Posted by fschmidt on
URL: https://coalpha.arkian.net/Fun-times-with-Mr-FS-tp7574642p7574657.html

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.