Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
What do you guys think? It makes me think of a controversial topic- whether it is a 'privilege to reproduce' or is it a 'right to reproduce.'
As I think it is immoral for humanity to 'progress intellectually' at the extent of others, so with what knowledge I have currently, I'd probably be against polygamy being legalized.
On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote: I wonder why polygamy is illegal
There is a very good reason polygamy is illegal. If it is not, we end up with the same situation as with money, 1% of the men would have more than 50% of the women. And this is also what happened in ancient societies, leaders would have harems of hundreds of women while farmers would be single for their entire life. This is not a stable ground for a society. Monogamy makes sure that everybody at least has the potential to get a mate.
Except in modern cultures women aren't objects like they were considered prior with no rights. Thus, this argument holds no weight, as dowry/purchased wives aren't all that real in western cultures.
On December 19 2011 00:24 Cubu wrote: I think this goes against the nature of what marriage is truely supposed to be, a formal union between a man and a woMAN, not woMEN.
Yes, that whole natural definition of something created by society.
It mostly depends on wether you believe that: a. Human beings have evolved from primates. b. Basic human instincts are close to the same as their predecessors, albit hidden.
I used to think that people who thought like this were made up as strawmen in arguments against the more extravagant conclusions of evolutionary psychology. Apparently, these strawmen exist and have absolutely flooded this thread with sexist nonsense.
Do you people know any women at all? Any? No woman I know would even think of entering into a massively polygamous marriage with some random rich male who used his power to collect attractive women. Not a single one.
Do such women exist at all? Presumably, and there are also presumably corresponding men who would act in a parallel fashion. So legalizing polygamy might result in a slight decrease in the number of women eligible for marriage to the non-rich. However,
1) I find it immensely implausible to suppose that the number would be significant enough to be noticeable by the typical male.
2) Why would one want to be with a woman who would respond to the legalization of polygamy in such a shallow way?
3) People who think like this should probably be more concerned about how their sexist and simplistically reductionist worldview affects their chances at finding a mate.
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways.
1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into.
2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women.
3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it.
Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc.
There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc.
Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them.
Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks.
If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this.
In case you were wondering, I won't be responding to your posts anymore. Come back when you've attained the ability to interpret and understand other people's arguments, the capacity to reason critically about the points expressed therein, and a healthy respect for women and the complexity of human beings in general.
I actually wouldn't have wondered that at all if you had stopped responding instead of making a public disclaimer. The thing is, people become unable to reason critically when they become emotional, and from your typing that would actually be you. I have completely equal respect for women as for men btw. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful? Are you going to ignore the real world simply because it requires that you develop a deeper and greater and more holistic understanding of it? People are animals. Animals seek out the most fit partners. Fitness in humans is directly related to how much money they can make. Humans are complex. The reason they are complex is called Rationalization.
Humans are rationalizing machines, and the truth is all the top level explanations of people's personal behavior is really related to deeper reasons. Humans, being bigger brained and capable of rationalization, are far more capable at lying to themselves and others of their species as to their reasons than any other species.The idea is that there is that the real reason is different than your stated reason for doing it. Humans are like that about everything. We have a superficial understanding that makes enough sense that we don't make ourselves crazy with being self divided internally. But really, in your day to day life, and if you follow the e-sport of sc2, don't you see people rationalizing their behavior every day? take this link, watch The Office, Friends, or really any show. Watch your own personal friends and in their daily behavior. Consider their motives for doing what they do. read this definition back every time someone says they did X because of Y.
You will find that a lot of our judgements about ourselves and others are erroneous. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful, I ask again? Isn't it disrespectful to humanity and nature to want to cover facts with lies to support a false self image of reality?
Whenever you use key-words as "facts", "nature", "realities", you should be really careful about actually knowing what you are talking about. It is easy to just adopt so-called "facts" and "naturally given circumstances" from anywhere and use them to argue your way through life.
Actually, I am quite shocked how deeply this thread is filled with folk psychology, behaviorism, biologism and sexist BS.
The best part was when the oppression and objectification of women in our society throughout history forcing them into a position where their only possibility to survive was to subject to a man's rule has lead to the conclusion that women are by nature money-eating power-addicted brainless creatures whose only goal in life is finding a safe haven for themselves and their possible offspring.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible...
There might be little more to a relationship than sex, money and power, but maybe you guys will figure that out yourselves sometime
As to your claim of "folk" this and that, why don't you claim that aristotle and plato were "folk" thinkers?
Condescension is the last resort of a poor argument and a poor thinker. As a tidbit for you, the females of ape tribes are polygamous with a single male. they all together choose a single male for themselves as multiple females. This male tends to have a bunch of favorable factors that puts him ahead of others.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible..
Again, a factor of genetics. Just like all men secretly are attracted to the average, average, average age of 17 as the ideal female, even though feminists want to raise the age of consent again and again to prevent competition from making them old maids.
The real question I suppose to ask is: Do you agree or disagree with natural selection and evolution? What is the weight of 100 or so years of thought compared to 100 million years of trial and error? Personal ideas of what is correct and proper for society will rise and fall along with societies. Nature has never fallen. If it did, man would no longer exist.
On December 19 2011 10:27 Iodem wrote: Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
What do you guys think? It makes me think of a controversial topic- whether it is a 'privilege to reproduce' or is it a 'right to reproduce.'
