Posted by Shau on
URL: https://coalpha.arkian.net/Fun-times-with-Mr-FS-tp7574642p7574648.html

"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.