What do you think about the existence of basic and carnal human nature?

ianturpiesmoustache · 2014-10-04T16:16:32+00:00

An idea like AWALT doesn't have to be a way of looking at women as some lesser species, it's simply accepting the nature of women.

No, not all men are any one thing, and not all women are, either. I just don't see the value in pigeon-holing an entire gender as being a certain way, or all engaging in similar behaviours, as it just can't be done with any accuracy.

Also, as a sub that (sometimes, like in the side bar) advocates the view that women should be seen as/treated like teenagers, I'd have to say at the very least that's a really good imitation of "looking at women as some lesser species".

Men and women have different roles in preserving the human species. Doesn't that make men and women different?

Yes, men and women are different. That doesn't mean TRP is suddenly right about what those differences are, or the best way to form/maintain relationships with the opposite gender.

I agree that we're all human, we all have feelings, we all feel happiness and sorrow, but we've developed differently and I think we feel those feelings in different ways.

Is this a reference to TRP belief that women can't love men as much as/the same way as men love women? Because I'd love to see some actual, non-anecdotal evidence for that.

If not, could you clarify what you meant here?

A monogamous LTR doesn't inherently promote a better human species. Hypergamy does. From an evolutionary viewpoint, doesn't AWALT make sense?

How do you see hypergamy benefitting the human species more than forming LTRs?

prettylatebloomer · 2014-10-04T21:50:42+00:00

From an evolutionary viewpoint, doesn't AWALT make sense?

AAAAAAUUUURRRRGH! NO.

GOD.DAMN.IT.

Think about where you are in history!

THERE ARE 7 FUCKING BILLION PEOPLE ON EARTH. 200 FUCKING YEARS AGO THERE WERE 6 BILLION LESS. We are growing at an ~~exponential~~ drastic rate! What does this mean?

The Bible was written when there was, what, 500,000 people on Earth? Maybe 200 million? Just...not a lot of people on Earth. The Bible really supports heterosexuality! Why? ~~Because it gives God the warm fuzzies.~~ Because in order to survive, people had to hump like rabbits to just generally pass on their genetic heritage (because a shitload of kids died back then! Just because you had a healthy baby girl didn't mean you had a daughter for life!)

We don't have to do that anymore. We shouldn't. Look! Nature/God/whatever is saying "oh fuck that's a shitload of people, better throw some gay peeps in there to slow everything down." And what do the retards of Earth do? "Oh nooooo! Gays are scawy! Let's keep the population exploding because I'm a dipshit who's terrified of change that will happen anyway! I completely lack perspective and am just too much of a flaming retard to know any better! I will destroy God's creation because I'm scared, pathetic, and want simple, comforting answers rather than the truth."

Evolution isn't like train tracks - we don't just keep sticking to the same methods our ancestors used else we "go off the rails" because we don't live in the same world our ancestors lived in, we live in a world affected by their efforts. Evolution is far far more malleable than we previously suspected. Y'know, neuroplasticity and all: how certain parts of our genetic code will only unravel and be read if we are put in a situation that calls for it.

Getting back to your stupid theory: it's stupid, outdated, and does not take into account the modern dilemmas we all face. Most of us are probably a little gay. Because if a woman has one gay relationship in a series of relationships, that means for a certain number of years she can't accidentally have a child. That activity impacts the birth rate.

So, in order to preserve the human species, it's best to be gay to whatever degree one finds themselves attracted to the same sex, or at least be an ally to others. Stop ignoring gay people and pretending that they're some genetic aberration because they're not. They're the key to getting our massive population down and that should be respected. Evolution doesn't mean we are exactly like our ancestors. We will evolve to adapt to the world around us which is getting fucked by our ancestors' shortsightedness. Preserving our species sometimes means fucking like rabbits and spraying out babies. It can also just mean fucking at some point to pass on one's genetic heritage. It can also mean fucking people with whom one can't randomly produce genetic offspring. All these types of people are floating in the human genome because they ALL are necessary to keep the species going depending on what specific crisis our species is facing.

So...with that much genetic diversity/malleability, I don't think AWALT, AMALT, or APALT. I do think MRPASAF (most RPers are stupid as fuck.)

edit: Just reread this and realized we're not growing exponentially. That would be insane. But as a species we're still growing way too large for our...planet.

prettylatebloomer · 2014-10-04T18:18:04+00:00

I accept evolution, but I also accept it as working in funny ways. Sometimes predictable, sometimes less than predictable.

As far as carnal desires, I think it's a switch that can be turned on and off over and over again. Like a light switch.

[deleted] · 2014-10-04T18:00:07+00:00

[permanently deleted]

[deleted] · 2014-10-04T15:39:58+00:00

17b29a · 2014-10-04T16:25:43+00:00

no, accepting evolution doesn't really entail accepting grand claims about human psychology and "mere creatures" is pretty nonsensical

garybuseysawakening · 2014-10-05T03:59:49+00:00

We consistently see the pattern hormones has on psychology and predispotions to behaviour. Most people fall within a realm of normalcy.

[deleted] · 2014-10-06T14:57:41+00:00

[permanently deleted]

prettylatebloomer · 2014-10-04T17:26:23+00:00

There is no singular nature to people. There is no single nature of women, or men.

As for true love, it absolutely exists, but only if you open your mind to the possibility that it does.

Unicornrows · 2014-10-04T20:18:31+00:00

I think our unique brains make us more complex and harder to predict than other animals. The way that genes control our behavior is very convoluted when you mix in culture and the modern world for which we didn't evolve.

I really wish looking at things from an evo psych standpoint worked better, and it does work decently well, but I think it's not the most--or at least not the only--useful perspective.

You could look at a computer from a physics perspective, a chemistry perspective, a programming perspective, or an end-user perspective, and you'd be right that it's operating on each of those levels, but those perspectives are useful for different things. If you drop it and it breaks, physics is the best way to explain why it broke. If you spill water on it, it's a chemical thing. If you want to send an email, though, don't think of it in terms of electrons and silicon; think of it in terms of browsers and webpages.

People can similarly be looked at on multiple levels. We obviously still exist on physical, chemical, and biological levels, but those are rarely useful for predicting behavior. Evo psych is one tool for predicting people's behavior, but so is looking at a person's individual genes and epigenetics, and so is psychologically analyzing their experiences and history, and so is talking to them to learn their beliefs. TRP is yet another perspective, and I'd say it's distinct from evo-psych.

A humanistic perspective is what most people use most of the time, and there are lots of phenomena best explained from it. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie adopted a bunch of kids; that's counterproductive to their genetic fitness. John Lennon and Yoko Ono seem to be best explained through "true love" (annoying as Yoko is) than evo-psych.

Title	What do you think about the existence of basic and carnal human nature?
Author	prettylatebloomer
Upvotes	3
Comments	82
Date	October 4, 2014 2:19 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2i9zam/what_do_you_think_about_the_existence_of_basic/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-do-you-think-about-the-existence-of-basic-and.284693 https://theredarchive.com/post/284693