Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


New Britain
Today at 01:35 PM

German nationalist party ...
Today at 01:15 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 01:08 PM

Russia invades Ukraine
Today at 11:01 AM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
Yesterday at 09:31 PM

Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 08, 2025, 01:38 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM

Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
February 02, 2025, 04:29 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 11:48 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Evolution and Morality

 (Read 48559 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #60 - June 26, 2010, 11:46 AM

    I think you could frame your answer another way: Is it moral or immoral to murder?

    The answer is, its immoral because you wouldn't like it if someone else murdered you or one of your family members. It would start wars, years and decades will be wasted in violence which could have been spent making scientific progress which is what will actually determine how long human species on the whole live on.

    The earth is eventually guaranteed to run out of resources, and the galaxy we live in is eventually going to die out. In these circumstances even the strongest gorilla man wouldn't be able to do anything unless they had invested the time needed in scientific progress rather than war, which will make the actual difference in terms of whether we survive those events or not.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #61 - June 26, 2010, 11:47 AM

    Maybe coz bigger males mean they look and probably are stronger than a shorter one and could protect the female and her offspring? Huh?


    exactly

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #62 - June 26, 2010, 11:50 AM

    Imagine if we were hyenas and all the women were bigger than the men and had a penis....

  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #63 - June 26, 2010, 12:02 PM

    So what makes you think that in a random war only the tallest people will survive? Only the people best at hiding / people from particular tribes will survive, who will come in a variety of shapes and sizes. It can even be determined by pure luck.


    why do you think height is a desirable trait in men?

    Quote
    Secondly, in modern warfare strength and height offer very little advantage, having more numbers to your side and better technology is what determines success.


    I agree but this has had no impact on our evolutionary history. Height being a desirable trait has been hardwired into our brains through millions of years of evolution.

    Quote
    Actually most genes survive, only the weakest die out, like Rationalizer said. Sometimes there is a rare catastrophe in which only the 'fittest' genes survive. E.g in time of dinosaurs, an asteroid/meteor hit the earth, killed most of the species, but the smallest species of that time i.e mammals were the ones that were the most adapted to that environment, and hence they were the ones who lived on.


    right but humans and other mammals also compete with each other for the priviledge of mating with a female. The winner gets to reproduce the loser doesnt.


    Quote
    Hence, intelligence is the most important trait for human survival, not physical strength.


    stephen hawking is very intelligent. I don't think he could do very much to stop me from killing him though.

    Quote
    Yea but his part of the world is now one of the most backward. The war he created destroyed a lot of his own countrymen and all the years wasted in wars because of his actions.


    civilisations rise and fall. while he was alive it was a huge empire. Also the proof is in the pudding that his reproductive strategy was a success.

    Quote
    Of course there was, because if you take a random sample of nazis and random sample of gypsies, there will be a few weak people and a few strong people, a few intelligent and a few dumb people in both groups. Like I said, no human ethnicity based group is inferior to another group as a whole.


    In terms of height and muscle mass would you say that japanese people are equal to nigerians?

    In terms of explosive speed do you think japanese people are equal to nigerians?

    There is a reason why there are no japanese or white sprinters in the olympics.

    Quote
    They were never one of the most advanced. Where are you getting your stats from? Ancient greeks and romans were advanced,


    My point was that there civilisation was very advanced and they were able to pull of engineering marvels but nowadays egypt is nothing special.

    It was a point to say that civilizations rise and fall. It happened to the egyptians the romans the greeks and the mongolians.

    Quote
    then they got into religion, hence wars, hence less scientific progress. In both cases the point is that war retards human progress.


    war paves the way for scientific advancement. Arabs who had no knowledge of anything conquered lands and started a golden age of science.

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #64 - June 26, 2010, 12:03 PM

    Imagine if we were hyenas and all the women were bigger than the men and had a penis....


    mind=blown

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #65 - June 26, 2010, 12:06 PM

    Of course we can, and I just did.


    haha well youre not exactly being fair.

    Quote
    But they weren't stupid enough to go on a rape spree to ensure their genes are spread. Many of them had sex for the pleasure of it.


    rape was a large part of the reproductive strategy for prehistoric man

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #66 - June 26, 2010, 12:15 PM

    I think you could frame your answer another way: Is it moral or immoral to murder?


    according to evolution ...no.

