So the media keep saying that males are promiscuous due to evolution. That is the allegation.
The allegation is that males are spreading their genes around as widely as possible. The theory is as follows. According to de-evolved behavior of lower animals, simply churning out sheer numbers of offspring with no regard to the offspring's' survival or well-being is considered evolutionary fitness. Also, male gametes are plentiful and cheap to produce, house, store, nourish, and distribute. Procreation does not require much investment from the male donor. It does not cost the male organism much to reproduce in terms of health, food, water, shelter.
Both those theories together appear superficially to lead to the theory of male whorishness being due to evolution.
First of all, this is not evolution. I have spent a great amount of time explaining the reasoning from a moralistic, philosophical standpoint. Now I am also seeing quite a bit of compelling physical evidence that this is not true.
All over the internet in addition to women's rags and lad rags all say pretty much the same stories over and over again. Males are promiscuous two-bit whores. That is well-established in the general consensus of popular psyche. The evolutionists have taken this lowest-common-denominator brand of behavior -- and turned it into their cause célèbre`. They are trying their gosh-damnedest, straining and [[twisting and warping their logic processes to try to excuse this behavior.
Now here is even more evidence as to why promiscuity among male humans cannot be due to evolution. Let us refer again to those first-hand accounts that lad rags and female rags grace us with.
Pro-evolution is supposedly synonymous with pro-reproduction. However, promiscuous males and females are getting abortions left and right. Last time I checked, abortion cancels out reproduction.
An even more shocking revelation is becoming apparent in all these stories. It appears that males are more in favor of abortion than females are. A lot of these promiscuous males learn that a one-night stand person or a girlfriend person is pregnant. Then upon learning of this fact, the male demands she get an abortion. This [[experience, instance]]] is repeated with very minor variations throughout the internet and dating magazines.
They are consciously choosing to terminate the fetuses. Now, how in the hell is promiscuity supposed to be pro-evolution, i.e., pro-reproduction -- if those promiscuous males are doing away with the products and goals of said promiscuity -- the offspring?
In the course of typing this, I have stumbled upon a strange [[[theory]] as to why this might be the case. Remember that male gametes are cheap and require no great investment of time, energy, calories, metabolism, or biochemical input from the male to produce. Nor to reproduce.
It appears that human male slutss approach this selfsame theory from the opposite angle. Since they do not have to expend any energy nor time to house a pregnancy, to carry a pregnancy to term, to see the growth and [[production,, creation]] of an offspring through to the end --
This also means they do not have to expend much [[[moral __hemming and hawing,, to arrive at the decision to terminate a pregnancy. No moral quandary to have to struggle through. It would not require much work to create it, and it did not require much work to destroy it.
It appears they have no moral qualms towards the gruesome act of terminating a pregnancy.
The allegation is that males are spreading their genes around as widely as possible. The theory is as follows. According to de-evolved behavior of lower animals, simply churning out sheer numbers of offspring with no regard to the offspring's' survival or well-being is considered evolutionary fitness. Also, male gametes are plentiful and cheap to produce, house, store, nourish, and distribute. Procreation does not require much investment from the male donor. It does not cost the male organism much to reproduce in terms of health, food, water, shelter.
Both those theories together appear superficially to lead to the theory of male whorishness being due to evolution.
First of all, this is not evolution. I have spent a great amount of time explaining the reasoning from a moralistic, philosophical standpoint. Now I am also seeing quite a bit of compelling physical evidence that this is not true.
All over the internet in addition to women's rags and lad rags all say pretty much the same stories over and over again. Males are promiscuous two-bit whores. That is well-established in the general consensus of popular psyche. The evolutionists have taken this lowest-common-denominator brand of behavior -- and turned it into their cause célèbre`. They are trying their gosh-damnedest, straining and [[twisting and warping their logic processes to try to excuse this behavior.
Now here is even more evidence as to why promiscuity among male humans cannot be due to evolution. Let us refer again to those first-hand accounts that lad rags and female rags grace us with.
Pro-evolution is supposedly synonymous with pro-reproduction. However, promiscuous males and females are getting abortions left and right. Last time I checked, abortion cancels out reproduction.
An even more shocking revelation is becoming apparent in all these stories. It appears that males are more in favor of abortion than females are. A lot of these promiscuous males learn that a one-night stand person or a girlfriend person is pregnant. Then upon learning of this fact, the male demands she get an abortion. This [[experience, instance]]] is repeated with very minor variations throughout the internet and dating magazines.
They are consciously choosing to terminate the fetuses. Now, how in the hell is promiscuity supposed to be pro-evolution, i.e., pro-reproduction -- if those promiscuous males are doing away with the products and goals of said promiscuity -- the offspring?
In the course of typing this, I have stumbled upon a strange [[[theory]] as to why this might be the case. Remember that male gametes are cheap and require no great investment of time, energy, calories, metabolism, or biochemical input from the male to produce. Nor to reproduce.
It appears that human male slutss approach this selfsame theory from the opposite angle. Since they do not have to expend any energy nor time to house a pregnancy, to carry a pregnancy to term, to see the growth and [[production,, creation]] of an offspring through to the end --
This also means they do not have to expend much [[[moral __hemming and hawing,, to arrive at the decision to terminate a pregnancy. No moral quandary to have to struggle through. It would not require much work to create it, and it did not require much work to destroy it.
It appears they have no moral qualms towards the gruesome act of terminating a pregnancy.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment