We Are Straying from the Path that was Laid out Before Us

[ketostix]

You are kidding, right? Comparing an abstract and subjective concept like morals to mathematics?

So is it morally right for the used car salesman to buy you a coke in hopes that it will trigger your reciprocity mechanism?

Buying a car is reciprocal for being bought a coke? No what the concept of reciprocity is for the sales men to not hide any known defects in the car and cut you a good deal and you will reciprocate by continue buying from him in the future. A person could come up with a million red herrings and things of little consequence to cloud an issue that really isn't all that cloudy.

Your friend borrows $2000 from you and promises to pay you back in a month, when you will need the money for the downpayment on your new house. One month later- no money. He KNEW you needed the money, and is now avoiding your phone calls. He had accidentally left his Rolex at your house last time you two were having a beer and he passed out on your couch. Is it morally right to pawn his Rolex?

The concept of reciprocity is your friend knows it's wrong to not pay the money back because simply everyone intuitively understands that they would want money they loaned payed back. That is the point, it's not hard to see what action is moral. What you've really done here is demonstrate how one immoral act begets more immorals ones.

Is it morally right for a guy to beat the sh!t out of the guy who raped and mutilated his daughter, leaving her for dead, only to be found two days later tied to a tree 1/2 mile off the freeway? Is it morally right for him to kill this man?

Maybe you should tell me what should be done with the perpetrator? It seems like you are going off on a tangent and you haven't really given a reason for why what the perpetrator did is wrong. Only because the government says it's illegal and violates the governments morals? Where did those morals come from? I've gave my reason why it's universally understood to be wrong. This perpetrator wouldn't want a similar act to happen to him or his daughter.

For the life of me I cannot figure out how some of you come up with this idea of a "universal rule book". Search Websters, Wikipedia, wherever you want and everything points to morality being fluid arbitrary, and subjective.

"Since you know how you want to be treated you should know how others want to be treated"? C'mon man....

So str8up you believe something like morals are not intuitive or instinctive, but fluid and subjective. I think you are ignoring the school of thought of Objective Moralism, but if what you're saying is the case than there is no right or wrong, so how can you say today's women are wrong or act poorly. All morals are equally valid and sowomen's self-serving ethics is valid too.

 

[LeftyLoosey]

If even half of the women having affairs (or 20 percent) are married to men not included in the 60 percent having affairs, then at least one partner will have an affair in approximately 80 percent of all marriages." "Monogamy Myth", Therapist Peggy Vaugn

I realize this is moot, but that's bad math. You can't just assume that half of the 40% would be on average exclusive from the 60% of men, since we're talking about the same body of marriages. On average, (.4 x .6 = .24), 24% of the cheating women are in the same marriages as the cheating men, leaving only 16% of cheating women to be married to non-cheating men. I realize the difference is small but therapists should outsource their math problems.

Carrying on:

...they will go to their death bed with a life of regret and bitterness for the illusion they were led to believe.

This is my point. There are men, by which these forums are mostly populated, who measure their happiness and success by the number of women they've slept with. To these men, such as yourself, the whole point of life is to bang as many chicks as possible because Darwin told us that, "he who spreads the most seed, wins!"

If, as a man, you feel your whole purpose in life is to get laid, then it will follow that you are willing to sleep with any woman, regardless of her personal situation, or your personal situation. It wouldn't matter how vapid, wh0rish, or "quality" she was.

Meanwhile, I'm constantly studying to become the best I can be at a job that I love. I also study philosophy and the humanities, am involved in community groups, and play sports. As a by-product, I meet good women who are interested in similar pursuits, but my FOCUS is on self-improvement and contributing to society. Meeting women is simply a by-product that I can take advantage of or ignore at my choosing. I gain nothing by wasting my time with s1uts, wh0res, cheaters, liars, and vapid, narcissistic women. I also don't hang out with murderers, drug dealers, rapists or drunks.

The greatest artists and writers were recluses who almost never wanted to publish their works. Often their wills directed their executors to burn their manuscripts after their deaths. Today we recognize these people as being incredibly gifted, successful, and major contributors to humanity. Yet, by your measure of success, they were nobodies.

ANYBODY can go out and get laid, it's just a matter of will power. I've done it myself. I converted myself from an AFC in an abusive marriage to a clubbing sex-bot. Whoopity-do, that was fun, but incredibly unrewarding.

