The ten solitudes of Toronto dating

[fuji]

And those reasons were shown to be erroneous.

No, they were not. You pedantically argued with everything under the sun, apparently because you're just a disagreeable person. If I said my argument depended on fire being hot you would argue with that too. You've gone off on irrelevant side-shows, you've stonewalled, you've made false claims about "naturalistic fallacies", you've done everything you can to throw up as much sand in the air as possible.

At the end of the day you've failed to get to the substance of the point. You've been reduced to this sort of stupidity:

You still haven't overcome what any evolutionary biologist knows, that ANY link between sexual reproduction and genetic diversity is tenuous.

You're full of shit. The benefits of genetic diversity are well known, and the relationship to reproduction pretty fucking obvious. Google will help you, try "advantages of genetic diversity".

Now, I at least cited known exampes from primatology

Irrelevant. It's been pointed out that is compatible with cheating.

Yes, extra pair bonding has been a part of human history and still is

Q.E.D.

Really. That was the point to be demonstrated, we are done. It's a part of our heritage. It's part of who we are.

For instance, you seek to make cheating hardwired. No evidence for that.

Attacking a straw man. I never said that. I said that the desire to have multiple partners is hardwired. I said the desire to force your partners to be monogamous is hardwired.

The evidence for both of those claims is in fact obvious to any living human being, besides being evident in the literature and in the research.

I never said there was

I don't care what you proclaim on this matter.

So in response to me pointing out that you are a dishonest lying deceitful person, who misrepresented me, your reply is that you don't care. OK, maybe you don't care that you are lying, dishonest, deceitful person.

I'm done with you.

You can't just go around misrepresenting what people say and then say "I don't care" when they correct your misrepresentations. You have to actually reply to the points other people made, not the points you pretend they made.

 

[fuji]

Yes, it is. You wrote and I quoted you saying that if cheating is not hardwired then how could someone explain porn and SP's.

Yes, I am asking how you explain porn an SPs, in the case where attraction to multiple partners is not hardwired. It was a question, the point of which being that your monogamous pair bonding theory fails to explain the observations we have, namely, that people are wildly and deeply sexually attracted to many members of the opposite sex, and continue to be even after they pair bond.

Your monogamous pair bond theory is incompatible with that sort of observation and refuted by it.

Does that prove my theory? No. But it does leave my theory as the last one still standing, which is how science proceeds. It leaves my theory as being the only one that hasn't been disproven.

 

[cye]

If our society sanctions cheating what about those societies that permitted the male to have as many wives as he could afford. I think it is ethnocentric to view monogamous pair bonding as the norm . Religion has done more to define the relationships between man and woman then any natural force. There has always been a need for sex only man has the ingenuity to riddle that pleasure with guilt.

 

[blackrock13]

If our society sanctions cheating what about those societies that permitted the male to have as many wives as he could afford. I think it is ethnocentric to view monogamous pair bonding as the norm . Religion has done more to define the relationships between man and woman then any natural force. There has always been a need for sex only man has the ingenuity to riddle that pleasure with guilt.

Only civilization and the rise of social standards/laws set down by ancient Empires, not just the rise of man. No matter what FUJI claims, cheating's not genetic or evolution.

He wouldn't know a gene if it bit his gazed over shriveled up member on the tip and he has clearly shown he has no idea of what legitimate evolutionary concepts are. Have you noticed, he's not offered any reference to back up his pontifications, although I'm sure he's searched high and low for a few. It's just his word and we know what that's worth.

 

[rld]

If our society sanctions cheating what about those societies that permitted the male to have as many wives as he could afford. I think it is ethnocentric to view monogamous pair bonding as the norm . Religion has done more to define the relationships between man and woman then any natural force. There has always been a need for sex only man has the ingenuity to riddle that pleasure with guilt.

written historical records have only existed in the blink of an eye of even human evolutionary time.

Cultural imperatives and recorded polygamy are the result of cultural influences, not darwinian mechanisms. Two different things.

 

[afterhours]

written historical records have only existed in the blink of an eye of even human evolutionary time.

