and the leftists that are trying to keep them legal or have them legalized (Prostitution is legal, typical drugs such as marijuana are not).

"Liberals hate monogamy and support promiscuity which is the most unequal mating system."

Examples of this, please. I've never met a leftist in New Zealand that hated monogamy or ever promoted promiscuity. Most of them would probably believe in a person's right to be promiscuous if they wanted to be, however.

"With promiscuity, some men get many women and many men get no women."

This seems to be the case where monogamy is the norm as well. The bottom-of-the-barrel men, instead of not being selected as a fuck buddy, do not get selected as a husband. They're screwed (no pun intended) either way.

"Liberals support this system because it is immoral and selfish."

...and where are all these liberals? Maybe it's been far too long since I lived in America, but I don't seem to recall the people voting democrat going around pushing for laws just because they're immoral or selfish. This statement sounds bogus.

"Liberal men are concerned that women and children are cared for because they are promiscuous and so have no idea who their children are..."

I'm just curious. How many countries besides the United States have you lived in? What parts of the US have you lived in? Do you live in San Francisco or something...? The leftists here in NZ are no more promiscuous than those on the right, and I do not recall the US being like this when I lived there either.

"Liberals only care that children are provided for, they don't really care what is in the child's best interest because that would be having both parents there to raise the child."

Citation please. I'd like to see scientific studies demonstrating that it takes two parents in order to properly raise a child.

"Liberal men care about economic equality because they do not want to compete for women on the basis of how good a provider they are..."

It has been my experience that most people with leftist economic beliefs believe only in an even playing field, not total and absolute equality.

"Liberalism rejected tradition from the beginning because Liberalism didn't understand the reasoning behind tradition."

This is absolute nonsense. You have some kind of deluded idea of what leftists act like. I know for a fact that liberals don't go around hating traditions. If anything, they'll hate traditions that are believed to be harmful, but that's pretty much everyone.

"For a new tradition to fully express its effect on a culture probably takes around three generations."

And this is based on what kind of evidence?

"But which of the beliefs of Liberals are actually based on proof?  None."

This is more absolute nonsense. You sound like a raving nutjob with this kind of talk. You really expect me to buy that every single liberal ideal in the US isn't based on any kind of proof or reasoning? I've got a good website for you, friend. Check this out, I get the feeling you'd fit right in: www.conservapedia.com

"But if you consider the time when Genesis was written and compare it to other creation myths of other religions, you will find that Genesis is far closer to what modern science says."

This is absolute rubbish. The creation account in the Bible does not remotely resemble what happened in reality.

"In fact I would say that Genesis is about as close to the truth as the people of that time were capable of understanding."

I guess. That doesn't change the fact that it was completely and utterly wrong.

"If one doesn't take Genesis completely literally, it does match modern science very closely."

No it does not. There is a reason why we had no idea how it all went down before science figured it all out: Because the Bible doesn't give us even the slightest glimpse as to how it all went down.

"At some point these bigger brighter feathers were no longer an indication of good health.  So why didn't the females stop preferring such males?"

Absolutely wrong. Have you ever picked up a university-level book on evolution? Having those large feathers is considered selectively advantageous, because it indicates to the females: 1 that he can AFFORD to grow such feathers, and 2, that he can SURVIVE even with such big and bright feathers. It's a clear indication of his quality genes.

I'm seriously beginning to question the purpose in this. You make about as much sense as an evangelical creationist. If you honestly believe that the Bible comes anywhere close to describing how the Earth and cosmos were created, then there is nothing I will be able to do to even make a dent in your beliefs.

Shau wrote

Very strange. It's the religious people in New Zealand that tend to hate drugs and prostitution, and the leftists that are trying to keep them legal or have them legalized (Prostitution is legal, typical drugs such as marijuana are not).

Modern Christianity is worthless (being basically liberal).  Old Christianity accepted prostitution as a necessary evil.  The Old Testament supports prostitution and says nothing about drugs.

"Liberals hate monogamy and support promiscuity which is the most unequal mating system."

Examples of this, please. I've never met a leftist in New Zealand that hated monogamy or ever promoted promiscuity. Most of them would probably believe in a person's right to be promiscuous if they wanted to be, however.

I gave many example in my post.  Support adultery by legalizing it and preventing the husband from taking appropriate action (like throwing out the wife and killing the other man).  Divorce law that rewards women who divorce.  And generally promoting promiscuous behavior.

"With promiscuity, some men get many women and many men get no women."

This seems to be the case where monogamy is the norm as well. The bottom-of-the-barrel men, instead of not being selected as a fuck buddy, do not get selected as a husband. They're screwed (no pun intended) either way.

If you don't have intelligence to understand this, I am really wasting my time responding.  Under monogamy, one man only gets one woman.  With promiscuity, the "sexiest" men screw all the women and most men get very little.

"Liberals support this system because it is immoral and selfish."

...and where are all these liberals? Maybe it's been far too long since I lived in America, but I don't seem to recall the people voting democrat going around pushing for laws just because they're immoral or selfish. This statement sounds bogus.

Roughly 99% of the people in modern culture are liberals.  So basically you and everyone you know.

"Liberal men are concerned that women and children are cared for because they are promiscuous and so have no idea who their children are..."

I'm just curious. How many countries besides the United States have you lived in? What parts of the US have you lived in? Do you live in San Francisco or something...? The leftists here in NZ are no more promiscuous than those on the right, and I do not recall the US being like this when I lived there either.

I lived in Japan which is one of the best countries left.  I have traveled extensively.

"Liberals only care that children are provided for, they don't really care what is in the child's best interest because that would be having both parents there to raise the child."

Citation please. I'd like to see scientific studies demonstrating that it takes two parents in order to properly raise a child.

A quick googling turned up:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Lack-of-Two-Parent-Family-Strongly-Affects-Children-103436.shtml

I am sure I could find many more.

"Liberalism rejected tradition from the beginning because Liberalism didn't understand the reasoning behind tradition."

This is absolute nonsense. You have some kind of deluded idea of what leftists act like. I know for a fact that liberals don't go around hating traditions. If anything, they'll hate traditions that are believed to be harmful, but that's pretty much everyone.

This is absolute nonsense.  With any knowledge of history, one would know that liberals have overturned virtually all traditional values.

"For a new tradition to fully express its effect on a culture probably takes around three generations."

And this is based on what kind of evidence?

I said "probably".  It's my guess based on Unwin's "Sex and Culture".

"But which of the beliefs of Liberals are actually based on proof?  None."

This is more absolute nonsense. You sound like a raving nutjob with this kind of talk. You really expect me to buy that every single liberal ideal in the US isn't based on any kind of proof or reasoning? I've got a good website for you, friend. Check this out, I get the feeling you'd fit right in: www.conservapedia.com

Personal insults are typical of liberals.  And please don't call me conservative, I am reactionary.

"But if you consider the time when Genesis was written and compare it to other creation myths of other religions, you will find that Genesis is far closer to what modern science says."

This is absolute rubbish. The creation account in the Bible does not remotely resemble what happened in reality.

So which creation myth of which religion is more accurate?

"At some point these bigger brighter feathers were no longer an indication of good health.  So why didn't the females stop preferring such males?"

Absolutely wrong. Have you ever picked up a university-level book on evolution? Having those large feathers is considered selectively advantageous, because it indicates to the females: 1 that he can AFFORD to grow such feathers, and 2, that he can SURVIVE even with such big and bright feathers. It's a clear indication of his quality genes.

You are absolutely wrong.  Here is a brief description of "runaway sexual selection":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection#Exponential_growth_in_female_preference

It it "runaway" because it is no longer really tied to selecting survival traits.  In this case, it become imperative for males to have this sexual selection traits even at the cost of health.

