[Dru]

	Originally Posted by Lordan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Meh, how bout white majority (at least in US)? My point was, that correcting somebody should be done with correct information.

If your aim was to make your point by way of irony, I think you succeeded.

Did you have any way of linking this back to the topic, or did you just want to play teacher?

[Rudy]

I think it's pretty clear to most the supreme fallacy of arguing from "natural roles" at all; it's projecting agency onto nature, to imply that nature has assigned roles.

This is no different than arguing that the purpose of a human life is to procreate. Well, no; human life has no inherent purpose, because purpose requires agency to assign, and thus can only be derived from the human agency itself. A person's life has no purpose other than the one they give themselves.

I certainly can understand the temptation in falling back on the idea of inherent purpose and roles; it's a very comfortable position, and one that requires no deep reflection. This is simply the way things are, the end, no need to argue or to seriously consider objections. It's easy. But one cannot escape the fact that any claims of the existence of natural roles are baseless; it is not the natural role of women to do anything it particular, any more than it is the natural role of human societies to hunt & gather, though that is indeed what we all did for a very long time.

So, being disposed with that fallacious nothing, we can perhaps address the more interesting question of the source of disquiet among some men, and even some women. Related to what I've already said, I think it must have to do with putting many men in the position where they have to choose, and prove worthy of, a role for themselves, rather than having one assigned and guaranteed.

[blackLieutenant]

Humans have ony one goal Nature imposed to them is to survive.
We survive through reproduction. Gender roles naturally came because humans intelligently assigned roles to each other to make our survival easier and the most logical way possible.

But as soon as we got out of these gender roles, we quickly saw the consequences (men sexuality and identity are questioned, not enough kids are made etc...). And if we add to that the feminization of society, it's a complete mess.

That's the reality.

[Rudy]

See, there you go again. "Nature" is not an entity with will or agency; it imposes nothing. If human beings choose not to reproduce, "Nature" will have nothing to say on the matter. In fact, I strongly suspect it of indifference.

Your insistence that uncaring nature does, indeed, give a damn smacks of a desperate clinging to meaning, more than anything else.

[Storm]

Men and women's gender roles have never been fixed. For example, farming is a female task in some places, a male task in other, and done by both in others. Child rearing is often divided between men and women, with men taking on male children at the age of 5 or puberty. Unless we are defining the roles to mean "women get pregnant." In which case, nothing has changed and I haven't heard that women, as a group, shouldn't have children.

As for this idea that a woman's worth should be measured solely by the number of children she as. First, not every woman needs to reproduce to contribute to society. Second, and perhaps even more compelling for those who are measuring success in bottom lines, women (couples, really) are having less children in developed countries because they are putting more resources and time into each child.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
shows that families today are actually spending *more* time with each child than they did 50 years ago. It looks like one of the reason can be traced back to less time done on housework and men pitching in more. Funny how that is, men helping allows everyone to spend more time with the children. There is also, in an ironic twist, more societal pressure today to spend time child-rearing than there was in the 60s that can account for the additional time.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
women also raise healthier children. So, it would seem that feminism has been a positive force in regards to raising the next generation. Unless, again, you only care about the number of people produced and nothing else.

[blackLieutenant]

	Originally Posted by Rudy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	See, there you go again. "Nature" is not an entity with will or agency; it imposes nothing. If human beings choose not to reproduce, "Nature" will have nothing to say on the matter. In fact, I strongly suspect it of indifference. Your insistence that uncaring nature does, indeed, give a damn smacks of a desperate clinging to meaning, more than anything else.

If I let you 48hours without water going in your mouth, you die, this is Nature imposing things to you. Humans are at the mercy of Nature in the end.

@Storm
Working women are not good for children education. And if the woman is working too much, she cannot have the necessary number of kids in a regular society (Three). And most human societies in the world works with traditional gender roles.

[Rudy]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If I let you 48hours without water going in your mouth, you die, this is Nature imposing things to you. Humans are at the mercy of Nature in the end.

Fallacies abound. If I want to live, I have to drink water. If I want to pass on my genes, I have to have children. In either case, I am completely free to choose the alternative. If a woman does not care to pass on her genes, then she needn't have children.

[nowt]

Rudy is not a frog.

