|
xssve -> RE: Liz Trotta On Women Raped In Military: 'What Did They Expect?' (2/20/2012 12:20:08 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:
ORIGINAL: xssve
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Going to college has nothing to do with reproductive success.
"Raising offspring to sexual maturity and then they successfully reproduce"
THAT is the definition of reproductive success.
If they can convince the rest of the world to send them money and help insure the survival of their offspring, that could be construed as "financial cuckoldry" which is a whole different ball of wax.
And economic security tends to play a large role in reproductive success, although your qualifications certainly hold true, albeit much more unlikely in your "archaic" environment, where "the herd" was largely confined to the extended family/tribe.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:
ORIGINAL: xssve
Lol, no, "successful" doesn't mean good or optimal in biology, in biology "successful" means it isn't extinct yet.
Incorrect again.
"Successful" means that it outcompetes the alternatives.
Albinism isn't 'successful' by any stretch of the imagination but it exists nonetheless.
Due to the fact that only a very tiny percentage of humans are born as a result of rape even in a modern environment where being consumed by a leopard is a very minor worry, it can be inferred that this strategy is unsuccessful.
You have to prove me wrong once in order to prove me wrong again, you're quibbling over semantics, just like the girls were quibbling over the word "strategy" - it's called r strategy even though it would be a stretch to argue that Seahorses know exactly what they are doing, i.e., the connotations of the word strategy with the noetic definition, reproductive strategies as a biological term are largely assumed to be anoetic.
My definition of "successful" is straight out of Darwin, substituting the word "successful" for the word "fit", which has likewise taken on unintended connotations through social Darwinism.
quote:
The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic basis. "Survival of the fittest" is inaccurate for two important reasons. First, survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction. Second, fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.[6] An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is "fit" and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the "physically fittest" ones, though some of the population will be better adapted to the circumstances than others. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".[7] "Survival of the fit enough" is also emphasized by the fact that while direct competition has been observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups. For example, between amphibians, reptiles and mammals; rather these animals have evolved by expanding into empty ecological niches.[8] Moreover, to misunderstand or misapply the phrase to simply mean "survival of those who are better equipped for surviving" is rhetorical tautology. What Darwin meant was "better adapted for immediate, local environment" by differential preservation of organisms that are better adapted to live in changing environments. The concept is not tautological as it contains an independent criterion of fitness.[4]
Wikipedia: Survival of the Fittest
Rapists, by this definition, if they enjoy any reproductive success at all, are "fit enough".
i.e., it isn't a comparison, it's a description of a state.
This would be much easier if you just concede the point and we can continue considering what to do about it - Taz want's to sterilize all the men, Tweak wants us all to be nice, I guess - you have any ideas?
In the present day US, economic success has fuckall to do with reproductive success. In fact I will say that, in our present society, there is an inverse relationship.
Who has more offspring who survive to have offspring of their own? Is it wealthy people or poor people?
Your definition of 'successful is NOT out of Darwin. Successful means more fit and likely to increase in numbers. Anything that has for millenia remained at a fraction of 1% of the population can hardly be called fit or successful. At best, it is an aberration.
As for your last claim in rape being being a useful reproductive strategy, We have already shot a hole in it.
A rapist may be technically 'fit' in the Darwinian sense but it is in the same way that an albino is technically 'fit'. Successful reproduction in the archaic environment was definitely possible but highly improbable.
He would have 2 possibilities.
1. Breed an unmated female and leave in which case both the female and her offspring would be unlikely to survive. This is reproductive failure.
2. Breed a mated female. This would increase the odds of reproductive success to 2% or so but would greatly decrease the odds of personal survival. As intergenerational reproductive success is defined as the ability to replace onesself. It is necessary for an organism to have 2 successful offspring to break even in the evolutionary battle. (each offspring is half you and half your mate except in species that reproduce by parthenogenesis like the Indo-Pacific house gecko).
Given these 2 possibilities, rape is NOT a successful strategy but rather an aberration.
Insisting your argument is not based on naturalistic fallacy, and compounding it with further irrelevant argument doesn't mean it isn't and will always remain, a naturalistic fallacy.
Again, it's not a comparison, if you want to make it a comparison, you have to qualify it as "more successful" or "less successful" which I took the time to do on more than one occasion.
It's more successful than somebody who doesn't pass their genes on at all.
You cannot prove me wrong, it was a hugely successful strategy for Genghis Khan, that's the only example I need to prove the point, although there are others - all you can do is quibble semantics or move the fuck on, it's over.
|
|
|
|
