Perfect age to lose your virginity...

[suzushii]

I am neither religious, and I'm a biology major, and cool, you're basically abusing stereotypes, and equating tendencies with hardwiring. I'm sorry, but your ideas are bunk.

Let me clear some ideas for you:
hardwiring - these are insticts you can't argue against - like hunger, and thrist, and the sucking reflex in infants. We have them, and these are very much in common with other animals. Yes, we are animals.

softwiring - while we are indeed animals, we are not like most animals at all. A great part of our selves is shaped by culture and enviroment. While most animals are born self-sufficient (baby antilopes can run in 30 min from birth. some birds are entirely alone from day one) we are not like this at all. We, and other primates, give birth to offspring that are completely hopeless years, which require painstaking care for decades. cheating is NOT hardwired, it's a conscious choice!

During that time, the baby human will need the input of parents. Not one parent, but two, or prefferably an extended family. Which has been the model of the family for hundred and thousands of years.

Evolutionary speaking, we are monogamous, and slightly polygynous. That means, we do not mate for life with one person, but are more likely to be serially monogamous (one relationship after another) and with a small degree of cheating. This is for both genders. Studies done show that women cheat almost as much as men, but never more then 30%.

But what does this mean, to a modern human, his evolutionary tendencies? Well, almost nothing. These are not urges like thirst and hunger, that one seldom can control. A human is fully equiped with his higher brain to make rational decisions towards one way or another.


Your arguments are infested with a bias and sybjectivity. Basically, you defend the argument simply from the cheating male's pov, and your subjectivity shows in trying to defend the idea of "normalcy of cheating". You minimise to the point of omitting what a cheated-on spouse feels like, and the bad effects of cheating. You make it sound like cheating happens in a vacuum.

Let us take a family as an example - man, woman, children. Man cheats without telling wife. What are the good and bad effects:
Possible good effects:
Guy gets his jollies on.
Possible bad effects:

The trust of the marriage is annuled. The man acted without discussing with the wife, and lied to her face, continuously. Anyone knows a relationship that isn't built on trust is going nowhere.

The wife and children could find out. If you hear the testaments of women who have been cheated on, and children with cheating spouses, the result is jealousy, anger, and bitter, bitter pain.

The guy feels guilty, and realises he got 30 minutes of sex, in exchange for possibly indangering his family's well being. He is weighed for the rest of his life with the burden of lying and carrying that guilt. Either that, or he gets rid of it by confessing, and provoking pain.

The guy catches STDs and passes them on to his spouse. NOT ALL STDs are protected BY A CONDOM. Not even condoms work 100%. The mistress could get pregnant! Would you like herpes with that cheating? It's forever.

The guy gets emotionally attached to the mistress. Happens time and time again, and shows that sex isn't just sex, but it comes with powerful hormones that bond and give rise to feelings. This is scientific fact. He desertes the family and kids for the mistress. Countless paints insue.

The mistress starts blackmailing the family, or harrassing them. You advocate that women need emotion to have sex, and then you say men should be left to cheat. Cheat with whom? The mistresses will desire the same thing as the wife. Nobody wants to be the piece on the side.

The wife finds out, she feels inadequate, betrayed, unwanted, depressed, used up and thrown away, expired. The guy knows this and goes and cheats anyways. And then the wife should be understanding? Riiiiiight.


Many people don't feel monogamous, and the most of this group are men. However, there are plenty of women who also don't desire monogamous relationships, or would not mind an open relationship, even on the guy's part. That's why, if you want an open relationship, date and marry a person like you. Don't date a monogamous person, and cheat on them. That's unfair.

People marry because they share the same values, and have the same goals. Too many men marry despite not feeling love for their spouses, or supressing their own values and desires, and then express them on the side, while trying to hide them. This is DISASTRUOUS. And unforgivable.

[cool]

You're right, this is getting silly. If you're not misrepresenting me, then perhaps you're just misreading everything I say. But that may be the way I write (as a none native English person, my level of the written English may not be very precise) as well so the blame goes both ways. I think generally when it comes to touchy subjects like gender in-equalities, one both sides will get emotional and argue from that persepective and not at the truth of things.

Originally Posted by puzzlegirl

Herein lies the dilemma. Thanks to religious values of monogamy, men and women who mate and reproduce with one partner (aka marriage) have become the majority. Since women value emotional connection with their mate, the philanderers would be rooted out (even less likely- since the advent of birth control- that a woman would choose to reproduce with a man who will not stay with her). Combine these values passed on with many other social factors that discourage promiscuity and the "promiscuous" gene would be the one which gets bred out. It's not the natural order of things, but it's how we have slowly become.
Of course, these things come in waves. Whether there's a social wave of monogamous values or a sexual revolution, each generation will be slightly different.

I will try to explain why your entire argument here doesn't work out and thus, why I may have said you didn't get evolution in the first place. Evolution only works when a particular environment causes a particular gene to get bred out like you were trying to explain. In the past, this mechanism generally involve death. For example, people who live in cold mountains needed certain genes to survive better such as having more body hair, ability to breath in thin oxygen levels, etc, and people who don't are not as successful in surviving before they grow up and mate and over time, the hairy, bigger lungs people will be the majority. Take millions of years and you would have a perfect being living on those conditions.

The reason why I say evolution in humans have basically stopped today in the modern world is that we interfere with nature and we don't die as a result of lack of 'something' for our current environment.

Let's see if your scenario holds out. You say that because women chooses men who would marry them to have children so the more philandering ones gets 'gened' out of the pool. But this is not true simply because the philandering men are all getting married as well... they all get to pass on their philandering genes... they may actually pass on their philandering genes to women they sleep with on one night stands as well, thus, you get the single moms... no difference from the past.

This is easy to check. How many percent of people get married and have children? You'll find that it does not generally involve the difference between 'philandering men'.

In fact, in the book 'The female brain', research have shown that women chooses philandering men more than non philandering ones... Why? They found a link between good looks in men and philanderings.. ie, the better looking the less monogamous they are. And women tend to choose the better looking ones (and you can say they don't all you like).

But the above doesn't really add to the argument, because all i can see is that practically everyone today gets to pass on their genes, philandering or not. Even ones who would not have survived the past age, such as 'special' people.

I should have said: FROM priest molesters TO serial philanderers- thinking with your dick kind of applies to both on opposite extremes.

If society deem them the same then both would carry a heavy jail sentence. They don't. Again, I think you're extreme in this case. Just because a guy thinks about sex all the time means he's evil and should be thrown into jail with the keys thrown away. I shudder if you should every become the President, cause all men would be persecuted for being who they are. Just as gay people are who they are.

Sorry, but your concrete way of laying down point 1,2 and 3 in presenting your opinions does draw that conclusion.

Exactly my point. You read a few sentences then misrepresent them. Just because someone lay out a point that says 'Apples are nice to eat' does not mean he thinks 'oranges are not nice to eat'.

In fact if you read this thread fully, you'll find that I have specifically said women cheats as well but I was concentrating on the fact that men cheats more and more easily for the physical sex reasons alone and that may not mean they don't love their wives.. you then go on jumping all over me like I was advocating 'cheats' while I was just stating the facts of life. My position is that men and women both cheats on love and that we are not made to be monogamous and so what do you do about it? You either accept it or you don't... either way is fine with me...

