Da Fuq

Ar Ciel wrote:Nowadays or centuries ago? And what'll hold the man to have sexual relations with his wife (whom is a kid)

And homosexuals can pass their genes, if you don't know! Need I to explain how?

The man would probably know not to have intercourse with a pre puberty girl. I'm pretty sure most men even back in old times knew not to do that. Modern child molesters do not usually try to have intercourse with a pre puberty girls, but only other relations. It's kind of obvious that it's a bad idea to almost everyone. If not, then yes, then they would probably damage the girl and ruin the value of marrying her before the other guys start competing for her. I didn't say it would have been a good idea even if the guy was an idiot.

And the gay guy would not be producing with the other man he married. It would still be someone else. A female someone else. I didn't say homosexuality is wrong, just that it is even worse for producing children. Just that two guys can't make a baby together. They might be able to get an outside female to do it, in modern times, for a lot of money, if they have it. But marrying the other guy was of no utility in actually producing a baby. With just his mate, the gay guy cannot produce a baby.

Marrying the girl, though, the pedo could make a baby with her later. He was smart and grabbed a beautiful mate before there was competition for her while other guys were worried about looking pedo. He'll be producing babies with her later, while some of the other guys are left in the dust, because there are never enough attractive females to go around. You would be crazy to not get yourself one early while she is a little young and there is not much competition. It's just good basic strategy. The competition heats up later, and you could lose out.

You will have an attractive mate. Many other guys will end up without. Pedos most often are happy to have sex with post puberty girls, I know I am. Just they may be even more interested in pre-puberty most of the time.

The pedo was the one guy smart attractive to reserve a table at the sought after restaurant. The other guys all competed try to get in after dinner had already started.

It won't always work out well. But neither does any strategy. Pedophilia would have been a winning strategy at least some of the time. And that's part of why it has persisted.

I think the evolutionary benefits of pedophilia are somewhat more nuanced- in prehistoric times (>90% of human history) people lived in a perennially hostile environment and people very often died, leaving their children to fend for themselves. As people had enough trouble keeping their own families alive, there was no incentive to adopt children whose parents died- they would have been a burden and more often than not were left to die. People who were emotionally and sexually attracted to children, however, would have a direct incentive to care for and protect non-familial children until adulthood, thus boosting group evolutionary fitness.

Paladin...
So, what? They can also adopt a child. Is your genes that important to pass-on? If so, why? A adopted child can pretty much do the job of keeping the family's "alive". I don't understand why you NEED to have a baby.

Ar Ciel wrote:Paladin...
So, what? They can also adopt a child. Is your genes that important to pass-on? If so, why? A adopted child can pretty much do the job of keeping the family's "alive". I don't understand why you NEED to have a baby.

That's because you are ignorant of basic biology.

Ar Ciel wrote:Paladin...
So, what? They can also adopt a child. Is your genes that important to pass-on? If so, why? A adopted child can pretty much do the job of keeping the family's "alive". I don't understand why you NEED to have a baby.

From the scientific point of view of evolution, the point of life is to pass on your genes. I'm arguing that straight pedophilia can at least do better than homosexuality at this. It can't be less natural if it is more successful reproductively.

As Naxal said, an adopted child may satisfy a wish to have a child. But it does not count as success biologically speaking.

There is no point in arguing whether something is natural or not when discussing right and wrong. This is one of a few irrelevant discussions that people like to have when arguing about the morality of pedophilia or homosexuality.

Another involves the acceptability of pedophilic relations throughout history - also mostly irrelevant unless the effects or lack of effects on those children can be verified.

Naxal321 wrote:

Ar Ciel wrote:Paladin...
So, what? They can also adopt a child. Is your genes that important to pass-on? If so, why? A adopted child can pretty much do the job of keeping the family's "alive". I don't understand why you NEED to have a baby.

That's because you are ignorant of basic biology.

Ah, c'mon! Everyone is """"ignorant""""" about something! Look at you! You're a GREAT example of this!

From the scientific point of view of evolution, the point of life is to pass on your genes. I'm arguing that straight pedophilia can at least do better than homosexuality at this. It can't be less natural if it is more successful reproductively

But in what ways does this matter to most people? One can live and love and don't care about passing their genes on. Does that makes that person "less important"? And, it also makes the pedophilia act "better"? C'mon! Don't make me laugh.
By your sense; a woman (or a man) that cannot reproduce...why the f*** they exist, so? As their genes can't be passed. And the point in life is to reproduce.
So, I guess I'll decide to be a useless s***!

And, as far as I know, the majority of the World population are heterosexuals. A minority that decides not to reproduce won't make any difference to "evolution".

Ar Ciel wrote:

Naxal321 wrote:

Ar Ciel wrote:Paladin...
So, what? They can also adopt a child. Is your genes that important to pass-on? If so, why? A adopted child can pretty much do the job of keeping the family's "alive". I don't understand why you NEED to have a baby.

That's because you are ignorant of basic biology.

Ah, c'mon! Everyone is """"ignorant""""" about something! Look at you! You're a GREAT example of this!

From the scientific point of view of evolution, the point of life is to pass on your genes. I'm arguing that straight pedophilia can at least do better than homosexuality at this. It can't be less natural if it is more successful reproductively

But in what ways does this matter to most people? One can live and love and don't care about passing their genes on. Does that makes that person "less important"? And, it also makes the pedophilia act "better"? C'mon! Don't make me laugh.
By your sense; a woman (or a man) that cannot reproduce...why the f*** they exist, so? As their genes can't be passed. And the point in life is to reproduce.
So, I guess I'll decide to be a useless s***!

And, as far as I know, the majority of the World population are heterosexuals. A minority that decides not to reproduce won't make any difference to "evolution".

Personally people can make whatever choices they want. But at the most basic level life exists to pass on it's genes. That is the scientific view. From that most basic perspective, pedophilia (straight kind) makes more sense than homosexuality. And from a personal point of view, it seems it could be very fun, as well. Along with so many other orientations that people seem to enjoy.

Why doesn't the girl appear to have any sense of choice in any of the things you've said? Oh, yeah. Because she doesn't. You write like female children are just uteruses with pigtails. It's really, really skeevy and disgusting. "Reserve a table at the sought after restaurant"? "The other guys all competed try to get in after dinner had already started"? "He was smart and grabbed a beautiful mate before there was competition for her"? Girls are not an investment for the future, when they become beautiful women. Everything you are saying is #######4. Women and men engage in mutually beneficial relationships, built upon shared experiences, love, trust, attraction and so on. Your prose describes a predator and prey scenario that doesn't -- and shouldn't -- apply to the current world. It's disgusting and harmful.

UnluckyPaladin wrote:

Ar Ciel wrote:Paladin...
So, what? They can also adopt a child. Is your genes that important to pass-on? If so, why? A adopted child can pretty much do the job of keeping the family's "alive". I don't understand why you NEED to have a baby.

From the scientific point of view of evolution, the point of life is to pass on your genes. I'm arguing that straight pedophilia can at least do better than homosexuality at this. It can't be less natural if it is more successful reproductively.

As Naxal said, an adopted child may satisfy a wish to have a child. But it does not count as success biologically speaking.

Actually, the greatest advantage human's have over other species is our intelligence -- our tool making, our survival skills. From an evolutionary standpoint, it's the teacher and the child raiser that's more vital than the genetic parent -- a kid raised by people with the time, money and opportunities to educate that kid will be a lot more successful in the modern world than one who's greatest achievement is being raised by the person who gave birth to it. Illnesses that, 20,000 years ago, would have resulted in that child's death (and the termination of that genetic line) are now not a barrier to reproduction or success. As much as humans are just animals ... in terms of modern society, we aren't actually identical.

Aside from that, another great issue is that humans have such a long juvenile period compared to other animals because it's important that we pass on these skills. Take the r/K selection theory -- (while not the most relevant, it's still a simple way to explain this). Humans are very much K-strategists -- we've sacrificed large litter numbers, rapid maturation, and an early first experience of parenthood for a huge life expectancy, high parental investment (both in time and resources), long gestation periods and low infant mortality rates because, for us as a species, it's way, way better to live a long time, mature and learn than it is to give birth a lot. We as a species don't have the resources, or the physical characteristics, that would make mimicking the mating habits on mice worth it. For good reason, we've been pushing the average age of the first reproductive event (to use a life history theory term, crossing to a more relevant concept) back later and later.

These days, the "survival of the fittest" doesn't apply to the ones with the best genes. It's about the ones born into developed countries, possessing enough money to have as many kids as they want and put those kids through business school, before succumbing to an immune deficiency that would have wiped out one of their ancestors before the age of 10. After all, who do you think has been more beneficial to the advancement of society as a whole -- Stephen Hawking, who will be survived by his three very successful children, or your "pedo ... the one guy smart attractive", who might be physically at the top of his game but provides absolutely nothing to society as a whole, and whose only offspring is the rape baby he produces with the child that he -- like, owns I assume you mean, when you talk about lady-children as food at the table? Because it's pretty ######6 clear which of those two sets of offspring are better off.

Don't try to use science or evolution to defend the fact that you want to ###$ children. You are being wrong so very hard.

You sir, win the entire internet.