As I think it is immoral for humanity to 'progress intellectually' at the extent of others, so with what knowledge I have currently, I'd probably be against polygamy being legalized.
eugenics does in fact occur in nature. the healthy wealthy more intelligent bearing more offspring would be proof of that. Of course he's correct, buit it is politically incorrect to say so, because "all men are created equal" even when the numbers prove otherwise. People entrenched in the dogma will discredit such ideas with personal bias and magical thinking rather than rationality and some logical process.
Genetics and Epigenetics are real.
of course what this person is saying is actually factual. Die hard Faithists in the fairy tale world of "genes and genetics have no power to create inequality in man" ignore it.
On December 19 2011 06:46 frogrubdown wrote: [quote]
I used to think that people who thought like this were made up as strawmen in arguments against the more extravagant conclusions of evolutionary psychology. Apparently, these strawmen exist and have absolutely flooded this thread with sexist nonsense.
Do you people know any women at all? Any? No woman I know would even think of entering into a massively polygamous marriage with some random rich male who used his power to collect attractive women. Not a single one.
Do such women exist at all? Presumably, and there are also presumably corresponding men who would act in a parallel fashion. So legalizing polygamy might result in a slight decrease in the number of women eligible for marriage to the non-rich. However,
1) I find it immensely implausible to suppose that the number would be significant enough to be noticeable by the typical male.
2) Why would one want to be with a woman who would respond to the legalization of polygamy in such a shallow way?
3) People who think like this should probably be more concerned about how their sexist and simplistically reductionist worldview affects their chances at finding a mate.
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways.
1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into.
2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women.
3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it.
Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc.
There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc.
Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them.
Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks.
If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this.
In case you were wondering, I won't be responding to your posts anymore. Come back when you've attained the ability to interpret and understand other people's arguments, the capacity to reason critically about the points expressed therein, and a healthy respect for women and the complexity of human beings in general.
I actually wouldn't have wondered that at all if you had stopped responding instead of making a public disclaimer. The thing is, people become unable to reason critically when they become emotional, and from your typing that would actually be you. I have completely equal respect for women as for men btw. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful? Are you going to ignore the real world simply because it requires that you develop a deeper and greater and more holistic understanding of it? People are animals. Animals seek out the most fit partners. Fitness in humans is directly related to how much money they can make. Humans are complex. The reason they are complex is called Rationalization.
Humans are rationalizing machines, and the truth is all the top level explanations of people's personal behavior is really related to deeper reasons. Humans, being bigger brained and capable of rationalization, are far more capable at lying to themselves and others of their species as to their reasons than any other species.The idea is that there is that the real reason is different than your stated reason for doing it. Humans are like that about everything. We have a superficial understanding that makes enough sense that we don't make ourselves crazy with being self divided internally. But really, in your day to day life, and if you follow the e-sport of sc2, don't you see people rationalizing their behavior every day? take this link, watch The Office, Friends, or really any show. Watch your own personal friends and in their daily behavior. Consider their motives for doing what they do. read this definition back every time someone says they did X because of Y.
You will find that a lot of our judgements about ourselves and others are erroneous. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful, I ask again? Isn't it disrespectful to humanity and nature to want to cover facts with lies to support a false self image of reality?
Whenever you use key-words as "facts", "nature", "realities", you should be really careful about actually knowing what you are talking about. It is easy to just adopt so-called "facts" and "naturally given circumstances" from anywhere and use them to argue your way through life.
Actually, I am quite shocked how deeply this thread is filled with folk psychology, behaviorism, biologism and sexist BS.
The best part was when the oppression and objectification of women in our society throughout history forcing them into a position where their only possibility to survive was to subject to a man's rule has lead to the conclusion that women are by nature money-eating power-addicted brainless creatures whose only goal in life is finding a safe haven for themselves and their possible offspring.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible...
There might be little more to a relationship than sex, money and power, but maybe you guys will figure that out yourselves sometime
As to your claim of "folk" this and that, why don't you claim that aristotle and plato were "folk" thinkers?
You are right. I shouldn't have written folk psychology but rather plain ignorance.
[...] even though feminists want to raise the age of consent again and again to prevent competition from making them old maids [...]
Condescension is the last resort of a poor argument and a poor thinker.
See what I did there..?
As a tidbit for you, the females of ape tribes are polygamous with a single male. they all together choose a single male for themselves as multiple females. This male tends to have a bunch of favorable factors that puts him ahead of others.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible..
Again, a factor of genetics. Just like all men secretly are attracted to the average, average, average age of 17 as the ideal female, even though feminists want to raise the age of consent again and again to prevent competition from making them old maids.
The real question I suppose to ask is: Do you agree or disagree with natural selection and evolution? What is the weight of 100 or so years of thought compared to 100 million years of trial and error? Personal ideas of what is correct and proper for society will rise and fall along with societies. Nature has never fallen. If it did, man would no longer exist.
The point is not about denying humans being animals and hence underlying certain biological predispositions. Biologism is about reducing any kind of human behaviour and social interaction to those very predispositions. I have encounterted those kinds of arguments over and over in this thread and people seem to take so much for "naturally given", not even thinking about challenging those "facts" critically.
Yes, of course biology and genetical predispositions play a role in an (human) animal's behaviour. Yes, there is much more to it than you might learn from your biology class, even if you might not like it.