Too many men on this site will stop at nothing to get laid, and they're missing the point. That is what I'm trying to address, in case anyone is still listening.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

But Rollo aren't you suggesting that a woman can only be good sexually if she had x number of different partners? To me experience is experience. I do think the dymanics for a woman to abstain until she's only in a relationship can cause her inhibitions with sex. But I also believe that it doesn't take long for an attractive woman to find a relationship and she can feel much more sexually liberated within that scenario. So even a woman who is very sexual and has a high libido needn't have many sexual partners. On the flipside a woman who's a "serial dater" could be a sexual dud.

True, but dog bites man isn't news. It's the exceptions that prove a rule - here we have the "quality woman" seekers clinging to absolute definitions; ergo you can effectively vet a woman as date-able, marriageable, ƒuck buddy-able, etc. based on the merits of her character, her upbringing, past behaviors, moral turpitude and a host of other criteria. But when cast in terms like this you run into the Madonna vs. Prostitute dilemma as I described above. In general people tend not to compartmentalize aspects of their lives, and this agrees with the absolutist idea - past behavior predicts future behavior. Bad upbringing? She'll be a shrew. Had 7 lovers prior to you? Probably a slut. Reserving herself for a virgin marriage? Inhibited religious prude. I don't happen to agree with such a rigid formula, I simply cast my question in the same absolute terms:

If you had a GF who was smoking hot, well adjusted mentally, loyal, would make a good mother, came from a good family, etc. etc., but would only ever begrudgingly have sex with you, in missionary position only, never consider giving you head, and only once a month because she thought that sex was dirty and she didn't want to be thought of as a slut, would you marry her?

My guess is probably not, but in absolute terms, and because according to LEFTY and the moralists, sex shouldn't be so important for men, the woman I describe above is absolutely a "quality woman", right? One of the rare 2%ers no doubt.

I have several friends, all of whom are now trapped in "dead end" marriages, who fit the classic married AFC profile in their personalities. One commonality that I've come to realize which I noticed among all of them while they were single, was a very over-confident sense of self-righteousness once they had transitioned from being the desperate, lonely AFC to having a girlfriend and finally "getting some" sex.

In their single lives all of these guys bought into the standard AFC mythology that most DJs did at one time, so of course preaching anything counter to the Nice Guy, Savior Schema, do-everything-to-identify-with-the-girl mentality was met with ridicule and condemnation, or at the very least rationalized away as 1950s caveman thinking. Most of this I'm prepared for, and now in hindsight all of these guys agree with everything I'd suggested back when they were single, however, all of them went through a self-righteous phase when they had finally scored with a much less than their standard woman.

You see, when an AFC clings to the mental schemas that make up an AFC mindset it requires a constant need for affirmation and reinforcement, particularly in light of their glaring lack of verifiable success with women while clinging to, and behaving in accordance with the mindset. AFCs are a bunch of crabs in a barrel - once one get to the top to climb out another drags him back in. The AFC needs other AFCs to affirm his blatantly obvious lack of success. He needs other AFCs to tell him, "don't worry just be yourself" or "she's just not a quality woman because she can't see how great a guy you are."

So when an AFC finally does get a second date and then finally does get laid it becomes the ultimate validation for his mindset. "See, you just have to be a nice guy and the right ONE really does come along." This is when the self-righteous phase begins and he can begin telling his DJ/PUA friends that he's "getting some" now without all the Positive Masculinity claptrap. In actuality he rationalizes away all of the conditions that lead up to him getting the girlfriend and the fundamental flaw that he's simply settling for a woman "who'd ƒuck him", but this doesn't stop him from claiming a moral highground. His long wait is over and he's finally hit paydirt.

 

[DJKid]

An elderly Cherokee Native American was teaching his grandchildren about life . .

He said to them, "A fight is going on inside me, it is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One wolf is evil---he is fear, anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, competition, superiority, and ego.

The other is good ---he is joy, peace, love, hope, sharing, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, friendship, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.

This same fight is going on inside you, and inside every other person, too."

They thought about it for a minute, and then one child asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win, Grandfather?"

The Elder simply replied, "The one you feed."



So true....

