Why Men Are Scum

[MSimon]

Ah. I am on the "Why Men Are Scum" thread. I guess I'll have to cut back on my alcohol intake.

[Diogenes]

I think your pushing back is very helpful. It improves my arguments.

No it doesn't.

So it is not a new idea for me. What amuses me is that the right is very attached to ascribing all this to morality when the cause is biology. Just as they have made drug taking a moral issue when it is in fact a biological one. You can fix small cracks in biology with morality. But you cannot fix chasms with it.

MSimon is acknowledging that drugs are fundamentally a biological problem?


Halleluia!! We are making some progress!

The left in America causes problems. The "Christian" right in America supports the causes long after the left has abandoned the causes. The left then tries to patch the problems. Causing more problems. You abhor the libertarians but a lot of this would sort itself out if we just left people alone.

No doubt, but mass death and societal collapse is not a desired interim stage. You did see this quote from this article?

Cocaine wasn't even illegal until 1914 -- 11 years after Coca-Cola's change -- but a massive surge in cocaine use was at its peak at the turn of the century. Recreational use increased five-fold in a period of less than two decades.

This has way more truth than people are willing to admit:

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.

This is an erroneous and simplistic caricature of the situation. Conservatives do not accept changes which are not improvements. Conservative arguments about the utility of following Judeo-Christian teachings are based on the success that these teachings have demonstrated over the last millenia.

[williatw]

From: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/02/0 ... -marriage/

In 1983, Marcia Guttentag and Robert Secord posited the theory that in female-heavy populations, men would become more promiscuous, and that in male-heavy populations, they’d become more faithful. Much of their thinking seemed to be confirmed in an analysis of 117 countries by Scott South and Katherine Trent. The pair found that, in developed countries, having a higher ratio of men led to more marriage for women, less divorce, and fewer illegitimate children. Other studies have had similar findings across cultures and time.



Well there are a LOT of men in prison. It seems to screw up the social culture of the groups that are targeted. And worst of all has given us rap music. Which often sounds a lot like rape music.

I am a little confused the title of the link is the "ascendancy of the alpha female". That is women running things..okay but if these so called alpha females get married in much lower numbers, and have few or even no kids compared to their less educated/successful female peers, how will they maintain their rule? Alpha males have ruled throughout history because they were quite good at propagating their genes often at the expense of “beta” males. Rich Martha Steward for instance has one kid by her ex, whom I believe is a lesbian, obviously the end of her genetic line. If she were a man she probably would have had multiple kids by different wives much younger than her. I mean Donald Trump had kids with all three of his wives, for instance, obviously passing his genes on. But if the most successful women have the least amount of kids, that would be selective pressure away from whatever genetic (or behavioral) qualities that make one an "alpha female", in favor of those less interested in career and more interested in having babies. Could that perhaps be the ultimate reason why alpha males have been more common throughout history than alpha females? Maybe more than sexism or discrimination? Just like tolerating homosexuality long term will lead to fewer gays, not more of them. Society pressuring everyone including gays to marry and produce offspring just led to more propagation of whatever genes disposes one to be gay. Homosexuals left to their own devices would only hook up mostly with other gays producing few offspring a self-limiting process.

Yes to all of that. I think the title of the piece was semi ironic.

Funny enough getting gays to commit to each other reduces the chances that they will interact with females. Of course conservatives are against it. It is ironic that anger tends to produces more of what you are angry about.

If you try to push people in a direction they will go in the opposite direction. Otherwise they will do as they darnn well please.

Of course the story in China is quite different:

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/02/ ... r-economy/


So in China the selective pressure are men competing for a lesser pool of women. China's one child per couple policy combined with a cultural preference for boys over girls created a sexual imbalance that seems to have kick started a sort of unintended eugenics. That is men are being ruthlessly selected by the women in terms of wealth, power, success. Contributing enormously to China's current economic development, and to no doubt its future genetic endowment, the opposite of what is happening here. I would say we are in trouble, hope Musk succeeds, otherwise it will be China that colonizes Mars (bank of China) instead of us.