Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Colossians said:Could you answer the question from my first post?
Do you know a natural force that permits and forbid certain behaviours?
No. So you admit there is something other than the natural realm?
Colossians said:Humans might be a part of the natural realm - but they are not a natural force.
You are simply speaking past the point. Explain in macro-evolutionary terms how the non-natural force evolved from natural forces.
Colossians said:What "non-natural force"?
The one you introduced. Or does natural selection include selective memory?
Colossians said:Could you answer the question from my first post?
Do you know a natural force that permits and forbid certain behaviours?
No. So you admit there is something other than the natural realm?
Simple, mating with the females under the control of another male, or hunting on the turf of another tribe, will result in getting more women, as both are "not allowed" but only dangerous because of said restriction, the desire to do things that are only percieved as dangerous due to the restrictions against them, and thus to rebel against any authority, evolvedColossians said:In macro-evolutionary terms, explain how the desire to do what is not allowed, evolved.
game theory.Colossians said:In macro-evolutionary terms, explain how the desire to do what is not allowed, evolved.
Top points! Good answer.DJ_Ghost said:Actually Colossians, whilst your question is an interesting one it is very deeply flawed. You pose it as a question for biology when in fact it is a question for Sociology, and in fact is a very simple one to answer.
The reason your question is flawed is that you have it in the wrong order and address it to the wrong science. let me explain. There is no drive to do that which is prohibited, there is a drive to seek pleasure and to avoid discomfort.
Now we know that all higher life forms share the drive to avoid discomfort and to seek pleasure, so we know that that is a natural trait that must have evolved. We see it in sub-sentient species so we know that it exists prior to complex human societies.
Now society mitigates what is prohibited. Without society there is no prohibition of any kind. Therefore the drive to avoid pain and to seek pleasure pre-dates society. However, in order for humans to live in the large and organised, stratified societies that we choose to live in, it is necessary for us to sacrifice some of our freedom. Since freedom is the ability to do what we wish, and thus to seek any pleasure we wish, it is necessary for society to prohibit certain activities that we would otherwise be inclined to peruse. So, your question is fallacious because it puts the cart before the horse. You ask why did the urge to break prohibitions evolve, when in fact it did not. We created prohibitions to stop us perusing urges to seek pleasure, because it makes it possible to live in more complex societies. In short, we created an artificial construct to modify our evolved behaviour because we chose to do so. This does not mean that the urge to do these things has vanished, it means we have prohibited them after their evolution.
Hope that helps. If you would like to discuss such sociological matters further I can happily open a thread in the social science section for us to discss it.
Ghost
They answered the question but you didn't understand it.Colossians said:If you can't answer the question, I win. It's quite simple.
Jet Black said:many other societal species try to do what is forbidden too. chimps are a prime example of this, and will try to do a bit of 'monkey business' when the big males aren't around. If they do get caught by the big male, he promptly kicks the bananas out of them, so you could say that "taking advantage" of his ladies is forbidden.
the odds of colossians ever asking a decent question is rather weak. notice how all his questions are really wishy washy, vague, and packed full of false assumptions? To be honest I consider reporting him for trolling the forum, since his questions are invariably styled in such a fashion, and his attitude repeatedly breaks forum rules.h2whoa said:Anyone else think it's looking a bit weak for Colossians' claim that this is a third question that can't be answered?
h2
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?