Poll: Your stance on monogamy?

[Fetzenfisch]

It is definatly against every instinct, at least as a male. But i neither care about religion or societies standarts, it is a commitment you take, to show your passion to one special person. And that is the only thing that counts here. You want to show that this one person is superior to all the others, its like binding to a lord, to a faith,a government, to a greater ideology, or all the other dumb things people do, just because they feel its right.

 

[Xisin]

I believe that if you marry, you have to love the person and, therefore, wouldn't need more than one wife. So, even if polygamy was accepted, I wouldn't practice it.

If you had one child, would you decline having a second because you would be incapable of loving more than one?

I don't think there's a right or wrong here, I just don't think anyone should use love as a reason. Love is an irrational emotion.

 

[Giest4life]

There are no "anomalies," it is only your ignorance that fails to see what really is.

First of all, you're not enlightened, okay? Second, anomalies certainly do exist. This is observably true in all facets of existence, but especially in biology.

The fact is, you and nor any science cannot "prove" anything.

Wow, he got something almost right. Science doesn't prove, it theorizes. It happens to be very good at that. Gravity hasn't been proven, but people still fall when they step off of buildings. Medical science hasn't been proven, but there are still observable biological anomalies.

It is your definition of healthy and all such words: capable, mature, reasonable, these are all perceptions.

Very perceptive of you. It's meaningless blather, but at least it's perceptive, meaningless blather.

Perceptions which have and will continue to vary across an infinite spectrum of human thought; every age, place, culture, and person varies these invariably. Don't give me that BS.

Okay, now you're just stringing words together randomly. "Varies invariably?" Really? As far as that last sentence goes... right back at you pal.

You, your mentality rather, is the reason man is not yet the "ubermensch."

The existence and observation of basic biology has nothing to do with 19th Century philosophy. Nice way to sound pretentious and self-important though.

I guess you really don't know of the origin of communication, do you? Everything practically is stringing words together. Words that are inherently meaningless, and given meaning only through the associated ideas and impressions of the word--which vary invariably.

Why does it bother you that science can't prove anything? And these "theories" you call them, all inevitably fall to other theories which will eventually be replaced by others. Such is your folly, and yet you continue to repeat it. Talk about bashing your head against a wall.....

 

[Giest4life]

Monogamy is the last vestiges of a dying human race--the race of the "last men," as Nietzsche called them. There is nothing good, noble, and praiseworthy about monogamy. Just as there is nothing special with polygamy.

If we were meant to be monogamous we wouldn't have any desire to cheat.

Simple as.

Penguins don't cheat, in-fact most of the time when one's partner dies. It will simply never mate again. Some die soon after, thoughts are from grief. Wanna know why? Because they were born to be monogamous.

Be careful with that, sir. When you say "we" how sure are you that you speak for 100% of the human populace, the dead, the living, and those that are not yet conceived? I'd be careful with generalizations like that....

It's human nature to be at the very least curious about having sex with other people. Even if someone doesn't cheat, there is a 100% chance that at some point during any relationship they've had. That they have looked at another prospective mate in sexual way. whether or not they act upon it is another matter.

What I am sure of is that monogamy, especially as far as males are concerned, is counter intuitive as far as survival of the species goes. Atleast in a primitive situation. Spreading your genes to as many mates as possible gives you a greater chance of special survival.

That's not so important now. But old habits are hard to kick. Especially ones that are ingrained on you at a genetic level.

I generalise because it's true.

Again, sir. Do you know if it's true for the 100% of those--even males--that have yet to be, those that are, and those that were? It's a disturbing trend that I've seen amongst humans: the trend to state their observations as the "truth."

you're not observant for pointing out the fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed. Is it also right to say that you don't know that every human is born with blood because you haven't tested every human to prove this? I think I choose to believe in hormones over inane philosophical prattle.

Just because you can't prove something to be statistically true doesn't mean it isn't.

If you must know, statistically, nothing is true, because nothing can really be tested to it's fullest. Name me a study in which the sample is the whole human population. A quick search of "statistics" on wikipedia should have yield you the results you need.

Only the ignorant call it "inane philosophical prattle." I guess, you need to fill in the hole in your, so called, "knowledge."

