Religion, Sex and Vulgarity

[The Atheist]

As for survival of the fittest - isn't that meaning survival of the one who best fits the situation rather than than the biggest/ strongest? A group has a better chance of survival than an individual. Ok so the group might be Big Baz and his mates - but they still have to co-operate as a group with inter group rules too.

I guess it depends on how many survivors there are, but someone's going to want to be boss, and I'm seeing hairy knuckles being more likely to run the group than the guy with the bright ideas.

In the long term, a cooperative group maximising its resources is definitely the likeliest to survive nature, but the problem is, I wonder whether they'd get the chance to do so because the hairy knuckles will just kill and eat the nerd group. Taken away from our current evolved status, I suspect we might just become extinct quite quickly.

[JuniperWoolf]

As an offtopic comment, the idea that groups are always irrational is sort of debatable since there are situations where crowds as a collective might make better judgements than the individuals. There are some hypothesi that on certain conditions( diversity of opinion, independence,decentralisation and aggregation) the crowd may be smarter than all of its members.

Yeah, the whole "wisdom of crowds" debate... that could be a whole other thread unto itself. For my part, I've gone into it a lot and I doubt it's validity. There are other scientists with a better background in psychology than me who would argue that it's plausable, and still other specialists who would say that it's a crappy parlour trick. Here's a youtube video that you might like about a "psychologist" who attempts to prove the theory and just winds up lying to everyone and looking like a jackass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DODGR...os=GcUIPbaDSes

Go to part 5 for Captian Dis's debunk.

Crowd behavior is a pretty interesting subject, there are people who dedicate their entire lives to it (sociologists).

Arranged marriage is not a business contract. It's not about conveniance and survival either. It is the Asian alternative to our "love" marriages.

Well alright, then what is marriage (and I'm talking about both arranged and the newfangled "love" marriages that we have in the west)? You pool your resources with another person, you create offspring and you take different roles in caring for them. That's the purpose of marriage, right? It's a partnership, a business contract. The business is the creation an upbringing of babies so that the species survives. Love doesn't even have to enter into the equation.

Maybe - I think serial monogamy is more likely and is normal now. Polygamy brings problems. Or did you mean polyandry? The only place I know of that has this system is Tibet. this was instilled in order to keep land and property together for economic reasons. A woman would be married to a man and his brothers in the full sense of the word.

Nah, I meant polygynandry.

Poly = many
gyn = female
andre = male

It's like a tribe where the members mate with basically whoever. A fantastic example is the bonobos. They're these cool little type of chimp (which means that they're our first cousins). Basically every female in the tribe mates with every male, breeding is a group thing. Because the males can't be sure which of the offspring are theirs, they take care of ALL of the offspring equally. Bonobos are the most peaceful out of all primates (including ourselves). Serial monogomy might be a possability, too. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Interestingly, in China, due to the restrictions on births imposed by the government and the cultural preference for a male child - I read that there will be millions of chinese men who will not be able to find a female partner. This puts the women in a very powerful position, but whether it will produce significant differences in attitudes to women remains to be seen. (I hope it does by the way. )

Yeah, I've been looking forward to seeing how that situation turns out. Serves them right for literally sending their daughters "up the river."

No it's not a science. They don't take science courses, math courses, they don't take calculus, they don't take biology. They may take some simplified course material, but it has no rigor of scinece and scientific experimentation or mathematical underpinnings. My brother has his PhD in Anthropology and is a professor of anthropology. It's not science.

Anthropology follows the emperical method of inquiry. If I wanted to do an experiment right now to see how salt effects the growth of one's lawn, and I built the experiment properly and with a good control, my results would still be valid despite the fact that I don't have any advanced calculus degrees. A piece of paper doesn't mean squat if the methodology is correct, my degree wouldn't effect the results at all.

[OrphanPip]

There's amazing research done on bonobos. I've seen video of them playing Pac-Man, lighting fires with cigarette lighters, and learning sign language. They're amazingly smart, I can't help but wonder how people disbelieve humans evolved from apes when you see the bonobo.

The use of sex in bonobo social structures is really interesting too. Although, they fondle their offspring to calm them when stressed, so I wouldn't be too quick to model our society after theirs lol. Mutual masturbation is also a common greeting amongst bonobo, males will often present erections to human keepers.

Unfortunately, they're endangered and happen to be located in one of the most dangerous countries in Africa.

Edit:

@Jozanny

Male, there's extensive information about me on my blog if you're really curious haha. (and two very bad poems)

[Virgil]

Sorry I still disagree as to Anthropology. They do not take regular science or math classes nor do they even take statistics. Anthropology is part of the Liberal Arts departments not the Science, and so they have different pre-requisites and curriculumn. They are not scientists.