Cultural imperatives and recorded polygamy are the result of cultural influences, not darwinian mechanisms. Two different things.

Don't know about darwin but speaking of polygamy and monogamy IMHO when a typical American billionaire is afraid to have many wives (as they all seem to) - that is a pathetic result of cultural influences.

 

[blackrock13]

Don't know about darwin but speaking of polygamy and monogamy IMHO when a typical American billionaire is afraid to have many wives (as they all seem to) - that is a pathetic result of cultural influences.

As far as I know, most typical american billionaires have one wife at a time,.It's the law. unless of course you can come up with a name or two for us.

 

[rld]

Don't know about darwin but speaking of polygamy and monogamy IMHO when a typical American billionaire is afraid to have many wives (as they all seem to) - that is a pathetic result of cultural influences.

There is no doubt that is a result of cultural influences. Whether or not it is pathetic is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[afterhours]

As far as I know, most typical american billionaires have one wife at a time,.It's the law. unless of course you can come up with a name or two for us.

In my view a proper and natural way of living in terms of monogamy vs. polygamy (if you can afford it) is to live like King Solomon, Hugh Hefner or Bin Laden's father.
Granted, it might require leaving the US and settling elsewhere (which I would not consider to be a huge loss).

 

[rld]

In my view a proper and natural way of living in terms of monogamy vs. polygamy (if you can afford it) is to live like King Solomon, Hugh Hefner or Bin Laden's father.
Granted, it might require leaving the US and settling elsewhere (which I would not consider to be a huge loss).

interestingly Hugh claims to have been monogamous during his marriages.

 

[afterhours]

interestingly Hugh claims to have been monogamous during his marriages.

yet another proof of inferiority of Western approach to polygamy

 

[blackrock13]

yet another proof of inferiority of Western approach to polygamy

Considering the trouble in marriages that cause the large divorce rate, with only one wife you have to remember on birthday or anniversary and have less chance of calling out the wrong name a inappropriate time and have only one mother in law. there are advantages of only one wife

 

[rld]

Considering the trouble in marriages that cause the large divorce rate, with only one wife you have to remember on birthday or anniversary and have less chance of calling out the wrong name a inappropriate time and have only one mother in law. there are advantages of only one wife

holy shit, can you imagine multiple mothers-in-law?

 

[blackrock13]

holy shit, can you imagine multiple mothers-in-law?

Not if I want to sleep tonight.

 

[fuji]

At which point you quote me noting what all evolutionary biologists take as a standard part of evolutionary theory, that the link between sexual reproduction and genetic diversity is tenuous.

If you believe that, then go inbreed. (Just like your mother did?)

I deleted your long, irrelevant, pedantic sand throw.

But you said "multiple sexual partners" means cheating.

No you absolute 'tard, that is not what I said.

So you DID say cheating is hardwired.

No you absolute 'tard, that is not what I said.

Then cite it.

Cite evidence that men are attracted to women???? This is known as "stonewalling", you have so desperately lost the debate you are asking for proof that fire is hot.

What I said was that I don't care if YOU think I misrepresent you. What you call a misrepresentation I call an accurate dissection of your bullshit.

You don't care because you live in a fantasy land of your own. In the real world if you want to debate with someone you can't attack a straw man and then claim victory. Anyone who does that, and then says that they don't care that they've done that, is a fucking retard.

Again, what's up with you falling right into logical fallacies all the time?! This is invalid, it is affirming the consequent, or the converse fallacy.

In that case so is all of science, you absolute 'tard.

First, is the attraction serial or overlapping?

Stonewalling. Question has been answered many times, you absolute 'tard.

You mean that humans monogamous pair bond alot?

Of course we do. Cheating is not a well defined concept in the absence of monogamous pair bonding, you 'tard.

 

[blackrock13]

I can imagine fuji trying to sleep with multiple mothers in law.

Keeping in mind the saying that the acorn seldom falls far from the tree, I've wondered if cheating was common in the FUJI family.

 

[fuji]

I can imagine fuji trying to sleep with multiple mothers in law.