While accusing me of thinking selectively and making up my own fantasy-feminism-world you could very well check your own mindset and see if you are not neglecting some essentials yourself, like, maybe, the power of social construction.
On December 19 2011 10:27 Iodem wrote: Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
What do you guys think? It makes me think of a controversial topic- whether it is a 'privilege to reproduce' or is it a 'right to reproduce.'
As I think it is immoral for humanity to 'progress intellectually' at the extent of others, so with what knowledge I have currently, I'd probably be against polygamy being legalized.
On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote: I wonder why polygamy is illegal
There is a very good reason polygamy is illegal. If it is not, we end up with the same situation as with money, 1% of the men would have more than 50% of the women. And this is also what happened in ancient societies, leaders would have harems of hundreds of women while farmers would be single for their entire life. This is not a stable ground for a society. Monogamy makes sure that everybody at least has the potential to get a mate.
genetics would suggest that this is better for society as the most able 1% of men i.e. the smartest strongest etc would typically end up in this category thus these men would reproduce more and the genes being passed on would become stronger.... at least that's how it works with lions.
Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
Well considering that the 16th/17th centuries were the beginning stages of a slump for China they're just pulling out of, I don't know that the results jive with the theory.
It's amazing some of the mental gymnastics people go through to try and rationalize or justify what they've been raised or conditioned to believe in by society. They simply accept what has always been the norm to them, and as soon as someone questions them with a simple "why?" they come up with the most absurd reasoning. It is so hard for people to just consider that maybe some social norms are based on nothing but tradition and a conformist desire to judge any different behavior as somehow harmful and worthy of punishment.
Also a large number of opinions being expressed seem to be a classic form of male insecurity with regards to women and relationships. "What if I can't get a wife" isn't really a valid argument here.
On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote: I wonder why polygamy is illegal
There is a very good reason polygamy is illegal. If it is not, we end up with the same situation as with money, 1% of the men would have more than 50% of the women. And this is also what happened in ancient societies, leaders would have harems of hundreds of women while farmers would be single for their entire life. This is not a stable ground for a society. Monogamy makes sure that everybody at least has the potential to get a mate.
genetics would suggest that this is better for society as the most able 1% of men i.e. the smartest strongest etc would typically end up in this category thus these men would reproduce more and the genes being passed on would become stronger.... at least that's how it works with lions.
Interesting point. In that case, would humanity have been stronger?
On December 19 2011 08:52 Humanfails wrote: [quote]
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways.
1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into.
2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women.
3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it.
Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc.
There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc.
Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them.
Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks.
If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this.
In case you were wondering, I won't be responding to your posts anymore. Come back when you've attained the ability to interpret and understand other people's arguments, the capacity to reason critically about the points expressed therein, and a healthy respect for women and the complexity of human beings in general.
I actually wouldn't have wondered that at all if you had stopped responding instead of making a public disclaimer. The thing is, people become unable to reason critically when they become emotional, and from your typing that would actually be you. I have completely equal respect for women as for men btw. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful? Are you going to ignore the real world simply because it requires that you develop a deeper and greater and more holistic understanding of it? People are animals. Animals seek out the most fit partners. Fitness in humans is directly related to how much money they can make. Humans are complex. The reason they are complex is called Rationalization.
Humans are rationalizing machines, and the truth is all the top level explanations of people's personal behavior is really related to deeper reasons. Humans, being bigger brained and capable of rationalization, are far more capable at lying to themselves and others of their species as to their reasons than any other species.The idea is that there is that the real reason is different than your stated reason for doing it. Humans are like that about everything. We have a superficial understanding that makes enough sense that we don't make ourselves crazy with being self divided internally. But really, in your day to day life, and if you follow the e-sport of sc2, don't you see people rationalizing their behavior every day? take this link, watch The Office, Friends, or really any show. Watch your own personal friends and in their daily behavior. Consider their motives for doing what they do. read this definition back every time someone says they did X because of Y.
You will find that a lot of our judgements about ourselves and others are erroneous. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful, I ask again? Isn't it disrespectful to humanity and nature to want to cover facts with lies to support a false self image of reality?
Whenever you use key-words as "facts", "nature", "realities", you should be really careful about actually knowing what you are talking about. It is easy to just adopt so-called "facts" and "naturally given circumstances" from anywhere and use them to argue your way through life.
Actually, I am quite shocked how deeply this thread is filled with folk psychology, behaviorism, biologism and sexist BS.
The best part was when the oppression and objectification of women in our society throughout history forcing them into a position where their only possibility to survive was to subject to a man's rule has lead to the conclusion that women are by nature money-eating power-addicted brainless creatures whose only goal in life is finding a safe haven for themselves and their possible offspring.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible...
There might be little more to a relationship than sex, money and power, but maybe you guys will figure that out yourselves sometime
As to your claim of "folk" this and that, why don't you claim that aristotle and plato were "folk" thinkers?
You are right. I shouldn't have written folk psychology but rather plain ignorance.
As a tidbit for you, the females of ape tribes are polygamous with a single male. they all together choose a single male for themselves as multiple females. This male tends to have a bunch of favorable factors that puts him ahead of others.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible..
Again, a factor of genetics. Just like all men secretly are attracted to the average, average, average age of 17 as the ideal female, even though feminists want to raise the age of consent again and again to prevent competition from making them old maids.