Here's a paragraph that I mention women cheats as well, and probably in a couple of other places:

But that does not mean women do not cheat on their 'so called picked men'. They do. In fact a research indicates that as high as 30% of children born are not related to the 'husband'. But the 'husbands' do not know it. Women after having sex with their 'chosen guy, cave men', may still secretly have sex with other cave-men. The more spern she can get inside her, the better because then the strongest sperms will fight to get to her womb thus providing the best offspring. There's an article in Scientific American called 'The sperm wars' which shows how sperms war among other sperms from other guys. There are actually all kinds of sperms. We have sperms that specialize in defence such as they block sperms from the opponent from entering the 'cave'. And there are attack sperms with actual war heads that explodes on contact with the other sperms. That's a whole other story there and there's not enough space here to elaborate... look this up...

Ooh- here lies our problem. Can I take a wild guess and say that you were raised Roman catholic, or something equally orthodox? Yeah- I'm Presbytarien/Protestant (basically the laziest tradition-wise and the most liberal) and Catholicism hates us cause they think we're not extreme enough.

Nope. I am protestant as well... anglican.

Luckily, I came away with my religion intact and unscathed.
So orthodox Christians will tell me that I'm not Christian because I don't believe in the entire bible or interpret it literally. But I feel that because the bible was written by humans and thus flawed by the opinions of those who wrote it (thus the misogyny, the contradictions, the prejudice, etc) I can't trust most of it. The only things I feel obligated to follow word for word are the teachings of Christ.

You really can't have it two ways. Either the bible is the word of god or it is full of holes and you can't believe anything of it. You can't just pick and choose which part is god's words. If that's the case, then who interprets which is to be believed? You're better off picking up grimms fairy tales and then pick some sentence here and there and follow those moral values.

I keep to my original point that you probably learned your values from a 'secular scientific society' rather than the bible. Then you choose which part of the secular moral values you learned to agree with the bible.

And doesn't believing in Christ make you Christian? Jesus says that's all you need. What a contradiction, huh? Jesus says this IN THE BIBLE, but Catholics say you're not because you've ALSO got to believe in the Bible.
If it's confusing, feel free to think of me as something else that believes in Jesus and is not Christian, and that is what I am.

It's an illogical question here. You can't believe in Christ if you don't believe the bible if 100% accurate. Because which parts are true? I can even question the entire Christ part, because those are also written by people as you said. Again, you can't have it two ways. You say you believe in Christ. But why? If the bible is not accurate. The entire 'Christ' section will likely be just as flawed as the rest of the bible.

Wouldn't it be nice if religion and science could be integrated? Both blasphemous and illogical, but nice.

Religious is illogical, untrue and complete utter nonsense and science is blasphemous, contradicting almost everything religions tells us. They can't live side by side.

[cool]

Originally Posted by suzushii

Let me clear some ideas for you:
hardwiring - these are insticts you can't argue against - like hunger, and thrist, and the sucking reflex in infants. We have them, and these are very much in common with other animals. Yes, we are animals.

I add sexual urges as instincts. This is were you disagree with me but you present no hard evidence. The argument of nature vs nurture is an ongoing battle and over the last decade nature seems to be taking the lead, but 20-30 years ago, we thought that 80% of who we are were nurture related. Now with more research we are finding out that more and more nature plays a harder role to simply dismiss... even 'criminals' may have a criminal gene..

softwiring - while we are indeed animals, we are not like most animals at all. A great part of our selves is shaped by culture and enviroment. While most animals are born self-sufficient (baby antilopes can run in 30 min from birth. some birds are entirely alone from day one) we are not like this at all. We, and other primates, give birth to offspring that are completely hopeless years, which require painstaking care for decades. cheating is NOT hardwired, it's a conscious choice!

Agreed. Humans are not like all animals but that does not mean we can easily escare our nature as well. Some Animals have culture too. And they learn to use tools, knows self, knows empathy.

Evolutionary speaking, we are monogamous, and slightly polygynous. That means, we do not mate for life with one person, but are more likely to be serially monogamous (one relationship after another) and with a small degree of cheating. This is for both genders. Studies done show that women cheat almost as much as men, but never more then 30%.

I agree with this mostly but not the 'cheating stats' you put out. In fact, please show where you found that men and women cheat almost the same and at about 30%. Perhaps you're the one generalizing??

But what does this mean, to a modern human, his evolutionary tendencies? Well, almost nothing. These are not urges like thirst and hunger, that one seldom can control. A human is fully equiped with his higher brain to make rational decisions towards one way or another.

SO, if it's so simple to control as you put it, why is it not showing in the real world? Why are women complaining everywhere about their cheating husbands?? Why not just shut up about it? Why are we even having this argument and why are women so pissed about it? If men and women cheat exactly the same, then why are women blaming men all the time? Where's teh moral high ground? The next time a woman goes up in oprah and complains about her cheating husband, make sure you all boo her to death because women does it the same.

Your arguments are infested with a bias and sybjectivity. Basically, you defend the argument simply from the cheating male's pov, and your subjectivity shows in trying to defend the idea of "normalcy of cheating". You minimise to the point of omitting what a cheated-on spouse feels like, and the bad effects of cheating. You make it sound like cheating happens in a vacuum.

I find it funny how you would come out, read a few thread and arrive at this example. How many times have I specifically say how bad women feel when they are cheated upon and that men do try very hard not to cheat on the spouse they love. How is saying that a lot of men, even trying very hard, finds that they do sway, arguing in a vacuum when this is fact we see everyday of our lives?

Many people don't feel monogamous, and the most of this group are men.

First you say men and women are monogamous and they cheat the same amount, now you say that men are less likely to want monogamy... which is which?

However, there are plenty of women who also don't desire monogamous relationships, or would not mind an open relationship, even on the guy's part. That's why, if you want an open relationship, date and marry a person like you. Don't date a monogamous person, and cheat on them. That's unfair.

I totally agree with the ideals here. If only men and women can be totally loyal to each other. I too want such a relationship. The difference between our argument is that you are living in a fantasy world and I am living in a real one. 'The plenty of women doesn't want a monogamous relationship' is bunk. Perhaps a very tiny percentage wants that.. but that's it.. In fact, I think most men wants a monogamous relationship....

People marry because they share the same values, and have the same goals. Too many men marry despite not feeling love for their spouses, or supressing their own values and desires, and then express them on the side, while trying to hide them. This is DISASTRUOUS. And unforgivable.

You would think this of course... How many percentage of our divorce rate now? 50%? 60%? and why?? Because people can control who they marry and they can choose so wisely right? And because men who are chosen by wise women won't cheat on them right?

[suzushii]

Originally Posted by cool

I add sexual urges as instincts. This is were you disagree with me but you present no hard evidence. The argument of nature vs nurture is an ongoing battle and over the last decade nature seems to be taking the lead, but 20-30 years ago, we thought that 80% of who we are were nurture related. Now with more research we are finding out that more and more nature plays a harder role to simply dismiss... even 'criminals' may have a criminal gene..

And you present hard evidence where? If you want I'll dig up one of my courses, and transcribe exactly what I said - attraction is instinctual (you can't help who you feel attracted to) but cheating is a conscious choice.

Agreed. Humans are not like all animals but that does not mean we can easily escare our nature as well. Some Animals have culture too. And they learn to use tools, knows self, knows empathy.

