Re: virus: A debate challenge.

From: athe nonrex (athenonrex@godisdead.com)
Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 15:15:00 MDT

  • Next message: Hermit: "virus: Re:Getting a reputation"

    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>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 15:15:22 MDT