    Quote
    The answer is, its immoral because you wouldn't like it if someone else murdered you or one of your family members.


    So if two rams fought to the death this would be an immoral act of murder?

    Quote
    The earth is eventually guaranteed to run out of resources, and the galaxy we live in is eventually going to die out. In these circumstances even the strongest gorilla man wouldn't be able to do anything unless they had invested the time needed in scientific progress rather than war, which will make the actual difference in terms of whether we survive those events or not.


    you keep making the same mistake. Our brains are hardwired by evolution. nothing is gonna change this any time soon. Ask women if they find stephen hawking attractive and want to reproduce with him.

    cocopop?

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #67 - June 26, 2010, 12:16 PM

    why do you think height is a desirable trait in men?

    How will war ensure that only the tallest survive?

    Quote
    right but humans and other mammals also compete with each other for the priviledge of mating with a female. The winner gets to reproduce the loser doesnt.

    Yea, so go ahead and compete with them, who is stopping you?

    Quote
    stephen hawking is very intelligent. I don't think he could do very much to stop me from killing him though.

    And if the earth runs out of water, how will the muscle mass of the gorillas help him survive?

    Quote
    civilisations rise and fall. while he was alive it was a huge empire. Also the proof is in the pudding that his reproductive strategy was a success.

    For how long? 10 years? Then it was the most fucked up region of the world. You can go ahead and produce 1 trillion offspring, but if you don't have the technology to do space travel and find other sources of water when earth runs out of it because you were too busy in war because of your rape sprees, every 1 of that trillion offspring will die with you on earth.

    Quote
    In terms of height and muscle mass would you say that japanese people are equal to nigerians?

    If the nigerians and japanese have war, the japanese will kill the nigerians like butter because of their vastly superior technology.

    Quote
    My point was that there civilisation was very advanced and they were able to pull of engineering marvels but nowadays egypt is nothing special.

    Because they didn't continue to progress, they got into wars and religion and stopped working on science.

    Quote
    It was a point to say that civilizations rise and fall. It happened to the egyptians the romans the greeks and the mongolians.

    Only the ones that get into wars and stop progressing scientifically are the ones who fall.

    Quote
    war paves the way for scientific advancement. Arabs who had no knowledge of anything conquered lands and started a golden age of science.


    That's the biggest load of BS i've ever heard. 90% of muslim scientists came from Persia, not arabia.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #68 - June 26, 2010, 12:19 PM

    Quote
    rape was a large part of the reproductive strategy for prehistoric man


    BS. Prove it with sources.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #69 - June 26, 2010, 12:22 PM

    Why? if we are all animals reproducing with a sexually mature animal should not be immoral.


    In many species rape is the norm, in some it is not.  It's a social evolution.  It's possibly a bi-product of protecting our group's members against attack.  Not all species rape in order to reproduce, therefore we see the evolution of "not raping" all around us and yet we also see the evolution of rape all around us too.  We see variations, that is what evolution is about, variations.


    If a male dog had sex with a female dog while she was "in heat" this wouldnt be immoral. Even if some study showed that the age of the dog would lead to a miscarriage. This would be a flaw in evolution and would not render something immoral


    A piss poor weak dog might be able to rape a weaker female, resulting in weak babies which might die.  Different species found different ways of avoiding this, the babies which were stronger were stronger for a reason

    1: The mother tried to resist, therefore only the dogs stronger than her were able to reproduce with her (tortoises.)
    2: A stronger animal chased it off so that the stronger one could fuck her instead (Elephants.)
    3: Remaining with your mate to raise the children was more successful (birds.)

    It was normal by their standards and child marriage is still practiced today in places like yemen. The ememies of Muhammad would have used anything they could to discredit him. But they never mention this issue.


    Which is why I think it was moral at the time.  However the important thing is that it is scientifically possible to prove that in general sex with 9 year old girls is physically a negative thing and therefore this person was not told to promote this action by God, or that God wanted babies to die.


    dolphins pull off gang rapes.


    What's the point you are making?

    At one point the majority consensus was that homosexuality was immoral and a mental disorder.


