ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Arryn]

BigDaddy said:
Actually, I meant you should attack my society and evolution arguements (thats right I'm callin you out).

Why should I attack your arguments? If you fail to make your case then I needn't go through the effort to kick what I consider to be a dead horse. You peddle snake oil, I'm not buying, and I just keep on walking while you attempt to hustle the next mark coming down the road.

Besides, ignoring the absurd is so much more effective.

I'm quite enjoying the discussion with Quantum. He raises *valid* points which merit consideration and debate.

I do admit that your analysis of mass murder was good. Pity you haven't put as much effort into dissecting religion as you did that. heh


Clue: ball's back in your court ...

[BigDaddy]

Arryn said:

Actually, no. If anything, historical and evolutionary (biological, not social) factors tend to favor "kill or be killed", cheat on spouse because it increases the odds of spreading your genes (as well as spreading STDs), and that those who amass wealth and power tend to live longer than those who don't. The "thou shalt not kill" is a relatively modern concept to try to tame otherwise inherently violent humanity. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife has roots in "if you do you'll piss off her husband and he shall kill you" and "if you screw her you'll catch whatever she has or give her whatever creeping crud you have".

So your arguement is that thoug shalt not kill is modern? I think not. I will attack your arguement directly, and not sidestep or divert.

Maybe you misunderstand my arguement. There is nothing missing. Primate females prefer "nicer" males. This is clearly true of humans as well (though you can argue that women don't like wimps, I doubt you would argue that they prefer thugs to real men). So, nicer males make more babies. Even in todays societies, but then today's society has all kinds of things that don't apply to the evolution arguement.

So, do you believe I can't site research about the primates? Or from the evolution scientists? Or do you simply disagree?

Evolution isn't always about making something more powerful, its often about feathers, hair, intelligence, and parenting.

In typical societies families pass their "values" on to most of their children. Therefore, those activities that promote having children, staying out of prison(or not getting killed), and live longer lives will be promoted by SUCCESSFUL families more often than by other families. I dare say that successful families rarely Kill people, because of its inherent danger, rarely steal things (except for very nice things). And so forth. Until it was understood that stealing and such was bad, because it led to massive death (murder in a small society, but generally not in a family). Societies that are violent to other societies are violent amongst families as well.

Social evolution?

It gets rather sticky, however, to argue either one of these points, because you actually have to argue against both. I looked for and found evidence, and professional opinion. AND my arguement has not been significantly altered.

As far as religion goes, you are quite aware that if you disregard "evidence (and I am using the term loosly)," it is rather difficult to even discuss. If you where willing to discuss probability of the few known things it could get us somewhere, but not far enough. I'm sure you've had this arguement many times and where happy to do so again. No one (except God) is ever going to be able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the existence of God.

Oh, and you still haven't said anything about my arguements other than that you believe their points aren't valid. So tell me, is it a specific sentence you have trouble with, or just the whole thing.