evilthecat said:
You can't really make that assertion. It's a cop out argument on the level of 'a wizard did it'.
Language in and of itself allows human desires and cultural practices to be extremely complicated. Even the rule that 'everyone wants to survive' has been negated on countless occasions by cultural pressures or needs.
No,
this is a cop-out argument of pure fallacy and born of human arrogance. Just because it seems complicated doesn't mean anything. That's some bullshit creationist logic you're spouting. Everyone does want to survive. Whether that's trampling the guy in front of you to get the last cabbage patch doll for your child or via self sacrifice by jumping in front of a bullet for a stranger. Social behavior and engineering is passed down along with physical traits. We've studied apes and proven this by changing their tribe mechanics and they get passed down through generations along with new behaviors that are learned all the time.
evilthecat said:
Assuming some kind of ultimate intention which is always clearly fulfilled is not possible. Increasingly, as psychology begins to probe understanding of the underlying motives human behaviour one consistent assertion has come out, that it's never an uncomplicated input-output system, that there is always struggle and contest and insecurity.
Did I suggest there were ultimate intentions? No, I didn't, except the need to survive to pass traits and behaviors down. The diversity of life on the planet should be proof positive enough that's not what I think. Also, who said anything about behavior being an input output system? Is there a third party you're arguing against?
evilthecat said:
No, but you do need it to uncritically assume that all human culture is reliant on a single factor which no human being (save perhaps the occasional child raised without human intervention, and I'd advise you to look up those cases) can ever experience.
This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Every factor was born from the basest of needs -- survival. Everything has evolved out of that. That's is all that I'm saying... For instance, if there was a tribe of people who ritualistically gouged their own eyes out at birth, then they probably wouldn't last that long. Which is why you don't see eye gouging as a cultural practice. It doesn't make sense biologically. This is not to say that strange seemingly counter-productive practices don't arise ever, but rather that they are always attached to a pro-biological need. FGM is one of them. (I AM
NOT SUPPORTING FGM JUST STATING WHY IT EXISTS) Men want the assurance that their wives are clean and won't have another man's children, so they remove their ability to do so before marriage by sewing up their vagina and remove most nerve endings that would give them pleasure from sex. It's fucked up, but that IS a purely biological reason even if some die from this.
evilthecat said:
liquidangry said:
Damura said:
So how do you explain cultures where polygamy is the norm?
A man taking multiple wives... yeah, how is that against what I said? That would be in favor of my argument. A male laying claim on multiple women is like a alpha male ape laying claim on all the females of the group. Did you even read what I wrote?
What about the reverse, there are cultures in which one woman marries a group of men.
Heck, what about cultures where older men orally inseminate all the young boys in a group every day until they reach adulthood?
What about cultures where a woman isn't considered married until she's borne a child with her bridgroom's father's formally sanctioned best friend?
Or where she's had sex with every member of his family (and the semen collected to be used in same-sex practices during initiation ceremonies for young men?)
Anthropologists (historically at least) love this shit. It's quite well documented. Do you see how incredibly uncritical it is to suggest that all these things are essentially reliant on the same biological 'intention', as if there's one stable intended pattern for human sexuality?
None of this, absolutely none of this is in contest with what I stated. You seem to have no understanding of what I'm arguing for or against and I don't know how to explain it better. Emergent/learned behaviors don't counter my argument whatsoever. I could easily chalk all these up to social bonding practices. Social bonding is important for human survival along with all other primates and social animals. If it doesn't impede or strengthens your ability to survive, reproduce or work with others then the traits/behaviors will be passed on. I'm not saying anything is right or wrong, merely stating what the driving factor of such behaviors continuing or existing is.
Look at my original post -- I said that the answer to the OP's question was yes AND no and that although seemingly contradictory, they aren't. That was all I was trying to state. We are not the super complicated beings you think we are. We're animals, no more complicated or different in any way. We just followed a different path and benefited from it. Again, I am making NO commentary on cultures or practices. Just stating why they exist and are why they are the way they are.
