It's not enough to have to remember birthdays, Valentine Days, and anniversaries for ONE woman for you?
It's not enough to have to remember birthdays, Valentine Days, and anniversaries for ONE woman for you?
OP must have got caught cheating and is justifying his lack of remorse.
They have a word for people who lack remorse...
Ultra > Marathon wrote:
OP must have got caught cheating and is justifying his lack of remorse.
They have a word for people who lack remorse...
Which word? Impeached or acquitted?
Someonewhoknows wrote:
Not a non-sequitur (the word you meant to use). You pointed to gorillas as evidence of how we should behave. I pointed out that they behave in ways most humans, including you, would find objectionable. You are making an assumption about polygamy in our DNA. I personally don't care what consenting adults do, but you don't know sh!t.
Jeff Bezos, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump. What do all these leaders of the "free" world have in common? They are all polygamous. Do you find your leaders "objectionable"?
You have mistaken this running message board for a Jerry Springer show. Sad.
I need jamin's input before I decide what to think about this issue.
Shall we also fling our feces at zoo visitors, like they do?
pffft wrote:
Shall we also fling our feces at zoo visitors, like they do?
Human prisoners already do fling feces, same with human toddlers if given the chance. So, yes.
That is a really good read, thank you.
Please record and post that here, the next time you do.
>primates do something
>therefore we should do this thing
(appeal to nature, nothing new)
>monkeys do this bad thing, so should we also do that?
>we already do that thing
You're not making any substantive argument, you're just being autistic.
i uhhhhhhhhh wrote:
>primates do something
>therefore we should do this thing
(appeal to nature, nothing new)
>monkeys do this bad thing, so should we also do that?
>we already do that thing
You're not making any substantive argument, you're just being autistic.
Lol the domination continues.
Babar wrote:
It is simply unnatural for humans to "marry" and only have one mating partner for life. It goes against our innate primal instincts to have multiple mates.
I love when people bring up this argument, because it highlights the flamboyant hypocrisy of the person making the argument.
Other things that go against our innate primal instincts:
- Outlawing murder
- Eating processed foods
- Driving in a car
- Flying in a plane
- Using a computer
- Etc. Etc. Etc.
If you want to play the "goes against our instincts" argument, you can't just pick and choose which categories that applies to.
Babar wrote:
Clarence wrote:
There are many naturally monogamous creatures in the animal kingdom, humans included. Polygamy
But our closest animal relatives are the gorillas, chimpanzees, and pics. We share like 99.7% of our generic material with them and they are all polygamous. It is written into our genes to have multiple mates. The current societal thinking of "marriage" should be abolished.
What a shame that this shallow, me-first, consequences-to-others-be-damned mentality is becoming the norm.
I miss the days when being a productive member of society and an honorable person were what men strove for. Now it’s all about whatever “entertainment” one can get from the moment.
For those who think and live like this, I’ve got to think it’s a pretty empty feeling at the end of one’s life to realize what a vapid and meaningless existence one led.
Which makes me now wonder why I’m on this stupid site.
Babar wrote:
If you look at the animal kingdom you will see being polygamous is the norm. Like gorillas have multiple mating partners. It is simply unnatural for humans to "marry" and only have one mating partner for life. It goes against our innate primal instincts to have multiple mates. The extremely high rate of divorces in America proves my point.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160213-why-pairing-up-for-life-is-hardly-ever-a-good-idea
As a start, we are not gorillas controlled by "our innate primal instincts". At point in our evolution most societies determined it was advantageous to settle down with just one mate.
Babar wrote:
Someonewhoknows wrote:
Not a non-sequitur (the word you meant to use). You pointed to gorillas as evidence of how we should behave. I pointed out that they behave in ways most humans, including you, would find objectionable. You are making an assumption about polygamy in our DNA. I personally don't care what consenting adults do, but you don't know sh!t.
Jeff Bezos, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump. What do all these leaders of the "free" world have in common? They are all polygamous. Do you find your leaders "objectionable"?
The objectionable part was the murder part, their social groups that would leave out a Beta like you. So, you not only don't know anything about DNA driving polygamy, you are also just generally stupid. I just said I don't care what consenting adults do with regard to having multiple partners. That is between them and their spouse if they have one. Once again, you don't know sh!t. Have any view you want on polygamy, but you know nothing about our DNA and its connection to it or to gorillas. Ridiculous for you to say so. You're an idiot.
comedyrelief wrote:
Unfortunately basing your behavior on that of animals is a terrible idea in modern life. Procreating like an animal served people just fine when we lived in small troops, had high rates of child mortality, had much lower rates of STDs and lived to be 40 years old. It does not work as well when you live to your 80s, have high rates of STDs, and enough modern medicine to keep pretty much every child alive to adulthood. The reason for the growing divide between the haves and the have nots is this country is because those at the low end still live their lives on their evolutionary urges having kids outside of wedlock at a young age, obtaining STDs at a much higher rate and generally becoming a drain on society. So go ahead, live your life like a gorilla and vote for Bernie Sanders to save you from your poor lifestyle choices.
Pretty sure the haves do this at a higher rate.
Td stocks and bizzcoin wrote:
Its is definitely human instinct to have multiple mates. Yet why do many humans desire one mate and hope like hell they are not cheated on? I think having one mate also fulfills the natural human desire/need for a love mate. We as humans have about 8-10 essential needs over time for prolonged happiness. Now a person can go even a long while without a love mate and be happy but eventually the human wants to settle down with an individual to fulfill the natural human desire for a love mate. I also believe that men and women cheat for different reasons with the cheating women filling an emotional void and the cheating men fulfilling desire to just get a new piece of meat per se.
+2 Ultimately , I want to find a life long partner who wants to spend time and be with me. Hard to find as you get older.
Precious Roy wrote:
Young gorillas don't need therapy when the silverback calls them into the living room to tell them that he isn't going to live with them anymore because he is moving in with his secretary gorilla from work.
Lol
Then you would be wrong:
What Increases The Risks Of An Illegitimate Birth?
57% of women who gave birth to a child when they were not married did not have a high school diploma.
Living below the state’s median income level increases the chances of having an out of wedlock birth by 67%.
As income levels increase, the rates of illegitimacy drop. For households that earned at least $200k, the illegitimate birth rate was just 9%.
The illegitimate birth rate for women making less than $10k per year: 68.9%.
Only 8.8% of the total illegitimate births were to women who had a 4 year college degree in any subject area.
Rate of STI diagnoses
14.7% (1.4%) Poorest Quintile
10.6% (1.2%) 2nd Poorest Quintile
8.3% (0.9%) Middle Quintile
7.4% (0.7%) 2nd Richest Quintile
5.2% (0.6%) Richest Quintile