The real question I suppose to ask is: Do you agree or disagree with natural selection and evolution? What is the weight of 100 or so years of thought compared to 100 million years of trial and error? Personal ideas of what is correct and proper for society will rise and fall along with societies. Nature has never fallen. If it did, man would no longer exist.
The point is not about denying humans being animals and hence underlying certain biological predispositions. Biologism is about reducing any kind of human behaviour and social interaction to those very predispositions. I have encounterted those kinds of arguments over and over in this thread and people seem to take so much for "naturally given", not even thinking about challenging those "facts" critically.
Yes, of course biology and genetical predispositions play a role in an (human) animal's behaviour. Yes, there is much more to it than you might learn from your biology class, even if you might not like it.
While accusing me of thinking selectively and making up my own fantasy-feminism-world you could very well check your own mindset and see if you are not neglecting some essentials yourself, like, maybe, the power of social construction.
You might as well tell all professionals in all fields of work that they're arguing on pure ignorance. What anyone does in any field is try to find as much supportive evidence as possible to support a theory. Just because it's called a theory afterward doesn't mean it's wrong. The theory of so many things are every day observed to continue being true.
I honestly don't see what you did there. You should read all relevant history pertaining to feminists and feminist movements. Some people have claimed in other TL thread that I was wrong for saying only conservatives and not feminists hate porn.
But the reality is that a lot of feminists consider porn degrading to women. A feminist is someone who 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. 2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women. 3. feminine character.
Now, In other countries feminists might be libertarian or liberal, but in the U.S. feminists, or at least a large portion of those who call themselves feminists, deny shaving personal areas of their body, call porn degrading to women, and are generally abrasive with men who try to argue for male rights.
That wasn't a comment of ignorance, because feminists created the law Age of Consent in the first place. They are continuing to try to raise it in countries worldwide. This is not pertinent to the OP, but pertinent to you attempting to discredit an argument by calling it ignorance and simply re-quoting it.
Yes, of course biology and genetical predispositions play a role in an (human) animal's behaviour. Yes, there is much more to it than you might learn from your biology class, even if you might not like it.
Please tell me, I'm afraid I am ignorant enough that I dont understand much of the role of genetics and biochemistry in shaping and creating the brain and thus the mind, nor do I know much about how the ten parts of the brain work together, and what role neurotransmitters and the size of the PFC (prefrontal cortex) have in the creation of emotions and affect on decisions and thoughts, since Phineas Gage doesn't teach us much at all of how small bits of gray matter shape our behavior. Of course I don't understand much about disorders either, such as schizophrenia. I know about, the misfiring and miscommunication of the brain (not to be confused with dissociative personality disorder or split personality disorder) that generates emotions like fear, anger, or love, and can generate perceptual hallucinations across any of the senses, and how this means a person can have thoughts of fear or anger or suspicion towards complete strangers that they now believe they know. There must be more to all this stuff than that, people are more complicated than the construction and proper working of all the parts of the brain and the role genetics plays in shaping the brain and telling it what kind of chemicals to generate, how large to grow, how to make each piece of it, and so on. I fear its like the allegory of Plato's cave, where, through my ignorance and inability to see what you have seen, want to pass you off and discredit you, since the allegory wasn't simply some "What if" exercise but actually a real representation of people in all times.
I feel it is unfair, mystics like you call scientists shortsighted yet never reveal anything of that knowledge of what people are that seems so unattainable to people using logical and rational processes in decoding the workings of a biological mechanism. Please don't leave us in the dark if you have such powerful knowledge. I'm extremely serious. You clearly know something I don't about what makes people. What do you know that I miss?
On December 19 2011 13:02 liberal wrote: It's amazing some of the mental gymnastics people go through to try and rationalize or justify what they've been raised or conditioned to believe in by society. They simply accept what has always been the norm to them, and as soon as someone questions them with a simple "why?" they come up with the most absurd reasoning. It is so hard for people to just consider that maybe some social norms are based on nothing but tradition and a conformist desire to judge any different behavior as somehow harmful and worthy of punishment.
Also a large number of opinions being expressed seem to be a classic form of male insecurity with regards to women and relationships. "What if I can't get a wife" isn't really a valid argument here.
What if you cant get a relationship you want? prior to women's rights and divorce, some women in monogamous society had to contend with the notion that they would be without a relationship their whole life. Even If they wanted one, they couldn't. since the ratio of men to women favors women in almost all societies, over time, the ratio disparity causes women to be alone their whole life who felt desperately in need of a mate. Now, given the anti-male sentiment in here, go tell those women that "what if I can't get a husband" isn't a valid argument for wanting to change the laws and social rules regarding divorce and relationship freedom.
I feel it is unfair, mystics like you call scientists shortsighted yet never reveal anything of that knowledge of what people are that seems so unattainable to people using logical and rational processes in decoding the workings of a biological mechanism. Please don't leave us in the dark if you have such powerful knowledge. I'm extremely serious. You clearly know something I don't about what makes people. What do you know that I miss?
I love how you phrased every single word in this paragraph.
I also hope you two can show al your cards so we all see the totality of each of your arguments
On December 19 2011 06:46 frogrubdown wrote: [quote]
I used to think that people who thought like this were made up as strawmen in arguments against the more extravagant conclusions of evolutionary psychology. Apparently, these strawmen exist and have absolutely flooded this thread with sexist nonsense.
Do you people know any women at all? Any? No woman I know would even think of entering into a massively polygamous marriage with some random rich male who used his power to collect attractive women. Not a single one.