We are not escaping our nature when not cheating. See your bias? Not cheating because one weighs the benefits to be less then the side-effects is all too human.

Animals don't have culture. Do you even know what you're talking about? Are you talking about the very complicated mating rituals that some animals do? Those are hardwired, instinctual.

There are very few animals who use tools. Very few who can at least recognise themselves in a mirror, and a couple who have a very limited understanding of self. And what do you know, they're primates! We are special. Empathy is almost devoid in the natural world. It presupposes doing something that is evolutionary disadvantageous to help another. Animals will sacrifice themselves for their offspring - but it is advantageous. They might even help other animals in the colony, but only if the colony is closely linked genetically. They might adopt other animals' offspring, but this is simply an overactive nurturing instinct, and very rare.

All in all, the empathy showed by humans, is unmatched. We can care for complete strangers. There are firemen, cops, scientists, and doctors, clearly at a disadvantage to their own life to help others. (not all of them earn lots of money, and many "marry" their jobs).

I agree with this mostly but not the 'cheating stats' you put out. In fact, please show where you found that men and women cheat almost the same and at about 30%. Perhaps you're the one generalizing??

You obviously don't even know what generalising means.
Say, if a fact is - some men cheat. Generalising would be: 100% all men cheat. As for the stats, I'll search for the study and post it later.

SO, if it's so simple to control as you put it, why is it not showing in the real world? Why are women complaining everywhere about their cheating husbands?? Why not just shut up about it? Why are we even having this argument and why are women so pissed about it? If men and women cheat exactly the same, then why are women blaming men all the time? Where's teh moral high ground? The next time a woman goes up in oprah and complains about her cheating husband, make sure you all boo her to death because women does it the same.

Why not improve your reading comprehension - I said:
Almost as many women as men cheat, that doesn't mean they cheat exactly the same.
I never said it was simple, I said a person can control them. Of course, some people chose not to. Not because they fail. But because they want to cheat and get away with it.

Why are some women pissed about it? the same reason men are pissed about it when their spouses cheat. Betrayal, jealousy. BTW, jealousy is a very basic feeling in humans. Women can't just "turn the other cheek" and pretend it never happened, unless they didn't have jealousy in the first place.

I find it funny how you would come out, read a few thread and arrive at this example. How many times have I specifically say how bad women feel when they are cheated upon and that men do try very hard not to cheat on the spouse they love. How is saying that a lot of men, even trying very hard, finds that they do sway, arguing in a vacuum when this is fact we see everyday of our lives?

I read the entire thread. You are trying to justify cheating. If a man wants to have sex with another woman, he should tell his wife. The wife then, should decide - let the man have sex on the side, and maintain the family, or separate because she doesn't want that kind of relationship.

To prevent the woman from this decision is despicable. The fact that you're trying to justify it is also morally corrupt.

First you say men and women are monogamous and they cheat the same amount, now you say that men are less likely to want monogamy... which is which?

I didn't say that. I said that, from the small sample of men who are not monogamous (google "polyamorous") most of them are men. There are more men in this subgroup of society not only because on average, more men desire polyamorous relationships, but also because there is a clear brainwashing of society on women to not do this thing. The stigma is immense.

Speaking as a person who tried to be polyamorous, I can't. I have gotten rid of any preconceptions I have. I have friends who are polyamorous and they're happy. They know what they want, they have similar values, and they're always always honest.

Some polyamorous couples have one-sided open marriages (say, if the wife is bisexual, they only invite women) but it's always a joint decision. Others, have the guy being monogamous, and the wife being polyamorous with other men. the idea is, this is letting those insticts run free, but honesty is kept.

I totally agree with the ideals here. If only men and women can be totally loyal to each other. I too want such a relationship. The difference between our argument is that you are living in a fantasy world and I am living in a real one. 'The plenty of women doesn't want a monogamous relationship' is bunk. Perhaps a very tiny percentage wants that.. but that's it.. In fact, I think most men wants a monogamous relationship....

Yes, a tiny percentage. About as many as how many men cannot keep a relationship without diversity. From the polyamorous society, I also know a good handful of men who desire an open marriage, but the wife doesn't. Do they cheat? No. They respect their spouses desires.

You would think this of course... How many percentage of our divorce rate now? 50%? 60%? and why?? Because people can control who they marry and they can choose so wisely right? And because men who are chosen by wise women won't cheat on them right?

Of course, I was talking about an ideal situation. Something that everyone should strive for.

I have found my ideal realtionship. He will not cheat on me. We are always honest to each other. He allows me to date other men (he doesn't have the jealousy gene) but I'd never do that, because I am myself monogamous. Just because people are stupid, and immature, doesn't mean a good marriage is a thing of fantasy.

It only takes to be mature enough to know what you want, pay attention carefully to the signals you receive from your mate, and go in a marriage only after years of dating. And even then, it might not last forever. But as long as he will come to me and say "I don't love you anymore, I can't continue this marriage" I will still respect him, and tons more if he simply pretended to be by my side, and cheated.

Ultimately, if a man feels that the importance of cheating is more then his spouses' desires, then he doesn't love her enough. If so, he should do the only kind thing, and break it off, so she may go and find a partner that she deserves.

[suzushii]

I'd also like to add that from my experience (and I've read many accounts of people wanting advice), spouses cheat mainly because:
- they're not getting any/enough at home - Cheating is not the solution - one should speak with the spouse, and reach a compromise. But of course, the cheating spose will not investigate the cause of this event (maybe the woman is depressed/overworked, maybe the guy is at fault since he doesn't make the woman feel wanted) - too many men go home and expect to get sex like turning on a tap. Women need to be wooed.

- it's gotten stale - Too many married people don't keep that spark going, or make it something as turn-offiis as washing your teeth. Ugh.
The cheating spouse - instead of suggesting something to spice things up, takes it somewhere else.

- they are attracted to someone else - This is normal, you don't stop having attraction to other people, or even crushes when you get into a relationship.
Instead of bringing all that pent up energy home (that chick's so hot, I'm so turned on right now, honey.....) they turn it into an obsession and dwell upon it, while comparing the new chick with your wife (subjectively of course)


- the wife is older since the time she was a bride. OMG, she dared to age! What a disgrace! And even add a few pounds after carrying my spawn. Ewwww.


You can get rid of these by having a honest relationship. When you can talk with your spouse about anything. Too bad people don't cultivate that. You can get rid of the others by having high standards in a spouse. Too bad people don't do that either.

[cool]

Wow! I am speechless... the amount of hate you exhibit here is terrific... and the amount of junk facts you throw about and the amount of misrepresentation... I just don't know where to begin!

Originally Posted by suzushii

And you present hard evidence where? If you want I'll dig up one of my courses, and transcribe exactly what I said - attraction is instinctual (you can't help who you feel attracted to) but cheating is a conscious choice.

I said 'sexual desires' is instintual... not 'cheating'... i guess you can win any argument by constantly muddying the water with your superior attitude... first misquote everything, then say how stupid your opponent is...

We are not escaping our nature when not cheating. See your bias? Not cheating because one weighs the benefits to be less then the side-effects is all too human.

What bias? If I said that men cheats a lot and the truth is that they do, is that bias? If I said that men are fundamentally different from women both physically, emotionally, and mentally, am I automatically sexist?

If you can't handle the truth just say so... and we'll all be PC and live our lives with falsehoods...