*woosh* right over your head.

That was kind of my point.

And biologically speaking.... yes... what I'm saying is true.

You don't stop being attracted to other people once you're in a relationship. There is no biological proof to suggest anything to that nature. In-fact oxytocin (the chemical linked with human bonding) begins to fade dramatically after only a few years. And rises once again when you find a new partner.

So yes. I'm going to continue calling what you're saying inane philosophical prattle. Because it doesn't mean anything. It's just a blatant fact that has no relevance to my point, dressed up as something poignant.

The fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed doesn't mean that what we know human biology is wrong. Again. Simply because I can't statistically prove something doesn't mean it's wrong... :/

Again, there is no single biological phenomenon that is universal. Every hormone secreted, every brain function, every twitch of the muscle, every beat of the heart is different in every single one of us. You know, the inconvenient word we use to describe everything that doesn't fit our narrative: mutation.

To prove my point, I heard it on npr, last week, this recorded mental patient who would reach orgasm at the sight of pins---yes, pins!

Though I regret I can't remember the exact name of the patient or the therapist who attended, and recorded that guy.

Ever heard the expression. 'The exceptions that prove the rule.' It is of course going to be true that there are anomalies, we're talking about biology here. Not factory crafted beings. For 99% of the population hormones are going to have the exact same effect. There may be slight differences in the process and length of time involved. But they all do the same thing.


There are bound to be those who are considered mentally retarded. And/or haven't reached sexual maturity. They won't have the desire for sex atall. I thought it was clear that I was talking about normal humans. Not the handicapped exceptions.

When someone is talking about the absolute in a discussion like this. They don't mean (including the anomalies.) If I rephrase 'Everyone' To 'Every healthy (mentally and physically) human.' Will you STFU?

I thought that would have been blatantly obvious and readily available to anyone reading. Clearly not.

You have superbly demonstrated the all-too-human folly: "they" are the exception, you are the rule. There are no "anomalies," it is only your ignorance that fails to see what really is. The human brain fears that which it cannot understand--and label--thus we label these as "exceptions" to the rule to prove a point. The fact is, you and nor any science cannot "prove" anything. There will always be "exceptions." It is your definition of healthy and all such words: capable, mature, reasonable, these are all perceptions. Perceptions which have and will continue to vary across an infinite spectrum of human thought; every age, place, culture, and person varies these invariably. Don't give me that BS.

You, your mentality rather, is the reason man is not yet the "ubermensch."

My, my, my. You could cut the pretentia in your posts with a blunt spoon. You really are one for hyperbole aren't you?

Humans seek patterns because patterns make sense. It's hardwired into our brains to look for meaning and cause. That's not our weakness. That's the one thing that elevates us above animals.

Normality isn't some abstract perception. It's an average. Something that strays from that average is abnormal.

Dressing your post's up in fanciful bow's of eloquent lexicon and overcooked philosophy doesn't give them any more gravitas. It just makes you sound like a prize twat.

I argue that people with your mentality are of far greater detriment to humanity than people like me. Go ahead and argue that because you don't understand the pattern it mustn't exist. Your future is not one I buy into.

Normality is average? Average of what age? Normality, like I said, varies from person to person and often even in the same person in a different time. Your desperation to find familiar patterns do not entail to be truths on behalf of nature.

This is your weakness, this is precisely what degrades us from the beasts---for all our "intellectual conscience" we cannot rise above the beasts in our perception.

It's easy to call things "fanciful" "overcooked" when you can't understand. It's easier to negate than to comprehend. What could be wrong with you, right?

 

[Giest4life]

Monogamy is the last vestiges of a dying human race--the race of the "last men," as Nietzsche called them. There is nothing good, noble, and praiseworthy about monogamy. Just as there is nothing special with polygamy.

If we were meant to be monogamous we wouldn't have any desire to cheat.

Simple as.

Penguins don't cheat, in-fact most of the time when one's partner dies. It will simply never mate again. Some die soon after, thoughts are from grief. Wanna know why? Because they were born to be monogamous.

Be careful with that, sir. When you say "we" how sure are you that you speak for 100% of the human populace, the dead, the living, and those that are not yet conceived? I'd be careful with generalizations like that....