Here is another page:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE3Sexualselection.shtml

From this page:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sexual selection is often powerful enough to produce features that are harmful to the individual’s survival. For example, extravagant and colorful tail feathers or fins are likely to attract predators as well as interested members of the opposite sex.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

In your first post, you said "we biologists".  If you are a biologist, academia is really in sad shape.

I'm seriously beginning to question the purpose in this. You make about as much sense as an evangelical creationist. If you honestly believe that the Bible comes anywhere close to describing how the Earth and cosmos were created, then there is nothing I will be able to do to even make a dent in your beliefs.

If you don't think I make sense, then don't bother to respond, that's all.

For the sake of anyone observing this exchange, I'm going to try and bring myself to continue this.

But before I do, I want to make something very clear: I don't get the distinctive feeling from you that you intend for malice with your beliefs. But I have to tell you, that you don't phrase your beliefs in a very good way. You rhetorically make yourself out to be a lunatic when you go stating that 99% of people are liberals, according to your very warped definition of liberal.

Things like having very warped definitions of words, believing that the world is somehow persecuting you, having very unconventional beliefs, etc. are all the classic warning signs of a nutjob. If you want to convince anyone of your beliefs, you want to make yourself sound more credible, and less crazy. You may NOT ACTUALLY be a nutjob, but it does not help your case even remotely to follow all of their patterns of behavior.

Now, to continue....

"Modern Christianity is worthless..."

Wholeheartedly agree.

"The Old Testament supports prostitution and says nothing about drugs."

I can't disagree. At least it gets this right.

"I gave many example in my post.  Support adultery by legalizing it and preventing the husband from taking appropriate action (like throwing out the wife and killing the other man)."

No, I am sorry mate, but that is insane. I could entertain the notion of there being legal repercussions for sleeping with another man's wife, but advocating murder just makes you a psycho. You want to reconsider this belief.

That said, if a man cheated on his wife, would you believe that the woman should be allowed to throw the man out with nothing, and murder the chick he slept with? Is this a one-way or two-way street?

"If you don't have intelligence to understand this, I am really wasting my time responding.  Under monogamy, one man only gets one woman.  With promiscuity, the "sexiest" men screw all the women and most men get very little."

What on Earth are you talking about? Under monogamy, men who actually get some chick to marry them get one woman. You don't get one handed to you without arranged marriage.

AND, the "sexiest" men will get the MOST sex, but it does not exclude the "lesser-sexy" men from getting laid. It just means they won't get laid as much. The only ones who wouldn't get laid in this "promiscuous" society are probably the same ones who wouldn't get laid in a monogamous society either. You seem to mistake "promiscuity" with "polygamy", which is NOT the same.

"Roughly 99% of the people in modern culture are liberals.  So basically you and everyone you know."

...I have nothing to say to this. This is just insanity. Ok, sure...99% of the world is liberal according to your very warped, non-conventional definition of liberal. You might want to learn to reword this sentiment to sound less crazy, even if you think it's true.

"I lived in Japan which is one of the best countries left.  I have traveled extensively."

Ok, good. At least you've actually travelled overseas such as to Japan and Argentina. I've met lots of you anti-liberal types that think the entire world is exactly the same as the US, because they've never actually gone out and experienced it.

I still disagree with what you said, though. I've met tons of democrats from the US that cared very much for their kids. Once again, this is making you sound seriously like nutjob when you make such plainly wrong statements, because there's literally millions of counter-examples. If you want to insist that 99% of the world doesn't care about their kids? No amount of logic in the world can convince you otherwise, because you're not working on logic to begin with.

"A quick googling turned up:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Lack-of-Two-Parent-Family-Strongly-Affects-Children-103436.shtml

I am sure I could find many more."

Ok, so there appears to be some semblance of science to support this idea, if you can call sociology science, that is.

However, it should be noted that, after a quick dig through the literature, most of it seems to fixate upon "single-parents", where the mother/father is both the breadwinner and the caregiver, which can often be mutually exclusive due to time.

Seems to indicate to me, that what you don't need is two parents, you just need at least 1 caregiver. Plus, I'd also ponder whether or not two mothers or two fathers would do just as good a job as a mother and a father.

That said, there have been lots of societies where the children were raised by the entire community, such as in Nigeria and the Kibbutzim in Israel. The whole "two-parent" thing just strikes me as ONE way to raise children, and I'd choose 1 good parent over two shitty ones any day.

"This is absolute nonsense.  With any knowledge of history, one would know that liberals have overturned virtually all traditional values."

Traditional values such as religion controlling politics? Women not being able to vote or work? Homosexuals being stoned to death? Heaven forbid such virtuous traditions be overturned!

"Personal insults are typical of liberals.  And please don't call me conservative, I am reactionary."

They're typical of human beings, mate. And I'm not making a personal attack, I'm letting you know that you SOUND like a raving nutjob. If you are not one, then you really want to work on not sounding like one. Let's not twist words here.

"So which creation myth of which religion is more accurate?"

None of them are accurate! They're all crap. Religion has never produced an account of how everything got started that remotely resembles how science best understands how it did.

"You are absolutely wrong.  Here is a brief description of 'runaway sexual selection'..."

Are we having the same debate here? You realize, that reproduction is just as important to the survival of a gene as is actually surviving, right? The big feathers aren't designed for increasing survival, they're designed for increasing the fitness of the organism, which they DO by allowing them to get more mates. The organisms that have the best balance of showy feathers and capacity to survive with them have the highest residual reproductive value (please go look at that term up if you haven't heard of it).

Once the feathers get TOO showy and big, once they start to "runaway", they start to DECREASE fitness. It's just called "stabilizing selection", and "evilness" never even comes into it.

"In your first post, you said 'we biologists'.  If you are a biologist, academia is really in sad shape."

You do not understand the science you are tossing around, mate. I don't think you quite grasp the fact that a means of demonstrating your good genes is a simple, necessary part of nature, and that it does not represent in anything something "evil" in evolution. The entire premise is just flat out flawed.

""At some point these bigger brighter feathers were no longer an indication of good health."

I'm gonna cover this one again, cause it's wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Having the bigger, brighter feathers is an indication of being better at gathering the resources required to make the feathers, and having the survival capacity to stay alive with them, both of which are very favorable traits to have in offspring. Stabilizing selection eventually limits how far this can go, however. At no point does having bigger feathers somehow magically stop indicating that the male is good at gathering resources and surviving with them, until they start getting killed by predators, upon which it shows they're good at gathering resources to make them, but not survive with them.

"If you don't think I make sense, then don't bother to respond, that's all."

It can be worth it to dismantle someone's arguments just so that others observing can know better. I'll keep it up until I feel like I've explained everything I could, or get fed up with it.

Shau wrote

For the sake of anyone observing this exchange, I'm going to try and bring myself to continue this.

But before I do, I want to make something very clear: I don't get the distinctive feeling from you that you intend for malice with your beliefs. But I have to tell you, that you don't phrase your beliefs in a very good way. You rhetorically make yourself out to be a lunatic when you go stating that 99% of people are liberals, according to your very warped definition of liberal.

Things like having very warped definitions of words, believing that the world is somehow persecuting you, having very unconventional beliefs, etc. are all the classic warning signs of a nutjob. If you want to convince anyone of your beliefs, you want to make yourself sound more credible, and less crazy. You may NOT ACTUALLY be a nutjob, but it does not help your case even remotely to follow all of their patterns of behavior.

I have no interest of convincing anyone of anything.  The reason I post is in case there are any like minded people out there, so they can find me.  And there are some that I found this way.  I have no interest in the masses.

I don't believe that the world is persecuting me, only that the world is spiraling the cultural drain and that I am an unfortunate passenger in modern culture.

