Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="crclapp@sbcglobalenet" data-source="post: 2821977" data-attributes="member: 164123">BendzR I usually agree with what you say and I can honestly say I dont think I will ever feel any sort of desire to help Endeavour in a debate but I personally have some issues with a post you made earlier. Hope you don't mind, I think your wrong in quite alot of your conclusions here but if you don't agree I'd be interested in your reply.This is simply untrue. People may be primarily motivated by a survival instinct but they clearly do not follow their insticts more than the moral values their society has instilled. Look at feral children compared to children raised in society and see if you notice any difference in their behaviour. To say all humans have instincts is one thing to say that they are incapable of putting morals ahead of instinct is laughable. It might be instinct to want to have sex with a particularly desirable person but do you see people just hopping on and mounting people in the street?  Actually pretty much all the books Ive read on the subject would disagree with what you say (most recent stuff Ive read has been by Desmond Morris and Richard Dawkins) since there is quite alot of good evidence that homosapiens and their most recent ancestors have been developing lifetime pair bonds for a longtime now. Again no... do you see monkeys and apes doing whoever they want all the time? Well actually I suppose you might think so but if you see even a single documentary on one of our close ape relatives you'll see they don't just do that... they adhere to the 'rules' of the established hierarchy in their group including rules on who can mate with who OR they get kicked out of the group. Social animals have to weigh up their overtly selfish desires against the advantages of being in a group and after millions of years of evolution it seems that if nature is telling us anything it's that social animals need to be accepted in a group to survive. Anyhow, this is all fairly irrelevant to humans as the majority of evidence as I already mentioned suggests our species has pretty much always formed long term pair bonds. So if you wanted to make a relevant nature comparison then it should be with other species who form similiar bonds- of which there are plenty.We don't desire sexual activity because it 'benefits the species' we desire sexual activity because it benefits us. Its what our bodies were designed to do and its what our evolved instincts desire us to do. So in a way what you have been saying is correct but you have just jumped ahead several times from the simple premise of 'its natural for humans to desire sex' to the other conclusions you've arrived at.And Siphus your secondhand smoke rant was completely idiotic. You could argue that the dangers of secondhand smoke are over exagerrated but its blatantly obvious to most people who frequent bars and nightclubs that exposure to secondhand smoke has bad effects on your body. From working in a bar previously I am doubly sure that being in a smoke filled environment is not good for your health. To top this off the carcinogenic dangers of cigarettes aren't theories thats why they have those warning stickers on the pack. The smoke coming from a persons mouth after they inhaled a cigarette didn't just appear magically it came from the cigarette so to suggest there is no health risk to second hand smoke is like suggesting there is no health risk to smoking a cigarette i.e. Its ridiculous.And to make this post slightly on topic... it's easy for people to spout their views on abortion and the sacredness of human life but I have a feeling most commenting on this are males who have no potential of becoming pregnant (as incidentally are most of the people who made religious rules) or people who have never been pregnant and had to face the situation of an unwanted pregnancy. Experience I think might change even the most stubborn persons outlook.</blockquote>

Name

Verification: Loading…