Posted by Shau on
URL: https://coalpha.arkian.net/Fun-times-with-Mr-FS-tp7574642p7574662.html

"I notice you had a thread on WrongPlanet titled "www.mikraite.com and www.coalpha.com".  What happened to it?  Censored by any chance?"

If your definition of "censored" happens to coincide with "broke the rules and got removed", then yes. Paraphrased, "You're allowed to criticize their ideology, but you cannot directly attack a person or website".

"When I say that I was censored on every liberal forum I have posted to, I am simply reporting the truth, that's all."

You're probably mistaking "censored" with "breaking the damn rules" more often than not. Once again...kinda weird how I've seen far more bigoted and outlandish stuff than what you've got posted up here on these forums fly by completely uncensored all over the net. But, it's probably your persecution complex at work. It's pretty common, especially amongst religious fundies such as yourself.

"In particular, feminism is standard in declining cultures."

Nothing even remotely resembling modern feminism has ever existed in history. It took literal millenia before we stopped considering women property, and allowed them to do such simple things as vote. There is really nothing comparable at all. At...all.

"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."

Welcome to the 21st century! We have these things called "paternity tests". Do enjoy your stay, and remember to use a condom!

"But if the husband has extramarital sex, it causes no evolutionary harm to the wife at all."

You're forgetting one tiny teentsy itty bitty little thing...the fact that a cheating male can cause a ton of emotional trauma to the woman. Is this not to be punished? You seem very sexist. Also, naturalistic fallacies ahoy!

"I agree that both parent and community is optimal for children."

Maybe.

"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'."

And how, exactly, are you ever supposed to determine the certainty of your conclusions? How do you test these hypotheses? Go ahead and shock the entire scientific world.

"Women's instincts aren't designed for tribe formation.  Tribe formation is a male instinct in humans."

If we're going on the basis of "they aren't qualified to vote", then we might as well strip away the voting rights for the majority of the human population. And if we're going to be doing that, we need some kind of metric to determine who is qualified to vote....in which case, a ton of women are going to qualify, and a lot of men are going to fail.

For that matter, not every voting issue is a matter of "tribe formation". What about matters pertaining to caregivers and their jobs? Wouldn't women know that kind of thing best, since it is apparently their role? Or should we have men raising our kids too? Perhaps men should be doing everything?

"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."

You've just demolished your entire argument. Case in point: You cannot test the certainty of your hypotheses at all. It's all speculation, and you've just hammered that point right home for me.

" 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."

Speculation.

"This makes no sense at all."

Are you truly incapable of comprehending something as simple as "the benefits outweigh the costs"? C'mon, man...

"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."

Are you truly incapable of comprehending the difference between "ignorant" and "not always correct"?

"Selection can happen at many levels, but ultimately its all driven by genes."

The fault you're making here is that it may not necessarily be driven at the singular gene level. More often than not, genes come in giant packages, up to and including multiple packages. These packages we like to call "organisms".

"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."

The point you don't seem to understand is that, from an evolutionary standpoint, it really doesn't make a difference. All evolution cares about is residual reproductive value. Why should it be considered "evil" to focus on producing offspring at the cost of survival, if it works from an evolutionary standpoint?

"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."

If the feathers are a better, more reliable indication of good genes than long legs, then the species is better off sticking with the giant feathers. If this weren't true, then how come this kind of thing is literally all over the place in the natural world? If it were so disadvantageous, you'd have such species rapidly go extinct. It is, quite obviously, working in some fashion, which is why it sticks around, else it wouldn't be so prevalent.

"Whatever.  Residual reproductive value isn't forward looking."

Absolutely wrong! Residual reproductive value is ALL ABOUT looking at things down the road! Its entire point is considering the fate of the parent's genes generations down the line. It's about projecting the parent's genetic contributions to the entire species population down the generations. You are just flat out wrong on this one. Your understanding of science is on par with creationists.

"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."

Speculation.

"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."

Extremely dependant on context. The whole point of the "handicaps", and I put that in quotes for a very good reason, is that they serve as reliable indicators of good genes. So long as the handicaps do not cause the species (or in this case tribe) to get outcompeted by everyone, the long-term benefit of having only the best males with the best genes mate can be the better long-term strategy....such as the reason why we still have peacocks hanging around. It's obviously doing something right for them, and the thousands of other species that have similar setups.