Animals don't have culture. Do you even know what you're talking about? Are you talking about the very complicated mating rituals that some animals do? Those are hardwired, instinctual.

Again, you know nothing for someone claiming to be a student of biology... Do you even keep up with the latest findings? Chimpanzees learn to use different tools from different tribes. And using different tools like we do such as chopsticks, or spoons are considered culture.

Like I said, the pattern is clear. You use 'facts as you wish' and then claim your opponent knows nothing.

Here's an excerp :

http://www.school-for-champions.com/...l_cultures.htm

A culture is a set of behavior traits or social rules that a specific group of a species follows. Humans have many cultures, even within specific nationalities or age groups. It was commonly thought that all animals within a species or subspecies behave according to the same rules. This is often done through adults teaching their young the way to behave. But recent studies have shown that there are cultures within specific animal groups. Cultures in groups of orangutans, chimpanzees and other animals have been witnessed.

Here's from USATODAY:

Let's get something straight. Humans and animals are much more similar than scholars have led us to believe, and we share at least two fundamental aspects of behavior that have been used for centuries to define our differences and thus our humanity: culture and learning.......

De Waal says he also hopes to dispel Western society's notion that culture is the opposite of human nature. The old philosophers believed that culture allowed humans to rise above their animalistic nature. De Waal says that Asians believe in a greater continuity between animals and humans and don't debate the existence of animal culture......

For those humans who find comparisons with animals offensive, rest easy. None of the beasts running around outdoors can write poetry or plays, paint masterpieces that hang in museums or dine with fine cutlery. But our differences, as Charles Darwin pointed out more than 100 years ago, are differences of degree and not of kind......
Read more...

Very few who can at least recognise themselves in a mirror, and a couple who have a very limited understanding of self. And what do you know, they're primates! We are special. Empathy is almost devoid in the natural world. It presupposes doing something that is evolutionary disadvantageous to help another.

Again, false facts and outdated notions about human superiority... sounds very religious to me..

Do animals feel empathy? This question could draw scoffing dismissal from many scientists only a few decades ago. Now it receives marvelously productive attention in neuroscience, psychology, and the burgeoning field of neuroethology. Below, two leaders in these fields, Emory University primatologist Frans de Waal and University of Chicago neurobiologist Peggy Mason, review both the history of animal studies of empathy and a particularly thought-provoking recent mouse study from the McGill University lab of Jeffrey Mogil. As de Waal and Mason note, this clever study holds surprises about both the baseline and the limitations of empathy in these small, "simple" rodents. One can't read these reviews without seeing one's own empathetic capacities and limitations in a new light....

Apart from a few rear-guard behaviorists, few people hesitate to ascribe empathy to their dogs. But then dog is man's best friend, freely credited with lots of human sentiments. You wouldn't expect a hard-nosed scientist to make similar claims about, say, rodents, would you? Yet a significant line of research, freshened most recently with the paper under review, demonstrates not just empathy's existence in rodents and other animals but its subtleties and exceptions as well.....

Read more..

You obviously don't even know what generalising means.
Say, if a fact is - some men cheat. Generalising would be: 100% all men cheat. As for the stats, I'll search for the study and post it later.

So, I guess we BOTH misused the word 'generalizing'.... I said I believe about 80% of men cheat... how is that generalizing? And Please, PLEASE do publish your 'facts' and not just pull them out of thin air.

I read the entire thread. You are trying to justify cheating. If a man wants to have sex with another woman, he should tell his wife. The wife then, should decide - let the man have sex on the side, and maintain the family, or separate because she doesn't want that kind of relationship.

Continue living in your fairyland... People lie, cheat, deceive all the time... As I always maintain, our society lives in a lie... I am trying to be honest and already pissing off people like you who wants to continue to live a lie.. If you think men who cheat will go home and automatically tell their wives about it, you're living on another planet..

Should (nice in dreamland) and DO (in reality) are two very different animals. Studies who conduct surveys on fidelity shows that most men or women don't know that their spouse are cheating on them.... Since the notion of cheating have brought up such strong emotion in you and all men and women, do you think people will admit to it?

It's like saying, pedophilic priest should just go to the police and give themselves up... it's the right thing to do after all, isn't it?? And the church should not protect them as well.. why are they hiding them and protecting them?

It's call self-preservation.. if you know you're going to get into trouble, you're likely to lie your ass off... would it be nice if everyone didn't lie, of course.. is it realistic.. ????

To prevent the woman from this decision is despicable. The fact that you're trying to justify it is also morally corrupt.

I think you're morally corrupt by trying to turn me into a monster by purposely distorting everything I say...

Of course, I was talking about an ideal situation. Something that everyone should strive for.

Finally a modicum of truth... I am merely stating facts that in reality it's far from ideal..

I have found my ideal realtionship. He will not cheat on me. We are always honest to each other. He allows me to date other men (he doesn't have the jealousy gene) but I'd never do that, because I am myself monogamous. Just because people are stupid, and immature, doesn't mean a good marriage is a thing of fantasy.

Wonderful... I wish you a great life...

[puzzlegirl]

What we have here is a classic case of nature v.s. nurture. And none of us are wrong because they are both valid scientific arguments.

cool believes that nature supplies us with traits and instincts that dictate our behaviour and that we cannot change our nature.
Whereas I believe (and I am not the only one) that we can subvert our own nature through psychological means and that we are mostly influenced through social interaction, personal values and morals, etc.

That is all.

Ideally, we can acknowledge both nature and nurture. We have too much in common with other people of our own gender to ignore the nature aspect. BUT we must acknowledge how social constructs affect our behaviour as well.

closing arguments, please...

[yugidogz]

*Sits back munching on popcorn*

Never though this thread would escalate to this..

[mallorymaloney]

Originally Posted by puzzlegirl

What we have here is a classic case of nature v.s. nurture. And none of us are wrong because they are both valid scientific arguments.

cool believes that nature supplies us with traits and instincts that dictate our behaviour and that we cannot change our nature.
Whereas I believe (and I am not the only one) that we can subvert our own nature through psychological means and that we are mostly influenced through social interaction, personal values and morals, etc.

That is all.

Ideally, we can acknowledge both nature and nurture. We have too much in common with other people of our own gender to ignore the nature aspect. BUT we must acknowledge how social constructs affect our behaviour as well.

closing arguments, please...

I agree with you, puzzlegirl --- This is definitely a nature verus nurture debate.

We all have a choice --- Statistics are such a generalisation, and why should we feel adhered by them, simply because they're there? Lame, man.

This isn't fantasy, this isn't the stone age --- It's modern day society, and we all have a choice in everything we do. We all need to stop obsessing over numbers ... It's all about numbers nowadays. Statistics, money, weight, height, age, stocks, time ... Not enough of it, too much of it --- There's never a happy medium when it comes to numbers. >>; But I'm going off on an unrelated rant here. XD;

With global warming, I guess I can say right now, the skeptics like yourself are in the minority, so it would not be a weird opinion of mine. It would have been a 'weird opinion' of yours. Anyways, I won't discuss that here as we had a thread that discusses that. I would be happy to answer questions on this though if you want to start another thread on it... and we can have a jolly debate there as well...

Well, you simply asked me what I thought was weird, not what the majority thinks is weird.

I have a lot of weird ideals, thoughts, and opinions --- But I'm fine with it ... I like being my own person. ^^;

Down with conformity!

