Monogamy is a bad system to Humans

Post Reply New Topic

ad hominem.

lol that figures!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! I'm sure you're aware that sex is not all about reproduction. Sex was created by God for reproduction (YES), but it was also created for us to show love to each other.

I think you just said it in terms of why you guys aren't leveling - many creationists really seem to feel that natural law doesn't exist because where all God's children or all created equal or whatever (I had a conversation just like this with Ragtime not too long ago). I think you need to reinvestigate God and the reality he's created a little bit. Not trying to crack on your ideas, just that I think a lot of our society's ills come from the 'rose colored glasses' social law to where people are more than in their right to cover their eyes to what they don't want to see or have to take into account.

Informal fallacy missing the point, with subtle hints of red herring, and a rich begging the question finish.

If you ever love a woman and she loves you it will be evident what I mean. If you read the Song of Solomon in the Bible you will see that God created sex for other purposes besides just reproduction.

I'm 41 years old and when I think of the guy that I have deep feelings for reproduction is the farthest thing from my mind. I'm not looking to mate with natures finest either, but I am looking for a one on one relationship with someone that I care about deeply. I feel comfortable saying that if you are looking for a relationship and have no desire to be monogamous you will never be totally happy. Why not stay at home and flip through a magazine if you don't want the emotional attachment that comes from a relationship?

Its both at the same time, and love is two things at the same time - a great emotion just as much as its merely a series of chemicals reacting within you compelling you to do what your genes created you to do. Its lofty from within, in the end its just like any other animal under the sun and of the billions of possible couples out there no one of them being particularly special in aggregate.

I think of one thing though, if we did have a society that could take things for what they are, not kill people with disabilities but just block them from reproduction and do so effectively, here's what I think would happen: bullying wouldn't be needed to crush a person's spirit young and grind them down to nothing. People with disabilities would probably be treated better just because they'd be less of a threat in the end. That and if someone really fell in love with you, nothing wrong there, you just couldn't have kids and would probably be chemically sterilized. A society that actually took this as a bottom line fact would try to buffer things, try to buffer the loss of those with disabilities (not having kids) by treating them better and constantly in small ways of saying "thank you for taking one for the team". The real trouble seems to be ignorance though.

The rose-colored glasses, don't make this a better reality - in fact ignoring real problems ends with everyone sweeping the darker side of humanity under the carpet, not addressing problems, not promoting personal responsibility, also not admitting to ourselves 'what' we really are as beings (having a soul or God being real or not all irrelevant because afterall, if the world functions like this and always has even with good people, and God created it, odds are he meant for it to work the way it does and meant for us to sort out our own problems accordingly).

sand, one more thing that I'll make note of though; I guess I'm not really promoting the polygamy angle here. What I do think has more to do with what I think with what our society has to come clean with itself about and what we need to face up to in order to really resolve our worst behaviors and biggest problems in terms of how our society functions.

I understand some of your reasoning, but not all. Let me state a few things that I feel. I in no way thing aspergers is a negative. Yes, it's a disability if a person allows it to be. I've had several (NORMAL) guys come on to me in the last year and I have turned each of them down. I have a thing for a guy that just happens to have a diagnoses of Aspergers and if anything it makes me like him more. I know it makes me understand him more. It's really no big deal to me if it makes him more comfortable to have a conversation in a dimly lit room. And I had much rather spend a few minutes with him in silence than listen to most people rattle on and on. He's kind, trusting, caring and truthful. These are all traits we need more of in the gene pool not less of. If I had it to do over I would have much rather he fathered my son than the narcissus jerk who actually did. And I still think sex without love is near meaningless!

Right, but these are traits all qualitative to him in terms of personality and who he is as a person; says volumes of good about him but doesn't say much about AS.


When we talk about the rest, AS as a disability. I think whether it ends up being more of a blessing than a curse or more of a curse than a blessing has everything to do with how it effects a person, to what extent they're effected, who they're surrounded by; and often enough the baggage is enough for it to be nothing more than a disability.

The other problem, genes are genes and they still pass traits. Unfortunately with AS, just like like dates like, society seems to when left to its own recourses funnel the same types of people together out of necessity - our society isn't tolerant and that goes way beyond AS or anything of that nature. That increases pairing just causes the harmful effects to deepen. I think the best way it can be explained is that AS is like sickle-cell anemia genes, a small amount and left recessive causes certain immunities with that, like with having a small number of autism genes seems to sharpen people rather than cause all the problems. The trouble is, unfortunately, when the natural process pulls itself off the map and starts going haywire it may one day need manual intervention.

Society may feel this way, but I do not. I'm the one that realized that he had Aspergers in the first place and I assured him I did not think it was a negative thing. Surely the people who fear it do so because they don't understand it. His upbringing was probably more harsh than the average. His mother passed away during his youth and he struggled with being different for many years. He turned out to be a great person in spite of all of this. Society needs to wake up and realize that there was only one PERFECT person and we crucified him. I look forward to a time when Aspergers draws no more attention than what color a person's hair does. When we start letting only certain people mate can genocide be far behind! If you look at it from another perspective there is probably very few people that qualify for the term genius that do not have Aspergers traits.

Anyone watched the film Idiocracy & you see what happens with 1 guy with many females lol

http://crackle.com/c/Movies_and_TV/Firs ... 2_/1714879

You obviously didn't read my later post:



That being said, Pandora's box has been opened. Letting small children with certain diseases die at very young ages now would seem very cruel when we have the ability to let them live. And if we're willing to let said children live, we have to be willing to let them perform all the functions associated with life as well.

Also, where the hell does "tall" enter into the equation? There are plenty of short healthy people and tall "defective" (by your logic) people.

P.S. Citing every logical fallacy you can find is an easy way to get labeled as a dick. I'm not personally going to do that because you would go "OMG TEH AD HOMINEMZORZ!! !!!11", but just keep that in mind...

Well said! I think people with Aspergers are a gift to society. I've been blessed to have been around a few and I find their shy gentleness very appealing. I can understand a COUPLE wanting to prevent certain birth defects though. No one wants to see their child die at an early age.

Yes I did. The health care thing is obviously true for more debilitating diseases, but the conclusion that we need to let the genetically dysfunctional reproduce simply because we have saved them simply does not follow (particularly if I were arguing that even the mediocre should be weeded out).
It should also be noted that natural selection also includes sexual selection, wherein one sex (in many cases the female) chooses to mate with only the best males, therefore exaggerating mild genetic inequalities' reproductive fitness effects. This is at the heart of what LePetitPrince has been talking about.


Just one among many possible traits to look for. Tall people tend to have better lives. Therefore, holding all things equal, if I could choose between having a short kid or having a tall kid, if I were interested in the well being of the child, I would have to choose tall.



My friend, I believe you just did do that.
The fact stands that many of the posts in this thread are beside the point, which if I were the OP, I would find disappointing if not insulting. I may be a dick, but people who post blatantly fallacious and irrelevant responses are disrespectful.

I fail to see how a society that holds eugenics as desirable would not end up Hitleresque. It is INEVITABLE. When you boil it down to basics, you are eliminating something because you don't think it is good enough. And yes, one person, or one society, is deciding what is good and what is bad. It's simple. Pale skin is good- everything else is bad- kill off. High Iqs are good, anything below a 110, kill off. It's what you are deciding is good for everyone based on what you think is good for the world.

It's not like the greatest minds in the world didnt suffer from heart disease, cancer, depression or looked like the stereotypical beauty.