Author
|
Topic: A debate challenge. (Read 923 times) |
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.43
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
 |
A debate challenge.
« on: 2003-09-25 19:36:48 » |
 |
I present the members of CoV with a challenge to debate.............
..............................with themselves!
This is what we will do. We pick up a topic. Instead of picking up one side and arguing against someone, why dont we try to argue against ourselves. This could be a good exercise for cultivating empathy. Surely, we have come across situations in our lives where we 'can see' the other's point of view even though we dont agree with it ourselves. Sometimes, we dont. Granted, sometimes, there can be no 'other side' when our convictions are strong. But are our convictions strong all the time?
Normally, I'd choose a political debate topic. Thats probably not a good idea atm.
Topic #1: The case for and against monogamy.
If you have a strong opinion for or against monogamy, this isnt your playground. If you have strong opinions for monogamy AND against monogamy or if you cant decide, please feel free to add to this thread. Noone will be addressing anyone else. To tackle an individual's pov, a new thread can be started.
There shall be two parts to each post. The first section arguing FOR monogamy. The second section AGAINST monogamy. Remember, dont use four sentences when you can communicate the same in just one sentence. The arguments must be devoid of personal details and must be rationally argued. Anything presented as 'facts' need to show sources.
The floor is now open.
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
 
|
|
RE: virus: A debate challenge.
« Reply #1 on: 2003-09-26 02:51:51 » |
|
For polygamy: Apparently suits male sexual motivations by offering
variety and adventure.
Against polygamy: Tends to limit the gene pool. Tends to encourage
confrontation.
For monogamy: Suits female sexual motivations by providing easier access
to power tools. Diversifies gene pool. Tends to discourage
confrontation.
Against monogamy: Stressful and boring. Causes lawyers.
Provisional conclusion: monogamy is, taking the long term view, probably
better.
Mused on polyandry and female-based sexual selection as opposed to
male-based. Mused on the fact that true monogamy is rarely found 'in the
field'.
Modified provisional conclusion: serial monogamy, which is at least
attainable, is probably better than utopic monogamy.
New premises generated from provisional modified conclusion:
1: Divorce is a good thing.
2: A leading cause of divorce is adultery.
Subsidiary conclusion: adultery is a good thing.
New conclusion: monogamy when combined with adultery is a good thing and
is to be preferred to polygamy or polyandry alone, because it combines
the advantages of all three systems.
Final conclusion: Thou shalt commit adultery.
Best Regards
Blunderov
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
DrSebby
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 456
Reputation: 7.99
Rate DrSebby
...Oh, you smell of lambs!
     
|
|
RE: virus: A debate challenge.
« Reply #2 on: 2003-09-26 04:15:44 » |
|
aka.... "Fidelity is only for your mate"
DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Blunderov" <squooker@mweb.co.za>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: A debate challenge.
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:51:51 +0200
For polygamy: Apparently suits male sexual motivations by offering
variety and adventure.
Against polygamy: Tends to limit the gene pool. Tends to encourage
confrontation.
For monogamy: Suits female sexual motivations by providing easier access
to power tools. Diversifies gene pool. Tends to discourage
confrontation.
Against monogamy: Stressful and boring. Causes lawyers.
Provisional conclusion: monogamy is, taking the long term view, probably
better.
Mused on polyandry and female-based sexual selection as opposed to
male-based. Mused on the fact that true monogamy is rarely found 'in the
field'.
Modified provisional conclusion: serial monogamy, which is at least
attainable, is probably better than utopic monogamy.
New premises generated from provisional modified conclusion:
1: Divorce is a good thing.
2: A leading cause of divorce is adultery.
Subsidiary conclusion: adultery is a good thing.
New conclusion: monogamy when combined with adultery is a good thing and
is to be preferred to polygamy or polyandry alone, because it combines
the advantages of all three systems.
Final conclusion: Thou shalt commit adultery.
Best Regards
Blunderov
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
"courage and shuffle the cards..."
|
|
|
Zloduska
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 113
Reputation: 7.99
Rate Zloduska
Handcuffs are for amateurs.
|
|
Re:A debate challenge.
« Reply #3 on: 2003-09-26 04:22:57 » |
|
Monogamy is grand.
On the plus side:
- The freedom and ease to care for and keep track of one's own Sex Toys.
- Less laundry/dirty sheets.
- No damn condoms.
- Waking up and cuddling with the same person every morning, assuming you actually like them a lot.
On the minus:
- Temptation can be hard to resist.
- Exclusion from membership of the Ultra-hip Swank N'Sexy Swingers Club of America, Golf Green, Casino, and Spa Resort.
- It's such a, like, Christian thing to do.
- Waking up next to the same person day after day, assuming you detest their very being and find them boring. And they smell bad.
Polyamory is splendid.
On the plus side:
- Especially for bisexuals!
- Makes a game of naked olive oil Twister far more interesting.
