Posted by fschmidt on
URL: https://coalpha.arkian.net/Fun-times-with-Mr-FS-tp7574642p7574663.html

Shau wrote

"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".

So what rule did you break?

By the way, it is always the liberals who engage in personal attacks and they are never consored for it.  I only criticize liberal ideology and I always consored for that.

"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.

Bullshit.  I am sorry that you are unwilling to accept the facts.

"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.

Wrong again.  The only reason that this is the first time women vote is because this is the first time that democracy has continued to exist in a declining culture.  Usually democracy ends as culture begins to decline but there seems to be a delay this time.  I am sure democracy will be gone by the end of this century.  Women have been given "rights" and excessive powers in most declining cultures.  See "Sex and Culture" by Unwin for an overview or see "The Secret History" by Procopius for Byzantium and see any overview of the Roman empire or read some of Juvenal for examples.

"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!

Using this argument, I could say that rape with a condom really isn't much of a crime because the evolutionary risk is removed.  The reason that rape causes emotional distress for a woman is because the emotion evolved because of evolutionary consequences before condoms.  And the emotional distress of adultery for men evolved for the same reason.  These are analogous crimes, adultery is to men what rape is to women.

"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!

Sneezing can cause a ton of emotional trauma in women from feminist countries.  Feminism drives women insane.  In normal non-feminist countries, male extramarital sex is expected.  The wife gets upset if the husband takes a mistress, in other words another partner, because this means the husband is diverting resources away from the wife's family.

"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.

There are sciences where experiments are not possible.  Paleontology for example.  In this case, one forms a hypothesis based on existing evidence and then judges that hypothesis based on new finds.  But even without validating a hypothesis this way, a hypothesis based on historical evidence is more likely to be true than a hypothesis based on the whims of liberals, as this is how liberal beliefs are formed.

"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.

Not true, men have tribe formation instincts even if most men are stupid.  The best possible government is a democracy of all men.  Adding selection criteria like intelligence testing invites abuses by those in power to manipulate the tests to select an electorate for their own benefit.

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?

Yes women are better caregivers because this taps into their maternal instinct.  But voting on issues relating to caregivers is abstract and basically tribal, so the maternal instinct isn't applied in this case, so women should not vote on this or any issue affecting the tribe in general.

"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.

If A causes B and C and C is the goal, then trying to get B isn't a bad idea and may be accomplished by A.  The best we can do is to find those things that correlate with virtue and aim for those.

"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?

The word "evil" means negative morality.  It so happens that my morality and the morality of most religions find these "sexual" traits immoral.  This makes sense because the evolutionary purpose of morality is to increase the strength of the tribe and these traits are selfish traits that benefit individual reproduction at the expense of the tribe.  Liberalism is a revolt against tribal morality, so in essence, liberalism is a celebration of evil.

"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.

It isn't disadvantageous enough for the species to go extinct but is disadvantageous.  There are more pigeons than peacocks and this is one reason why.

"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.

Of course you are absolutely wrong.  What I mean when I say that residual reproductive value isn't forward looking is that it is a local optimization in time and not a global optimization for the future.  Evolution works based on current conditions without regard to future condition.

"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.

Backed by history.

"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.

I agree that bright peacock feather are less harmful than those human traits promoted by liberalism, but both do hurt survival strength to some degree.  The peacocks will survive, but liberals will not.  Unfortunately I won't live long enough to see the liberals slaughtered, but I am heartened by the certainty that they will be.  This is something that the Old Testament makes clear and that evolution explains very well.