I know full well that having unconventional beliefs gets one labeled a nutjob by stupid close-minded people.  I don't care.

"I gave many example in my post.  Support adultery by legalizing it and preventing the husband from taking appropriate action (like throwing out the wife and killing the other man)."

No, I am sorry mate, but that is insane. I could entertain the notion of there being legal repercussions for sleeping with another man's wife, but advocating murder just makes you a psycho. You want to reconsider this belief.

Like most liberals, you are completely ignorant of history.  What I suggested was pretty standard in virtually all rising culture in history including early America and Ancient Athens.  The modern beliefs are rarer, existing only in declining empires in history.  I refuse to reconsider my beliefs just conform to modern fashion.

That said, if a man cheated on his wife, would you believe that the woman should be allowed to throw the man out with nothing, and murder the chick he slept with? Is this a one-way or two-way street?

Absolutely not.  Men and women are completely different.  This is a biological fact that the Old Testament understands well (since it defined adultery as sex with another man's wife) and that modern culture fails to understand.

"If you don't have intelligence to understand this, I am really wasting my time responding.  Under monogamy, one man only gets one woman.  With promiscuity, the "sexiest" men screw all the women and most men get very little."

What on Earth are you talking about? Under monogamy, men who actually get some chick to marry them get one woman. You don't get one handed to you without arranged marriage.

AND, the "sexiest" men will get the MOST sex, but it does not exclude the "lesser-sexy" men from getting laid. It just means they won't get laid as much. The only ones who wouldn't get laid in this "promiscuous" society are probably the same ones who wouldn't get laid in a monogamous society either. You seem to mistake "promiscuity" with "polygamy", which is NOT the same.

Your statements are so absurd that I find it hard to respond.  In fact I won't, anyone with a brain will see that you are spouting nonsense and those without a brain aren't worth my time to address.

"Roughly 99% of the people in modern culture are liberals.  So basically you and everyone you know."

...I have nothing to say to this. This is just insanity. Ok, sure...99% of the world is liberal according to your very warped, non-conventional definition of liberal. You might want to learn to reword this sentiment to sound less crazy, even if you think it's true.

A different between you and me is that you are considering everything relative to what is common today while I consider things relative to all of history which I have studied.  And relative to history, 99% of modern culture is liberal.  As I said, I know that stupid ignorant modern people will consider me crazy, and I don't care.

I still disagree with what you said, though. I've met tons of democrats from the US that cared very much for their kids. Once again, this is making you sound seriously like nutjob when you make such plainly wrong statements, because there's literally millions of counter-examples. If you want to insist that 99% of the world doesn't care about their kids? No amount of logic in the world can convince you otherwise, because you're not working on logic to begin with.

Certainly there are individuals who care for their kids, but this is declining and societal concern for kids in general is very low.

"A quick googling turned up:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Lack-of-Two-Parent-Family-Strongly-Affects-Children-103436.shtml

I am sure I could find many more."

Ok, so there appears to be some semblance of science to support this idea, if you can call sociology science, that is.

I don't call sociology science, but you asked for a study and I dug one up.

However, it should be noted that, after a quick dig through the literature, most of it seems to fixate upon "single-parents", where the mother/father is both the breadwinner and the caregiver, which can often be mutually exclusive due to time.

Seems to indicate to me, that what you don't need is two parents, you just need at least 1 caregiver. Plus, I'd also ponder whether or not two mothers or two fathers would do just as good a job as a mother and a father.

That said, there have been lots of societies where the children were raised by the entire community, such as in Nigeria and the Kibbutzim in Israel. The whole "two-parent" thing just strikes me as ONE way to raise children, and I'd choose 1 good parent over two shitty ones any day.

The Kibbutzim in Israel have largely been dismantled or become much less based on community parenting.  This is because it didn't work.  Primitive societies are often matriarchal and raise children in the community or in the mother's family.  This is one reason that they remain primitive.

Two mothers or two father don't work because this just duplicates the same without adding the other.  Masculine and feminine parents are needed.  This isn't to say that gays can't play both roles.  I have met masculine lesbians and feminine gays who could fill the role traditionally assumed by the other sex.  The point is that the roles of mother and father must be filled by someone.

"This is absolute nonsense.  With any knowledge of history, one would know that liberals have overturned virtually all traditional values."

Traditional values such as religion controlling politics? Women not being able to vote or work? Homosexuals being stoned to death? Heaven forbid such virtuous traditions be overturned!

I don't support all traditions, but I do oppose virtually all modern values.  Of the ones you listed here, religion should influence local politics, and national power should be minimized so that it hardly matters.  Women should not vote.  Women's suffrage is probably the greatest tragedy in human history.  I have nothing against homosexuals and only some traditions, primarily Christian and Muslim, are strongly opposed to them.

The general rule as to which traditions make sense is pretty simple.  Look at the traditions that all rising culture shared and you will find the good traditions.  This includes women not voting, extremely harsh punishment for adultery, a strong religion to provide moral guidance, harsh condemnation of illegitimate children, and the expectation of virgin brides.

"So which creation myth of which religion is more accurate?"

None of them are accurate! They're all crap. Religion has never produced an account of how everything got started that remotely resembles how science best understands how it did.

I never claimed it was accurate, only that the Old Testament myth is no worse than any other.  So it sounds like you agree with me.

"You are absolutely wrong.  Here is a brief description of 'runaway sexual selection'..."

Are we having the same debate here? You realize, that reproduction is just as important to the survival of a gene as is actually surviving, right? The big feathers aren't designed for increasing survival, they're designed for increasing the fitness of the organism, which they DO by allowing them to get more mates. The organisms that have the best balance of showy feathers and capacity to survive with them have the highest residual reproductive value (please go look at that term up if you haven't heard of it).

Once the feathers get TOO showy and big, once they start to "runaway", they start to DECREASE fitness. It's just called "stabilizing selection", and "evilness" never even comes into it.

I am contrasting traits for survival versus traits for reproduction only.  When these come into conflict, it is harmful for the species.  While these sexy traits are good for individuals, they increase the chances of extinction of the species.  Dawkins makes points like this in "The Selfish Gene".

"In your first post, you said 'we biologists'.  If you are a biologist, academia is really in sad shape."

You do not understand the science you are tossing around, mate. I don't think you quite grasp the fact that a means of demonstrating your good genes is a simple, necessary part of nature, and that it does not represent in anything something "evil" in evolution. The entire premise is just flat out flawed.

As a liberal, you have no real concept of evil.  In evolutionary terms, I am defining evil genes as those which increase the chances of reproduction and decrease the chances of survival.  These same traits are the ones condemned by religion as evil.

""At some point these bigger brighter feathers were no longer an indication of good health."

I'm gonna cover this one again, cause it's wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Having the bigger, brighter feathers is an indication of being better at gathering the resources required to make the feathers, and having the survival capacity to stay alive with them, both of which are very favorable traits to have in offspring. Stabilizing selection eventually limits how far this can go, however. At no point does having bigger feathers somehow magically stop indicating that the male is good at gathering resources and surviving with them, until they start getting killed by predators, upon which it shows they're good at gathering resources to make them, but not survive with them.

There are 2 points.  You seem to agree, at least, that bigger brighter feathers do not indicate greater survival fitness.  As to health, some males will allocate more resources (calories or whatever) to their muscles and to increase their health while other males will allocate more resources to developing bright feather at the expense of health and strength.  So if 2 males collect the same resources, the one with brighter feathers will be less healthy.  Your point is that they need to gather resources to have bright feathers, but this only shows that feather indicate an ability to gather resources, not that they indicate health or any other positive survival trait.

"If you don't think I make sense, then don't bother to respond, that's all."

