ScornedStoic
St. Dancecel
★★★★★
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2018
- Posts
- 21,841
- Online
- 160d 9h 10m
Now, don't get it twisted, I myself am a naturalist, but a consistent one. These people will seriously say in one conversation that they're atheists, that they believe humans are animals, that we're part of the natural world, that homosexuality is natural because it's found in many animals.
But then when we point out that mating strategy is also the same in humans as it is in animals, find the best genes + provider of resources/protection, they lose their shit and start up the magical thinking. Oh, are YOU COMPARING US to ApEs?!? But we're obviously so much higher than animals, the fact that you're comparing women to ungulates searching for the male with the largest horns is UNBELIEVABLY reductive!!! Of course sex isn't the end all be all of life despite literally everything in biology and the natural world pointing us in that direction. Don't be silly, we're RATIONAL here.
Then they go completely non-scientific which is normally sacrilege for them, and start talking about romantic love which clearly is a male-only trait and is literally a drug fuelled hysteria that we objectively know is a sexually-selected evolved mechanism to force the naturally-wild-oats-sowing males to settle down. They proceed to completely ignore the innumerable cases of females deciding by either pragmatic love which only applies to males that can provide something of value, which isn't really love at all but love of the security and dependability the non-personality related traits she chose gives her, or by straight up betabuxxing an undesirable male because she missed her window.
I think it really throws off their tiny processors and gives them error messages that the natural state of about 95%+ of mammals and certainly all extremely successful ones are patriarchal in nature. The fact that we give women rights in a completely artificial environment and that those rights would instantly be voluntarily forfeited by women in the event of catastrophe goes right over their heads, I think.
I don't know, I find it funny is all.
But then when we point out that mating strategy is also the same in humans as it is in animals, find the best genes + provider of resources/protection, they lose their shit and start up the magical thinking. Oh, are YOU COMPARING US to ApEs?!? But we're obviously so much higher than animals, the fact that you're comparing women to ungulates searching for the male with the largest horns is UNBELIEVABLY reductive!!! Of course sex isn't the end all be all of life despite literally everything in biology and the natural world pointing us in that direction. Don't be silly, we're RATIONAL here.
Then they go completely non-scientific which is normally sacrilege for them, and start talking about romantic love which clearly is a male-only trait and is literally a drug fuelled hysteria that we objectively know is a sexually-selected evolved mechanism to force the naturally-wild-oats-sowing males to settle down. They proceed to completely ignore the innumerable cases of females deciding by either pragmatic love which only applies to males that can provide something of value, which isn't really love at all but love of the security and dependability the non-personality related traits she chose gives her, or by straight up betabuxxing an undesirable male because she missed her window.
I think it really throws off their tiny processors and gives them error messages that the natural state of about 95%+ of mammals and certainly all extremely successful ones are patriarchal in nature. The fact that we give women rights in a completely artificial environment and that those rights would instantly be voluntarily forfeited by women in the event of catastrophe goes right over their heads, I think.
I don't know, I find it funny is all.