There is a world of difference between what social scientists consider knowledge and what scientists consider fact. Let me put it to you this way: there is a world of difference between Darwin (scientist) and Freud (social science crap).

[Jozanny]

Sorry I still disagree as to Anthropology. They do not take regular science or math classes nor do they even take statistics. Anthropology is part of the Liberal Arts departments not the Science, and so they have different pre-requisites and curriculumn. They are not scientists.

There is a world of difference between what social scientists consider knowledge and what scientists consider fact. Let me put it to you this way: there is a world of difference between Darwin (scientist) and Freud (social science crap).

Do you have less limiting diction when it comes to disparaging what isn't godspel in your worldview? Anthropology isn't astro-physics, but as the study of humanity it is a science, within certain parameters; it intersects with biology, forensics, and a number of other disciplines, and doesn't fall under mild epithets for feces. It is certainly more valuable than Catholicism's history of torture and child abuse and then covering all this up for the sake of protecting the divine sanction of the so called Church.

[JuniperWoolf]

Also, the things that we've discussed so far are also supported by similar findings in biology and science psychology which is actually where I initially learned this stuff (unless you're now proposing that biology and science psychology aren't sciences either).

And furthermore (at least in my school), anthropology students are required to take two years of statistics. Their knowledge in mathematics is further expanded once they get to grad school. They're not idiots, Virgil. They know their own field.

[blazeofglory]

There's amazing research done on bonobos. I've seen video of them playing Pac-Man, lighting fires with cigarette lighters, and learning sign language. They're amazingly smart, I can't help but wonder how people disbelieve humans evolved from apes when you see the bonobo.

The use of sex in bonobo social structures is really interesting too. Although, they fondle their offspring to calm them when stressed, so I wouldn't be too quick to model our society after theirs lol. Mutual masturbation is also a common greeting amongst bonobo, males will often present erections to human keepers.

Unfortunately, they're endangered and happen to be located in one of the most dangerous countries in Africa.

Edit:



@Jozanny

Male, there's extensive information about me on my blog if you're really curious haha. (and two very bad poems)

They, bonobos, may be the real and only representatives of what man is, unconditioned, before religions tabooed sex, before nudity is considered obscene. Religions, cultures, ethics have crippled humans, and now why there is too much homosexuality and rape in society. The main and only reason is suppression, the free and natural transactions between genders. Once the lid of the religion and ethics is lifted again we will back to the bonobos system. However I am also not advocating that we must model our cultures into theirs and this will create havocs

[MarkBastable]

Religions, cultures, ethics have crippled humans, and now why there is too much homosexuality and rape in society.

Would you like to expand on this view a little?

[blazeofglory]

Would you like to expand on this view a little?

In fact this is in response to Orphampip's beautiful idea and I simply infused mine. I believe in nature. I take nature as a role mode. I feel that the farther we go from our natural state where instincts play a pivotal role not the manmade, man become more stress –driven. That said I cannot say we will take on a reverse course abruptly.

[The Atheist]

There's amazing research done on bonobos.

Yeah, it's fascinating and I commend anyone to take a look at it.

...there is too much homosexuality and rape in society...

I trust you're not suggesting homosexuality is any way analogous to rape.

What is wrong with or unnatural about homosexuality?

[JuniperWoolf]

Everyone loves a good bonobo.

I once saw video footage of an experiment done where they threw a bunch of bananas into the middle of a group of bonobos who hadn't had any dinner yet. With chimps they would have started shoving each other and fighting over the food. The bonobos just sort of got all stressed out, then all of them just immediately started humping each other. They finished up, and then leisurely ate the bananas. Now THAT'S good problem solving.

[MarkBastable]

Religions, cultures, ethics have crippled humans, and now why there is too much homosexuality and rape in society.

If there's too much, though, what would be the right amount of each?

[blazeofglory]

Yeah, it's fascinating and I commend anyone to take a look at it.



I trust you're not suggesting homosexuality is any way analogous to rape.

What is wrong with or unnatural about homosexuality?

I do not try finding unnatural elements with homosexuality but still heterosexuals are more natural. It is more operational. And in some society homosexuals have yet to have acceptance. Yet I do not profess acceptance and non-acceptance has anything to do with the idea of right or wrong in point of fact. In some society homosexuals are as horrified rapists, but yet in rape there is incursion.

I do not want argue here for or against homosexuality. All I want to point out is I support the idea of natural behavior in sexual matters and want to raise certain objections against our taboos, rules laden social systems

[JuniperWoolf]

I used to work for a Lebonese family. They seriously do view homosexuality in the same light as we do, say, raping babies. Talk about effed up priorities...

[blazeofglory]

If there's too much, though, what would be the right amount of each?

This is not a question of 'right amount' and "wrong amount' of each of them. It is about human values, beliefs and human attitudes towards the use and abuse of these behaviors in a certain social setup