 

[Luthor Rex]

What planet are some of you from? First I hear that we should remain celibate until we find a woman who has "morals"; then it escalates to we men should go on a pusssy strike to punish women because they are naughty (but the truth is it's because your masculinity is too beta to pull anything.)

Burn straw-man burn!

The argument was simply that you stay away from toxic people, and if that means you end up not getting any azz, then that's what it means.

Regarding cheating married people:

The most consistent data on infidelity come from the General Social Survey, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and based at the University of Chicago, which has used a national representative sample to track the opinions and social behaviors of Americans since 1972. The survey data show that in any given year, about 10 percent of married people — 12 percent of men and 7 percent of women — say they have had sex outside their marriage.

But detailed analysis of the data from 1991 to 2006, to be presented next month by Dr. Atkins at the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies conference in Orlando, show some surprising shifts. University of Washington researchers have found that the lifetime rate of infidelity for men over 60 increased to 28 percent in 2006, up from 20 percent in 1991. For women over 60, the increase is more striking: to 15 percent, up from 5 percent in 1991.

So the overall rate is going up, but it's not as bad as some seem to think.

This is my point. There are men, by which these forums are mostly populated, who measure their happiness and success by the number of women they've slept with. To these men, such as yourself, the whole point of life is to bang as many chicks as possible because Darwin told us that, "he who spreads the most seed, wins!"

Actually if they were following Darwin they would be trying to have as many children as possible. If one man has sex with only one woman in his lifetime and it produces one child he is the Darwinian success compared to the man who has sex with one-hundred women and no children.

But this is a side issue really.

I gain nothing by wasting my time with s1uts, wh0res, cheaters, liars, and vapid, narcissistic women. I also don't hang out with murderers, drug dealers, rapists or drunks.

Apparently to some this makes you a moralizing crazy person.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Actually if they were following Darwin they would be trying to have as many children as possible. If one man has sex with only one woman in his lifetime and it produces one child he is the Darwinian success compared to the man who has sex with one-hundred women and no children.

I don't think you have a firm grasp of this from a biological perspective. The desire to have sex with largest variety of women available to a man is innate - and yes, hardwired (sorry JOPHIL) in that it's part of a males fundamental biology as compared to women's. We produce 17 times the amount of testosterone women do. This hormone and it's effects on our biochemistry are an empirical fact. Our biological mechanics clearly point to a breeding method of diversity of mating options.

The problem then becomes one of reasonable logistics in facilitating this. Obviously the man who successfully produces one offspring compared to a man with none passes on his genetics to the next generation - that's not the issue. The issue lies in a mans biological imperative towards sexual variety. So the logistics to effect this dictate that we devise methods of contraception. The man having sex with multiple women, while never actually breeding, may be thwarting the survival of the species, but he is still very much following his biological imperative.

 

[Werman]

So is it morally right for the used car salesman to buy you a coke in hopes that it will trigger your reciprocity mechanism?

Yes.

Your friend borrows $2000 from you and promises to pay you back in a month, when you will need the money for the downpayment on your new house. One month later- no money. He KNEW you needed the money, and is now avoiding your phone calls. He had accidentally left his Rolex at your house last time you two were having a beer and he passed out on your couch. Is it morally right to pawn his Rolex?

Yes.

Is it morally right for a guy to beat the sh!t out of the guy who raped and mutilated his daughter, leaving her for dead, only to be found two days later tied to a tree 1/2 mile off the freeway? Is it morally right for him to kill this man?

Yes.

Any more? This is fun!

 

[Jeffst1980]

Could someone actually give a rigid definition of a "sosuave moralist" and their perceived beliefs?

All I'm seeing is a pejorative characterization of them (us?) as hypocritical, absolutist, bible-thumping pollyannas that are nonetheless brainwashed by feminists.

That description doesn't accurate portray ANYONE here, and if we're going to seriously debate this stuff we're going to have to drop the hyperbole. Or, better yet, drop the "moralist" label altogether.

Looking at a woman's upbringing and past behavior obviously isn't 100% reliable, and no one ever claimed it was. But this is a numbers game, and it's a great way to hedge your bets. It's not "binary thinking;" it's common sense. Any psychologist will readily acknowledge the impact that family life has on a child's development, whether for better or for worse.

We can't have all these threads about the evils of women with BPD without stating that it would probably be best to avoid them altogether. Likewise, we can't have threads purporting that trashy women can be "used" as "fvck toys" without consequence. No matter if it's a LTR or an FB, if you're continuously sleeping with her, there is a relationship of some nature.