It's human nature to be at the very least curious about having sex with other people. Even if someone doesn't cheat, there is a 100% chance that at some point during any relationship they've had. That they have looked at another prospective mate in sexual way. whether or not they act upon it is another matter.

What I am sure of is that monogamy, especially as far as males are concerned, is counter intuitive as far as survival of the species goes. Atleast in a primitive situation. Spreading your genes to as many mates as possible gives you a greater chance of special survival.

That's not so important now. But old habits are hard to kick. Especially ones that are ingrained on you at a genetic level.

I generalise because it's true.

Again, sir. Do you know if it's true for the 100% of those--even males--that have yet to be, those that are, and those that were? It's a disturbing trend that I've seen amongst humans: the trend to state their observations as the "truth."

you're not observant for pointing out the fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed. Is it also right to say that you don't know that every human is born with blood because you haven't tested every human to prove this? I think I choose to believe in hormones over inane philosophical prattle.

Just because you can't prove something to be statistically true doesn't mean it isn't.

If you must know, statistically, nothing is true, because nothing can really be tested to it's fullest. Name me a study in which the sample is the whole human population. A quick search of "statistics" on wikipedia should have yield you the results you need.

Only the ignorant call it "inane philosophical prattle." I guess, you need to fill in the hole in your, so called, "knowledge."

*woosh* right over your head.

That was kind of my point.

And biologically speaking.... yes... what I'm saying is true.

You don't stop being attracted to other people once you're in a relationship. There is no biological proof to suggest anything to that nature. In-fact oxytocin (the chemical linked with human bonding) begins to fade dramatically after only a few years. And rises once again when you find a new partner.

So yes. I'm going to continue calling what you're saying inane philosophical prattle. Because it doesn't mean anything. It's just a blatant fact that has no relevance to my point, dressed up as something poignant.

The fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed doesn't mean that what we know human biology is wrong. Again. Simply because I can't statistically prove something doesn't mean it's wrong... :/

Again, there is no single biological phenomenon that is universal. Every hormone secreted, every brain function, every twitch of the muscle, every beat of the heart is different in every single one of us. You know, the inconvenient word we use to describe everything that doesn't fit our narrative: mutation.

To prove my point, I heard it on npr, last week, this recorded mental patient who would reach orgasm at the sight of pins---yes, pins!

Though I regret I can't remember the exact name of the patient or the therapist who attended, and recorded that guy.

Ever heard the expression. 'The exceptions that prove the rule.' It is of course going to be true that there are anomalies, we're talking about biology here. Not factory crafted beings. For 99% of the population hormones are going to have the exact same effect. There may be slight differences in the process and length of time involved. But they all do the same thing.


There are bound to be those who are considered mentally retarded. And/or haven't reached sexual maturity. They won't have the desire for sex atall. I thought it was clear that I was talking about normal humans. Not the handicapped exceptions.

When someone is talking about the absolute in a discussion like this. They don't mean (including the anomalies.) If I rephrase 'Everyone' To 'Every healthy (mentally and physically) human.' Will you STFU?

I thought that would have been blatantly obvious and readily available to anyone reading. Clearly not.

You have superbly demonstrated the all-too-human folly: "they" are the exception, you are the rule. There are no "anomalies," it is only your ignorance that fails to see what really is. The human brain fears that which it cannot understand--and label--thus we label these as "exceptions" to the rule to prove a point. The fact is, you and nor any science cannot "prove" anything. There will always be "exceptions."

You, your mentality rather, is the reason man is not yet the "ubermensch."

I have one problem with what you are saying.

If biology works so differently for every person on the planet, why do most people bond, mate, and reproduce in roughly the same way?

If significant differences in biology and arousal were the rule, rather than the exception, it seems to me that mating just wouldn't work. There wouldn't be any reliable way for any one human to attract any other human as their mate.

Keep in mind, in terms of the evolutionary history of human beings, metal pins are a relatively recent invention. If that guy was only aroused by pins in 80,000 BC, would he have been able to find a mate and reproduce?

