Posted by fschmidt on
URL: https://coalpha.arkian.net/Fun-times-with-Mr-FS-tp7574642p7574645.html

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.