Do such women exist at all? Presumably, and there are also presumably corresponding men who would act in a parallel fashion. So legalizing polygamy might result in a slight decrease in the number of women eligible for marriage to the non-rich. However,
1) I find it immensely implausible to suppose that the number would be significant enough to be noticeable by the typical male.
2) Why would one want to be with a woman who would respond to the legalization of polygamy in such a shallow way?
3) People who think like this should probably be more concerned about how their sexist and simplistically reductionist worldview affects their chances at finding a mate.
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways.
1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into.
2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women.
3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it.
Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc.
There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc.
Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them.
Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks.
If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this.
In case you were wondering, I won't be responding to your posts anymore. Come back when you've attained the ability to interpret and understand other people's arguments, the capacity to reason critically about the points expressed therein, and a healthy respect for women and the complexity of human beings in general.
I actually wouldn't have wondered that at all if you had stopped responding instead of making a public disclaimer. The thing is, people become unable to reason critically when they become emotional, and from your typing that would actually be you. I have completely equal respect for women as for men btw. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful? Are you going to ignore the real world simply because it requires that you develop a deeper and greater and more holistic understanding of it? People are animals. Animals seek out the most fit partners. Fitness in humans is directly related to how much money they can make. Humans are complex. The reason they are complex is called Rationalization.
Humans are rationalizing machines, and the truth is all the top level explanations of people's personal behavior is really related to deeper reasons. Humans, being bigger brained and capable of rationalization, are far more capable at lying to themselves and others of their species as to their reasons than any other species.The idea is that there is that the real reason is different than your stated reason for doing it. Humans are like that about everything. We have a superficial understanding that makes enough sense that we don't make ourselves crazy with being self divided internally. But really, in your day to day life, and if you follow the e-sport of sc2, don't you see people rationalizing their behavior every day? take this link, watch The Office, Friends, or really any show. Watch your own personal friends and in their daily behavior. Consider their motives for doing what they do. read this definition back every time someone says they did X because of Y.
You will find that a lot of our judgements about ourselves and others are erroneous. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful, I ask again? Isn't it disrespectful to humanity and nature to want to cover facts with lies to support a false self image of reality?
Whenever you use key-words as "facts", "nature", "realities", you should be really careful about actually knowing what you are talking about. It is easy to just adopt so-called "facts" and "naturally given circumstances" from anywhere and use them to argue your way through life.
Actually, I am quite shocked how deeply this thread is filled with folk psychology, behaviorism, biologism and sexist BS.
The best part was when the oppression and objectification of women in our society throughout history forcing them into a position where their only possibility to survive was to subject to a man's rule has lead to the conclusion that women are by nature money-eating power-addicted brainless creatures whose only goal in life is finding a safe haven for themselves and their possible offspring.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible...
There might be little more to a relationship than sex, money and power, but maybe you guys will figure that out yourselves sometime
As to your claim of "folk" this and that, why don't you claim that aristotle and plato were "folk" thinkers?
Condescension is the last resort of a poor argument and a poor thinker. As a tidbit for you, the females of ape tribes are polygamous with a single male. they all together choose a single male for themselves as multiple females. This male tends to have a bunch of favorable factors that puts him ahead of others.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible..
Again, a factor of genetics. Just like all men secretly are attracted to the average, average, average age of 17 as the ideal female, even though feminists want to raise the age of consent again and again to prevent competition from making them old maids.
The real question I suppose to ask is: Do you agree or disagree with natural selection and evolution? What is the weight of 100 or so years of thought compared to 100 million years of trial and error? Personal ideas of what is correct and proper for society will rise and fall along with societies. Nature has never fallen. If it did, man would no longer exist.
On December 19 2011 10:27 Iodem wrote: Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
What do you guys think? It makes me think of a controversial topic- whether it is a 'privilege to reproduce' or is it a 'right to reproduce.'
As I think it is immoral for humanity to 'progress intellectually' at the extent of others, so with what knowledge I have currently, I'd probably be against polygamy being legalized.
eugenics does in fact occur in nature. the healthy wealthy more intelligent bearing more offspring would be proof of that. Of course he's correct, buit it is politically incorrect to say so, because "all men are created equal" even when the numbers prove otherwise. People entrenched in the dogma will discredit such ideas with personal bias and magical thinking rather than rationality and some logical process.
of course what this person is saying is actually factual. Die hard Faithists in the fairy tale world of "genes and genetics have no power to create inequality in man" ignore it.
Drawing parallels from even closely related primates is very dangerous. Chimpanzees and bonobos are closest to us in the tree of life, and yet look at how different they are in behavior.
The argument isn't that genes have no power. The real questions you're not asking are: How do genes influence THIS behavior? What is the net reproductive gain? In what situations? What is their contribution, their mechanism, and the co-occuring environmental inputs that result in this specific behavior?
I'll give you an example (see note at bottom). Serotonin is a neurotransmitter in the brain that has been linked to aggression, among other behaviors. Now, suppose naturally occurring genetic variation results in receptors that bind serotonin with differing affinity and/or differing levels of activation. Variants of the receptor that bind serotonin weakly have been found to be overrepresented in prison populations among those who have committed violent crime. Suppose also that longitudinal studies find people with these variants to be at higher risk of committing violent crime. Should we then declare our work done and that violent crime is partially genetic?
No, that would be a gross mistake. Because as it turns out, the mechanisms are critical. A simple wikipedia search dispels that by showing all the different ways that serotonin can influence behavior. Even more importantly, in the last decade, we've found many many examples where gene regulation results in very different behavioral outcomes depending on the environment. Epigenetics actually has a massive influence on this feedback loop between genetics and environment.
Before chalking something up to "genetics", it's worthwhile to examine the exact claim that is being made. Furthermore, note that heritability is not notable, it's the amount of variation in behavior that is predicted by the variation in genetics that is interesting. So, without pinning down a panel of candidate genes and/or their regulatory state, it's very difficult to make a solid claim about genetics and behavior.
I'll summarise. The main criticisms that I and several others in this thread have of genetic explanations as touted by the popular media are:
1. Current evidence is insufficient to draw strong conclusions. 2. Not accounting for nuances in how genes work. 3. Overrepresenting the amount of behavioral variation that is explained by genetic variation, and that's not even counting in epigenetic changes caused by cultural or other environmental inputs. 4. Underaccounting for the variation caused by cultural/environmental input. 5. Last, but not least, the whole "it's inborn!" bullcrap that's basically a cop-out. Details matter.
Note about serotonin example: I've read the papers, but it was some months ago and some details might be slightly inaccurate, so take it as a hypothetical example, it still works.
On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote: I wonder why polygamy is illegal
There is a very good reason polygamy is illegal. If it is not, we end up with the same situation as with money, 1% of the men would have more than 50% of the women. And this is also what happened in ancient societies, leaders would have harems of hundreds of women while farmers would be single for their entire life. This is not a stable ground for a society. Monogamy makes sure that everybody at least has the potential to get a mate.
"If gay marriage is legalised, everyone will start marrying people of the same sex!"
That's not how it works. If polygamy is legalised, then people who want to have a polygamous marriage will marry multiple people. And people who want to have a monogamous marriage (i.e. the majority of people) will marry one person.
Except that not everybody in the world is gay....Though almost everybody in the world has an interest in sex/marriage. Do you see, now, why your attempt at a slippery slope doesn't work?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
On December 19 2011 08:52 Humanfails wrote: [quote]
Hugh Hefner, playboy owner. take a gander at his lifestyle and all the women, (mostly 18-20!) that he's had in his life due to his money, affluence, etc.
You don't know anyone personally? maybe because noone you know will admit it.
Don't kid yourselves or attempt to kid us.
You have a very fitting username.
Anyway, thanks for telling me about the secret desires of my friends. And here I was under the impression that they wanted to do something with their lives. Really they're just saying that because Hef won't have them.
I know its not polygamy, The real issue is you seem to think women won't do it. Polygamy is the legal announcement of such large partnerships between a group of people. Polygamy can still exist as simply "Open relationships' and "many girls for one guy" as in the case of Hugh Hefner, which is not illegal at all. The only illegal aspect is marrying them all. They can still have the exact same relationship without being married. Which is what Hugh has with his multiple women.
It's not legal polygamy, because there is no marriage, but it is still the same thing you are saying women would never do. Think of it this way, A relationship is the core idea, the car. The marriage license and legality of it is like the extra packages for the car, i.e. satellite radio and so on.
On number 3: Are you saying people shouldn't want to find a "mate" and have reasonable access to what they want? What would have happened if your parents didn't get together? You wouldn't be here. You owe your existence to this idea. And you're rejecting it?
As I see it, you're still A free willed agent, under the guise of Self determination. Therefore you had the choice of saying "You have a very fitting username.". Your name isn't idra is it? That's a very poor behavior from you, stop trolling please.
With each post you make, the odds that you're being serious decrease. Against my better judgment, I'll make a few quick points anyways.
1) I didn't say "women would never" enter a polygamous marriage for money/power; in fact, I specifically stated that some women would act in exactly this way. My objection was to the idea that legalizing polygamy would result in so many women choosing this path that "normal guys" wouldn't be able to find a mate. Even if the majority of women had the aspirations of playboy bunnies, there would be no reason to expect legalizing polygamy to have these results. Given how we would have to renegotiate the current economics of marriage in light of legalized polygamy, it's not even clear that it would be significantly more appealing to the playboy bunny personality type than the already legal open relationships they enter into.
2) Nothing in any of my posts indicate that I think "people shouldn't want to find a 'mate' and have reasonable access to what they want." My posts have criticized a) the idea that legalized polygamy would significantly curtail these ideals. b) the idea that these ideals ought to be pursued at the cost of curtailing the freedom of women.
3) In your post, you claimed that I was wrong about the women I know, that they really just want to marry into money despite all indications to the contrary. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I don't have anything else to say about it.
Craigslist was rife with prostitution. Now that they cracked down on it, Craigslist is full of "I want a sugar daddy, spoil me with objects, and buy stuff for me". The masked language is that they are trading sex for objects instead of asking for cash directly, etc.
There also happens to be sugar daddy and sugar mommy websites, websites for older men to date younger women for money, etc etc.
Saying this isn't the norm is saying water trickles UPward. Genetically, younger women are attracted to older men, and men that can provide a safer environment for their children. Men want to marry the youngest and most fertile females, and will create and gain money to attract them.
Hypothetically, lets take the most loserly male possible. No job, practically homeless. Are you attracted to him? Of course not, even if he has a winning personality. He cant dress fashionably or pay for anything. He is a gray scale male peacock in a world of the most flamboyantly coloured peacocks.