What dathwampeer is trying to say is not that everyone should be the same, or that everyone is the same. He's saying that human beings fit on a bell curve. Most people's anatomy works the same way, and most people respond predictably to biological impulses. Some people are not 'average' or 'normal', in that their biology works slightly differently.

In other words, pin guy may get aroused by unusual stimuli, but the actual feelings of arousal he experiences are probably not too different than anybody else's.

Try thinking about it this way. If everybody's biology was radically different, then how does modern medicine work? How can aspirin be succesfully marketed as an anti-inflammatory if it only works for a very small portion of the population, because only their biology is specifically tuned to allow aspirin to work? How can doctors routinely administer anesthesia, if the anesthetics they use only work for a small group of individuals?

Clearly, this is not the case. Most people's biology works about the same. There are variations (some men like tits, and some men prefer asses), ther are people who fall outside the mean (some people are allergic to aspirin; good luck with that headache), and some people who are outliers (like the guy who can only get it up if he gets stabbed with a sharp object, or whatever).

As for man becoming the "ubermensch", doesn't that involve the creation of a superior race by ELIMINATING all of the outliers, and bringing mankind into a state of consistent perfection? How does that philosophy jive with accepting the outliers as normal? Maybe you can explain that to me.

Basically, your post leads up to the explanation: modern medicine works. Does it? It has a higher percentage of "success" than ancient medicine. But it doesn't work--not to it's 100% claim. Name one pill, surgery, therapy, medicine, treatment, diagnosis for, forget 100% of the population--a hundred percent of people it's applied to.

 

[ThoseTwoDudes]

Monogamy is the last vestiges of a dying human race--the race of the "last men," as Nietzsche called them. There is nothing good, noble, and praiseworthy about monogamy. Just as there is nothing special with polygamy.

If we were meant to be monogamous we wouldn't have any desire to cheat.

Simple as.

Penguins don't cheat, in-fact most of the time when one's partner dies. It will simply never mate again. Some die soon after, thoughts are from grief. Wanna know why? Because they were born to be monogamous.

Be careful with that, sir. When you say "we" how sure are you that you speak for 100% of the human populace, the dead, the living, and those that are not yet conceived? I'd be careful with generalizations like that....

It's human nature to be at the very least curious about having sex with other people. Even if someone doesn't cheat, there is a 100% chance that at some point during any relationship they've had. That they have looked at another prospective mate in sexual way. whether or not they act upon it is another matter.

What I am sure of is that monogamy, especially as far as males are concerned, is counter intuitive as far as survival of the species goes. Atleast in a primitive situation. Spreading your genes to as many mates as possible gives you a greater chance of special survival.

That's not so important now. But old habits are hard to kick. Especially ones that are ingrained on you at a genetic level.

I generalise because it's true.

Again, sir. Do you know if it's true for the 100% of those--even males--that have yet to be, those that are, and those that were? It's a disturbing trend that I've seen amongst humans: the trend to state their observations as the "truth."

you're not observant for pointing out the fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed. Is it also right to say that you don't know that every human is born with blood because you haven't tested every human to prove this? I think I choose to believe in hormones over inane philosophical prattle.

Just because you can't prove something to be statistically true doesn't mean it isn't.

If you must know, statistically, nothing is true, because nothing can really be tested to it's fullest. Name me a study in which the sample is the whole human population. A quick search of "statistics" on wikipedia should have yield you the results you need.

Only the ignorant call it "inane philosophical prattle." I guess, you need to fill in the hole in your, so called, "knowledge."

*woosh* right over your head.

That was kind of my point.

And biologically speaking.... yes... what I'm saying is true.

You don't stop being attracted to other people once you're in a relationship. There is no biological proof to suggest anything to that nature. In-fact oxytocin (the chemical linked with human bonding) begins to fade dramatically after only a few years. And rises once again when you find a new partner.

So yes. I'm going to continue calling what you're saying inane philosophical prattle. Because it doesn't mean anything. It's just a blatant fact that has no relevance to my point, dressed up as something poignant.

The fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed doesn't mean that what we know human biology is wrong. Again. Simply because I can't statistically prove something doesn't mean it's wrong... :/

Again, there is no single biological phenomenon that is universal. Every hormone secreted, every brain function, every twitch of the muscle, every beat of the heart is different in every single one of us. You know, the inconvenient word we use to describe everything that doesn't fit our narrative: mutation.