    And was a pivotal part in the suicide of Alan Turing, someone who deserved a lot better after what he did for us.  Yes, it WAS immoral, these days many people who dislike the idea of the act wouldn't say it was "immoral" but just "unpleasant", most people would probably say they don't care what consenting adults get up to.  Proof that morality evolves.

    In the past
    1: Sex with children - Moral
    2: Gambling - Immoral

    Now (here in the UK)
    1: Sex with children - Immoral
    2: Gambling - matter of opinion not morality


    i think it is illegal as a remnant of religious law. pretty much all laws of man are losely based on the 10 commandments.


    Which in turn were strongly based on the morality of the time.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #70 - June 26, 2010, 12:22 PM

    cocopop?


    Computer says no.

  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #71 - June 26, 2010, 12:23 PM

    according to evolution ...no.

    Evolution is not a damned philosophy like buddhism. Only complete retards would choose to make evolution their religion, and ironically they will be weeded out pretty much immediately due to natural selection. Evolution makes something moral/immoral only as much as gravity makes it immoral to fly.

    Quote
    So if two rams fought to the death this would be an immoral act of murder?

    We are not rams. We don't have the same reproductive needs, strategy, or pressures. If you'd like to be a ram, by all means go and live in a forest - civilized society doesn't rams.

    Quote
    you keep making the same mistake. Our brains are hardwired by evolution. nothing is gonna change this any time soon. Ask women if they find stephen hawking attractive and want to reproduce with him.


    Women aren't attracted to rapists either, genius. Besides, you're advocating rape on the basis that it will make the genes survive, whereas i'm telling you that rape -> war -> ultimate extinction of human race because we couldn't research science enough to be able to find other sources of water.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #72 - June 26, 2010, 12:27 PM

    Yea thats what I was saying. The next question I was gonna ask is why did heigh become a desirable trait in males?


    There could be many reasons.  Women might see it as a sign that they are bigger, stronger, and more capable of protecting them.  Let's choose something more subtle, why did the tails of peacocks become so beautiful?

    In a pond with lots of predators a species will tend to develop camouflage.  In a pond with few or no predators they tend to develop more prominent skin.  Prominence makes it easier for a mate to locate them, it could also be seen by the female as a form of security - anything that can afford to be that prominent AND survive must be VERY successful or live somewhere where there is little risk, either way they are a good bet for having children with.

    That's what sexual selection is all about.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #73 - June 26, 2010, 12:29 PM

    How will war ensure that only the tallest survive?


    you answered my question with another question. this isn't exactly fair.

    why do you think height is a desirable trait in men?

    Quote
    Yea, so go ahead and compete with them, who is stopping you?


    modern laws that give genetically weak humans a chance at equal footing. thats one of the themes of this thread.

    but men compete in a different way all the time. a lot is through aggressive bodt language. in our past this aggressive body language would lead to violence.

    Quote
    And if the earth runs out of water, how will the muscle mass of the gorillas help him survive?


    bro youre doin it again. you said that every race of people was genetically equal. I showed you that they weren't are you atleast conceding to me that the japanese are not equal to nigerians in terms of height muscle mass and explosive speed?

    Quote
    For how long? 10 years? Then it was the most fucked up region of the world. You can go ahead and produce 1 trillion offspring, but if you don't have the technology to do space travel and find other sources of water when earth runs out of it because you were too busy in war because of your rape sprees, every 1 of that trillion offspring will die with you on earth.


    cmon man this is your own vision of the future it is not exactly a fact.

    Quote
    If the nigerians and japanese have war, the japanese will kill the nigerians like butter because of their vastly superior technology.


    i agree i was just trying to say that not all races are genetically equal.

    Quote
    Because they didn't continue to progress, they got into wars and religion and stopped working on science.
    Only the ones that get into wars and stop progressing scientifically are the ones who fall.


    You have a very simplistic view. You assume that if people just focused on science nobody would attack them.

    Quote
    That's the biggest load of BS i've ever heard. 90% of muslim scientists came from Persia, not arabia.


    I was saying that the war paved the way for this. no matter the origins of the scientists most of the learning took place in iraq and damascus. (and it wasnt happening before)

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #74 - June 26, 2010, 12:30 PM

    There could be many reasons.  Women might see it as a sign that they are bigger, stronger, and more capable of protecting them.  Let's choose something more subtle, why did the tails of peacocks become so beautiful?

    In a pond with lots of predators a species will tend to develop camouflage.  In a pond with few or no predators they tend to develop more prominent skin.  Prominence makes it easier for a mate to locate them, it could also be seen by the female as a form of security - anything that can afford to be that prominent AND survive must be VERY successful or live somewhere where there is little risk, either way they are a good bet for having children with.

    That's what sexual selection is all about.


    exactly. but ali was kinda saying height doesnt matter. if it didnt matter it would not be a desirable trait.

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #75 - June 26, 2010, 12:31 PM

    you keep making the same mistake. Our brains are hardwired by evolution. nothing is gonna change this any time soon. Ask women if they find stephen hawking attractive and want to reproduce with him.


    Hawking was 21 when he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. That would have been in 1963.  His daughter Lucy was born in 1969.  Therefore his condition was known for 6 years before his child was born.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #76 - June 26, 2010, 12:34 PM

    exactly. but ali was kinda saying height doesnt matter. if it didnt matter it would not be a desirable trait.


    Not all desirable traits are important.  If a desirable trait turns out later to be important then it MIGHT become more prevalent.  Don't use humans as examples because there is the added social evolution to consider (like women dying their hair red in some African tribes) - try to use animal examples, it's simpler.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #77 - June 26, 2010, 12:36 PM

    Computer says no.


    you sure...hes really intelligent and funny




    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #78 - June 26, 2010, 12:36 PM

    Not all desirable traits are important.  If a desirable trait turns out later to be important then it MIGHT become more prevalent.  Don't use humans as examples because there is the added social evolution to consider (like women dying their hair red in some African tribes) - try to use animal examples, it's simpler.


    are you tryin to say that height was never important?

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #79 - June 26, 2010, 12:38 PM

    are you tryin to say that height was never important?


    No, I already said that women probably equated it with strength and an ability to protect them.  I suspect height is more about biological evolution than sexual selection.  What's your obsession with height? What point are you trying to make? Do you think that humans should be 500ft tall or something?

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #80 - June 26, 2010, 12:45 PM

    In many species rape is the norm, in some it is not.  It's a social evolution.  It's possibly a bi-product of protecting our group's members against attack.  Not all species rape in order to reproduce, therefore we see the evolution of "not raping" all around us and yet we also see the evolution of rape all around us too.  We see variations, that is what evolution is about, variations.


    exactly but it is still a viable strategy.

    Quote
    A piss poor weak dog might be able to rape a weaker female, resulting in weak babies which might die.  Different species found different ways of avoiding this, the babies which were stronger were stronger for a reason

    1: The mother tried to resist, therefore only the dogs stronger than her were able to reproduce with her (tortoises.)
    2: A stronger animal chased it off so that the stronger one could fuck her instead (Elephants.)
    3: Remaining with your mate to raise the children was more successful (birds.)


    This was not supposed to be regarding rape. You said that muhammad sleeping with a 9 year old was disgusting by modern uk morality. I said...



    Why? if we are all animals reproducing with a sexually mature animal should not be immoral.

    If a male dog had sex with a female dog while she was "in heat" this wouldnt be immoral. Even if some study showed that the age of the dog would lead to a miscarriage. This would be a flaw in evolution and would not render something immoral

    (no pedo haha)

    Quote
    Which is why I think it was moral at the time.  However the important thing is that it is scientifically possible to prove that in general sex with 9 year old girls is physically a negative thing and therefore this person was not told to promote this action by God, or that God wanted babies to die.


    I don't believe in Allah im just saying it isn't fair to call him immoral from an evolutionary standpoint


    Quote
    What's the point you are making?


    dolphins are similar to humans and they rape in a very unique way that i used to think was only done by humans.

    Quote
    And was a pivotal part in the suicide of Alan Turing, someone who deserved a lot better after what he did for us.  Yes, it WAS immoral, these days many people who dislike the idea of the act wouldn't say it was "immoral" but just "unpleasant", most people would probably say they don't care what consenting adults get up to.  Proof that morality evolves.

    In the past
    1: Sex with children - Moral
    2: Gambling - Immoral

    Now (here in the UK)
    1: Sex with children - Immoral
    2: Gambling - matter of opinion not morality


    Which in turn were strongly based on the morality of the time.



    I agree but alot of people here would be mad if someone said homosexuality is immoral...so this was more for others reading this that their own perceived morals may not actually be correct.

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #81 - June 26, 2010, 12:46 PM

    No, I already said that women probably equated it with strength and an ability to protect them.  I suspect height is more about biological evolution than sexual selection.  What's your obsession with height? What point are you trying to make? Do you think that humans should be 500ft tall or something?


    no its just that ali keeps saying it doesnt matter. although i did suggest at the beginng of the thread shorter men were genetically inferior (or their lack of height was an inferior trait)

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #82 - June 26, 2010, 12:49 PM

    Hawking was 21 when he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. That would have been in 1963.  His daughter Lucy was born in 1969.  Therefore his condition was known for 6 years before his child was born.


    point i was making is that women would prefer to mate with brad pitt than stephen hawking despite his intelligence. this would be true even if he didnt have that disease

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #83 - June 26, 2010, 12:51 PM

    How can lack of height be genetically inferior?

    In dense jungles with thick vegetation, you will usually find the humans living in such areas are short ... probably the tall ones die more often from accidentally hitting their head on a thick branch piggy

  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #84 - June 26, 2010, 12:52 PM

    you answered my question with another question. this isn't exactly fair.

    why do you think height is a desirable trait in men?

    I've never denied that height isn't a desirable trait for sexual reasons. You were somehow suggesting that rape sprees all over -> war -> only tall people surviving, I asked how this will happen.

    modern laws that give genetically weak humans a chance at equal footing. thats one of the themes of this thread.

    Women are enough hard wired on their own to not select weak men. There don't need to be any laws for it. Weaker men will never be on equal footing with stronger men.

    And like I've already told you, the survival of humans depends on intelligence, not physical strength, hence you will not be doing any good if you kill off all the people you deem physically weak.

    Quote
    bro youre doin it again. you said that every race of people was genetically equal. I showed you that they weren't are you atleast conceding to me that the japanese are not equal to nigerians in terms of height muscle mass and explosive speed?

    What difference does it make?

    Quote
    cmon man this is your own vision of the future it is not exactly a fact.

    This is exactly what will happen, the sun is predicted to go out and the earth is predicted to end at one point.

    Quote
    i agree i was just trying to say that not all races are genetically equal.

    And i've just showed you that those genetic differences are not importance to humans, because we have technology to overcome most of the genetic defects.

    Quote
    You have a very simplistic view. You assume that if people just focused on science nobody would attack them.

    If the world as a whole focused on science then the world we would all be a lot more advanced today.

    Quote
    I was saying that the war paved the way for this. no matter the origins of the scientists most of the learning took place in iraq and damascus. (and it wasnt happening before)

    This is BS again, war had nothing to do with it. The smart people were going to be born there anyways.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #85 - June 26, 2010, 12:55 PM

    exactly but it is still a viable strategy.


    Not within our society it isn't, no.  With the complete collapse of society it might become one.




    Why? if we are all animals reproducing with a sexually mature animal should not be immoral.


    A 9 year old girl ready to reproduce is rare, but it does happen.  That girl being able to carry that child full term and give birth is much less probable, but it does happen.  However if you look at it statistically girls under the age of 14 have twice as many miscarriages as women 10 years older.  We don't like dead babies, we find it immoral to have sex with children even if they are capable of getting pregnant because there's a high probability they will miscarry.

    A long time ago having sex with children was okay. Maybe most of their babies died anyway and so they saw little difference in terms of infant mortality between miscarriage and post-birth infant death.  These days however we have better tools for dealing with post-birth complications and the difference is much greater.  We are better at saving pre-mature babies but the facts show that twice as many die to mothers under the age of 14.  Seeing as this is an act of nature and not social circumstances (hygiene, nutrition, etc) there is very little we can do about it at this point in time.  

    Therefore it is considered immoral.  That's not the only reason sex with a 9 year old is considered immoral in the UK, but it's a scientifically provable reason for considering it immoral.  There is a very good reason why impregnating 9 year old girls should be considered immoral, objective evidence.

    I agree but alot of people here would be mad if someone said homosexuality is immoral...so this was more for others reading this that their own perceived morals may not actually be correct.


    Because they live in societies where it is moral.  Someone from a society where it is immoral would go mad if you were to tell them it is moral.  The important thing to consider though is.....is there a REASON for it to be considered immoral?

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #86 - June 26, 2010, 01:02 PM

    I've never denied that height is a desirable trait for sexual reasons. You were somehow suggesting that rape sprees all over -> war -> only tall people surviving, I asked how this will happen.


    you are getting ahead of yourself. Let me ask why is height a desirable trait for sexual reasons?

    just because? or did humans EVOLVE this desirable trait somehow.

    Quote
    Women are enough hard wired on their own to not select weak men. There don't need to be any laws for it. Weaker men will never be on equal footing with stronger men.


    Among primates the alpha male mates with many females and physically prevents the weaker males from reproducing. Modern laws stop this from happening within humans.

    Quote
    And like I've already told you, the survival of humans depends on intelligence, not physical strength, hence you will not be doing any good if you kill off all the people you deem physically weak.


    that is your opinion.

    Quote
    What difference does it make?


    you said every race is genetically rqual. it would mean you were incorrect when you said that. (which you were but are having a hard time admitting to)

    Quote
    This is exactly what will happen, the sun is predicted to go out and the earth is predicted to end at one point.


    if the weatherman predicts rain tomorrow does that mean it will rain?

    Quote
    And i've just showed you that those genetic differences are not importance to humans, because we have technology to overcome most of the genetic defects.


    So we are able to give someone a prosthetic limb. Does that mean someone with a prosthetic leg is as desirable to women as someone with 2 normal legs?

    cocopop?

    Quote
    If the world as a whole focused on science then the world we would all be a lot more advanced today.


    there will always be hotile people. it is naive to think war won't happen.

    Quote
    This is BS again, war had nothing to do with it. The smart people were going to be born there anyways.


    why weren't they "being smart" before the Muslims conquered as-sham?

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #87 - June 26, 2010, 01:07 PM

    Not within our society it isn't, no.  With the complete collapse of society it might become one.


    fair enough but we can't paint it as immoral.

    Quote
    A 9 year old girl ready to reproduce is rare, but it does happen.  That girl being able to carry that child full term and give birth is much less probable, but it does happen.  However if you look at it statistically girls under the age of 14 have twice as many miscarriages as women 10 years older.  We don't like dead babies, we find it immoral to have sex with children even if they are capable of getting pregnant because there's a high probability they will miscarry.

    A long time ago having sex with children was okay. Maybe most of their babies died anyway and so they saw little difference in terms of infant mortality between miscarriage and post-birth infant death.  These days however we have better tools for dealing with post-birth complications and the difference is much greater.  We are better at saving pre-mature babies but the facts show that twice as many die to mothers under the age of 14.  Seeing as this is an act of nature and not social circumstances (hygiene, nutrition, etc) there is very little we can do about it at this point in time. 

    Therefore it is considered immoral.  That's not the only reason sex with a 9 year old is considered immoral in the UK, but it's a scientifically provable reason for considering it immoral.  There is a very good reason why impregnating 9 year old girls should be considered immoral, objective evidence.

    Because they live in societies where it is moral.  Someone from a society where it is immoral would go mad if you were to tell them it is moral.  The important thing to consider though is.....is there a REASON for it to be considered immoral?


    I just find it a little unfair and hypocritical when people dissmiss Muhammad as a pedo. Especially when there was nothing wrong with what he was doing from an evolutionary standpoint and people use evolution to disprove the existence of God.

    The reasoning you came up with is a little bit of a stretch imo.

    I'm an asshat.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #88 - June 26, 2010, 01:16 PM

    Quote
    you are getting ahead of yourself. Let me ask why is height a desirable trait for sexual reasons?

    just because? or did humans EVOLVE this desirable trait somehow.

    I don't know, I'm not a woman. But I've never denied that height is sexually attractive to women. How is that related to what we were talking about?

    Quote
    Among primates the alpha male mates with many females and physically prevents the weaker males from reproducing. Modern laws stop this from happening within humans.


    Among birds this doesn't happen. Among many other species it doesn't happen. In spiders the females eats the males after having sex. Every species has its own evolutionary strategies. The most important survival trait for primates is physical strength. For humans its not. Hence we don't need to weed out weaker guys.

    Quote
    you said every race is genetically rqual. it would mean you were incorrect when you said that. (which you were but are having a hard time admitting to)


    What difference does it make if nigerians are faster than japanese when japanese have cars and rockets much faster than nigerians?

    What difference does it make if nigerians are physically stronger or taller than japanese because japanese have weapons that are far superior to what nigerians have?

    That's the point I'm making, technology makes most humans equal to everyone else and there is no such things as 'weak genes' in humans apart from genes that have a lot of diseases, etc.


    Quote
    if the weatherman predicts rain tomorrow does that mean it will rain?

    In 90% of the cases it will. Do you claim that the earth will continue to survive, forever and ever and ever? if we destroyed our technology today and went back to living in tribes in forests and never develop any technology, will humanity will survive for all eternity in that state?

    Quote
    So we are able to give someone a prosthetic limb. Does that mean someone with a prosthetic leg is as desirable to women as someone with 2 normal legs?


    If they wouldn't be, then why would you want to kill those people? Natural selection will take care of weeding out such 'bad' genes on its own.

    If however you lose your legs in an accident, you will be allowed to live your life till its end because of the same laws that allow that person to live on.

    An animal without legs will likely die without food, a human will not. That's the point I'm making when I say that we have technology to overcome most defects.

    Quote
    why weren't they "being smart" before the Muslims conquered as-sham?


    Who said they weren't? In any case, the arab conquest wasn't the reason for their advancement, give some sources for it if you think that's the case. Most of the time the scientists were considered heretics by the religious that occupied Persia.
  • Re: Evolution and Morality
     Reply #89 - June 26, 2010, 01:23 PM

    [you will not be doing any good if you kill off all the people you deem physically weak]
    that is your opinion.


    No, it is a fact.  What a gene pool needs in order to increase it's survival is diversity.  A German scientists tested the "pure DNA" hypothesis after WWII by starting a new civilisation named Nueva Germania.  Years later the population are riddled with genetic diseases.


    fair enough but we can't paint it as immoral.


    It IS immoral.  I repeat (for about the 5th time), morality is what society chooses it to be.  It IS immoral because the majority of people consider it to be immoral.  Unnatural? No.  Immoral? Yes!



    I just find it a little unfair and hypocritical when people dissmiss Muhammad as a pedo. Especially when there was nothing wrong with what he was doing from an evolutionary standpoint and people use evolution to disprove the existence of God.


    There was nothing wrong with what he was doing from a social/morality point of view.  There is no "wrong" in terms of evolution, only cost vs benefit.

    Cost of young motherhood:
    Risk of death to the child - not a high cost.
    Risk of death to the mother - high cost as it will take many years to raise another child to a suitable reproductive age.

    Benefits of young motherhood:
    You might be able to have 2 or 3 more children during your lifetime, but I don't think age was a significant factor in ceasing to have more children but rather deliberately stopping / death of mother during child birth / insufficient resources to feed all of your children.

    It seems to me that waiting a few years has benefits at no cost, whereas impregnating early had more costs without any benefits.  So evolution wise it would probably not have been the most successful approach.

    What a man dead for over 1400 years did is of no interest to me, however if his example means people think it is okay to continue doing the same thing then it becomes relevant.



    The reasoning you came up with is a little bit of a stretch imo.


    Not a very helpful response.


    The most important survival trait for primates is physical strength.


    No it isn't.  Why are you making stuff up on the spot and then believing it?  Don't you think primate society is more important than how strong they are?  If all primates were 25% weaker tomorrow would they die?  No!  Their cooperation is far more important.

    I've had enough of this conversation.  At various points I thought I had explained something to you only for you to then go on and make comments which show you didn't understand after all.  It's a waste of my time.

    Morality is group survival, that's it.

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »