Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
because you said women went hunting, not fishing.you know big game hunting, the defining characteristic of our genus ****, the reason we made extinct most big mammals on the planet? the element that differentiated us from all other precious primates and probably the exact reason our brain is denser and more developed (massive fat access is necessary to achieve that) than other
Your ideas about "gender roles" are surely terribly wrong, but as far as large primates go, humans have less dimorphism based on size than Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas and Orangutans. The closest to humans are Bonobos and Bonobo society is also far less hierarchical and especially far less patriarchal than the other large primates. Gorillas, which have the most patriarchal groups, have extremely large sexual dimorphism.
"Why is everyone who is not me or my kind so angry at me?" (i guess you call them liberals because you need to believe in the simple binary world that has been sold to you).
Because you people do and say dumb **** all the time and then gaslight the rest of us about it. There's a reason everyone who disagrees with you is emotionally enraged at you. Figure it out dipshit.
Once again, do you ever see Conservatives getting all emotional and calling people names in these forums?
Your ideas about "gender roles" are surely terribly wrong, but as far as large primates go, humans have less dimorphism based on size than Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas and Orangutans. The closest to humans are Bonobos and Bonobo society is also far less hierarchical and especially far less patriarchal than the other large primates. Gorillas, which have the most patriarchal grou
Humans have moderate sexual dimorphism, generally practice moderate levels of polygamy, and exhibit moderate levels of "natural" gender role specialization.
We aren't gorillas, but we also aren't wolves (who have very low levels of sexual dimorphism, polygamy and defined gender roles).
It should also be noted that degree of sexual dimorphism is positively correlated with degree of sexual selection; so as 57onRed has already noted, human males behave the way they do because that is how females have selected them to act.
Once again, yes. Probably not as much because most of the conservative posters just come here to troll and bait those exact reactions. "Liberal" (everyone else) misery seems to be their primary belief system.
Humans have moderate sexual dimorphism, generally practice moderate levels of polygamy, and exhibit moderate levels of "natural" gender role specialization. We aren't gorillas, but we also aren't wolves (who have very low levels of sexual dimorphism, polygamy and defined gender roles).
How much that is true (and I think it is largely true for humans but I'm not making this point to assert that it is or isn't) depends on how much female choice there is. In some species with a lot of dimorphism (like most birds) it's entirely based on female choice. In other species with a lot of dimorphism, like Sea Lions or Lion Lions, it's because males fight and winning males monopolize the females. The higher degree of sexual dimorphism in gorillas happens for similar reasons and, while the societies, such as they are, for orangutans are much different, they also have large degrees of sexual dimorphism because of males fighting for access to territory and females.
Human sexual bonding isn't much like any other primates, but the lower degree of sexual dimorphism is possibly related to other things like having somewhat less differentiated roles.
How much that is true (and I think it is largely true for humans but I'm not making this point to assert that it is or isn't) depends on how much female choice there is. In some species with a lot of dimorphism (like most birds) it's entirely based on female choice. In other species with a lot of dimorphism, like Sea Lions or Lion Lions, it's because males fight and winning m
I don't know if the data supports this; but I have heard it argued/hypothesized in various ways that modern (Western) environments select for greater sexual dimorphism; precisely because there is more female mate choice in modern egalitarian societies.
Good god can we get back to just moderation talk? Why is this other nonsense allowed in the "Moderation questions" thread?
Aren't there threads already where people can parrot what they google about a topic and try seem smart?
I don't know if the data supports this; but I have heard it argued/hypothesized in various ways that modern (Western) environments select for greater sexual dimorphism; precisely because there is more female mate choice in modern egalitarian societies.
Sexual dimorphism has supposedly decreased on a scale of like 10s of thousands of years. I doubt there's much that can be said/determined in this regard over just a couple thousand years of wild changes in societies/environments, especially if trying to attribute any causes.
Lol
You convinced me, Craig, that marginalized minorities would indeed struggle to perform systemic racism without the institutional control needed to implement it. That makes a lot of sense to me, good argument. And to extrapolate that to your point, I now understand what Crossnerd meant when she said that all men, as a group, across different cultures and civilizations, are trash
Oh, I get it now. It's just like Muslims, in so much as their leaders who dominate systems in theocratic countries, violently dominate their systems of power and oppression, especially of their women.
Therefore, all Muslims are trash.
Once again, do you ever see Conservatives getting all emotional and calling people names in these forums?
I do. You haven't read any of the dummy who the other day admitted that Trump was a s--- sandwich? I can't remember his name now, these guys have mostly been pretty quiet this week.
OK, it's Brian James, who just contributed a "lol" post to the discussion.
Come on man, we know you're smarter than this. You can't tell me you have never heard someone on the left say that before.
I mean, there are a lot of people in the world who say a lot of dumb ****. I've never seen anyone say it ITF, which was my point. And if I'm mistaken and they have, ez game, all Tweedledee had to do was direct me to the relevant post(s).
I mean, there are a lot of people in the world who say a lot of dumb ****. I've never seen anyone say it ITF, which was my point.
That's pretty disingenuous; he didn't say specifically it was someone in this forum, and I couldn't quote it, but I think I have seen something like that here in the past.
He says enough dumb stuff that you don't need to pile on something which is really obviously true.
Crossnerd seemed to be claiming special victimhood status which, in her mind, would justify any and all bigotry toward men.
I was seeking clarity from her about this by using the analogy of how some people claim special victimhood status for black people by saying black people can’t be racist.
After being questioned, I then provided proof of people believing black people are incapable of racism.
Why in the hell would you then go to, “Well, who said that in this forum?”
As if that matters or is relevant to the overall point..