To prove my point, I heard it on npr, last week, this recorded mental patient who would reach orgasm at the sight of pins---yes, pins!

Though I regret I can't remember the exact name of the patient or the therapist who attended, and recorded that guy.

Ever heard the expression. 'The exceptions that prove the rule.' It is of course going to be true that there are anomalies, we're talking about biology here. Not factory crafted beings. For 99% of the population hormones are going to have the exact same effect. There may be slight differences in the process and length of time involved. But they all do the same thing.


There are bound to be those who are considered mentally retarded. And/or haven't reached sexual maturity. They won't have the desire for sex atall. I thought it was clear that I was talking about normal humans. Not the handicapped exceptions.

When someone is talking about the absolute in a discussion like this. They don't mean (including the anomalies.) If I rephrase 'Everyone' To 'Every healthy (mentally and physically) human.' Will you STFU?

I thought that would have been blatantly obvious and readily available to anyone reading. Clearly not.

You have superbly demonstrated the all-too-human folly: "they" are the exception, you are the rule. There are no "anomalies," it is only your ignorance that fails to see what really is. The human brain fears that which it cannot understand--and label--thus we label these as "exceptions" to the rule to prove a point. The fact is, you and nor any science cannot "prove" anything. There will always be "exceptions."

You, your mentality rather, is the reason man is not yet the "ubermensch."

I have one problem with what you are saying.

If biology works so differently for every person on the planet, why do most people bond, mate, and reproduce in roughly the same way?

If significant differences in biology and arousal were the rule, rather than the exception, it seems to me that mating just wouldn't work. There wouldn't be any reliable way for any one human to attract any other human as their mate.

Keep in mind, in terms of the evolutionary history of human beings, metal pins are a relatively recent invention. If that guy was only aroused by pins in 80,000 BC, would he have been able to find a mate and reproduce?

What dathwampeer is trying to say is not that everyone should be the same, or that everyone is the same. He's saying that human beings fit on a bell curve. Most people's anatomy works the same way, and most people respond predictably to biological impulses. Some people are not 'average' or 'normal', in that their biology works slightly differently.

In other words, pin guy may get aroused by unusual stimuli, but the actual feelings of arousal he experiences are probably not too different than anybody else's.

Try thinking about it this way. If everybody's biology was radically different, then how does modern medicine work? How can aspirin be succesfully marketed as an anti-inflammatory if it only works for a very small portion of the population, because only their biology is specifically tuned to allow aspirin to work? How can doctors routinely administer anesthesia, if the anesthetics they use only work for a small group of individuals?

Clearly, this is not the case. Most people's biology works about the same. There are variations (some men like tits, and some men prefer asses), ther are people who fall outside the mean (some people are allergic to aspirin; good luck with that headache), and some people who are outliers (like the guy who can only get it up if he gets stabbed with a sharp object, or whatever).

As for man becoming the "ubermensch", doesn't that involve the creation of a superior race by ELIMINATING all of the outliers, and bringing mankind into a state of consistent perfection? How does that philosophy jive with accepting the outliers as normal? Maybe you can explain that to me.

Basically, your post leads up to the explanation: modern medicine works. Does it? It has a higher percentage of "success" than ancient medicine. But it doesn't work--not to it's 100% claim. Name one pill, surgery, therapy, medicine, treatment, diagnosis for, forget 100% of the population--a hundred percent of people it's applied to.

Gangrene can be cured 100% of the time by amputating the limb.

 

[Giest4life]

Monogamy is the last vestiges of a dying human race--the race of the "last men," as Nietzsche called them. There is nothing good, noble, and praiseworthy about monogamy. Just as there is nothing special with polygamy.

If we were meant to be monogamous we wouldn't have any desire to cheat.

Simple as.

Penguins don't cheat, in-fact most of the time when one's partner dies. It will simply never mate again. Some die soon after, thoughts are from grief. Wanna know why? Because they were born to be monogamous.

