Posted by
fschmidt on
URL: https://coalpha.arkian.net/Fun-times-with-Mr-FS-tp7574642p7574647.html
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.
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.