Conservatives have more self-control

[Catholic_Lady]

Conservatives are less human.

Yikes.

Dehumanization of entire groups of people has been used throughout history as justification to do heinous things to them. From slavery to genocide. I wouldn't play around with that.

[CapnAwesome]

Conservatives are less human.

So if you happened to be raised and nutured in a conservative environment, you feel like you wouldn't be a conservative? Why, because you have superior genetics?

[Shell B]

I've yet to meet the man who could dominate me.  Bring them on, bitches.  Bring them the fuck on, because I will fuck them up.

Let's be realistic. There are definitely men who could, but does that mean that your whole purpose on a sexual level is to be dominated? The idea is patently absurd. 

To be clear, I have no doubt that you could fuck a lot of men up. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't matter if you couldn't. That doesn't mean nature naturally selected you to be weaker than men. In fact, natural selection produces stronger women, not weaker women.

---

Conservatives are less human.

Yikes.

Dehumanization of entire groups of people has been used throughout history as justification to do heinous things to them. From slavery to genocide. I wouldn't play around with that.

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with that. I would certainly make statements about Conservatives *in general* that I wouldn't find flattering, such as "Conservatives are less likely to oppose a border wall." However, even the worst Conservatives are human.

All of that said, I find it unlikely that Liberals are going to go on a genocidal killing spree.

[Divinity]

So if you happened to be raised and nutured in a conservative environment, you feel like you wouldn't be a conservative? Why, because you have superior genetics?

Oh please, I was raised in a conservative environment, by a father who felt that women shouldn't have the right to vote or work and who thought that the rich were the rightful rulers of the world.   So, I know I wouldn't be a conservative.  Because I'm not.

Conservatives lack empathy for others.  They have sociopathic tendencies.  See: Wanting to ship Dreamers to a country they've never lived in.  Cutting welfare while raising military spending.  Allowing doctors to discriminate against LGBT patients.  Allowing states to discriminate against LGBT couples.  Not wanting a healthcare plan that makes sure everyone is covered, instead wanting tax breaks for billionaires.  They'll pretend to have empathy for fetuses, but they don't even have that (as seen by the fact that they don't want to do anything for the Fetus, let alone the child who they pretty much say can go fuck themselves).  "Not our job to feed those kids!" they'll say, as if this makes more sense than anything in the world.

---

Let's be realistic. There are definitely men who could, but does that mean that your whole purpose on a sexual level is to be dominated? The idea is patently absurd. 

There are men that could physically overpower me--but good luck to them when I pull a Lorena Bobbit on them.

---

Yikes.

Dehumanization of entire groups of people has been used throughout history as justification to do heinous things to them. From slavery to genocide. I wouldn't play around with that.

I said "less human" not "Less than human".

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm making an obvious application of natural selection, one that evolutionists are generally afraid to make for some reason.

You're making an incorrect application of natural selection, based on the mistaken premise that physical strength defines the fittest.

Furthermore, sexual dimorphism is almost certainly a function of sexual selection rather than natural selection -- much the same way as peacocks evolved their tails not due to survival pressures, but because for whatever reason, peahens preferred them. Human females being more gracile probably has nothing to do with individual survival statistics, and more with human male preferences for smaller mates, or human female preferences for huskier men -- or more likely, a combination of both.

[John V]

However, you're not making an accurate application of natural selection. There are many other obvious evolutionary advantages to man's size other than an ability to dominate women,

Yep, which is why women having those obvious disadvantages requires a compelling reason. Just saying it's an unfortunate byproduct of estrogen doesn't cut it.

not the least of which is physical competition amongst each other for a mate,

And the losers need an alternative strategy, like forced copulation - but that only works if the females can be overpowered.

yet that's the one you glomb on to in an attempt to discredit evolutionary theory.

Why do you see it as a discredit to evolutionary theory? If evolution is true, this is just a fact. It's not a judgment.

[Catholic_Lady]

So if you happened to be raised and nutured in a conservative environment, you feel like you wouldn't be a conservative? Why, because you have superior genetics?

Oh please, I was raised in a conservative environment, by a father who felt that women shouldn't have the right to vote or work and who thought that the rich were the rightful rulers of the world.   So, I know I wouldn't be a conservative.  Because I'm not.

Conservatives lack empathy for others.  They have sociopathic tendencies.  See: Wanting to ship Dreamers to a country they've never lived in.  Cutting welfare while raising military spending.  Allowing doctors to discriminate against LGBT patients.  Allowing states to discriminate against LGBT couples.  Not wanting a healthcare plan that makes sure everyone is covered, instead wanting tax breaks for billionaires.  They'll pretend to have empathy for fetuses, but they don't even have that (as seen by the fact that they don't want to do anything for the Fetus, let alone the child who they pretty much say can go fuck themselves).  "Not our job to feed those kids!" they'll say, as if this makes more sense than anything in the world.

---

Let's be realistic. There are definitely men who could, but does that mean that your whole purpose on a sexual level is to be dominated? The idea is patently absurd. 

There are men that could physically overpower me--but good luck to them when I pull a Lorena Bobbit on them.

---

Yikes.

Dehumanization of entire groups of people has been used throughout history as justification to do heinous things to them. From slavery to genocide. I wouldn't play around with that.

I said "less human" not "Less than human".

I know what you said. Saying any particular group of people are "less human" IS dehumanization of that group, and is pretty heinous.

[Shell B]

Yep, which is why women having those obvious disadvantages requires a compelling reason. Just saying it's an unfortunate byproduct of estrogen doesn't cut it.

One aspect of it not being enough to explain the whole of it doesn't make your absurd sexual dominance theory correct. That would have to mean that weaker women were selected by men, but that women started off the same size as men. Over time, the women who were weaker dominated the gene pool. That would have to be how it panned out, which doesn't make sense, given that, from an evolutionary standpoint, fortune favors stronger women who can reproduce well.

And the losers need an alternative strategy, like forced copulation - but that only works if the females can be overpowered.

The losers don't get an alternative strategy. The winners knock up the woman. The losers can't knock up the women because the winners have. Like in other species, the winner protects his mate from rapey losers. In the end, you have an obvious reason for men being bigger. It's the same with other species.

Why do you see it as a discredit to evolutionary theory? If evolution is true, this is just a fact. It's not a judgment.

Bless your heart. I see it as an *attempt* to discredit evolutionary theory. I didn't say it was a discredit. Evolution is true. Your hypothesis is not a fact. It's not even a hypothesis really, because that would require an educated guess.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I know what you said. Saying any particular group of people are "less human" IS dehumanization of that group, and is pretty heinous.

I'll settle on "less humane."

[Catholic_Lady]

I know what you said. Saying any particular group of people are "less human" IS dehumanization of that group, and is pretty heinous.

I'll settle on "less humane."

Perhaps that's what she meant.