Be careful with that, sir. When you say "we" how sure are you that you speak for 100% of the human populace, the dead, the living, and those that are not yet conceived? I'd be careful with generalizations like that....

It's human nature to be at the very least curious about having sex with other people. Even if someone doesn't cheat, there is a 100% chance that at some point during any relationship they've had. That they have looked at another prospective mate in sexual way. whether or not they act upon it is another matter.

What I am sure of is that monogamy, especially as far as males are concerned, is counter intuitive as far as survival of the species goes. Atleast in a primitive situation. Spreading your genes to as many mates as possible gives you a greater chance of special survival.

That's not so important now. But old habits are hard to kick. Especially ones that are ingrained on you at a genetic level.

I generalise because it's true.

Again, sir. Do you know if it's true for the 100% of those--even males--that have yet to be, those that are, and those that were? It's a disturbing trend that I've seen amongst humans: the trend to state their observations as the "truth."

you're not observant for pointing out the fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed. Is it also right to say that you don't know that every human is born with blood because you haven't tested every human to prove this? I think I choose to believe in hormones over inane philosophical prattle.

Just because you can't prove something to be statistically true doesn't mean it isn't.

If you must know, statistically, nothing is true, because nothing can really be tested to it's fullest. Name me a study in which the sample is the whole human population. A quick search of "statistics" on wikipedia should have yield you the results you need.

Only the ignorant call it "inane philosophical prattle." I guess, you need to fill in the hole in your, so called, "knowledge."

*woosh* right over your head.

That was kind of my point.

And biologically speaking.... yes... what I'm saying is true.

You don't stop being attracted to other people once you're in a relationship. There is no biological proof to suggest anything to that nature. In-fact oxytocin (the chemical linked with human bonding) begins to fade dramatically after only a few years. And rises once again when you find a new partner.

So yes. I'm going to continue calling what you're saying inane philosophical prattle. Because it doesn't mean anything. It's just a blatant fact that has no relevance to my point, dressed up as something poignant.

The fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed doesn't mean that what we know human biology is wrong. Again. Simply because I can't statistically prove something doesn't mean it's wrong... :/

Again, there is no single biological phenomenon that is universal. Every hormone secreted, every brain function, every twitch of the muscle, every beat of the heart is different in every single one of us. You know, the inconvenient word we use to describe everything that doesn't fit our narrative: mutation.

To prove my point, I heard it on npr, last week, this recorded mental patient who would reach orgasm at the sight of pins---yes, pins!

Though I regret I can't remember the exact name of the patient or the therapist who attended, and recorded that guy.

Ever heard the expression. 'The exceptions that prove the rule.' It is of course going to be true that there are anomalies, we're talking about biology here. Not factory crafted beings. For 99% of the population hormones are going to have the exact same effect. There may be slight differences in the process and length of time involved. But they all do the same thing.


There are bound to be those who are considered mentally retarded. And/or haven't reached sexual maturity. They won't have the desire for sex atall. I thought it was clear that I was talking about normal humans. Not the handicapped exceptions.

When someone is talking about the absolute in a discussion like this. They don't mean (including the anomalies.) If I rephrase 'Everyone' To 'Every healthy (mentally and physically) human.' Will you STFU?

I thought that would have been blatantly obvious and readily available to anyone reading. Clearly not.

You have superbly demonstrated the all-too-human folly: "they" are the exception, you are the rule. There are no "anomalies," it is only your ignorance that fails to see what really is. The human brain fears that which it cannot understand--and label--thus we label these as "exceptions" to the rule to prove a point. The fact is, you and nor any science cannot "prove" anything. There will always be "exceptions."

You, your mentality rather, is the reason man is not yet the "ubermensch."

I have one problem with what you are saying.

If biology works so differently for every person on the planet, why do most people bond, mate, and reproduce in roughly the same way?

If significant differences in biology and arousal were the rule, rather than the exception, it seems to me that mating just wouldn't work. There wouldn't be any reliable way for any one human to attract any other human as their mate.

Keep in mind, in terms of the evolutionary history of human beings, metal pins are a relatively recent invention. If that guy was only aroused by pins in 80,000 BC, would he have been able to find a mate and reproduce?