If you were to claim that as a defective money maker, he is fundamentally flawed as an individual, it still gives weight to the argument that women want successful men. The more successful, the more attractive. This is fact. We all know this.
In case you were wondering, I won't be responding to your posts anymore. Come back when you've attained the ability to interpret and understand other people's arguments, the capacity to reason critically about the points expressed therein, and a healthy respect for women and the complexity of human beings in general.
I actually wouldn't have wondered that at all if you had stopped responding instead of making a public disclaimer. The thing is, people become unable to reason critically when they become emotional, and from your typing that would actually be you. I have completely equal respect for women as for men btw. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful? Are you going to ignore the real world simply because it requires that you develop a deeper and greater and more holistic understanding of it? People are animals. Animals seek out the most fit partners. Fitness in humans is directly related to how much money they can make. Humans are complex. The reason they are complex is called Rationalization.
Humans are rationalizing machines, and the truth is all the top level explanations of people's personal behavior is really related to deeper reasons. Humans, being bigger brained and capable of rationalization, are far more capable at lying to themselves and others of their species as to their reasons than any other species.The idea is that there is that the real reason is different than your stated reason for doing it. Humans are like that about everything. We have a superficial understanding that makes enough sense that we don't make ourselves crazy with being self divided internally. But really, in your day to day life, and if you follow the e-sport of sc2, don't you see people rationalizing their behavior every day? take this link, watch The Office, Friends, or really any show. Watch your own personal friends and in their daily behavior. Consider their motives for doing what they do. read this definition back every time someone says they did X because of Y.
You will find that a lot of our judgements about ourselves and others are erroneous. Why would you say that accepting anthropological facts and cultural realities is disrespectful, I ask again? Isn't it disrespectful to humanity and nature to want to cover facts with lies to support a false self image of reality?
Whenever you use key-words as "facts", "nature", "realities", you should be really careful about actually knowing what you are talking about. It is easy to just adopt so-called "facts" and "naturally given circumstances" from anywhere and use them to argue your way through life.
Actually, I am quite shocked how deeply this thread is filled with folk psychology, behaviorism, biologism and sexist BS.
The best part was when the oppression and objectification of women in our society throughout history forcing them into a position where their only possibility to survive was to subject to a man's rule has lead to the conclusion that women are by nature money-eating power-addicted brainless creatures whose only goal in life is finding a safe haven for themselves and their possible offspring.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible...
There might be little more to a relationship than sex, money and power, but maybe you guys will figure that out yourselves sometime
As to your claim of "folk" this and that, why don't you claim that aristotle and plato were "folk" thinkers?
Condescension is the last resort of a poor argument and a poor thinker. As a tidbit for you, the females of ape tribes are polygamous with a single male. they all together choose a single male for themselves as multiple females. This male tends to have a bunch of favorable factors that puts him ahead of others.
The other way round: of course literally every man secretly dreams of having as many women as possible..
Again, a factor of genetics. Just like all men secretly are attracted to the average, average, average age of 17 as the ideal female, even though feminists want to raise the age of consent again and again to prevent competition from making them old maids.
The real question I suppose to ask is: Do you agree or disagree with natural selection and evolution? What is the weight of 100 or so years of thought compared to 100 million years of trial and error? Personal ideas of what is correct and proper for society will rise and fall along with societies. Nature has never fallen. If it did, man would no longer exist.
On December 19 2011 10:27 Iodem wrote: Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
What do you guys think? It makes me think of a controversial topic- whether it is a 'privilege to reproduce' or is it a 'right to reproduce.'
As I think it is immoral for humanity to 'progress intellectually' at the extent of others, so with what knowledge I have currently, I'd probably be against polygamy being legalized.
eugenics does in fact occur in nature. the healthy wealthy more intelligent bearing more offspring would be proof of that. Of course he's correct, buit it is politically incorrect to say so, because "all men are created equal" even when the numbers prove otherwise. People entrenched in the dogma will discredit such ideas with personal bias and magical thinking rather than rationality and some logical process.
of course what this person is saying is actually factual. Die hard Faithists in the fairy tale world of "genes and genetics have no power to create inequality in man" ignore it.
Drawing parallels from even closely related primates is very dangerous. Chimpanzees and bonobos are closest to us in the tree of life, and yet look at how different they are in behavior.
The argument isn't that genes have no power. The real questions you're not asking are: How do genes influence THIS behavior? What is the net reproductive gain? In what situations? What is their contribution, their mechanism, and the co-occuring environmental inputs that result in this specific behavior?
I'll give you an example (see note at bottom). Serotonin is a neurotransmitter in the brain that has been linked to aggression, among other behaviors. Now, suppose naturally occurring genetic variation results in receptors that bind serotonin with differing affinity and/or differing levels of activation. Variants of the receptor that bind serotonin weakly have been found to be overrepresented in prison populations among those who have committed violent crime. Suppose also that longitudinal studies find people with these variants to be at higher risk of committing violent crime. Should we then declare our work done and that violent crime is partially genetic?
No, that would be a gross mistake. Because as it turns out, the mechanisms are critical. A simple wikipedia search dispels that by showing all the different ways that serotonin can influence behavior. Even more importantly, in the last decade, we've found many many examples where gene regulation results in very different behavioral outcomes depending on the environment. Epigenetics actually has a massive influence on this feedback loop between genetics and environment.