It can be worth it to dismantle someone's arguments just so that others observing can know better. I'll keep it up until I feel like I've explained everything I could, or get fed up with it.

In this, you are wasting your time.  Virtually no one reads this site, and those few who do you would probably consider nutjobs anyway.

"I don't believe that the world is persecuting me, only that the world is spiraling the cultural drain and that I am an unfortunate passenger in modern culture."

When you go around talking about how "zOMG they are teh censoring me!!!!111" and that kind of thing, it sure sounds that way! I've seen far more outlandish stuff than your beliefs not get censored one bit all over the place, but persecution complexes are common amongst nutjobs.

"I know full well that having unconventional beliefs gets one labeled a nutjob by stupid close-minded people.  I don't care."

By itself, having unconventional beliefs won't necessarily get you labelled a nutjob, but when you carry all the other "nutjobby" characteristics, it certainly will, up to and including by the more intelligent folk.

Either way kiss your ideology goodbye, then. Look at how barren these forums and that other one is: Nobody is following you. You are a shepherd without sheep. What's the point? You gonna sit with your amazingly small fanclub for the rest of your days and end up accomplishing nothing with them? You think your "natural laws of the universe" god is gonna give you something nice?

"Like most liberals, you are completely ignorant of history.  What I suggested was pretty standard in virtually all rising culture in history including early America and Ancient Athens."

I'm not ignorant of history, and you demonstrate your own foolishness with your numerous incorrect presumptions. I'm fully aware that punishment for adultery was as such back in the day. The whole point of humanity improving as a collective whole is to cast off our savage tendencies and embrace more civilized behavior, such as not murdering people, and resorting to capital punishment when all other options are off the table.

"Absolutely not.  Men and women are completely different.  This is a biological fact that the Old Testament understands well (since it defined adultery as sex with another man's wife) and that modern culture fails to understand."

You forgot to give a good reason here. "Teh bible sez so!!!11" is not what I consider a good argument. Why is it that women should not be allowed to murder the women her husband cheated with? We'll ignore the "cast out the husband" bit for now.

"Your statements are so absurd that I find it hard to respond.  In fact I won't, anyone with a brain will see that you are spouting nonsense and those without a brain aren't worth my time to address."

Ditto. I feel the same way about you. We are clearly operating on two different kinds of logic here, and the reality you are experiencing is vastly different from mine.

"Certainly there are individuals who care for their kids, but this is declining and societal concern for kids in general is very low."

Most, from my experience. Once again, your reality must be something VERY different from mine, or perhaps I'm somehow magically running across only the "liberals" that care about their kids. Who knows?

"The Kibbutzim in Israel have largely been dismantled or become much less based on community parenting.  This is because it didn't work.  Primitive societies are often matriarchal and raise children in the community or in the mother's family.  This is one reason that they remain primitive."

Can't say much more about this without researching it a ton. Most of my experience in this comes from being raised in Texas (like where you're from!), at Ft. Hood in the military neighborhoods. It wasn't uncommon for a child to come to non-parental adults for advice, for non-parents to help raise the other kids, take them to parks when the parents couldn't, etc. It was, by an large, a very close-knit thing where the whole community was a major part of helping to raise the "younguns". This included the various influences that came from school as well: Disciplining and raising came not from just parents, but from authority figures at school too.

But honestly? The ability for us to scientifically gauge how effective whatever form of parenting is is, to me, so weak and unreliable that I doubt I'll ever be fully convinced by anyone's side.

"Two mothers or two father don't work because this just duplicates the same without adding the other.  Masculine and feminine parents are needed."

Speculation.

"This isn't to say that gays can't play both roles.  I have met masculine lesbians and feminine gays who could fill the role traditionally assumed by the other sex.  The point is that the roles of mother and father must be filled by someone."

At least you're not a complete bigot here.

"Women should not vote.  Women's suffrage is probably the greatest tragedy in human history."

Why not?

"Look at the traditions that all rising culture shared and you will find the good traditions."

This is so stuffed full of confounding variables that to even try to use this line of reasoning is an absolute insult to the entire methodology of science.

"I never claimed it was accurate, only that the Old Testament myth is no worse than any other.  So it sounds like you agree with me."

You said, quote, "But if you consider the time when Genesis was written and compare it to other creation myths of other religions, you will find that Genesis is far closer to what modern science says."

No, it does not. It absolutely does not. It does not come any closer to what modern science says than any other creation myth, it's a hokey collection of rubbish equal to all the rest of them. Equally rubbish.

"I am contrasting traits for survival versus traits for reproduction only.  When these come into conflict, it is harmful for the species.  While these sexy traits are good for individuals, they increase the chances of extinction of the species.  Dawkins makes points like this in 'The Selfish Gene'."

First off, the net benefit of mates being able to better demonstrate superior genes can lead to an overall increase in fitness, which is why it often arises. Yes, there are pitfalls to it, but if the overall benefit is greater than the detriments, then everything is fine. Fitness as a whole increases, for the whole species.

Second, Dawkins' hypotheses are hardly without opposition in the world of evolutionary biology. One of his biggest opponents is Stephen J Gould, who often disputes the gene-centered view of evolution, and not to mention the numerous entomologists who would suggest that selection can also happen at the group level as well, such as with kin selection.

"As a liberal, you have no real concept of evil."

I'm just gonna turn this one around on you. As a highly-probable nutjob, you have no real concept of evil. See how easy that was?

"In evolutionary terms, I am defining evil genes as those which increase the chances of reproduction and decrease the chances of survival."

That is a very stupid definition. There's nothing evil about that, in fact every single R-selected organism would like to have a talk with you, especially the semelparous ones.

"You seem to agree, at least, that bigger brighter feathers do not indicate greater survival fitness."

In a way it does. If you can survive with those giant feathers, you'd be even BETTER at it without them....which is what the females are. The female mates with the badass male, then her female chicks will be incredible at surviving, while her sons will get lots of mates and survive long enough to get them. Residual reproductive value.

"As to health, some males will allocate more resources (calories or whatever) to their muscles and to increase their health while other males will allocate more resources to developing bright feather at the expense of health and strength.  So if 2 males collect the same resources, the one with brighter feathers will be less healthy."

All of this is irrelevant. The only thing that matters, is the male that is best at allocating the right amount of resources to feathers to attract mates, and grading that against the decrease in survivability, to produce the setup that will ultimately produce the best balance of attracting mates and surviving....resulting in the highest residual reproductive value. Did you look that term up?

"Not that they indicate health or any other positive survival trait."

What a wallbanger....being able to survive with a handicap is pretty much exactly a positive survival trait. Your mind doesn't see evolution into the generations, you're stuck on only one.

"In this, you are wasting your time.  Virtually no one reads this site, and those few who do you would probably consider nutjobs anyway."

I might still dent you, or any of your small fanclub. At the very least, it sharpens up my debate skills and keeps my knowledge primed.

fschmidt wrote

In this, you are wasting your time.  Virtually no one reads this site, and those few who do you would probably consider nutjobs anyway.

Correct.

Shau wrote

Either way kiss your ideology goodbye, then. Look at how barren these forums and that other one is: Nobody is following you. You are a shepherd without sheep.

These forums are barren, but for most members here this forum serves as one outlet among many. We don't care if this forum takes off or not because it requires no maintenance. We can find other outlets while still having a passive forum for like minded people to stumble into. Several of us, including myself, have sought out religious services based on discussions that started here. These services aren't perfect but they're close to what many of us like. Places like the eastern orthodox church will provide a moderate shelter to us for some time. Point being, a likeness to the ideology on this forum can be found in other real world sources that aren't dismantling in their entirety any time soon.

Shau wrote

What's the point? You gonna sit with your amazingly small fanclub for the rest of your days and end up accomplishing nothing with them? You think your "natural laws of the universe" god is gonna give you something nice?