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If I let you 48hours without water going in your mouth, you die

[blackLieutenant]

	Originally Posted by Rudy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fallacies abound. If I want to live, I have to drink water. If I want to pass on my genes, I have to have children. In either case, I am completely free to choose the alternative.

If you don't want to follow Nature's basic laws, you die. Nature is deciding your fate in the end.

Then, if we maintain our own survival, Nature made us like (normally) the other sex, so we could understand and do pro-creation.
Men have normally a decent libido so that they wanna fuck women at each generation.

	If a woman does not care to pass on her genes, then she needn't have children.

Of course, but if all women do the same, humanity cease to exist. Not a good attitude.

[Dru]

Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Humans have ony one goal Nature imposed to them is to survive. We survive through reproduction. Gender roles naturally came because humans intelligently assigned roles to each other to make our survival easier and the most logical way possible. But as soon as we got out of these gender roles, we quickly saw the consequences (men sexuality and identity are questioned, not enough kids are made etc...). And if we add to that the feminization of society, it's a complete mess. That's the reality.

Intelligence, I think, had nothing to do with it.

Since you want to bring nature into the picture, natural roles and all that, let's talk about natural selection. The real goal of reproduction has nothing to do with society, but is perpetrated by natural selection. Your insistence that the majority of women fulfull these "natural" roles you keep spitting about and be child-bearing is, in fact, in direct conflict with the process of natural selection, which as a general rule means the few with the best genes be the ones producing the offspring.

So you see, if the powers that be which created these "natural" roles for men and women were intelligent in the least, they wouldn't have made society into such a confused mess.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	@Storm Working women are not good for children education. And if the woman is working too much, she cannot have the necessary number of kids in a regular society (Three). And most human societies in the world works with traditional gender roles.

You keep stating things without reasons. First, this 3 number you just pulled out of your ass. Population growth is not always good as can be shown easily in areas with famines and crowded conditions. Many tribes, which you so greatly admire, engaged in infanticide due to the reality that they could only support so many people. Like I already stated, fewer children has the advantage for more time and resources spent on each one. Population growth isn't a concern when the population is already nearing its resource capacity.

Second, as already stated gender roles are much more varied and changing than you pretend. For instance, women started going into the workforce in the 1800s - as factory workers and seamstresses. Also, before the mechanization of housework in the 20th century, women spent a considerable amount of time doing hard labor - not sitting around in air-conditioned homes playing patty-cake with rosy-cheeked children all day. In fact, only the very elite and rich have ever had that kind of time. (Although they tended to hire governesses anyway). Again, I refer you to the fact that women spent a mere 10 hours a week child-rearing in the 1960s, compared to 13 hours today. The number is even higher when you add in men's hours (3 hours compared to 7 today).

Also, has it ever occurred to you that we can do better than our ancestors. They knew less than us, they lived shorter lives, and had way less than free time than we did. Doctors use to bleed patients to let the bad spirits out for much longer than they've been using vaccines. That doesn't mean that bleeding is a better method.

[blackLieutenant]

Originally Posted by Dru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Intelligence, I think, had nothing to do with it. Since you want to bring nature into the picture, natural roles and all that, let's talk about natural selection. The real goal of reproduction has nothing to do with society, but is perpetrated by natural selection. Your insistence that the majority of women fulfull these "natural" roles you keep spitting about and be child-bearing is, in fact, in direct conflict with the process of natural selection, which as a general rule means the few with the best genes be the ones producing the offspring. So you see, if the powers that be which created these "natural" roles for men and women were intelligent in the least, they wouldn't have made society into such a confused mess.

I don't see where is the conflict with gender roles and natural selection. Those with the best genes will live with gender roles.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You keep stating things without reasons. First, this 3 number you just pulled out of your ass.

1 for women, 1 for men, and 1 for unexpected stuffs/mistakes/backup gender.

	Like I already stated, fewer children has the advantage for more time and resources spent on each one. Population growth isn't a concern when the population is already nearing its resource capacity.

Resource capacity is not a problem with our globalization.