If you want to have ONS, it's one thing, but to CONTINUE sleeping with a trashy, disrespectful girl? Come on. That's just clinging to scraps. You don't need sex THAT bad.

 

[iqqi]

Damn good OP post, and damn good post here:

Girls may have sex with guys - but I'm sure you have noticed that many girls are now *dismissive* of guys in general. Girls do not respect us guys any more and this is the cold hard truth.

When girls see so many guys sell out

1) their morals
2) their character
3) their best friend
4) the institution of marriage
5) their personal tastes
6) their masculinity

just for sex - can you really blame girls for not respecting guys?

Now I'm sure some of you will chime in: 'Well girls are just as manipulative and classless as us, or perhaps worse. We are simply fighting fire with fire. Why do I have to be *better* than the girl?'

And the answer is - because you are NOT a girl, you are a man. You do not have the luxury to sink to the lowest common denominator. You were meant to lead, to lead by example.

This is a great discussion, and it relieves me to see it happening.

And I wish Jeffst would also post at nextlevel.

 

[STR8UP]

Maybe you should tell me what should be done with the perpetrator? It seems like you are going off on a tangent and you haven't really given a reason for why what the perpetrator did is wrong. Only because the government says it's illegal and violates the governments morals? Where did those morals come from? I've gave my reason why it's universally understood to be wrong. This perpetrator wouldn't want a similar act to happen to him or his daughter.

According to your definition of what is moral, if a chick becomes sexually aroused when her man slaps her around, it is moral for her to slap someone else.

So str8up you believe something like morals are not intuitive or instinctive, but fluid and subjective. I think you are ignoring the school of thought of Objective Moralism, but if what you're saying is the case than there is no right or wrong, so how can you say today's women are wrong or act poorly. All morals are equally valid and sowomen's self-serving ethics is valid too.

I didn't say there is no right or wrong, I said there is no UNIVERSAL right and wrong, so determining what is and what is not "moral" is often an exercise in futility.

Could someone actually give a rigid definition of a "sosuave moralist" and their perceived beliefs?

I'll take a stab at it. An SS moralist is:

1) A man who mistakenly believes that there is a universal definition of right and wrong
2) A man who thinks in absolutes, such as, "Every woman is either "quality" or "low quality", a "slvt" or a "good girl".
3) A man who believes that societal conditioning trumps biological imperatives. He might begrudgingly acknowledge that nature plays a "small role", but will never admit that it is the primary motivator behind all human behavior.
4) A man who has a stronger need to believe in something than to seek truth.

A moralist attitude is useful for judging people (often harshly), which in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the fatal flaw is the substitution of reality with personal convictions.

 

[jophil28]

A moralist attitude is useful for judging people (often harshly), which in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the fatal flaw is the substitution of reality with personal convictions.

You have done it again - you have trapped yourself in your own argument.
You have said on this forum that "perception IS reality " .Now you are saying that those who substitute "reality with personal convictions" are foolishly making a fatal flaw.
You just contradicted yourself.
You can't have it both ways, but I am sure that you will try to write a meandering justification in at least 5000 words.

Another triumph of words over substance is heading our way.

 

[STR8UP]

Perception is reality as far as an individual is concerned, but that doesn't mean the individual isn't off his rocker.

The only time I use that phrase is when referring to the fact that most people live in a state of semi-delusion.

The person who substitutes personal convictions with reality is a prime example

What you actually did here was prove my point.

Thanx.

 

[Jeffst1980]

I'll take a stab at it. An SS moralist is:

1) A man who mistakenly believes that there is a universal definition of right and wrong
2) A man who thinks in absolutes, such as, "Every woman is either "quality" or "low quality", a "slvt" or a "good girl".
3) A man who believes that societal conditioning trumps biological imperatives. He might begrudgingly acknowledge that nature plays a "small role", but will never admit that it is the primary motivator behind all human behavior.
4) A man who has a stronger need to believe in something than to seek truth.

I'm asking for an objective definition, without the condescension. For example, I may be moderately liberal politically, but I can give the definition of a conservative without including my own beliefs about why I think they're wrong.