As for 'Men do cheat', which you say you don't agree with which confuses me.. you don't agree that men cheats, or that you think it's not ok for men to cheat?

Whoops, sorry ... What I meant was, I don't think it's okay for men ((Or women!)) To cheat, period.

I have to totally, strongly disagree with this. I am highly creative and Art is my passion. Science is my passion too. And most of my 'scientific minded' friends are all very creative. In fact, I would argue that if you're not creative, you can't do science very well...
I believe that creative people are just people who can see more perspective and if they put their mind to it, they can do anything extremely well, whether art or science. All the greatest scientists are also artists... Leonardo Da Vinci for instance, Einstein for instance... etc..
And an 'Art major' does not automatically mean they are creative.. Creative people are hard to come by actually simply because our education system is geared towards training our left brain.... HOpefully today, more and more our school will teach more the creative side of our brain..

Whoops; I should've stated I was just using my own experiences to judge this. @_@

I consider myself very creative, and I've never gotten along with scientific people. And equally, scientific people have never gotten along with me.((Read: They usually think me to be an idiot. XD))

So yeah, that's just my experience with such individuals.

[mallorymaloney]

Originally Posted by yugidogz

*Sits back munching on popcorn*

Never though this thread would escalate to this..

I know, it's getting a little crazy in here!

And ... Possibly even more entertaining than my Moving Out thread. >>;

[MsKittyFntstico8]

Heyy.
I'm 16 now going to be 17 in August and lost mine when i was 14 to the boy i'm still dating. It's been over two years now. We turned out to be soulmates, which i think we sensed from the beginning. I didn't do anything intimate really until about 4-5 months after dating him i think. But i know i'll be with him forever it just turned out we started dating and realized we were perfect for each other. We never argue, i love everything about him, he loves everything about me. He tells me how beautiful and amazing i am everyday and i tell him how cute and perfect he is also. Trust me, you'll know when you find the right guy. I was a little young i guess but i definatly knew he was the one. Good luck ;]

[cool]

Originally Posted by puzzlegirl

What we have here is a classic case of nature v.s. nurture. And none of us are wrong because they are both valid scientific arguments.

cool believes that nature supplies us with traits and instincts that dictate our behaviour and that we cannot change our nature.
Whereas I believe (and I am not the only one) that we can subvert our own nature through psychological means and that we are mostly influenced through social interaction, personal values and morals, etc.

Puzzlegirl... you got the nature vs nurture argument right becuase when you get right down to it, that's what it's been all about..

But again, I am a tad bit frustrated that you keep mis-representing my views or points, even in your conclusion...

You put it like nature vs nurture is black and white.. ie, I believe that we have zero control like perhaps bugs, and you're the clever one who knows that both exists yet we have control... when you spray the right chemicals they react instantly... By doing this, you're doing injustice to science and your opponent.

Of course my views are that we have a lot of higher conscious activities that we control... but all I have been argueing is that a lot of science today are starting to discover that a lot of things are virtually in our nature vs the old believe that almost everythinng is nurture... but it's still not black and white.. we still have most control, but in this particular case of sexual control, I am merely stating that the data shows men, regardless of their self-control have continued to fall victim to their natural programming....

And you can argue that till the end of days and the data will still show the same... I am a purely a scientific kind of guy and all pre-conceived notions will fall by the wayside if the data differs from them. For instance if the bible says that gay people are unnatural, and all our data says that they are born that way, then we MUST believe that rather than the conventional wisdom of religion...

I just wish you'll stop misrepresenting me and stop painting me as a black and white type of person... far from it....

Anyways, as you have put it eloquently, we have come to an end here and I'll just say kum-bye-ya.....

[cool]

Originally Posted by mallorymaloney

I agree with you, puzzlegirl --- This is definitely a nature verus nurture debate.

We all have a choice --- Statistics are such a generalisation, and why should we feel adhered by them, simply because they're there? Lame, man.

Mallory, you fell victim to puzzlegirls' portrayal of my arguments (which is not what it is)... but heck.. i guess you're already predisposed to bias in this subject matter... and everything I say will just be ignored....

And statistics are not generalizations.. if you have taken advanced statistics in university, you'll see how wrong you are... generalizations is when we have feelings about things and have no statistics to back them up...

Science is all about data and statistics... With statistics, we develop scientific theories that can predict future events and from there we can build rockets to the moon... etc,.... Without observasable data and proper statistics, we'll be living in the dark ages of religious believes.. believes for the sake of believe and feelings and emotions..

That not to say that people do not abuse statistics and there are no quack scientists who does not conduct an experiment the right way, and even people who make up stats as they wish like... we'll just have to learn to be critical and question them, but if there are extreme amount of data for a particular point of view, we MUST give it credence until such times that they are reversed...

Well, you simply asked me what I thought was weird, not what the majority thinks is weird.

I have a lot of weird ideals, thoughts, and opinions --- But I'm fine with it ... I like being my own person. ^^;

Down with conformity!

Ya, sorry, you said my points of view were weird... and yes, I really respect you for your stands in the minority view at times... If you can see my arguments, probably aside from Global Warming, where you just can't ignore the data (without the fake data supplied by the Bush government), most of my views are of the minority as well.. .

My standing up for the truth of men's sexual needs have evoked a firestorm in a predominantly women forum (In fact, I am the ONLY guy here)... and my views that religion is totally evil have evoked anger and perhaps puts my life at risk (as I live in a religious country) and some of the very cool asiajammers have suddenly stopped talking to me because they are angered by the truth, and I hope that I have the strenght to continue to stand up for truth and justice no matter the prejudice of people or groups of people... If you add up all my arguments, I have essentially alienated myself from almost 90% of the world's population..

So, ya, I am on your side when it comes to standing up for the truth even if you are the minority.. THere are not enough people of courage that will stand up against what the church is doing to us...

Anyways, Mallory, don't get me wrong.. I may disagree with you on both global warming and in this case Men's lack of control over their Hormones, but in the latter I think the disagreement is perhaps only due to misunderstanding of what I am trying to say... and there are those that will ignore everything I say, rephrase them to their advantage, and subvert others, in the end, I really liked debating with you because you don't get toooo crazy on the 'name callings'....

Whoops, sorry ... What I meant was, I don't think it's okay for men ((Or women!)) To cheat, period.

Agreed... it's a fine ideal and goal to achieve...

I consider myself very creative, and I've never gotten along with scientific people. And equally, scientific people have never gotten along with me.((Read: They usually think me to be an idiot. XD))

I don't think you're an idiot... If you escaped the pull of religion you must have some brains left over... anyways... don't let your creativity blind you from science... from creavity, you actually can help science... only creative scientists achieve the greatest success... they are one and the same.. creative means larger brain activities...

[puzzlegirl]

People lie, cheat, deceive all the time... As I always maintain, our society lives in a lie... I am trying to be honest and already pissing off people like you who wants to continue to live a lie.. If you think men who cheat will go home and automatically tell their wives about it, you're living on another planet..

It's call self-preservation.. if you know you're going to get into trouble, you're likely to lie your ass off... would it be nice if everyone didn't lie, of course.. is it realistic.. ????

SO, if it's so simple to control as you put it, why is it not showing in the real world? Why are women complaining everywhere about their cheating husbands?? Why not just shut up about it? Why are we even having this argument and why are women so pissed about it? If men and women cheat exactly the same, then why are women blaming men all the time? Where's teh moral high ground?

If only men and women can be totally loyal to each other. I too want such a relationship. The difference between our argument is that you are living in a fantasy world and I am living in a real one.

Oh- if only there were some sort of set of principles or morals we could follow to make our lives better! oh wait... this sounds familiar.. let's look it up... it's RELIGION.
"Religion" does not work because not enough people actually follow religion. They will twist and modify a beneficial moral and add things on to suit their own purposes- they do the same with scientific evidence to "prove" connections that are only barely related. Values and morals are so difficult to apply if someone else will not treat you with the same fairness, we eventually give up on it or let our behaviour slide if we lose the willpower.

But here are a few examples (and these are basic principles taught by many religions) how religion is beneficial if we actually practiced it:
If we were not materialistic, we would contribute less to the horrors of capitalism.
If we respected others who are different, we would not try to force our rules, values, religion etc. onto them
If we valued human life and abhored murder, we would protest war and not participate.
If we loved others, we would not lie, cheat or betray because we value our relationships highly.
(Oh- and I do not say that people don't lie. People ALWAYS lie. We are social creatures and in order to preserve our relationships we try to empathize and say things that will benefit the relationship. White lies such as "You look great" and "I don't mind when you do this/that" are called as such because the problems are usually very trivial and allowing them does not affect the relationship. But lying about or omitting your involvement with someone else HUGELY oversteps this boundary.)

Extremist "religions" like orthodox Christianity add a lot of padding like specific rules and conditions and rituals that need to be observed in order to differentiate themselves. That's not a religion anymore- it's a business.
Religion is between yourself and God/Higher Power/Higher moral thinking- there shouldn't be any inbetween telling you if you have acheived it or not. Organized religion should be providing support and guidance, not telling you how to think.

Oh- well, people are always doing bad stuff in the name of religion. Have you even considered the hundreds of millions of people who live happily and peacefully because of their balanced values and morals? You only "see bad behaviour everywhere" because disruption and chaos is what people pay the most attention to. You fail to see the majority of people who do NOT do harm to others, and you don't know about them because they keep their beliefs to themselves and aren't in your face like people who are doing religion wrong.

So religion has no basis in science and is not logical. Morals are usually not! Do people stop commiting crime because they are safe, sheltered and well-fed? NO- they will find some way to hurt or exploit others if they lack a moral sensibility.

Oh- we'll never be able to live up to such morals because it's in our nature not to (i.e: we must be materialistic, compete with others, look out for ourselves, etc). No single species has accomplished what humans have been able to- adapting to our environment above and beyond the need for survival. Though tons of other species possess similar characteristics to humans, none can match the intelligence or mastery of their environment as a collective as the homo erectus. It is almost an evolutionary mishap- a complete fluke- that a species has managed to overadapt, and it commands us to evolve morals to deal with our advanced society.

Religion, morals, values- whatever you call it- are not working when if they don't benefit or improve everyone's lives (without the subjugation of others)- which is what they are MEANT to do.

You say I'm not religious and therefore open-minded... I say I'm open-minded BECAUSE I'm religious.
And no, cool, you are not open-minded. Just because you have observed or read something that contradicts what someone else says doesn't mean their view is false or useless.

I am a purely a scientific kind of guy and all pre-conceived notions will fall by the wayside if the data differs from them.

The thing is about science is that you can go into a lab and test the heck out of something and just by manipulating the circumstances you can end up with almost any result that you want. The findings that are published leave out the millions of possibilities are not the most common, but that could happen nonetheless. suzeshii points out things that you have not observed yourself, so you try to disprove them with often erroneous or unrelated information. It was either that or accuse her of being rude to you when she is trying to broaden the view of the situation. It is what I have been trying to do- get you to think outside of the box- but it seems you choose to stay firmly in your box which just can't be helped. You can say that "this is the bleak reality" but it is only your reality, and we are free to go off and create our own.

[cool]

puzzlegirl... I give up... ! I have made my arguments as best I can.... You are free to attack me and call me names all you want... without facts to back up anything you say, you're just blowing winds my way... your arguments are the same thing I hear over and over again from religious peoples...

And before you say anything... I live in a religious country and I can tell you that from 'reality' that it ain't that pretty...

You are lucky to live in a secular environment.. keep complaining and one day, you may get your wish and live in religious rule...

BTW: I am making a conscious decision to back out of this debate with you because it has become nasty... I find I have also become a little nasty in self-defence... so, it's becoming useless to go on...

[HappyNobuko]

Id wait until 18. Or older. I think id feel a little odd losing my virginity and still being in high school. I dont know, that may sound odd. haha.
But I guess, when you know it's the right person (and you should be darn sure 150%), and you know your ready, thats a good time.

Id still wait until I was the legal age.

[yugidogz]

As mentioned, I lost mine at 16, so I was a junior in high school. I thought it was hilarious though, since me and my boyfriend were in the same class during 7th period, so we'd look at each other and just try not to laugh.

Sucks though when people start spreading rumors and crap. Or they just try to jump in on all the "dirt", and spread it like wild fire. There's another reason you'd probably want to save it until after high school. College is when most people lose it, right? Or is it high school... I'm not sure... but it seems like people are a lot more mature when it comes to sex in college. In high school.... everyone's still a nosy little kid. >>;

[puzzlegirl]

You want fact? Humans are different from animals. Animals are in constant danger of their lives being ended at any moment, and thus have need for survival instincts. The majority of humans in North America are not on the brink of starvation, have need to migrate or have ANY natural predators. We can live almost anywhere. The environment does not affect us any more- we affect our environment and thus, our evolution.
Our dwellings provide formidable defense against weather, thus we are hairless. We never have need for food so obesity is rampant. Yes, the environment is still affecting us in this way, but it is an environment that we have created.
I don't know how you can acknowledge global warming as humans exploiting their environment and also believe that we still mainly adhere to our survival instincts.
An insect (which is an insect and not a human, btw) cannot tell the difference between chemicals and their natural instincts whereas a human can.

This leads me to agree with suzeshii that cheating is a moral argument and not a scientific one. Men aren't following their survival instincts- they're being selfish, pure and simple. And it's the same with women- they can be selfish too. If the number of women who cheat is disproportionate to men it is for social reasons- one of them being that it has been strongly imposed upon them by society to be nurturing and selfless (a trait which also keeps them subservient, doting, and barefoot in the kitchen).

Ethics influence science, not the other way around. We begin our development of morality since birth- from observation and the influence of peers and family- before we even have comprehension of science. Our instincts also play a role in forming our morals- learning what helps and what hurts enables our empathy so most of us have common knowledge of what feels good and bad to ourselves and to others. Morality is extremely important in our development and influences our behaviour greatly.
Science's purpose is to deal solely with fact, and religion is used to deal with morality. Morality is extremely ambiguous and cannot be represented by science because it is impossible to prove or disprove at what level morality is acheived and how. Is it physical, psychological or spiritual contentment? How can happiness be measured and how is it acheived? What is the difference between right and wrong? What is helpful and what is cruel? (i.e: why is something helpful to one person cruel to another) Humans need to know these things and science can't always provide it.

There are many, many different schools of thought that try to figure out morality- it's called philosophy. One can spend their entire life in the contemplation of these subjects.
I will be the first one to admit that I mistakenly equated religion with morals. Religion is a method through which we communicate and pass on our morals to each other. I have already said that we do not need religion to have morals, but I think it helps. Gathering with others with similar morals helps to reinforce and validate your own.

I happen to relate to Christianity because it stems from a fundamental basis of morality (what is good v.s. evil?) which has ties way back to the beginning of history in Mesopotamia. But do I believe that it needs to be updated? I am torn between "absolutely" and "definately". Religion needs to "evolve" (get rid of outdated beliefs) along with society and ours is just progressing too fast- via scientific discovery and technology- for religion to keep up. I defend religion because I am under personal bias- having witnessed religion garner positive effects versus your negative experiences. But will you admit that you have a bias?

What is important is to constantly reevaluate and consistently develop your morals as you move through life depending on what you witness and deem to be right or wrong, good or bad behaviour.
But people don't want to do all that work- they want a quick fix and someone to tell them what to believe- thus the installation of leaders (popes, priests, and preachers) who will always have biases- and thus the corruption of organized religion. But you cannot just scapecoat religion as the cause of the world's problems when it is the selfishness, violence and prejudice and overall faulty morals of humans themselves that is the problem.

[cool]

Puzzlegirl, you seem much nicer here and have mainly concentrated your debate on issues... and therefore, I'll try to rebutt your arguments...

Originally Posted by puzzlegirl

You want fact? Humans are different from animals.

Sure, like a platipus is different from any other animals... every single animal is wholely unique from every other animals while share many similarities...

Animals are in constant danger of their lives being ended at any moment, and thus have need for survival instincts. The majority of humans in North America are not on the brink of starvation, have need to migrate or have ANY natural predators. We can live almost anywhere. The environment does not affect us any more- we affect our environment and thus, our evolution.

Again, the entire statement above leads me to believe that you still lack the basic understanding of what evolution means, and I am merely making a statement, and do not mean to be implying that you're stupid or anything (as I think you're extremely smart)... A lot of people find difficulties in understanding evolution and it's the injustice caused by our schools which did not do a good job and I blame religion for the huge amount of mis-representation of evolution.... I find that it's extremely hard to make a point if your opponent don't truly understand the basic science involved, and then they would go about blaming science for it's inaccuracy...

Evolution doesn't work like this:

- We learn something intellectually, then we evolve... (this may work if we manipulate our own genes directly, but as of yet, we don't do this)

Evolution works more like this:

- Something in our environment makes it impossible for a certain type of attributes to survive and therefore kills the organism before it gives birth or pass on it's genes.

So, let's take your obesity example:

Example ONE - Obesity:

Are we evolving because we are getting more food? No, we are not... children are not born fat... we feed them after they are born and it's poor parenting for feeding them junk like breakfast cereals rather than real food. On the other hand, children may be born with weaker health when they are given birth by say obese moms whose body is a wreck...

You can turn back clock to the cave men times and if you feed them the fast food we consume today in abundance, they will all be fat too.. the ability to be fat and store food is part of our 'old genes' and old evolution... nothing new.. in times of needs (ie, most of our 2 million evolutionary period), people with the ability to store food during times of plenty such as the summer, tends to survive better in the winter... and ppl who say have too high a metobolism rate and can't become fat dies off easier...

We evolve only if suddenly thin people can't survive till the age where they can give birth... for example, if fat ppl suddenly kills off thin people, then yes, that's evolution...

In a very simple form, evolution works in general (not always), only when the organism gets KILLED BEFORE GIVING BIRTH,...

Example 2 - Elephants without trunks

Here's a better example of evolution happening becuase of humans... Research are finding that more and more elephants are born without trunks... Why? In all of history there are a certain percentage of elephants born without trunks but now more and more so, ie, the percentage are shifting.. and given enough time all elephants may not have trunks and trunkless elephants may be the norm...

This is because of illegal hunters.. they shoot dead elephants for their trunks.. and when they come about one without trunks, they don't bother shooting it... so, in the elephant environment, because of humans, it's easier to survive without a trunk... and because a lot of elephants without trunks gets to pass on their trunkless genes more and more, they we get more elephants born without trunks...

Our dwellings provide formidable defense against weather, thus we are hairless. We never have need for food so obesity is rampant. Yes, the environment is still affecting us in this way, but it is an environment that we have created.

This hairless example is like your obesity example.. it's not evolution.. we have been hairless like hundres of thousands of years ago... It's got nothing to do with our current environment..

Now, again, unless people with more hair suddenly find it impossible to live in our modern society, then we'll be just the same amount of hairs in times to come....

I don't know how you can acknowledge global warming as humans exploiting their environment and also believe that we still mainly adhere to our survival instincts.

Yes, that's why we are doing something about it... Most of the world have acknowledge global warming years and years ago.. It's because of your own government (the bush regime) that played fast and loose with the facts with the science and lied to it's people... a few years ago, most Americans still thinks global warming is a figment of our imagination... but now that Bush is on the way out, ppl like Al Gore gets their message across... we are doing something now for sure.... I think most sane ppl will want a better environment...

And therefore I am myself starting an NGO in my country to lobby the government to go 100% green energy.. This is another hot topic of debate which I have constantly fought.. a lot of people are still in denial on this... choosing to believe in a sub-group of unbelievers utilizing funny science...

An insect (which is an insect and not a human, btw) cannot tell the difference between chemicals and their natural instincts whereas a human can.

Again, puzzlegirl... i really wish you wouldn't keep underestimating animals.. some animals like snakes utilizes chemicals in the air as their main sense... Insects utilizes chemicals even more.. the example I gave before was insects and sex... if you spray a sex hormone on a piece of rock, you'll see that some bugs will just rape the rock... that's how strong chemicals control us.. we of course have evolved to be able to ignore our instincts.. but we also underestimate how much... thus, our argument about men and their sexual needs.. most women thinks and correctly that it's easy to abstain from sex because they are not getting the high dose of the chemical/hormone testostorone as men do.. when you say you're extremely horny, I believe you, but now imagine for just a second, how it would feel if you feel 10 times as horny and almost constantlyl thinking of sex... that's the perspective of men...

and it's impossible for you to empathize with that because you're not a man.. period.. and I can't emphatize with women truly either.. but i can understand because i read a lot of relationship books, most of which is written by women who describes how a woman feel about sex... and from women scientists as well such as the one who wrote the book 'the female brain'...

Like I said, I didn't make up the facts.. I am just spewing it up as I gather the information from the scientists who have done the research... I hope you'll at least read about 'The Female Brain', and a few other such books before you continue to believe what you have always believed..

This leads me to agree with suzeshii that cheating is a moral argument and not a scientific one. Men aren't following their survival instincts- they're being selfish, pure and simple. And it's the same with women- they can be selfish too. If the number of women who cheat is disproportionate to men it is for social reasons- one of them being that it has been strongly imposed upon them by society to be nurturing and selfless (a trait which also keeps them subservient, doting, and barefoot in the kitchen).

First, sure 'cheating' is a moral argument for our society today as we are able to devise such things as morality... But cheating is by no means a human trait.. large numbers of animals cheat... it's part of our nature (in the genes) to cheat, lie, or deceive, to survive.. and thus the human greed, etc...

As for women being more nurturing.. it's also mostly because of genes... again, please read 'the female brain'... is our upbringing a factor? sure.. but women are always more nurturing.. I don't want to do into the details because it's a whole book... also, believe it or not, when a woman becomes pregnant, her mommy brain gets turned on by certain hormones.. and this is a physical change (you can see a whole part of a new brain cells activating)... this makes her even more nurturing.. among other things.. and yes, men do have a daddy brain that gets turned on as well...

Ethics influence science, not the other way around.

Without science, ethics can't possibly makes much sense...

Let's take a simple example... basically everyone agrees that murder is wrong.. but without science for instance, we may just execute every murderer... but with science, we learn why the murder occur.. and why? We then create a sytem of ethics that conform to reality of the situations.. for example, we have first degree murders for people who plans and murder without remorse.. and we have 2nd degree murder for murders of passions for example (even our justice system based on science recognizes that we may not be able to control our own hormones as much as we like to think we can), and then we have man-slaughter for say accidents..

And let's take another example.. say persecution of gay people.. in religion, it's in the book of god that simply states being gay is wrong.. and thus, most religious people (christians and muslims) automatically say it's wrong.. but then science proves that it's a natural thing and we can't persecute ppl for who they are... and therefore science here makes better moral judgements...

So, I don't care how much you say you don't hate gay ppl, but the fact is that most churches teaches us to hate them and thinks they unnatural...

Religion first form it's opinion on morality (which like you said may have had a good scientific basis in the past based on limited science and information), but then it's hard to budge.. wherease in science, we change our opinion or ethics when new evidence are found... we don't read a book, then reject all new scientific findings.. it took Christians hundreds of years to accept that the earth was not the center of the universe for example.. and even until today, a lot of religious people don't believe in evolution (why? because it just completely disproves the idea that god made adam and eve)....

]We begin our development of morality since birth- from observation and the influence of peers and family- before we even have comprehension of science. Our instincts also play a role in forming our morals- learning what helps and what hurts enables our empathy so most of us have common knowledge of what feels good and bad to ourselves and to others. Morality is extremely important in our development and influences our behaviour greatly.

So, sure.. we all have a common sense on what we think is right and wrong.. and it's as much cultural as anything... the difference is that once we made up our mind what's right and what's wrong, we then utilize science to be the judge.... and on the other hand, science can also create new moral standards.. for example, as soon as we find that there are no such things as witches, we should stop burning them at the stake, don't you agree?

Religion on the other hand is stuck in the past... getting their morals from words written over a 1000 years ago and then there's this huge inertia against new findings..

We don't need religion.. period.. there's no two ways about it.. religion confuses morality consistently with facts of life.. and consistently teaches ppl not to read anything or learn anything that is against their teachings..

Science is just knowledge which is growing and if we keep an open mind about it, we'll accept facts as we find them... then we modify our life accordingly... moral and ethics like all things needs to be fluid and change with times and new findings..

Another example, in the old days, when men goes to war in the middle ages or the desert, then there are more women than men and women can't survive without the protection of men, Muhammad, was wise to say that men can marry up to 4 wives... basically a few woman live in the protection of one man's tent... it works.. and it's morally right for the man, if he can afford it, provide the support to more women...

But today that does not apply anymore... still religion continues to believe that it does.... of course science will always win out in the end... more women in the middle ages are starting to fight for their rights today and it's based on science...

Science's purpose is to deal solely with fact, and religion is used to deal with morality.

Without science, you can't have good morals.. if your morality is based on false information it's bad morals.. Religion have lots of bad morals because of false information...

In fact, I wouldn't say 'good or bad'.. but at least with science we can make the best decision based on what we know..

There are many, many different schools of thought that try to figure out morality- it's called philosophy. One can spend their entire life in the contemplation of these subjects.

Absolutely... philisophy is science... philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge... you have philosophy of everything including mathematics.. I would definitely agree with modern philisophy of morality rather than religious morality which is outdated and outmoded... I have read tons of moral books... and this again, proves you don't need religion to teach you morality... you just need science...

I will be the first one to admit that I mistakenly equated religion with morals. Religion is a method through which we communicate and pass on our morals to each other. I have already said that we do not need religion to have morals, but I think it helps. Gathering with others with similar morals helps to reinforce and validate your own.

Agreed... Currently a lot of people mistakenly equate religion with morality... and you put it succinctly... religion is a great vehicle that passes on their version of morality on the people.. and more often than not it's misbegotten moral values... they teach the good and and the bad, confusing the two... and consistently fight against scientific evidence...

But we can learn morality from other vehicles such as from education, from books, from our parents (who are atheists) who also teaches their kids to be kind to others (only without the prejudices)...

Religion as a vehicle of morality is useless as is proven over the last several thousand years... the more a nation based their morality on religion, the more evil they become and darker they live in... take all the countries in the world today.. see which ones are at the grip of religion and see how they define morality.. then take the more secular countries like europeans and Americans... and you see that we live a better live... and when religion takes over the reign like bush, we see a turning back of the clock...

Religion needs to "evolve" (get rid of outdated beliefs) along with society and ours is just progressing too fast- via scientific discovery and technology- for religion to keep up. I defend religion because I am under personal bias- having witnessed religion garner positive effects versus your negative experiences. But will you admit that you have a bias?

Sure, I am totally biased on the side of science... if you replace the word 'science' with 'the pursuit of knowledge' i see no wrong with my bias..

What is important is to constantly reevaluate and consistently develop your morals as you move through life depending on what you witness and deem to be right or wrong, good or bad behaviour.

You have just basically describe scientific morals.. morals that evolve with new found knowledge...

But people don't want to do all that work- they want a quick fix and someone to tell them what to believe- thus the installation of leaders (popes, priests, and preachers) who will always have biases- and thus the corruption of organized religion. But you cannot just scapecoat religion as the cause of the world's problems when it is the selfishness, violence and prejudice and overall faulty morals of humans themselves that is the problem.

Unfortunately the largest 2 religion is also the most well organized and most dogmatic... sorry, but it's the darn truth... if you really need spirituality or religion to live your life then I suggest budhism?? or others not as organized or religions that teaches you to basically not judge or impose your moral values on others??

In the end, do we need religion? No, we can live perfectly happility without it... is it good to have it? No, because of the major side effects of religion that causes a lot of misery and suffering...

You just cannot have moral values that makes sense without the science to back up your believes...

[laura-aap]

humans and animals are different on one part:
Animals have sex to reproduce, the existance of the species.
Humans have sex for fun, good feeling and all.

so yeah, humans cheat more then animals.
because most of us need sex to feel good, feel great, feel pretty, feel loved.
If you can't have it with your partner.. most likely you'll try to find it all in a different place. because you are with a church/you believe.... you still can cheat. it's not like: Oh, my BF believes.. so he won't cheat. the chance is always there. the question is: do you need to worry about it constantly?
no, not all guys cheat. not all girls cheat.

and about the religion. people use their believes/religion to go on in hard times but also use it a lot to explain their behaviour.
like: sorry, I killed him. but he was gay so it's okay.
that's mostly why people believe and act like the way they do.

there's nothing wrong with keeping yourself until you get married. nobody says that. but damn! this topic is going def. about welll... nothing.
since when does world hunger and bald humen beings have to do with the perfect age to loose your virginity??

(sorry, I stoped reading this all. since it got to dirty and to looooong for me, just needed to make my statement too ^__^)