- Looks great on a resume.
- Inclusion in your very own special USENET group or Yahoo! mailing list specifically created for nerdy, overweight, balding, middle-aged, enthusiastic, pathetic Polyamorous folks.
On the minus:
- Can motivate jealously. Issues, issues, issues.
- The Mormons, Chinese, and Arabs do it, so it must be bad. Oh wait, that's POLYGAMY. Oops.
- Just TRY getting 5 people into a conventional shower/tub at once!
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.43
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:A debate challenge.
« Reply #4 on: 2003-09-26 10:28:07 » |
|
This is more of 'presenting the case' for each side as opposed to a formal debate.
AGAINST MONOGAMY
According to Robert Wright, author of Moral Animal, monogamy is the worst thing that could have ever happened to women. It laughs at the face of feminists as they fiercely promote monogamy as a fair and respectable union between male and female.
Let us consider our options:
***(to clarify, 'status'....higher status implies most desirable genes, high fertility, social status. Everyone of us strive to achieve status. Evolutionarily, we are programmed to achieve status in order to obey our genes and to ensure their perpetual existence. )***
polygynous environment: more high status women than high status men. men attract the high status women, have easier access to them than lower status men and marry several of them. the fewer number of lower status women can still procure their mates from the remaining pool of lower status men.
polyandryous environment: more high status men than high status women. women can take in more than one mate. the fewer number of lower status men will still be left for the pick for the lower status women.
Monogamy, by contrast, works against women and especially lower status women. Monogamy does indeed favour lower status men. In a polygynous marriage market, the lower status male will be left behind by the aggressive high status male elite.
Here is something to ponder. Monogamy was promoted by Christianity, the "civilised" religion of the world as it swooped down to save the rest of the heathens from their pagan, godless, immoral ways. If one really considers the facts, it would be crystal clear that monogamy is clearly an invention that came about to soothe the lower status male. Is it any wonder that monogamy flourished under Christianity? Translated: lower status males who couldnt get to contribute to the gene pool find a religion that promises them an environment that will correct the problem appealing. Embracing Christianity is self serving for lower status men as it ensures the elimination of competition from the higher status men.
The poor and the weak will be rewarded by monogamy as opposed to their slim pickings from the female population in a polygynous society. The opposite is true for the much rarer phenomena of polyandry.
Monogamy limits the gene pool and only worse than monogamy is polyandry. Polygyny seems to be the only option to obtain a diverse and thriving gene pool.
It is common wisdom which is probably backed by statistics that crime numbers lag in a society when men find it easier to find mates. In a feminism infused, monogamous society, the men are less likely to find mates and settle to start a family. Male Parental Investment nudges the male to adopt a lower risk, less destructive lifestyle. On a longer shot, one can also assume that it is the very same factor that boosts the pace of the material economy. As the family grows and the appropriate programmed urges kick in, the need to provide for the welfare of one's own genes propels the male to perform at his optimum capacity. Usually, this increases productivity and on a bigger scale, transforms into general prosperity. Arguably, this would be the main factor for a reduction in population figures as general prosperity slows down procreation rates. On the other hand, polyandry, because it is dependent on the woman's cycle to release the elusive egg, is a better strategy to deal with population explosion.
Monogamy breeds aggression as it is essential for the male and female to defend their partners from outside interests. If the children of monogamous partners outnumber the children of polygamous partners, the aggressive gene, if there is any such thing, would become more prevalent in the gene pool leading to an aggressive world. The same theory can be extended towards attitudes like jealousy, possessiveness etc.
FOR MONOGAMY:
Monogamy is uniquely a moral and ethical obligation towards one's mate in order to honour the contract of marriage. Monogamy strengthens the bonds between two individuals and given the right conditions and the right people, will push their relationship to a newer level.
Monogamous couples, bound by the lack of wiggle space, learn the importance of cooperation and tolerance very soon. This pliablity of character can be a boon when it comes to iner personal relationships. With the right couple, monogamy is a constant search and study of new boundries within a relationship.
Childrearing within a monogamous relationship assures for the female that the male parental investment is not scattered among other female mates and their offsprings. There is less conflict and lesser distribution of resources. The children enjoy the benefit of uninterrupted attention from both the parents. Monogamy has the undisputable advantage for the parent to be able to identify his/her offspring.
While it was indeed argued above that monogamous pattern of union tends to work against women by restricting higher quality sperm and favouring lower status men, it is also true that monogamy ensures survival even to the least evolutionarily fittest specimen. It serves the best interests of both the male and the female of the human species. Cheating by either partner would result in total reproductive failure for both. Monogamy encourages active competition among the species which can lead to honing and sharpening of desirable skills and abilities in order to attract a potential mate.
In today's infectious world, monogamy ensures a certain protection against vile sexually transmitted diseases by sealing and restricting sexual exploits among the two partners.