Second, as already stated gender roles are much more varied and changing than you pretend. For instance, women started going into the workforce in the 1800s - as factory workers and seamstresses. Also, before the mechanization of housework in the 20th century, women spent a considerable amount of time doing hard labor - not sitting around in air-conditioned homes playing patty-cake with rosy-cheeked children all day. In fact, only the very elite and rich have ever had that kind of time. (Although they tended to hire governesses anyway). Again, I refer you to the fact that women spent a mere 10 hours a week child-rearing in the 1960s, compared to 13 hours today. The number is even higher when you add in men's hours (3 hours compared to 7 today).

Gender roles stayed the same, women were just doing stuffs next to it when they'd have to or could.

	Also, has it ever occurred to you that we can do better than our ancestors. They knew less than us, they lived shorter lives, and had way less than free time than we did. Doctors use to bleed patients to let the bad spirits out for much longer than they've been using vaccines. That doesn't mean that bleeding is a better method.

We had achieved our greatest in the 60's, then with feminism we regressed.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't see where is the conflict with gender roles and natural selection. Those with the best genes will live with gender roles.

[citation very fucking needed]

	1 for women, 1 for men, and 1 for unexpected stuffs/mistakes/backup gender.

Backup gender? Seems strangely open-minded of you. What arbitrary role will they be assigned by the obviously fully sentient and anthropomorphic force known as nature? Obviously whatever it is must have been predetermined and will be for society's best independently of the actual situation.

	Resource capacity is not a problem with our globalization.

When all else fails, just assert whatever you like with
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
so there's nothing for anyone to argue against.

	We had achieved our greatest in the 60's, then with feminism we regressed.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Dru]

No; you say gender roles necessitate the majority of women, irrelevent of any other factors beyond their reproductive health, should be farting babies. Natural selection means that a blessed minority pass on their fruitful genes.

Two very conflicting concepts.

[nowt]

Don't the ones who want to breed pass on the want-to-breed gene, making your fear even more ludicrous?

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Those with the best genes will live with gender roles.

[zergonipal]

Honestly - if you're reaching for the 'it's natural selection!' argument, that means you've lost the debate. It's a fallback position of last resort. Murder and violence and rape and plague and starvation, they're all natural, does it make them good and right?

(and also, it really irritates me when people use the term 'natural selection' and obviously have no idea what it means. All it means is that traits which cause an organism to reproduce more successfully than its competitors will become more common in subsequent generations. They will be naturally selected for. It's an explanation for an observed biological phenomenon, not some sort of holy natural law)

[blackLieutenant]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	[citation very fucking needed]

It's just logic.

	Backup gender? Seems strangely open-minded of you.

By backup gender, I mean if the mother had two daughters, there's a chance for her to have a boy then. And vice-versa.

	When all else fails, just assert whatever you like with To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. so there's nothing for anyone to argue against.

There are no overpopulation coming. I read that experts say now that population will stabillize around 10billion.

	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I was talking about gender relations and society.

	Originally Posted by Dru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No; you say gender roles necessitate the majority of women, irrelevent of any other factors beyond their reproductive health, should be farting babies. Natural selection means that a blessed minority pass on their fruitful genes. Two very conflicting concepts.

It's pyramidal, not only the ones with the best of best genes will reproduce,the ones with best, very-good, average-good, good, decent etc... genes will reproduce. And all of them makes a majority. And the theory of natural selection with modern humans is not very true.

	Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Don't the ones who want to breed pass on the want-to-breed gene, making your fear even more ludicrous?

I don't understand.
---------

And I'm not a big fan of Darwin, the guy who said Black people were half-monkeys and women more inferior than men.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's just logic.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true, especially in the instance of someone who apparently doesn't even know what logic *is*. Here's a free hint: it doesn't involve trying to deduce things about the real world in the complete absence of any relevant data.

	By backup gender, I mean if the mother had two daughters, there's a chance for her to have a boy then. And vice-versa.

The logical conclusion of this is that the optimal number of children for a woman to have is always infinite. If you claim it's less liekly the more children are had, you still admit that your cutoff point is completely arbitrary.

	There are no overpopulation coming. I read that experts say now that population will stabillize around 10billion.

Do you have even the faintest idea why it's set to stabilise at this figure? I'll save you the bother of checking: it's because at that point we simply won't have the resources to make a higher population number sustainable.

	I was talking about gender relations and society.