Nope. Too old, I wouldn't be with a woman under 20, so her MIL would be closing on 40 which is too old for me. Maybe if the MIL had her daughter in her early teens or something--but in that case she's probably not my type.

 

[fuji]

The fact you see this as a response to a point well-known in genetics

I see it as evidence that your "point well-known in genetics" is irrelevant to the present debate. If you disagree, go inbreed.

Nice try. This is just you equivocating again.

What equivocation? The only person here disputing that men are attracted to women is you.

You were referring to cheating being hardwired and trying to force monogamy being hardwired.

No.

That you equivocate, swapping your meaning to "being attached to women" now

If you could read and comprehend English, which I doubt, you would know that in all my posts back to the beginning of this thread my position has been clear and the same:

1. We are inherently attracted to multiple partners

2. We are inherently motivated to prevent those partners from having other partners

Those desires are in conflict with one another. One resolution is to cheat, so we have a strong incentive to cheat.

Now unless you are retarded you will stop misrepresenting my position, stop attacking straw men, and deal with the argument as I've presented it. Except I don't think you will, I expect that you are in fact retarded. Literally. I think your IQ is below 80.

You clearly do not know science at all if you think the converse fallacy

We have two hypotheses that purport to explain the world we live in. One hypothesis is that human beings are inherently a monogamous pair bonding species. The other hypothesis is that while we engage in monogamous pair bonding behavior, we remain sexually interested in other partners. The fully monogamous hypothesis generates a prediction that people should lose their attracting to other possible mates, once they have pair bonded. By observation (the existence of porn, SP's, etc.) that is simply not true. Thus we can reject the hypothesis that we are a fully monogamous pair bonded species.

That does not prove the other hypothesis is true, nothing in science EVER proves a hypothesis true. What we can say is that the second hypothesis is currently better supported by the facts than any other hypothesis. That is not logical proof. That is, however, how science proceeds.

 

[blackrock13]

The fact you see this as a response to a point well-known in genetics, that genetic diversity is a function more of mutation rates than sexual reproduction per se, because according to Mendelian genetics allelic rates are preserved in crossing, just shows you don't know what you're talking about. And my Mother says hi, she feels sorry for you and wants to know if you would like some pie.



Nice try. This is just you equivocating again. You have to start realizing that not everyone is as dumb as your wife. We can see your trick. You were referring to cheating being hardwired and trying to force monogamy being hardwired. That you equivocate, swapping your meaning to "being attached to women" now, because you cannot cite evidence for either thing noted above being hardwired, just demonstrates how you lack the intellectual ability to debate anyone awake to your deceptions.

You clearly do not know science at all if you think the converse fallacy, the fallacy of affirming the consequent, characterizes all of science. Scientists seek to avoid affirming the consequent. You claimed that men liking porn and SP's can only be explained with reference to cheating being hardwired. Think it through and you will see the reasoning is fallacious.

Right now your slim intellectual abilities have been over-taxed.

Note you blather about genetic diversity and how it is produced, but conveniently skipped over the direct challenge to give the egg and sperm frequency for the variables noted. You cannot do simple Mendeilian segregation ratio's but think you know how genetic diversity is produced. You are the only one not seeing how stupid you look.

What you deleted was all the things you could not answer.

Maybe this is all cathartic for you? Maybe you like being humiliated? Maybe your talk of forcing women to do your bidding if you could is some displaced masochistic fantasy, so being humiliated here is your cowardly poor man's version? Just speculating buddy.

No matter what ramblings he posts, he still hasn't offered any creditable evidence to back his positions. It's strictly FUJI facts and pontifications. That says volumes. I can't remember anyone who has supported his point in recent weeks, now that he's shown what he really is, .

 

[fuji]

No matter what ramblings he posts, he still hasn't offered any creditable evidence to back his positions.

How would you know?

First, you aren't smart enough to pronounce on this.

Second, you supposedly have me on ignore, so you simply wouldn't know.

Guess you are lying about having me on ignore, and not smart enough to have thought of that when you posted this.