But here goes:

1) I don't believe in a universal definition of morality; I believe there is an unavoidable degree of moral fallibilism, especially considering that many ethical issues we will face in the future (i.e. cloning, etc.) did not always exist..

2) I don't believe absolutes exist, but I DO categorize women as high/low quality, based on how appropriate they are for me. For instance, a hot, fun, smart, successful woman with a "fatal flaw" (such as a very violent temper) would be "low quality" to me. Of course, that's not an objective view, but it needn't be--it's just for the sake of evaluating prospects based on my own preferences. As a side note, I don't believe in the Madonna/ Prostitute fallacy, either; some "good girls" loves sex, and some "sluts" aren't adventurous at all.

3) I will gladly admit that biological urges are the primary motivators in humans. If I'm hungry, I go get something to eat--that's proof enough. However, I don't believe that a biological urge DICTATES behavior. THAT'S where societal conditioning comes in. Obviously, if society enabled us to pursue every biological whim, we would never be able to coexist with one another on any scale. Societal conditioning is what prevents the sane among us from acting on homicidal impulses in the heat of the moment. So, even if our primary motivators are urges to "fvck and kill," it doesn't mean that these urges will necessarily lead to their analogous real-world behaviors.

4) Doesn't really make sense; if someone believes something, that is their "truth." Absolute Truth only exists in mathematics; everything in our physical world is filtered through the lens of human perspective. Furthermore, as an empiricist, I consider anything that isn't scientifically verifiable to be "faith," rather than "truth" or even "theory."
Nothing I post here is intended to be anything other than a reflection of my own experiences and ideas pertaining to them; I can only hope this goes for everyone.

I'm willing to bet that most of the alleged "moralists" are really more aligned to these beliefs, rather than the ones you posted.

 

[ketostix]

According to your definition of what is moral, if a chick becomes sexually aroused when her man slaps her around, it is moral for her to slap someone else.

That's almost funny almost. That's about as much as a red herring as saying if I like the color white, it's moral to paint everyone car white with spray paint. Maybe that argument would be true if a person is retarded or humans are really monkies like amoralist seem to suggest. My main point is the ability to determine right and wrong is built into the normal human mind. I believe it's only confusing if you choose to make it confusing.

To be honest a big reason you have people give you problems on this forum is because you don't disagree all that agreeably or even honestly and other things that I want go into. I never even posted my viewpoint directly toward you yet you never cease to come out of the woodwork to try to dismiss it a tone of contempt. Contrast that with say Rollo. You can dissent directly at his post and he'll come back with well thought out reply without any tone of condescension. At the very least it's hypocritical to complain about the other posters doing something similar to what you engage in yourself. Str8up, you are not open to other views so why expect your "nemesises" here to be? When someone says "moral" or "quality"/low quality girl, you really do build strawmen such as, "absolutism", perfect/imperfect women, black and white etc., when that's not really what's being said. No one is perfect or completely moral all the time but it's about degree not perfection. But being able to precieve degree is still a signficant thing.

I didn't say there is no right or wrong, I said there is no UNIVERSAL right and wrong, so determining what is and what is not "moral" is often an exercise in futility.

Moral and right and wrong are essentially interchangable. If determining right and wrong or what's moral is futile and indeterminate, then there is no right or wrong.

 

[Trader]

There are such things called virtues that are UNIVERSALLY attractive.

Now I'm not trying to attack STR8UP personally - but based on what he and others of his ilk have posted in this thread regarding morality

Guys would you WANT your daughter to date the STR8UP type?

Think about it honestly. We all know what the answer is: NO. And the reason is simple:

Virtues such as chastity, loyalty, honor, courage and plain old moral leadership are universally attractive. And when a guy lacks those things, he simply cannot command respect from other men. You know it, I know it.

Relax STR8UP - I know you are getting lots of sex from girls so you don't care what other guys think.

 

[ketostix]

1) I don't believe in a universal definition of morality; I believe there is an unavoidable degree of moral fallibilism, especially considering that many ethical issues we will face in the future (i.e. cloning, etc.) did not always exist..