What dathwampeer is trying to say is not that everyone should be the same, or that everyone is the same. He's saying that human beings fit on a bell curve. Most people's anatomy works the same way, and most people respond predictably to biological impulses. Some people are not 'average' or 'normal', in that their biology works slightly differently.

In other words, pin guy may get aroused by unusual stimuli, but the actual feelings of arousal he experiences are probably not too different than anybody else's.

Try thinking about it this way. If everybody's biology was radically different, then how does modern medicine work? How can aspirin be succesfully marketed as an anti-inflammatory if it only works for a very small portion of the population, because only their biology is specifically tuned to allow aspirin to work? How can doctors routinely administer anesthesia, if the anesthetics they use only work for a small group of individuals?

Clearly, this is not the case. Most people's biology works about the same. There are variations (some men like tits, and some men prefer asses), ther are people who fall outside the mean (some people are allergic to aspirin; good luck with that headache), and some people who are outliers (like the guy who can only get it up if he gets stabbed with a sharp object, or whatever).

As for man becoming the "ubermensch", doesn't that involve the creation of a superior race by ELIMINATING all of the outliers, and bringing mankind into a state of consistent perfection? How does that philosophy jive with accepting the outliers as normal? Maybe you can explain that to me.

Basically, your post leads up to the explanation: modern medicine works. Does it? It has a higher percentage of "success" than ancient medicine. But it doesn't work--not to it's 100% claim. Name one pill, surgery, therapy, medicine, treatment, diagnosis for, forget 100% of the population--a hundred percent of people it's applied to.

Gangrene can be cured 100% of the time by amputating the limb.

Yeah, I--and yourself--said modern medicine. I'm pretty sure the ancient Sumerians could have figured that part out. But if you'd care to use "Google Health," potential treatment include: surgery, antibiotics, several operations (don't the difference between that and surgery). Anyway, try harder.

 

[Giest4life]

Why does it bother you that science can't prove anything? And these "theories" you call them, all inevitably fall to other theories which will eventually be replaced by others. Such is your folly, and yet you continue to repeat it. Talk about bashing your head against a wall.....

You're thinking of Theoretical Physics, the section of science devoted to jumping to conclusions and making other conclusions based on them. No, they aren't proven, but that's not the science in question.

The science in question is biology which is out of all of them the most firmly planted in observations. We know and understand how things work in our bodies through microbiology, we can see them happen with our own two eyes. We observe we record and we conclude through the only logical deductions. In macro-biology this is is no different, except that we aren't looking at cells under a microscope we're looking at social organisms of animals. We once again observe and study their characteristics and make even more accurate conclusions. We know how these societies function, don't deny it.

Science is firmly grounded in observations we make and refining the way we observe things so that there can be only one logical conclusion.
Theoretical Physics? Not so much. But hey, the rest is solid, so quit bitching.

Science is firmly grounded in observations. I concur. And who does the observations? Through which being does ALL information must ultimately pass through?

Anything and everything man knows--or claims to know--will be disputed and will be "proven" wrong often in his own lifetime.

Your biology, and all your sciences are no different.

 

[_Janny_]

Judging by the poll, looks like most escapists are romantics at heart. Commence group "awww".

However, I am also of the belief that any human is capable of feeling strong, romantic love, to more than one person at any one time.

Never happened to me, but this sounds very logical. This instance probably works as long as the people involved aren't married/committed. Once you tie the knot you owe it to your spouse to cut romantic ties with anyone else.

 

[Mr Fixit]

More than one girlfriend at a time, DAMN that would get expensive.

 

[Joshroom]

I don't know. I mean, I'm all for monogamy but that's only because I've been lucky enough to stumble across my soulmate at such a young age. If wasn't with my lady I'd probably be more for multiple partners because that is kind of more what I actually believe in.

So yes, I beleive monogamy is right but only because I don't want to share my partner at all. BACK OFF ALL OF YOU. SHES MINE!!

 

[Giest4life]

Normality is average? Average of what age? Normality, like I said, varies from person to person and often even in the same person in a different time. Your desperation to find familiar patterns do not entail to be truths on behalf of nature.

You're head is planted firmly up your ass isn't it?

You really do think you're something special. By taking other, better peoples philosophies and butchering them to suit your needs in a pointless argument that you started.

I think you may be one of the most detestable people I've ever had the misfortune of crossing paths with. I simply pity you. I want to hate you, but I just can't muster the energy... You're simply not worth it.

Normality of behaviour is the average of the current age. Just like normality in the 1600's was the average of that age. Normality is just the average.

I'm not saying all normal humans are identical. Nor am I saying that all kinds of normality are genetic or evolutionary. A lot of what we consider to be normal is cultural.

Biological normality on the other hand... that's not negotiable. It may have have changed slightly over the past few thousand years. But that's just evolution. We still have some vestigial genes that are linked with making yolk for an egg... We're mammals. We don't gestate in external eggs.

Some traits are going to remain a constant in our genetics and behaviour. Short of chemical altering. We're still going have primitive urges and desires that transcend culture or period. The desire for sex is one of those traits. Argue against that all you want. I don't really care.

This is your weakness, this is precisely what degrades us from the beasts---for all our "intellectual conscience" we cannot rise above the beasts in our perception.

Really? Show me the chimp that figure out mathematics. Or atomic structure... Hell, even philosophy.

Looking for patterns in the rout of our intellect. Without it, language wouldn't have even evolved. That's just patterns of sound and image when you break it down. The reason no animal other than humans have developed any sort of complex language is because they don't have the cognitive resolve to break down and formulate patterns like we do.

Even animals that have basic languages stretch little farther than warnings and preludes to mating. As far as I know the animal with the second most comprehensive language is some sort of colony rodent in Africa. And that is still a far cry from even the most basic of human languages.

It's easy to call things "fanciful" "overcooked" when you can't understand. It's easier to negate than to comprehend. What could be wrong with you, right?

:/

I've read and understood Nietzsche a long time before I had the misfortune of meeting you. It seems to be you who has trouble understanding it though.

Although there are some things of his that I agree with. When a person, such as you. Uses his work as an excuse to claim that the only way to be open minded is to accept that we know nothing and basically attacking anyone who would dare try and make progress by science and theory. Shouting ignorance and presuming you are superior simply because you are undecided on matters.... well it's just downright annoying.

Let me make this clear. You are not enlightened. You are using phrases you've probably read in passing and some preconceived notion that you are superior to everyone you meet because you don't buy into.... well anything by the sounds of it.

Science doesn't prove things to the absolute. It theorises and makes sense of patterns. Abandoning this does not make you clever. Until you can provide proof that what I?m saying about human physiology is wrong. You're just another guy abusing philosophy in a bid to sound intelligent.

Colour me unimpressed.

Here, once again, Human Folly raises its ugly head: your claim to "understand" Nietzsche are entirely unfounded. Hell, I don't think Nietzsche himself had a firm grasp on what he was thinking--and writing--and the same would go for Kant. Pride is a good thing, said Nietzsche, but don't impress upon yourself a claim to understand Nietzsche--which is why I never used him as an argument. Also, Spark Notes don't count when you read Nietzsche.

As I have said before, it is precisely our claim that we know logic, mathematics, metaphysics, and Philosophy that renders us so useless. We claim to "know" so many things, and yet we demonstrate so little of it.

 

[Sandernista]

It just works for me

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

First off swans and goats are monogamous as far as I remember I know swans definitely are.

I have goats. Monogamous they are not.

Monogamy is what God ordained to be. I don't care if you agree with me or not. I'll just go ahead and just use marriage as an example, because it'll be easier to explain. One man and one woman. That is "traditional" for a reason. The loving and trusting bond created between a single man and a single woman is the perfect environment to excell, for a marriage should bring out the best of both, (I'm not saying all do, but they should!), and to raise a family. People are more then animals. Our bodies may be pretty darn similar to monkeys and pigs, but that is not all we are. Contrary to popular belief, we are perfectly capable of overcoming our bodies. If not, we'd all be having raging orgies every month.

In fact, someone saying a person can't control himself or herself is an insult to all humanity.

Lastly, no, I would not practice pologamy, even if it was legal.

Ok well I was unsure on that as I know they can be but I don't know if enough of them are to count as a monogamous species really.