A recent avatar of monogamy is serial monogamy which is basically a monogamous relationship followed by yet another after a complete break from the first union. Here, individuals stick to the ideals and spirit of monogamy while enjoying the freedom to release themselves from the relationship when it doesnt work. The most common side effect of this is divorce.
Between serial monogamy and monogamy, the latter has many advantages over the former. To this author, serial monogamy is a form of escapism and utterly devastating to the children of that union. Single parents are not always equipped to raise children in a nourishing environment. The maternal and paternal input is essential for the well rounded growth of a child. Serial monogamy also distributes and then redistributes resources among children with different parent sets thereby neither enjoying the benefits of polygamy nor exploiting the security of monogamy. Serial monogamy also distressingly reduces the reproductive success of women. Monopolising a significant part of a woman's reproductive period, a serial monogamist moves on to acquire another female. The woman who is left behind will either remain single which would imply that her reproductive abilities are worthless or will herself move on with another mate which means that the reproductive years she has spent with her previous mate are completely lost to her. If she already has children from the previous union, she loses the male parental investment of the father of the child. Thus, serial monogamy is more often a disastrous option than monogamy.
|
|
|
|
|
athenonrex
Acolyte
Posts: 79
Reputation: 5.00
Rate athenonrex
you have been FnoRded, may the farce be with you..
|
|
Re: virus: A debate challenge.
« Reply #5 on: 2003-09-26 17:15:00 » |
|
oh...a game of devil's advocate....?
more than just an excercise in empathy, it's is almost a way of
life for me...lemmie give it a go...
<snip>
Topic #1: The case for and against monogamy.
If you have a strong opinion for or against monogamy, this isnt your playground. If you have strong opinions for monogamy AND against monogamy or if you cant decide, please feel free to add to this thread. Noone will be addressing anyone else. To tackle an individual's pov, a new thread can be started.
<snip>
the case PRO monogamy
monogamy is a long standing tradition, perhaps mostly religious in
nature. even so, even most modern atheists, agnostics and other
generally non religious persons still adhear to and respect the notion
of a single parter, with unwavering commitment (at least, they make it
seem that way and make those vows.) but contrary to the notion that
monogamy is originated in religion, would could easily argue that there
are several examples of "monogamous" animals in nature that mate for
life with a single animal. we've all heard about penguins and turtle
doves. scientific research suggests (not proves) that monogamy is quite
prevailant in the animal kingdom.
aside from this biology, there is the simple question of emotion and
intimacy. i personally am intimate with one person. there have been
things shared between me and that person that i've not shared with
anyone else. and because of that special relation i share with her,
and with no one else, there is a kind of superior emotional
gratification in it. of course, one could tie this aspect back into
the evolutionary aspect of "love" being merely the vehicle for
procreation.
but even so, strictly on a procreative front, finding
that one partner to mate with and mating with only one partner can
be thought of as beneficial to genetics. certain people are instictively
drawn to other people. and those with desireable genes- as well as those
with undesireable genes- tend to gravitate towards one another, thus
singling them out and keeping/rejecting them as would seem fit.
***********************************
the arguement against monogamy
monogamy dumbs down the gene pool. this isn't perhaps always the case,
as just as the people with "inferior" genes tend towards those with
"inferior" genes, perhaps those with "desireable genes" do infact seek
out and find eachother. but, for whatever reason, the stupid people,
those with "bad" genes, seem more inclined to breed, and at a faster
rate, than those with "good" genes seem to be.
in a society that would tolerate polygamous unions, the intelligent
people that are actually inclined to procreate would have more ability
to "spread the good seed" and raise good stock and crops, so to speak.
whereas yes, this would open the doors to the "bad genes" practicing
polygamy, one should find it hard to imagine them breeding faster than
they already do.
further on the genetic side, the more mates a person has, the greater
the genetic diversity is. and we all know the first rule of genetics is
to spread the genes out. and though one could note that there are
animals in nature that do practice instinctive monogamy (penguins, other
and in fact most birds), there can be seen an equal amount, if not a
higher amount, of a single animal breeding with many other animals.
lions, for example: the male lion mates with, on average, 17 different
females in a day.
it's true that in animals practicing polygamy that the polygamous part
is almost exclusively male. and i can already see the feminist attacts
of "this is some male domination thing again, isn't it?" and i can
assure you that ...yes, it is (that's a joke, lighten up...)just because
it is practiced that way in the animal kingdom does not mean that it has
to be practiced that way by all humans. if polygamy were legalized, it
would have to extend to the females as much as it does the males. and
just because it would be legal and openly accepted, it wouldn't be
required of anyone.
by why allow one and not the other?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%
#############################################
#~every villan is the hero of his own story~#
#############################################
%%%%%%%%%%%%%
_____________________________________________________________
--->Get your free email @godisdead.com
Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
'Tis an Ill Wind that Blows No Minds...
this post is (k) Copyleft...all rights reversed.
|
|
|
|
Logged