I wanted to briefly comment on the this. I think it is somewhat of a strawman when one says the other side believes in a universal definition of morality. What i would say is most of the time the moral thing to do is obvious and instinctive. But things can get complicated and complex. My view is no matter the situation there is an objectively best course of action. It may not be perfect and it may not be obviously clear or easily determinable to the person(s) involved but "right" exist independently. The thing is if you apply common sense and the golden rule it's not that hard to determine what would be the right course as opposed to the most obstensibly gratifying, self-serving or pleasurable course. Your natural drives and following your gratification might will often lead you to error, being gluttonous, a drunk or drug addict, maybe a criminal, someone that no one trust or likes or what have you.

 

[STR8UP]

That's almost funny almost. That's about as much as a red herring as saying if I like the color white, it's moral to paint everyone car white with spray paint. Maybe that argument would be true if a person is retarded or humans are really monkies like amoralist seem to suggest.

No, you clearly stated that morals are nothing more than "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".

You said:

It's the concept of reciprocity that determines morals. It's abundantly clear that all humans have the ability to discern how they want to be treated. So is it really that hard to understand and all gray and fuzzy how you should deal with others?

I wasn't being facetious, and I believe my point was perfectly valid. It has nothing to do with being retarded or being like monkeys.

My main point is the ability to determine right and wrong is built into the normal human mind. I believe it's only confusing if you choose to make it confusing.

Um, no.

Morality is a social construct. NURTURE. Do you think for one second if you were raised by a pack of wild dogs instead of mom, dad, grandparents, teachers, priests, etc, that you would have any qualms about stealing food from someone else?

You guys have this nature/nurture thing waaaaay out of whack. And I'm getting a whiff of religious influence, which could explain a lot.

To be honest a big reason you have people give you problems on this forum is because you don't disagree all that agreeably or even honestly and other things that I want go into.

I already stated that I don't care what people think of me. I'm not trying to build a fan club. Not sure what you mean about "honesty" and "all those other things". I would be curious to know though. Maybe you would be so kind as to PM me...

I never even posted my viewpoint directly toward you yet you never cease to come out of the woodwork to try to dismiss it a tone of contempt. Contrast that with say Rollo. You can dissent directly at his post and he'll come back with well thought out reply without any tone of condescension.

Maybe I'm not as good of a conversationalist as Rollo. Maybe I'm not smart enough to figure out that the sensitivity level around here is a little high. I dunno.

Str8up, you are not open to other views so why expect your "nemesises" here to be? When someone says "moral" or "quality"/low quality girl, you really do build strawmen such as, "absolutism", perfect/imperfect women, black and white etc., when that's not really what's being said. No one is perfect or completely moral all the time but it's about degree not perfection. But being able to precieve degree is still a signficant thing.

That is precisely the thing that pisses me off. I'm the one talking about shades of grey instead of black and white, yet I get painted as the one as being small minded. That's what is wrong with this board and a big part of the reason why I'm leaving.

The people on this board so desperately to cling to their beliefs and hold onto their AFC "comfort zone" that we have posters such as iqqi that have nearly as high of a reputation as you and me. You guys can sit around and have your intelligence and your masculinity insulted by an attention wh0ring troll. I'm gonna post my thoughts somewhere else.

Moral and right and wrong are essentially interchangable. If determining right and wrong or what's moral is futile and indeterminate, then there is no right or wrong.

Once again, it's not about there being no right and wrong, it's about the fact that right and wrong is interpreted as many different ways as there are people living on this planet. I know the lines I won't cross. I know the value of working WITH other people (which is the only real, proper, tangible, HEALTHY purpose of morality). And I also know that the world is full of sneaky fukkers who USE the guise of morality to conceal their immoral (according to me) intentions.

Lots of people talk a big game and act just the opposite. It's really a great strategy for short term gain, and a lot of people employ these tactics because they are either not smart enough to see long term benefits or they are too greedy or impulsive to wait for the bigger payoff.

Virtues such as chastity, loyalty, honor, courage and plain old moral leadership are universally attractive. And when a guy lacks those things, he simply cannot command respect from other men. You know it, I know it.

To follow these "virtues" blindly is to be a pawn in someone elses game. To follow them as a means to an end for your own benefit is wise.

 

[guru1000]

A man who believes that societal conditioning trumps biological imperatives. He might begrudgingly acknowledge that nature plays a "small role", but will never admit that it is the primary motivator behind all human behavior.

The pain/pleasure dynamic is the "primary motivator" behind all human behavior.