What's your point? If you can't find like minded people, convert to what you hate? As a member of this forum if I was the last man on Earth I would not give in to something that I'm repulsed by. There's nothing ideological about this either. If you are disgusted by something then it's unpleasant experience it. I'd rather isolate myself than experience modern culture. I'm happier avoiding modern culture even if it mean's I socialize less with society. So I don't understand the proposition here.

Well Mr. Drealm, I would think that if you hated modern culture so much, that you'd take a hand in trying to change it, or help to generate more like-minded people.

But, if you're content with your exceedingly tiny piece of pie? More power to you.

Shau wrote

Well Mr. Drealm, I would think that if you hated modern culture so much, that you'd take a hand in trying to change it, or help to generate more like-minded people.

But, if you're content with your exceedingly tiny piece of pie? More power to you.

I don't buy into the notion that a single man can change a global cultural current. And I don't think most people can be changed. These are enlightening but unrealistic ideas.

I guess you're pretty fucked, then.

Sucks for you.

Since I'm not a liberal I don't feel a need to convert the entire world. Liberals seem to feel the world is broken unless 100% of people see the world their way. So I'd argue liberals have it much tougher than I ever will. Because liberals will never convert 100% of the world they'll always be dissatisfied. I really don't see much difference between evangelical christians and liberal atheists. They both measure their happiness by the extent to which they can convert people to their sense of universal truth. I see this mentality as a disgusting obsession.

Shau wrote

"I don't believe that the world is persecuting me, only that the world is spiraling the cultural drain and that I am an unfortunate passenger in modern culture."

When you go around talking about how "zOMG they are teh censoring me!!!!111" and that kind of thing, it sure sounds that way! I've seen far more outlandish stuff than your beliefs not get censored one bit all over the place, but persecution complexes are common amongst nutjobs.

I notice you had a thread on WrongPlanet titled "www.mikraite.com and www.coalpha.com".  What happened to it?  Censored by any chance?

When I say that I was censored on every liberal forum I have posted to, I am simply reporting the truth, that's all.

Either way kiss your ideology goodbye, then. Look at how barren these forums and that other one is: Nobody is following you. You are a shepherd without sheep. What's the point? You gonna sit with your amazingly small fanclub for the rest of your days and end up accomplishing nothing with them? You think your "natural laws of the universe" god is gonna give you something nice?

This is actually a fair question because I haven't made clear the point of this forum.  I did mention one point which is to find like-minded people.  But the original idea here was to have an online community of like-minded men.  This probably won't happen.  What I personally am trying to do is to figure out how people like Drealm and I can survive in today's nasty world.  I have some more thoughts on this that I will post in a new thread.

"Like most liberals, you are completely ignorant of history.  What I suggested was pretty standard in virtually all rising culture in history including early America and Ancient Athens."

I'm not ignorant of history, and you demonstrate your own foolishness with your numerous incorrect presumptions. I'm fully aware that punishment for adultery was as such back in the day. The whole point of humanity improving as a collective whole is to cast off our savage tendencies and embrace more civilized behavior, such as not murdering people, and resorting to capital punishment when all other options are off the table.

My main point was the need for harsh punishment for adultery.  I am personally against the death penalty myself.  But your ignorance of history is clear from the fact that you don't recognize that modern culture has values typical of most declining cultures in history.  In particular, feminism is standard in declining cultures.

"Absolutely not.  Men and women are completely different.  This is a biological fact that the Old Testament understands well (since it defined adultery as sex with another man's wife) and that modern culture fails to understand."

You forgot to give a good reason here. "Teh bible sez so!!!11" is not what I consider a good argument. Why is it that women should not be allowed to murder the women her husband cheated with? We'll ignore the "cast out the husband" bit for now.

Because when the wife cheats, it is an evolutionary crime because the husband may mistakenly use his resources to raise a child that isn't his.  But if the husband has extramarital sex, it causes no evolutionary harm to the wife at all.  The Bible seems to understand the implications of evolution far better than modern culture does.

"Your statements are so absurd that I find it hard to respond.  In fact I won't, anyone with a brain will see that you are spouting nonsense and those without a brain aren't worth my time to address."

Ditto. I feel the same way about you. We are clearly operating on two different kinds of logic here, and the reality you are experiencing is vastly different from mine.

Yes, feel free to end this discussion at any time.

"The Kibbutzim in Israel have largely been dismantled or become much less based on community parenting.  This is because it didn't work.  Primitive societies are often matriarchal and raise children in the community or in the mother's family.  This is one reason that they remain primitive."

Can't say much more about this without researching it a ton. Most of my experience in this comes from being raised in Texas (like where you're from!), at Ft. Hood in the military neighborhoods. It wasn't uncommon for a child to come to non-parental adults for advice, for non-parents to help raise the other kids, take them to parks when the parents couldn't, etc. It was, by an large, a very close-knit thing where the whole community was a major part of helping to raise the "younguns". This included the various influences that came from school as well: Disciplining and raising came not from just parents, but from authority figures at school too.

I agree that both parent and community is optimal for children.

But honestly? The ability for us to scientifically gauge how effective whatever form of parenting is is, to me, so weak and unreliable that I doubt I'll ever be fully convinced by anyone's side.

The best guide is to study the relationship between family structure and change (not the level) in a culture's strength in history.  This was done in Unwin's "Sex and Culture" and in Zimmerman's "Family and Civilization".

"Women should not vote.  Women's suffrage is probably the greatest tragedy in human history."

Why not?

Women's instincts aren't designed for tribe formation.  Tribe formation is a male instinct in humans.  But I don't expect you to understand this, so this topic is pretty pointless to discuss here.

"Look at the traditions that all rising culture shared and you will find the good traditions."

This is so stuffed full of confounding variables that to even try to use this line of reasoning is an absolute insult to the entire methodology of science.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Confounding variables are only an issue if you trying to establish causality, and it is impossible to establish causality for social factors at all.  A tradition is good if it correlates with rising cultures, and it doesn't really matter if that tradition is a cause of morality or a result of it.

"I am contrasting traits for survival versus traits for reproduction only.  When these come into conflict, it is harmful for the species.  While these sexy traits are good for individuals, they increase the chances of extinction of the species.  Dawkins makes points like this in 'The Selfish Gene'."

First off, the net benefit of mates being able to better demonstrate superior genes can lead to an overall increase in fitness, which is why it often arises. Yes, there are pitfalls to it, but if the overall benefit is greater than the detriments, then everything is fine. Fitness as a whole increases, for the whole species.

This makes no sense at all.

Second, Dawkins' hypotheses are hardly without opposition in the world of evolutionary biology. One of his biggest opponents is Stephen J Gould, who often disputes the gene-centered view of evolution, and not to mention the numerous entomologists who would suggest that selection can also happen at the group level as well, such as with kin selection.

You called me ignorant of biology.  Will you say the same for Dawkins?  I personally don't care for Dawkins who is a terrible liberal, but at least he knows some biology.  Selection can happen at many levels, but ultimately its all driven by genes.  My whole point in my Human Evolution post was about the tension between selfish genes promoting horrible traits that are sexually advantageous versus group selection that selects against these traits/genes.

"In evolutionary terms, I am defining evil genes as those which increase the chances of reproduction and decrease the chances of survival."

That is a very stupid definition. There's nothing evil about that, in fact every single R-selected organism would like to have a talk with you, especially the semelparous ones.

It's stupid to argue about definitions.  I just gave you mine.  You mentioned R-selection which shows you are missing the point.  The point isn't about quantity versus quality of offspring, the point is about male traits that increase mating chances at the expense of increased survival risk.

"You seem to agree, at least, that bigger brighter feathers do not indicate greater survival fitness."

In a way it does. If you can survive with those giant feathers, you'd be even BETTER at it without them....which is what the females are. The female mates with the badass male, then her female chicks will be incredible at surviving, while her sons will get lots of mates and survive long enough to get them. Residual reproductive value.

This argument is getting silly.  I mean suppose a male peacock had great legs, that would be even better than bright feathers because it means he can really run.  But those silly females will pick the bright feathers over the great legs for the same reason that modern human females in feminist societies pick loud-mouthed morons over intelligent men.

"As to health, some males will allocate more resources (calories or whatever) to their muscles and to increase their health while other males will allocate more resources to developing bright feather at the expense of health and strength.  So if 2 males collect the same resources, the one with brighter feathers will be less healthy."

All of this is irrelevant. The only thing that matters, is the male that is best at allocating the right amount of resources to feathers to attract mates, and grading that against the decrease in survivability, to produce the setup that will ultimately produce the best balance of attracting mates and surviving....resulting in the highest residual reproductive value. Did you look that term up?

Whatever.  Residual reproductive value isn't forward looking.  So the descendants of modern culture whose primary skill is seducing women will be wiped out by some other culture that created a monogamous environment that doesn't promote these traits.  This is "God's justice" that the Old Testament talks about.  Most positive human evolution happens when moral cultures wipe out immoral cultures.

"Not that they indicate health or any other positive survival trait."

What a wallbanger....being able to survive with a handicap is pretty much exactly a positive survival trait. Your mind doesn't see evolution into the generations, you're stuck on only one.

You are the one who can't see forward as my previous response explains.  In species with warring tribes, those tribes that develop handicaps will be wiped out by those tribes who don't, thank God or evolution or whatever.

"In this, you are wasting your time.  Virtually no one reads this site, and those few who do you would probably consider nutjobs anyway."

I might still dent you, or any of your small fanclub. At the very least, it sharpens up my debate skills and keeps my knowledge primed.

Whatever turns you on.  This is a free speech zone.

Drealm wrote

Since I'm not a liberal I don't feel a need to convert the entire world. Liberals seem to feel the world is broken unless 100% of people see the world their way. So I'd argue liberals have it much tougher than I ever will. Because liberals will never convert 100% of the world they'll always be dissatisfied. I really don't see much difference between evangelical christians and liberal atheists. They both measure their happiness by the extent to which they can convert people to their sense of universal truth. I see this mentality as a disgusting obsession.

Thanks Drealm, I completely agree.

"I notice you had a thread on WrongPlanet titled "www.mikraite.com and www.coalpha.com".  What happened to it?  Censored by any chance?"

If your definition of "censored" happens to coincide with "broke the rules and got removed", then yes. Paraphrased, "You're allowed to criticize their ideology, but you cannot directly attack a person or website".

"When I say that I was censored on every liberal forum I have posted to, I am simply reporting the truth, that's all."

You're probably mistaking "censored" with "breaking the damn rules" more often than not. Once again...kinda weird how I've seen far more bigoted and outlandish stuff than what you've got posted up here on these forums fly by completely uncensored all over the net. But, it's probably your persecution complex at work. It's pretty common, especially amongst religious fundies such as yourself.

"In particular, feminism is standard in declining cultures."

Nothing even remotely resembling modern feminism has ever existed in history. It took literal millenia before we stopped considering women property, and allowed them to do such simple things as vote. There is really nothing comparable at all. At...all.

"Because when the wife cheats, it is an evolutionary crime because the husband may mistakenly use his resources to raise a child that isn't his."

Welcome to the 21st century! We have these things called "paternity tests". Do enjoy your stay, and remember to use a condom!

"But if the husband has extramarital sex, it causes no evolutionary harm to the wife at all."

You're forgetting one tiny teentsy itty bitty little thing...the fact that a cheating male can cause a ton of emotional trauma to the woman. Is this not to be punished? You seem very sexist. Also, naturalistic fallacies ahoy!

"I agree that both parent and community is optimal for children."

Maybe.

"The best guide is to study the relationship between family structure and change (not the level) in a culture's strength in history.  This was done in Unwin's 'Sex and Culture' and in Zimmerman's 'Family and Civilization'."

And how, exactly, are you ever supposed to determine the certainty of your conclusions? How do you test these hypotheses? Go ahead and shock the entire scientific world.

"Women's instincts aren't designed for tribe formation.  Tribe formation is a male instinct in humans."

If we're going on the basis of "they aren't qualified to vote", then we might as well strip away the voting rights for the majority of the human population. And if we're going to be doing that, we need some kind of metric to determine who is qualified to vote....in which case, a ton of women are going to qualify, and a lot of men are going to fail.

For that matter, not every voting issue is a matter of "tribe formation". What about matters pertaining to caregivers and their jobs? Wouldn't women know that kind of thing best, since it is apparently their role? Or should we have men raising our kids too? Perhaps men should be doing everything?

"I have no idea what you are talking about.  Confounding variables are only an issue if you trying to establish causality, and it is impossible to establish causality for social factors at all."

You've just demolished your entire argument. Case in point: You cannot test the certainty of your hypotheses at all. It's all speculation, and you've just hammered that point right home for me.

" A tradition is good if it correlates with rising cultures, and it doesn't really matter if that tradition is a cause of morality or a result of it."

Speculation.

"This makes no sense at all."

Are you truly incapable of comprehending something as simple as "the benefits outweigh the costs"? C'mon, man...

"You called me ignorant of biology.  Will you say the same for Dawkins?  I personally don't care for Dawkins who is a terrible liberal, but at least he knows some biology."

Are you truly incapable of comprehending the difference between "ignorant" and "not always correct"?

"Selection can happen at many levels, but ultimately its all driven by genes."

The fault you're making here is that it may not necessarily be driven at the singular gene level. More often than not, genes come in giant packages, up to and including multiple packages. These packages we like to call "organisms".

"The point isn't about quantity versus quality of offspring, the point is about male traits that increase mating chances at the expense of increased survival risk."

The point you don't seem to understand is that, from an evolutionary standpoint, it really doesn't make a difference. All evolution cares about is residual reproductive value. Why should it be considered "evil" to focus on producing offspring at the cost of survival, if it works from an evolutionary standpoint?

"This argument is getting silly.  I mean suppose a male peacock had great legs, that would be even better than bright feathers because it means he can really run.  But those silly females will pick the bright feathers over the great legs for the same reason that modern human females in feminist societies pick loud-mouthed morons over intelligent men."

If the feathers are a better, more reliable indication of good genes than long legs, then the species is better off sticking with the giant feathers. If this weren't true, then how come this kind of thing is literally all over the place in the natural world? If it were so disadvantageous, you'd have such species rapidly go extinct. It is, quite obviously, working in some fashion, which is why it sticks around, else it wouldn't be so prevalent.

"Whatever.  Residual reproductive value isn't forward looking."

Absolutely wrong! Residual reproductive value is ALL ABOUT looking at things down the road! Its entire point is considering the fate of the parent's genes generations down the line. It's about projecting the parent's genetic contributions to the entire species population down the generations. You are just flat out wrong on this one. Your understanding of science is on par with creationists.

"So the descendants of modern culture whose primary skill is seducing women will be wiped out by some other culture that created a monogamous environment that doesn't promote these traits."

Speculation.

"In species with warring tribes, those tribes that develop handicaps will be wiped out by those tribes who don't, thank God or evolution or whatever."

Extremely dependant on context. The whole point of the "handicaps", and I put that in quotes for a very good reason, is that they serve as reliable indicators of good genes. So long as the handicaps do not cause the species (or in this case tribe) to get outcompeted by everyone, the long-term benefit of having only the best males with the best genes mate can be the better long-term strategy....such as the reason why we still have peacocks hanging around. It's obviously doing something right for them, and the thousands of other species that have similar setups.

Shau wrote

"I notice you had a thread on WrongPlanet titled "www.mikraite.com and www.coalpha.com".  What happened to it?  Censored by any chance?"

If your definition of "censored" happens to coincide with "broke the rules and got removed", then yes. Paraphrased, "You're allowed to criticize their ideology, but you cannot directly attack a person or website".

So what rule did you break?

By the way, it is always the liberals who engage in personal attacks and they are never consored for it.  I only criticize liberal ideology and I always consored for that.

"When I say that I was censored on every liberal forum I have posted to, I am simply reporting the truth, that's all."

You're probably mistaking "censored" with "breaking the damn rules" more often than not. Once again...kinda weird how I've seen far more bigoted and outlandish stuff than what you've got posted up here on these forums fly by completely uncensored all over the net. But, it's probably your persecution complex at work. It's pretty common, especially amongst religious fundies such as yourself.

Bullshit.  I am sorry that you are unwilling to accept the facts.

"In particular, feminism is standard in declining cultures."

Nothing even remotely resembling modern feminism has ever existed in history. It took literal millenia before we stopped considering women property, and allowed them to do such simple things as vote. There is really nothing comparable at all. At...all.

Wrong again.  The only reason that this is the first time women vote is because this is the first time that democracy has continued to exist in a declining culture.  Usually democracy ends as culture begins to decline but there seems to be a delay this time.  I am sure democracy will be gone by the end of this century.  Women have been given "rights" and excessive powers in most declining cultures.  See "Sex and Culture" by Unwin for an overview or see "The Secret History" by Procopius for Byzantium and see any overview of the Roman empire or read some of Juvenal for examples.

"Because when the wife cheats, it is an evolutionary crime because the husband may mistakenly use his resources to raise a child that isn't his."

Welcome to the 21st century! We have these things called "paternity tests". Do enjoy your stay, and remember to use a condom!

Using this argument, I could say that rape with a condom really isn't much of a crime because the evolutionary risk is removed.  The reason that rape causes emotional distress for a woman is because the emotion evolved because of evolutionary consequences before condoms.  And the emotional distress of adultery for men evolved for the same reason.  These are analogous crimes, adultery is to men what rape is to women.

"But if the husband has extramarital sex, it causes no evolutionary harm to the wife at all."

You're forgetting one tiny teentsy itty bitty little thing...the fact that a cheating male can cause a ton of emotional trauma to the woman. Is this not to be punished? You seem very sexist. Also, naturalistic fallacies ahoy!

Sneezing can cause a ton of emotional trauma in women from feminist countries.  Feminism drives women insane.  In normal non-feminist countries, male extramarital sex is expected.  The wife gets upset if the husband takes a mistress, in other words another partner, because this means the husband is diverting resources away from the wife's family.

"The best guide is to study the relationship between family structure and change (not the level) in a culture's strength in history.  This was done in Unwin's 'Sex and Culture' and in Zimmerman's 'Family and Civilization'."

And how, exactly, are you ever supposed to determine the certainty of your conclusions? How do you test these hypotheses? Go ahead and shock the entire scientific world.

There are sciences where experiments are not possible.  Paleontology for example.  In this case, one forms a hypothesis based on existing evidence and then judges that hypothesis based on new finds.  But even without validating a hypothesis this way, a hypothesis based on historical evidence is more likely to be true than a hypothesis based on the whims of liberals, as this is how liberal beliefs are formed.

"Women's instincts aren't designed for tribe formation.  Tribe formation is a male instinct in humans."

If we're going on the basis of "they aren't qualified to vote", then we might as well strip away the voting rights for the majority of the human population. And if we're going to be doing that, we need some kind of metric to determine who is qualified to vote....in which case, a ton of women are going to qualify, and a lot of men are going to fail.

Not true, men have tribe formation instincts even if most men are stupid.  The best possible government is a democracy of all men.  Adding selection criteria like intelligence testing invites abuses by those in power to manipulate the tests to select an electorate for their own benefit.

For that matter, not every voting issue is a matter of "tribe formation". What about matters pertaining to caregivers and their jobs? Wouldn't women know that kind of thing best, since it is apparently their role? Or should we have men raising our kids too? Perhaps men should be doing everything?

Yes women are better caregivers because this taps into their maternal instinct.  But voting on issues relating to caregivers is abstract and basically tribal, so the maternal instinct isn't applied in this case, so women should not vote on this or any issue affecting the tribe in general.

"I have no idea what you are talking about.  Confounding variables are only an issue if you trying to establish causality, and it is impossible to establish causality for social factors at all."

You've just demolished your entire argument. Case in point: You cannot test the certainty of your hypotheses at all. It's all speculation, and you've just hammered that point right home for me.

If A causes B and C and C is the goal, then trying to get B isn't a bad idea and may be accomplished by A.  The best we can do is to find those things that correlate with virtue and aim for those.

"The point isn't about quantity versus quality of offspring, the point is about male traits that increase mating chances at the expense of increased survival risk."

The point you don't seem to understand is that, from an evolutionary standpoint, it really doesn't make a difference. All evolution cares about is residual reproductive value. Why should it be considered "evil" to focus on producing offspring at the cost of survival, if it works from an evolutionary standpoint?

The word "evil" means negative morality.  It so happens that my morality and the morality of most religions find these "sexual" traits immoral.  This makes sense because the evolutionary purpose of morality is to increase the strength of the tribe and these traits are selfish traits that benefit individual reproduction at the expense of the tribe.  Liberalism is a revolt against tribal morality, so in essence, liberalism is a celebration of evil.

"This argument is getting silly.  I mean suppose a male peacock had great legs, that would be even better than bright feathers because it means he can really run.  But those silly females will pick the bright feathers over the great legs for the same reason that modern human females in feminist societies pick loud-mouthed morons over intelligent men."

If the feathers are a better, more reliable indication of good genes than long legs, then the species is better off sticking with the giant feathers. If this weren't true, then how come this kind of thing is literally all over the place in the natural world? If it were so disadvantageous, you'd have such species rapidly go extinct. It is, quite obviously, working in some fashion, which is why it sticks around, else it wouldn't be so prevalent.

It isn't disadvantageous enough for the species to go extinct but is disadvantageous.  There are more pigeons than peacocks and this is one reason why.

"Whatever.  Residual reproductive value isn't forward looking."

Absolutely wrong! Residual reproductive value is ALL ABOUT looking at things down the road! Its entire point is considering the fate of the parent's genes generations down the line. It's about projecting the parent's genetic contributions to the entire species population down the generations. You are just flat out wrong on this one. Your understanding of science is on par with creationists.

Of course you are absolutely wrong.  What I mean when I say that residual reproductive value isn't forward looking is that it is a local optimization in time and not a global optimization for the future.  Evolution works based on current conditions without regard to future condition.

"So the descendants of modern culture whose primary skill is seducing women will be wiped out by some other culture that created a monogamous environment that doesn't promote these traits."

Speculation.

Backed by history.

"In species with warring tribes, those tribes that develop handicaps will be wiped out by those tribes who don't, thank God or evolution or whatever."

Extremely dependant on context. The whole point of the "handicaps", and I put that in quotes for a very good reason, is that they serve as reliable indicators of good genes. So long as the handicaps do not cause the species (or in this case tribe) to get outcompeted by everyone, the long-term benefit of having only the best males with the best genes mate can be the better long-term strategy....such as the reason why we still have peacocks hanging around. It's obviously doing something right for them, and the thousands of other species that have similar setups.

I agree that bright peacock feather are less harmful than those human traits promoted by liberalism, but both do hurt survival strength to some degree.  The peacocks will survive, but liberals will not.  Unfortunately I won't live long enough to see the liberals slaughtered, but I am heartened by the certainty that they will be.  This is something that the Old Testament makes clear and that evolution explains very well.

"So what rule did you break?"

...really? You have to ask that question? "...but you cannot directly attack a person or website." Plainly obvious...

"Bullshit.  I am sorry that you are unwilling to accept the facts."

Ok, sure. Yup, you're the ONLY person on the entire internet spouting fundamentalist bullshit and getting censored all over the place for it. Have you tried sharing your views with other religious fundamentalists? I've seen far worse than what you've written many times.

"Using this argument, I could say that rape with a condom really isn't much of a crime because the evolutionary risk is removed."

You make this too easy...so basically, then, if a woman cheats on her husband with a man and doesn't get pregnant, then she's not caused any evolutionary harm, which is the whole reason why you're against it. By this logic, it's also ok for a wife to cheat on her husband with another woman, because there's no chance of pregnancy. So basically, by your OWN logic, a man should only be allowed to throw out his wife and kill the other guy...IF she gets pregnant.

"These are analogous crimes, adultery is to men what rape is to women."

I think a lot of people would disagree, especially rape victims. That's just your own personal opinion.

"In normal non-feminist countries, male extramarital sex is expected."

And it's wrong when it happens.

"The wife gets upset if the husband takes a mistress, in other words another partner, because this means the husband is diverting resources away from the wife's family."

Sounds like a pretty fucking good reason. Do you condone men having extramarital sex? Sounds that way so far.

"There are sciences where experiments are not possible.  Paleontology for example."

Paleontology is generally considered less reliable than empirical sciences, for the very reasons I've already explained: No rigor. Fossil evidence is considered vastly inferior to genetic evidence, for example, in the study of evolution.

"Not true, men have tribe formation instincts even if most men are stupid.  The best possible government is a democracy of all men."

Speculation.

"Adding selection criteria like intelligence testing invites abuses by those in power to manipulate the tests to select an electorate for their own benefit."

You've already added selection criteria: Being a man. Hypocrite much?

"But voting on issues relating to caregivers is abstract and basically tribal, so the maternal instinct isn't applied in this case, so women should not vote on this or any issue affecting the tribe in general."

Speculation.

"If A causes B and C and C is the goal..."

Except we can't determine causality, remember? You even used the word CAUSE.

"...then trying to get B isn't a bad idea and may be accomplished by A."

Depends entirely on context.

"The best we can do is to find those things that correlate with virtue and aim for those."

Arguably true, in the absence of a way to be sure. But a shitload of speculation based off of some ancient book written by a bunch of superstitious middle-eastern goat herders or the arguments of some armchair sociologist doesn't strike me as a wise idea.

"This makes sense because the evolutionary purpose of morality is to increase the strength of the tribe and these traits are selfish traits that benefit individual reproduction at the expense of the tribe."

Exceeeeeeppt.....that these so-called "evil" traits are very often successful from an evolutionary standpoint, which is why they're literally ALL OVER nature.

"It isn't disadvantageous enough for the species to go extinct but is disadvantageous.  There are more pigeons than peacocks and this is one reason why."

Feel free to submit this hypothesis to the scientific community, then. Let's see how well it holds up to scientific scrutiny.

"What I mean when I say that residual reproductive value isn't forward looking is that it is a local optimization in time and not a global optimization for the future."

The most successful species combine both. Also, I should point out that there are literally dozens upon dozens of birds that have very brilliant sexual selection characteristics, such as the Scissor-Tailed Flycatcher, Goldie's Bird-of-Paradise, and the Long-Tailed Widowbird. Birds have been doing this crap since at LEAST the Cretaceous period, and are showing no signs of slowing down. I really think the evidence is against you on this one.

"Evolution works based on current conditions without regard to future condition."

Well, we've had millions of years for all of these silly birds and their "evil" traits to disappear, yet they're still here...

"Backed by history."

We'll just have to see, if it happens in our lifetimes.

"Unfortunately I won't live long enough to see the liberals slaughtered, but I am heartened by the certainty that they will be."

You're hardly the first bloodthirsty religious fundamentalist I've met. So you're considering between Japan and Islam, are you? I strongly suggest Islam for you, given that you apparently love the wholesale slaughter of people. Japan kinda got over that a few decades ago.

Also, your daughter will fit right in, I'm sure she has no problems being a second-class citizen having been raised by you.

My side of this conversation is over.  You have shown yourself to be a stupid obnoxious liberal with no understanding of evolution, so I don't see any point in continuing.  If you want to continue to show those few regular readers here how stupid, ignorant, and obnoxious liberals are, feel free to continue to post.

If it makes you feel any better, I was considering making that one my last post too. Good day, and enjoy being a hermit for the rest of your life. It's probably the only thing fate has in store for you.

Well this is very sad, isn't it?

I'm sure no one will thank me for dragging this thread up to the top of the list. Also this is a couple of years old so many of the views expressed will have changed by now. It needs more study and this will take some time but there are some obvious points here worth making.

A person will view the world. What they see will determine whether they think that the world is a good place or a bad place. The person that experiences only good things happening to them will take the view that it's a wonderful world, but if we ask the homeless drunk he will tell us what a terrible world it really is. The squashed hedgehog whose carcass lays flattened on the road (with blood oozing out of it) - knew that the world was a bad place, but the rest of us have the Green Cross Code (that's not culture, that's education). You then have the difficulty of describing the horrible world to someone who thinks that it's wonderful, and when you have finished they think that you have Nazi tendencies or you are a Psycho of some kind. It is the lowest common denominator that determines the truth. The world is indeed a bad place, but as the dominant species we have learnt to defeat it, but with varying degrees of success. We now measure the world based on our own experiences as a race, rather than through the eyes of lesser species and this tends to colour our view of the world. The person who thinks that the world is a wonderful place has simply lived a sheltered life where they have been shielded from it's full impact.

Evolution doesn't care about culture. It is a very important truth here that quantity does indeed beat quality. In the case of evolution the quality is encapsulated within the quantity. Where there is some quality it is presumed to produce greater quantity. In terms of survival it is always the greater in number that are most likely to prevail. The bigger tribe defeats the smaller tribe (a point that governments would do well to realise). The French Revolution springs to mind here. It doesn't matter that the greater quantity may be more immoral and in fact they would probably win out due to their immorality. Further more most visitors to this forum couldn't give a fig about evolution. It doesn't help them and it cannot help them, but it may provide some historic context. It has been said that we may not be around to see the end result, so whatever that is, is largely irrelevant.

Evolution has been used as a justification for arguments around changing the culture. These arguments are very poor. It's a patsy isn't it? Before genes were discovered selection was the key feature and this came from farming animals. The best interpretation is that it lends credibility to arranged marriages as a useful scheme.

Morality - the animals don't really have any so it isn't really affecting evolution. Good and Evil - are taken to be aspects that are beyond the human level and the human is merely a slightly better animal. Good refers to Gods and Angels, Evil refers to Devils and Demons. Neither Good nor Evil can be said to be an appropriate term for use to describe humans. The function of Evil is to kill, it is anti-life, so some human activity can be classified as evil but the Evil itself must come from an external (isolated) source.

The people that succeed do so because they have learnt to defeat the world by resisting it's horrible nature, and the methods of doing so are the key features of value. The requirement then, is to discover ways and means of resolving the targeting aspects of the world, while at the same time enhancing the targeting aspects of potential mates. Clearly the requirement is for a personal solution as the ideology of a cultural solution won't be achieved rapidly enough. On the one hand you need to avoid the world but on the other hand you need to be visible to the opposite sex, and it is these two qualities combined that drives evolution and procreation.