HOOWIE wrote:
don't try and make me feel inferior because I decided to marry my girlfriend of 7+ years.
Thing is : nobody tried to convince you it is better and you're inferior. LM was just explaining how he lives with his wife and how they're both happy with it. That's it. You're the one who keeps being judgemental here.
European woman wrote:
HOOWIE wrote:
don't try and make me feel inferior because I decided to marry my girlfriend of 7+ years.
Thing is : nobody tried to convince you it is better and you're inferior. LM was just explaining how he lives with his wife and how they're both happy with it. That's it. You're the one who keeps being judgemental here.
Please understand I am trolling. I did not read a single word of this thread and impulsively went on an anti-poly amorous rant for my own amusement. Carry on.
theRed wrote:
Obvi wrote:
OK, so plenty of evidence that people were not primarily monogamous during the majority of human evolution. I think that is clear.
But zero evidence that: "Evolutionary, most humans were serial monogamists, having many monogamous relationships to bring kids to an age when they were more easily cared for by the group, perhaps age 5 or so. "
That's what I thought. There is nothing to support that statement. Just, other people have said the same statement, therefore it must be true. No scientific evidence whatsoever.
That is quite the stretch from that comment. If one person fails to, or perhaps misunderstands, what evidence you're looking for that doesn't mean said evidence does not exist.
Logically, I'm not sure what's left if you take away monogamy and serial monogamy. Either polygamy, which seems unlikely, or just sex with zero pair bonding leaving the females entirely to raise the kid. Also seems unlikely, and would suggest that monogamy is even MORE unatural for humans if our biological hard-wiring is for sex with no pair bonding at all.
. . .
OK, I'll give you that it is a stretch to go from one person being unable to support an argument with any scientifically valid evidence to concluding that no scientifically valid evidence exists. But now you come on and also provide zero scientific evidence to support the proposition. So we are at two. This time, I'll try to avoid the stretch and simply say that zero scientifically valid evidence has been presented in this thread to support said proposition.
And you know what else is a stretch? This:
"Logically, I'm not sure what's left if you take away monogamy and serial monogamy. Either polygamy, which seems unlikely, or just sex with zero pair bonding leaving the females entirely to raise the kid. Also seems unlikely, and would suggest that monogamy is even MORE unatural for humans if our biological hard-wiring is for sex with no pair bonding at all."
That is a huge stretch.
Polygamy seems unlikely because . . . ? No reason given
Zero pair bonding leaves the females entirely to raise the kid? Not even remotely true
Also, for those who like to present the "Male-female monogamous bond for 6 years until kid reaches some level of autonomy followed by switch in 6 year partner" hypothesis - what happens with all the kids produced by that pair during that 6 year period? Most likely, the female at the end of those 6 years has a 6 year-old, a 4 year-old, a 3 year-old and a 1 year-old (and is currently pregnant). Only the oldest one has reached the semi-autonomous maturity level that folks cite. Doesn't seem to mesh very well with the neat picture people try to paint of this arrangement.
Banana Bread wrote:
+1. I hate the word parallel. I also hate the use of the words "vibrations" and "energy" by these people. They are just making up crap. Another thing I hate about these places where people go to practice the teachings is the crappy food they sell. If you go to the coffee shop of one of these yoga type places they sell crappy "paleo" slices of cake. They are so tiny and so overpriced and advertised as so good but you can go somewhere else and get a slice of cake much bigger for much less and it isn't going to be that bad quality. What idiot is going to spend $5 on a paleo brownie that you can finish in 3 bites?
This post ^ is pure genius.
"They are just making up crap" !!! This, from a guy who tries to convince others of the relevance, nay, the supreme importance, of an invisible but all-powerful man in the sky!
Pure genius, I tell you.
+10,000
Flounder wrote:
Random Schmo wrote:
Speaking strictly in terms of evolution and survival of species, humans are "winning." There are 7billion+ of us on the planet...
Humans are nothing more than sentient bacteria incubators. The bacteria are winning.
LMAO. This is pretty great. Supposedly bacteria number similar to our own cells.
Are human beings meant to lick our own a$$holes? Dogs do?
LM wrote:
Flounder wrote:
Humans are nothing more than sentient bacteria incubators. The bacteria are winning.
LMAO. This is pretty great. Supposedly bacteria number similar to our own cells.
Haha. Yeah, I suppose certain species of bacteria (as well as a bunch of other ish of which I am unawarez) have been more successful than humans. By "winning" i meant that we are pretty darn successful as a species - There are so many of us that we are running out of room for everyone on Earth!! LM - you know you could go get a PhD and make better use of your time by publishing your research in a peer-reviewed journal as opposed to the LetsRun message board! JK:)