Our actions are solely based on what can potentially cause us the most pleasure and least pain. For a bodybuilder the pleasure associated with placing in a national contest outweighs the pain of a ten meal a day diet. For the attorney, the pleasure associated with the three letter ESQ outweighs the pain of three gruesome years of law school. For the ambitious, the pleasure of success outweighs the pain of blood, sweat and tears. For men of integrity, the pleasure of staying true to one's convictions outweigh the pain of denying short term gratification.

At the end of the day, biology may prompt, but certainly is not the prime motivator for most. We can go further to state, those whose prime motivator is derived solely from biological imperatives essentially have the same thought process of an animal. The only difference between us and animals, is choice in spite of instinct. Animals, the lower life form, have only biology to motivate their behaviors. As such, they are easy to direct and train. Feed them and you are their masters. I believe we all know a few people (man or woman) that are not very different than animals in this respect.

That said, it logical to to assume that men or women who are least likely to follow their biological "hard wiring" derive the most pleasure from dynamics of a higher purpose.

This brings us to the conclusion that those "evolutionary psychologists" who believe human behavior is directed by biology form this "opinion" by observing this same type of behavior from people who are closest to them (no different than neanderthals). This only further validates the old cliche "Birds of a feather, flock together".

 

[Luthor Rex]

The issue lies in a mans biological imperative towards sexual variety. So the logistics to effect this dictate that we devise methods of contraception. The man having sex with multiple women, while never actually breeding, may be thwarting the survival of the species, but he is still very much following his biological imperative.

The proximate motive is pleasure, the ultimate motive is reproduction.

In ethology, the study of animal behavior, causation can be considered in terms of these two mechanisms.

* Proximate causation: Explanation of an animal's behavior based on trigger stimuli and internal mechanisms.
* Ultimate causation: Explanation of an animal's behavior based on evolution. Requires that behavioral traits, like physical ones, are genetically heritable, and then explains behavior using an explanation of why this specific behavioral trait was favored by natural selection.

These can be further divided, for example proximate causes may be given in terms of local muscle movements or in terms of developmental biology (see Tinbergen's four questions).

A variety of women will give satisfy the proximate motive 'feeling good'. The ultimate motive is to get as many women pregnant as he can so as to give both genetic diversity enter as many children into the next generation as he can.

A man who does not leave behind children does not serve his ultimate Darwinian motive. What people consciously tell themselves is bullsh!t, what is actually driving us is what matters. Contraception for mind-distracting 'fun' is bullsh!t, leaving as many babies behind as you can is what matters.

The bitter irony of the 21st century is that jokers like this who poop on Darwin are showing the most Darwinian fitness.

Damn good OP post, and damn good post here:



This is a great discussion, and it relieves me to see it happening.

And I wish Jeffst would also post at nextlevel.

Awww cripes, we're feeding iqqi... maybe we should stop...

:nervous:

 

[STR8UP]

Our actions are solely based on what can potentially cause us the most pleasure and least pain.

Our actions are based on what is most likely to send our genes into the next generation.

Why do men build empires?

Why do women wear makeup?

The pleasure mechanism is nothing more than the "orgasm". Would you fukk if you didn't come?

At the end of the day, biology may prompt, but certainly is not the prime motivator for most.

I've said this before, and I have yet to have anyone even debate me on this because it is an irrefutable truth:

"Biology RULES. Any deviation from this will inevitably result in the extinction of the species."

Your very EXISTENCE is predicated on the fact that your ancestors followed their biological imperatives. Great Grandpappy wasn't analyzing how much pain/pleasure he would derive from fukking Great Grandma. The testosterone flowing through his veins made his d!ck hard, and made your existence possible.

We can go further to state, those whose prime motivator is derived solely from biological imperatives essentially have the same thought process of an animal. The only difference between us and animals, is choice in spite of instinct.

We are motivated by biology, and influenced by society. Your PRIME motivator is biology. Eat. Sleep. Fukk. Societal influences are good in that they allow us to build a stable, cohesive society, They are bad in that it is easy for the unscrupulous to use them to shame and scare others to carry out agendas that are not in the individual's best interest.

This brings us to the conclusion that those "evolutionary psychologists" who believe human behavior is directed by biology form this "opinion" by observing this same type of behavior from people who are closest to them (no different than neanderthals). This only further validates the old cliche "Birds of a feather, flock together".

Convenient conclusion to a weak argument.