Conservatives have more self-control

[John V]

you asserting that people who partake in BDSM are not representative of the species as a whole despite not being able to provide any citations,

Argument from Ignorance

or being able to claim any personal experience of BDSM

or being unable to suggest what demographic may be more likely to partake in BDSM

Argument from Ignorance

and not providing a citation for your assertion that 'evolution made women so that men could dominate them.

I thought the logic was obvious, but if you need a roadmap: The main purpose (so to speak) of a species per evolution is procreation. Males being larger and stronger makes that purpose more likely to be achieved, i.e. if females aren't willing, males can overpower them.

[Neo-Scholastic]

[*]you asserting that people who partake in BDSM are not representative of the species as a whole despite not being able to provide any citations,

It's a counter-culture...as in opposed to mainstream culture. Why are S & M clubs your example and not hippie communes? or Branch-Davidian compounds? I think you're the one that needs to explain why BDSM enthusiasts are good representatives of normative human behavior as compared with, say, sky-divers or stamp collectors.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Amazing that you guys never notice that evolution made women so that men could dominate them.

That's pretty funny. Spectacularly wrong, but funny nonetheless.

[I_am_not_mafia]

So it's an argument from ignorance if I call you out on making bald assertions that you are unwilling to back up?

and not providing a citation for your assertion that 'evolution made women so that men could dominate them.

I thought the logic was obvious, but if you need a roadmap: The main purpose (so to speak) of a species per evolution is procreation. Males being larger and stronger makes that purpose more likely to be achieved, i.e. if females aren't willing, males can overpower them.

Right, so when you say  'evolution made women so that men could dominate them', what you are specifically saying is that women evolved to be weaker than men so they can be forcefully raped?

Nice.

Also citation required.

(Or is asking for a citation an 'argument from ignorance' on my part?)

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, it makes perfect sense. His will was that we be fruitful and fill the earth. We're disobedient, so a strong sex drive and sexual dimorphism were necessary to accomplish that goal.

It makes perfect sense ... how? This is an utter non sequitur.

Furthermore, religious types tend to be more conservative ... yet here you are undercutting the thrust of your own thread, arguing that you're "disobedient". I have to assume your disobedience arises not because you want to be disobedient but because you cannot control your base urges. So what we have here is you, a conservative, providing a contrary example to his thread's thesis, in the very thread he's making his claim.

May I suggest perhaps quit trying to toss around fancy words and instead think your way through your thicket next time? It'll serve you in good stead.

[Anomalocaris]

So it's an argument from ignorance if I call you out on making bald assertions that you are unwilling to back up?

I thought the logic was obvious, but if you need a roadmap: The main purpose (so to speak) of a species per evolution is procreation. Males being larger and stronger makes that purpose more likely to be achieved, i.e. if females aren't willing, males can overpower them.

Right, so when you say  'evolution made women so that men could dominate them', what you are specifically saying is that women evolved to be weaker than men so they can be forcefully raped?

Nice.

Also citation required.

(Or is asking for a citation an 'argument from ignorance' on my part?)

Your willingness to talk to him looks much better on his resume than on yours in my opinion.

[Brian37]

Yeah very few people have ever argued that we should base our morals off of evolution. Evolution is not the atheist's god.

Our behaviors, both cruel and compassionate are not being handed to us from a divine place. When I say that, many theists DO stupidly think we are arguing humans should be emotionless and lawless. We know they are full of shit when they try to claim that.

But, our behaviors ARE natural, not caused by a magic puppeteer in the sky pulling our strings. They cant stand us saying that, so they need to vilify evolution to make themselves feel good. Of course we are not calling evolution our "god". But it is a scientific fact. Evolution does unfortunately produce cruelty too. But that does not mean atheists value being brutal to others or oppression or violence. It merely means we see cruelty in evolution, it does not mean we advocate it.

The common bullshit argument  we get from theists is, "If there is no God then you are saying humans are God"...... Nope, no such thing exists so no, humans should not act like the center of the planet or universe like a fictional god.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What truth? The truth is that, from either a religious or atheist view, women were made so that they could be dominated by men. Attempts to bypass that truth result in negative population growth and the eventual demise of the species.

Do you have children?

[John V]

So it's an argument from ignorance if I call you out on making bald assertions that you are unwilling to back up?

No, it's an argument from ignorance when:
- you imply that your experience with BDSM is generally applicable
- I call bullshit on that
- you then ask for proof that your unsupported position is false.

Right, so when you say  'evolution made women so that men could dominate them', what you are specifically saying is that women evolved to be weaker than men so they can be forcefully raped?

Nice.

No, it's not at all nice, but it's a reasonable conclusion.

Also citation required.

(Or is asking for a citation an 'argument from ignorance' on my part?)

I'm not sure how to label the fallacy of asking for a citation for an argument based on logic, but it's a fallacy. The proper approach is to refute the premises and/or the logical connections of the premises.

---

It makes perfect sense ... how? This is an utter non sequitur.

What part don't you understand?

Furthermore, religious types tend to be more conservative ... yet here you are undercutting the thrust of your own thread, arguing that you're "disobedient". I have to assume your disobedience arises not because you want to be disobedient but because you cannot control your base urges. So what we have here is you, a conservative, providing a contrary example to his thread's thesis, in the very thread he's making his claim.

See the title: "more" self control, not perfect self control.

May I suggest perhaps quit trying to toss around fancy words and instead think your way through your thicket next time? It'll serve you in good stead.

May I suggest that you don't get condescending after putting forth a cheap and obvious false dichotomy?

[Catholic_Lady]

From what i gather, alpha isn't saying it is at all right or good for men to take dominance over women. He's saying that it's how our species evolved, and so it isn't such a good idea to go by a purely evolutionary basis of morality.