Before chalking something up to "genetics", it's worthwhile to examine the exact claim that is being made. Furthermore, note that heritability is not notable, it's the amount of variation in behavior that is predicted by the variation in genetics that is interesting. So, without pinning down a panel of candidate genes and/or their regulatory state, it's very difficult to make a solid claim about genetics and behavior.
I'll summarise. The main criticisms that I and several others in this thread have of genetic explanations as touted by the popular media are:
1. Current evidence is insufficient to draw strong conclusions. 2. Not accounting for nuances in how genes work. 3. Overrepresenting the amount of behavioral variation that is explained by genetic variation, and that's not even counting in epigenetic changes caused by cultural or other environmental inputs. 4. Underaccounting for the variation caused by cultural/environmental input. 5. Last, but not least, the whole "it's inborn!" bullcrap that's basically a cop-out. Details matter.
Note about serotonin example: I've read the papers, but it was some months ago and some details might be slightly inaccurate, so take it as a hypothetical example, it still works.
I sincerely appreciate your efforts at articulating the viewpoint of the not-completely-ignorant members of this thread. But for your own sake I hope you're willing to let the troll have his bottle when he inevitably strawmans the living hell out of everything you say in the most condescending manner imaginable.
On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote: I wonder why polygamy is illegal
There is a very good reason polygamy is illegal. If it is not, we end up with the same situation as with money, 1% of the men would have more than 50% of the women. And this is also what happened in ancient societies, leaders would have harems of hundreds of women while farmers would be single for their entire life. This is not a stable ground for a society. Monogamy makes sure that everybody at least has the potential to get a mate.
"If gay marriage is legalised, everyone will start marrying people of the same sex!"
That's not how it works. If polygamy is legalised, then people who want to have a polygamous marriage will marry multiple people. And people who want to have a monogamous marriage (i.e. the majority of people) will marry one person.
Except that not everybody in the world is gay....Though almost everybody in the world has an interest in sex/marriage. Do you see, now, why your attempt at a slippery slope doesn't work?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
Because women typically follow the money...
If that's the case, then why do we not see this in cohabitation? After all, there are no legal restrictions in place to prevent multi-habitation.
On December 19 2011 10:27 Iodem wrote: Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
What do you guys think? It makes me think of a controversial topic- whether it is a 'privilege to reproduce' or is it a 'right to reproduce.'
As I think it is immoral for humanity to 'progress intellectually' at the extent of others, so with what knowledge I have currently, I'd probably be against polygamy being legalized.
Thats a strange video about the topic
Also, Lee Kuan Yew has strong biases and comparatively little science to back up his claims.
On December 19 2011 10:27 Iodem wrote: Interestingly related to this topic of 'what if 1% of men get 50% of the women?' I remember seeing video on youtube about Lee Kuan Yew discussing race and intelligence(more like just quotes, on second thought), and coincided China's higher IQ to polygamy. He argues that in 16/17th century China, the 'successful merchant' would take many women, and the 'dumb and slow farmer' would get none, bringing about a smarter population. Now, I have no idea how accurate or true this is(saw it on the internet, must be true! ), but it makes some sense to me.
What do you guys think? It makes me think of a controversial topic- whether it is a 'privilege to reproduce' or is it a 'right to reproduce.'
As I think it is immoral for humanity to 'progress intellectually' at the extent of others, so with what knowledge I have currently, I'd probably be against polygamy being legalized.
Thats a strange video about the topic
Social darwinism to explain variations of a measure as fucking dumb as the IQ.
Maybe we can add blood type theory to the mix in order to create the most stupid, biased, pseudo-scientific and borderline racist claims.
On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote: I wonder why polygamy is illegal
There is a very good reason polygamy is illegal. If it is not, we end up with the same situation as with money, 1% of the men would have more than 50% of the women. And this is also what happened in ancient societies, leaders would have harems of hundreds of women while farmers would be single for their entire life. This is not a stable ground for a society. Monogamy makes sure that everybody at least has the potential to get a mate.
"If gay marriage is legalised, everyone will start marrying people of the same sex!"
That's not how it works. If polygamy is legalised, then people who want to have a polygamous marriage will marry multiple people. And people who want to have a monogamous marriage (i.e. the majority of people) will marry one person.
Except that not everybody in the world is gay....Though almost everybody in the world has an interest in sex/marriage. Do you see, now, why your attempt at a slippery slope doesn't work?
Plus the fact that women have brains and 50% of them wouldn't all want to live with 1% of men. How does that make sense. Many women would prefer multiple husbands in addition..
On December 19 2011 14:25 Humanfails wrote: That wasn't a comment of ignorance, because feminists created the law Age of Consent in the first place. They are continuing to try to raise it in countries worldwide. This is not pertinent to the OP, but pertinent to you attempting to discredit an argument by calling it ignorance and simply re-quoting it.
You're dumber than bricks if you think the historical accuracy of your claim is what people were attacking. I'm sure age of consent laws had nothing to do with young girls being married off to their father's friends at the age of 12, (or 7 apparently, in Delaware lol), and everything to do with all feminists being bitter ugly old ladies concerned for only their own ability to attract men.
Your ability to spout out seemingly scientific "ideas" contrasted with crazy assertions like that make it impossible to take you seriously.
), but it makes some sense to me.
39648
2603
206
EPT
