Posted by
Shau on
URL: https://coalpha.arkian.net/Fun-times-with-Mr-FS-tp7574642p7574646.html
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.shtmlI 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.