So, to wit, "feminism screwed up our progress to the best possible state where the best possible state is arbitrarily defined as one without feminism". Gee, forgive me for considering that argument uninformative.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	By backup gender, I mean if the mother had two daughters, there's a chance for her to have a boy then. And vice-versa. There are no overpopulation coming. I read that experts say now that population will stabillize around 10billion

It's going to stabilize because people are going to naturally have less children as resources become more scarce and people put more time/resources into each child.

Also, the point people are making with natural selection is it's something you don't have to be concerned about. If you're right, and only people who follow traditional gender roles will pass on their genes - then that's what's going to happen. No need to worry. If you're wrong, then that's it. You don't need to preach or plan for natural selection - it just happens.

[nowt]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't understand.

It's just logic--

The ones who will breed will breed because they want to breed, passing on the want-to-breed gene, since nature wants them to breed. So their children will want to breed. And so on. The ones who do not breed, won't pass on their do-not-want-to-breed genes. Now, here's where you should be pro-feminism--

Feminism takes out the weaker females, the ones who don't want to breed. If they wanted to breed, they wouldn't be feminists, you see. Feminism is helping -your- cause. And there is another way feminism helps your cause--

By reducing the number of viable females for breeding, men have to do more to fight off other men and win the breeders. Feminism improves men's stock. And you want the best men with the best women, don't you?--

Feminism helps that to happen.

[Dru]

We're already overpopulated. Having clean water, sanitary food in massive quantities, adequate living space, medical care, and sustainable energy sources is becoming a growing concern across the world.

Now what?

[Rudy]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Then, if we maintain our own survival, Nature made us like (normally) the other sex, so we could understand and do pro-creation.

If you want to pass on your genes, you should procreate? Tautology for $400, Alex.

Also, get it through your head: There is no mother Gaia; nature does not have intent.

[blackLieutenant]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just because you say it doesn't make it true, especially in the instance of someone who apparently doesn't even know what logic *is*. Here's a free hint: it doesn't involve trying to deduce things about the real world in the complete absence of any relevant data.

Logic doesn't need "data".

	The logical conclusion of this is that the optimal number of children for a woman to have is always infinite. If you claim it's less liekly the more children are had, you still admit that your cutoff point is completely arbitrary.

No, normally two kids would be enough, but a third one is sealing the deal.

	Do you have even the faintest idea why it's set to stabilise at this figure? I'll save you the bother of checking: it's because at that point we simply won't have the resources to make a higher population number sustainable.

So... your so-called overpopulation will stop, isn't it ?

	So, to wit, "feminism screwed up our progress to the best possible state where the best possible state is arbitrarily defined as one without feminism". Gee, forgive me for considering that argument uninformative.

Feminism feminized society, and screwup gender relations.

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Also, the point people are making with natural selection is it's something you don't have to be concerned about. If you're right, and only people who follow traditional gender roles will pass on their genes - then that's what's going to happen. No need to worry. If you're wrong, then that's it. You don't need to preach or plan for natural selection - it just happens.

I don't believe in natural selection much.

	Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Feminism is helping -your- cause.

I repeat I'm not a "natural selection" fanatic and I hardly believe in it or think about it.
This natural selection thing for modern humans is leading us to some kind of eugenics.

	Originally Posted by Dru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We're already overpopulated. Having clean water, sanitary food in massive quantities, adequate living space, medical care, and sustainable energy sources is becoming a growing concern across the world. Now what?

This a pure lie, Earth has many many many resources, we're far from being short of it yet. Now the money needed to make decent infrastuctures in numerous countries is a concern.

	Originally Posted by Rudy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Also, get it through your head: There is no mother Gaia; nature does not have intent.

Nature is (at least) intelligent, sorry.

[Rudy]

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nature is (at least) intelligent, sorry.

You believe nature is conscious? I mean, I guess that explains a lot about your position, but creates so much more to be explained.

Like, for example: why in the world would you think nature is conscious?

[nowt]

Gender roles were naturally selected. Your whole argument is based on it.

	Originally Posted by blackLieutenant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I repeat I'm not a "natural selection" fanatic and I hardly believe in it or think about it. This natural selection thing for modern humans is leading us to some kind of eugenics.