Consider what this line of non-thinking non-theory truly means.
First of all, look at the evidence against this sick, psychopathic notion. The most basic of common-sense observations easily contradicts this pseudo-theory. A male that has optimal genetic material, evidenced by his phenotype, appearance, characteristics, traits -- has no problem getting women to accept his genetic material.
The female is the one that has to invest an enormous energy, time, nutrients, effort into the making of an organism. All biologists and evolutionists acknowledge this fact. Therefore she will be very discerning in her choice of genetic donor. Why would she waste time growing offspring that does not come from optimal male DNA?
Short answer -- she would not. Therefore, if a woman willingly accepts a male's DNA, he probably produces optimal genetic material.
On the other hand, if a male finds that no woman will willingly reproduce with him and therefore he chooses to resort to r---, this fact alone should tell him in and of itself that he does NOT possess optimal genetic material. A female that turns down a male is controlling for unwanted genes.
The only males that feel the need to resort to r--- are those that have undesirable, suboptimal genes. Alpha males do not have any trouble spreading their genetic material. They can do it without force. Secondary or beta males, etc. Only males that cannot get anyone to willingly accept their genetic material resort to r---.
Why are they trying to pollute the gene pool with their inferior, undesirable genes by committing r---? A r--ist must therefore do the entire gene pool of the species a favor and stop committing this crime.
Oh, what, you think that your genes are worth something? Sorry to tell you the truth, but genes are only worth the extent that someone else will accept them.
Oh, really r-- is justified by evolution because it leads to reproduction of a male r--ist's genes? Yeah, pull the other one, it plays Hail Mary. What else you got? Is looking at r--glorifying pr0n also because of evolution? How about video games that have r-- as one of the goals? Is that also covered under the insurance of evolution and reproduction?
How about the atrocities that transgressed at the lollapalooza rehash in 1999? I guess those sick assholes surrounding the r--ists and screaming, chanting egging them on with rants of "yeah, yeah, reproduce, create a zygote! continue your genes!" I guess they were rooting for the r--s to perpetuate their genes.
I'm thinking perhaps this is simply another territorial defense mechanism from insecure males. They see that women are entering science, mathematics, engineering, and technology fields in droves. And not only that -- we are good at it. So in a panicked frenzy of anger, bitterness, and resentment, they probably fumbled around, "Ohno! but-but-but-but what can we do to keep them out?? Umm, I dunno I dunno... I know! Let's tell women that "science" does not want them! Let's tell people that the sickest, most violent hate crime against women is perfectly justified and reasonable in the light of 'science!!' Ha! Perfect, that's it!"
The justification of this pseudo-theory seems to follow thusly: just propagate your genes as isolated molecular products, the cost to society and fellow human beings be damned.
However, by this logic, murder, armed robbery, and plain old stealing are also evolutionary. Murder is justified by evolution because if you murder someone, then you can take all their resources -- food, shelter, safety. This certainly contributes to your fitness as an organism, correct? Same with armed robbery.
That might very well have been what happened -- hundreds of thousands of years ago. Our very distant ancestors might have casually resorted to r--. They did in fact murder, steal, loot, pillage. That is precisely the reason that that is *not* evolution. The sort of behavior, which was rampant long ago and far enough back that the culprits were technically a different species, is not evolution. Being a violent, primitive criminal is not due to evolution.
If anyone tries to justify r-- under any sort of reasoning (as it were), they would have to either: concede that we as humans, as an evolved species, cannot continue to do this. To continue to commit crime would prove that we are not any more evolved than any other primates.
-Or- admit that we are not nearly as evolved as we should be. We are about as psychologically sound and solvent as the average baboon. We still only have the critical thinking skills of a gorilla, ergo we have a lot of catching up to do.
First of all, look at the evidence against this sick, psychopathic notion. The most basic of common-sense observations easily contradicts this pseudo-theory. A male that has optimal genetic material, evidenced by his phenotype, appearance, characteristics, traits -- has no problem getting women to accept his genetic material.
The female is the one that has to invest an enormous energy, time, nutrients, effort into the making of an organism. All biologists and evolutionists acknowledge this fact. Therefore she will be very discerning in her choice of genetic donor. Why would she waste time growing offspring that does not come from optimal male DNA?
Short answer -- she would not. Therefore, if a woman willingly accepts a male's DNA, he probably produces optimal genetic material.
On the other hand, if a male finds that no woman will willingly reproduce with him and therefore he chooses to resort to r---, this fact alone should tell him in and of itself that he does NOT possess optimal genetic material. A female that turns down a male is controlling for unwanted genes.
The only males that feel the need to resort to r--- are those that have undesirable, suboptimal genes. Alpha males do not have any trouble spreading their genetic material. They can do it without force. Secondary or beta males, etc. Only males that cannot get anyone to willingly accept their genetic material resort to r---.
Why are they trying to pollute the gene pool with their inferior, undesirable genes by committing r---? A r--ist must therefore do the entire gene pool of the species a favor and stop committing this crime.
Oh, what, you think that your genes are worth something? Sorry to tell you the truth, but genes are only worth the extent that someone else will accept them.
Oh, really r-- is justified by evolution because it leads to reproduction of a male r--ist's genes? Yeah, pull the other one, it plays Hail Mary. What else you got? Is looking at r--glorifying pr0n also because of evolution? How about video games that have r-- as one of the goals? Is that also covered under the insurance of evolution and reproduction?
How about the atrocities that transgressed at the lollapalooza rehash in 1999? I guess those sick assholes surrounding the r--ists and screaming, chanting egging them on with rants of "yeah, yeah, reproduce, create a zygote! continue your genes!" I guess they were rooting for the r--s to perpetuate their genes.
I'm thinking perhaps this is simply another territorial defense mechanism from insecure males. They see that women are entering science, mathematics, engineering, and technology fields in droves. And not only that -- we are good at it. So in a panicked frenzy of anger, bitterness, and resentment, they probably fumbled around, "Ohno! but-but-but-but what can we do to keep them out?? Umm, I dunno I dunno... I know! Let's tell women that "science" does not want them! Let's tell people that the sickest, most violent hate crime against women is perfectly justified and reasonable in the light of 'science!!' Ha! Perfect, that's it!"
The justification of this pseudo-theory seems to follow thusly: just propagate your genes as isolated molecular products, the cost to society and fellow human beings be damned.
However, by this logic, murder, armed robbery, and plain old stealing are also evolutionary. Murder is justified by evolution because if you murder someone, then you can take all their resources -- food, shelter, safety. This certainly contributes to your fitness as an organism, correct? Same with armed robbery.
That might very well have been what happened -- hundreds of thousands of years ago. Our very distant ancestors might have casually resorted to r--. They did in fact murder, steal, loot, pillage. That is precisely the reason that that is *not* evolution. The sort of behavior, which was rampant long ago and far enough back that the culprits were technically a different species, is not evolution. Being a violent, primitive criminal is not due to evolution.
If anyone tries to justify r-- under any sort of reasoning (as it were), they would have to either: concede that we as humans, as an evolved species, cannot continue to do this. To continue to commit crime would prove that we are not any more evolved than any other primates.
-Or- admit that we are not nearly as evolved as we should be. We are about as psychologically sound and solvent as the average baboon. We still only have the critical thinking skills of a gorilla, ergo we have a lot of catching up to do.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment