Sex Abuse Scandal in the Catholic Church

[Socionics Is A Cult]

The larger the animal the longer it takes for it to mature to adulthood, and the longer the father / mother stick around to provide for it. Human offspring take the longest of the mammals to mature, about 12-18 years depending on what you go by. Other mammals such as wolves, moose, bears etc. take a while to raise their offspring. All large mammals like this tend toward monogamy and stable family units. BTW I'm actually citing you my biology textbook here.
No, you're wrong, try again.

The most successful males from an evolutionary perspective were genocidal rapists, slavers, polygamists etc. rather than people who favoured "monogamy and stable family units". For such males, when little input is required to cause a pregnancy but a lot of energy is required to raise a child, from an evolutionary perspective, it is more in their interest to not stick around.

I dislike this, but I wouldn't feel uncomfortable labelling such behaviour as "unnatural" simply because I dislike it.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

But you just said that culture and evolution are distinct things. You're correct, but I'm talking about our natural instincts - which evolved in natural conditions over billions of years. Kahn here committed this act as the leader of a civilization, and his offspring here were born into civilization, not nature. Modern society has derailed the natural instincts, and thrown a wrench in the evolutionary process. For example, alot of people with disease-ridden genes actually can survive and reproduce successfully now thanks to modern medicine. Hence culture - modern society - has really kind of stopped evolution from occurring. But when we talk about natural instinct we're talking about billions of years of development, and that can't just be changed in a few thousand by modern society, so... Nope, wrong again.

The Bible commands women to marry their rapists, and Islam permits the rape of slaves (wives too actually).

[DogOfDanger]

The Bible commands women to marry their rapists

I've never read that anywhere.
It seems to me that you're driven by some deeper ideological need to assert this, because you just keep insisting that rape is evolutionary but you're not really responding to the arguments.
Carry onward!

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Eh... rape isn't evolutionary. a) it doesn't provide a stable family unit for the offspring, decreasing its chances of survival, b) it has social consequences that can get the rapist killed or children abandoned / aborted / killed, or neglected by the mother, etc.

Chickens have been bred to maximise yield of meat and eggs. This doesn't provide a stable family unit for the offspring either, but there are probably more offspring than at any other time in history.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Eh... rape isn't evolutionary. a) it doesn't provide a stable family unit for the offspring, decreasing its chances of survival, b) it has social consequences that can get the rapist killed or children abandoned / aborted / killed, or neglected by the mother, etc.

Does committing genocide and forcing the surviving virgin females into marriage provide a stable family unit, in your view? (or "Nature's" view, "God"'s view, whatever gets you through the night)

Evolution. Kids are not capable of reproducing so there would be no evolutionary benefit of that, hence there wouldn't be an instinct to do that...

What is the evolutionary benefit of killing children, in your view? (or "Nature's" view, "God"'s view, whatever gets you through the night)

[DogOfDanger]

If you want to think about evolution and natural instinct think about circumstances in nature. In nature if a man went around raping all the women in the tribe - the local tribe of just a few dozen people - the men would stone him to death. Infact male monkeys will conspire together and tear apart the alpha male if his social approval drops too low, that's well documented, so...

[Socionics Is A Cult]

If you want to think about evolution and natural instinct think about circumstances in nature. In nature if a man went around raping all the women in the tribe - the local tribe of just a few dozen people - the men would stone him to death. Infact male monkeys will conspire together and tear apart the alpha male if his social approval drops too low, that's well documented, so...

That could still be a successful strategy, from an evolutionary perspective.

The "natural" way of things throughout history was to enslave and rape neighbouring tribes. How do you explain that?

[DogOfDanger]

That could still be a successful strategy, from an evolutionary perspective.

The "natural" way of things throughout history was to enslave and rape neighbouring tribes. How do you explain that?

Well, fundamentally I claim that civilization is anti-evolutionary. It's characterized by the derailment of instinct... look at how it's driven by insatiable appetite.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Well, fundamentally I claim that civilization is anti-evolutionary. It's characterized by the derailment of instinct... look at how it's driven by insatiable appetite.

I'm sure this behaviour has happened for as long as there have been humans. It's only civilization that has reduced such violence.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

If you want to think about evolution and natural instinct think about circumstances in nature. In nature if a man went around raping all the women in the tribe - the local tribe of just a few dozen people - the men would stone him to death. Infact male monkeys will conspire together and tear apart the alpha male if his social approval drops too low, that's well documented, so...

Does that mean that raping a child is better than raping all the women in the tribe, from the evolutionary perspective of personal survival?

[DogOfDanger]

Does that mean that raping a child is better than raping all the women in the tribe, from the evolutionary perspective of personal survival?

Why would it mean that if there is no survival and reproductive value to raping a child? And wouldn't raping a child be even more likely to cause the men in the tribe to tear the person apart? Have you ever seen how in arms people get when they hear someone has raped a child?
Stop being intentionally stupid.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Why would it mean that if there is no survival and reproductive value to raping a child? And wouldn't raping a child be even more likely to cause the men in the tribe to tear the person apart? Have you ever seen how in arms people get when they hear someone has raped a child?
Stop being intentionally stupid.

You see things in terms of "evolutionary benefit".

Surely something that is less harmful to the individual's survival has a higher "evolutionary benefit" than something more harmful?

Pleasure-seeking is a key driver of behaviour - it need not have any survival and reproductive value. I have no idea why you think this.

[DogOfDanger]

I am confident priests raping children has no evolutionary benefit, yes, because children are not fertile, are they you little moron? Do you know what fertile means? That's right... it means capable of reproducing. And do you know why that matters? Yes... right. Because reproduction is what drives evolution, and that's what we're talking about - evolutionary benefit. Isn't that amazing you little idiot?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I am confident priests raping children has no evolutionary benefit, yes, because children are not fertile, are they you little moron? Do you know what fertile means? That's right... it means capable of reproducing. And do you know why that matters? Yes... right. Because reproduction is what drives evolution, and that's what we're talking about - evolutionary benefit. Isn't that amazing you little idiot?

What evolutionary benefit does slavery have, in your view?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I am confident priests raping children has no evolutionary benefit, yes, because children are not fertile, are they you little moron? Do you know what fertile means? That's right... it means capable of reproducing. And do you know why that matters? Yes... right. Because reproduction is what drives evolution, and that's what we're talking about - evolutionary benefit. Isn't that amazing you little idiot?

No, "natural selection" is what drives evolution: the survival of those most suited to surviving in an environment and having offspring.

You determined what is a "natural" instinct is based solely on reproduction: but many genes have been shown to be disadvantageous for the individual, but beneficial for the group as a whole, for example, some genes that benefit group behaviour in bees and wasps.

A sex drive can for example be beneficial for the group as a whole, but useless for many/most of the organisms in the group.

[DogOfDanger]

No, "natural selection" is what drives evolution: the survival of those most suited to surviving in an environment and having offspring.

You determined what is a "natural" instinct is based solely on reproduction: but many genes have been shown to be disadvantageous for the individual, but beneficial for the group as a whole, for example, some genes that benefit group behaviour in bees and wasps.

A sex drive can for example be beneficial for the group as a whole, but useless for many/most of the organisms in the group.

How on earth could raping a child be advantageous to survival / reproduction? It doesn't produce offspring. And how is raping a child beneficial to the group...? Raping a child? BTW - group benefit has far less evolutionary weight than an individuals own reproduction. It is a tertiary benefit at best. People who want to promote their own anti-evolutionary ideals like to try & treat survival/reproduction & group benefit as equal alternatives, it's just nonsense, sexual selection is the primary driver of evolution.
No, you aren't making any sense here.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

How on earth could raping a child be advantageous to survival / reproduction? It doesn't produce offspring. And how is raping a child beneficial to the group...? Raping a child? BTW - group benefit has far less evolutionary weight than an individuals own reproduction. It is a tertiary benefit at best. People who want to promote their own anti-evolutionary ideals like to try & treat survival/reproduction & group benefit as equal alternatives, it's just nonsense, sexual selection is the primary driver of evolution.
No, you aren't making any sense here.

I was arguing about the "instinct" behind that, and asking whether it was natural or unnatural. If the instinct is a manifestation of "sex drive", then that is arguably advantageous. If the instinct is a manifestation of having sex with things that cannot result in children, then that is arguably disadvantageous. If the instinct is a manifestation of having sex in an opportunistic way on the off-chance it would result in offspring, then that is arguably advantageous. If the instinct is a manifestation of "pleasure-seeking", then that could arguably be advantageous to survival and reproduction in the long-term: it could also be disadvantageous. It really depends. If there was no drive at all, humans would die out as a species.

Humans and chimpanzees like the taste of sugar: many species don't. The pleasure we get from it is usually advantageous to our survival, but it can also be disadvantageous. It doesn't stop it being a "natural" instinct, if it is so.

It is known that bonobos have mutual homosexual sex: this does not produce offspring, but it does release oxotoxin, important for forming bonds between individuals in a group.

[DogOfDanger]

I was arguing about the "instinct" behind that, and asking whether it was natural or unnatural. If the instinct is a manifestation of "sex drive", then that is arguably advantageous. If the instinct is a manifestation of having sex with things that cannot result in children, then that is arguably disadvantageous. If the instinct is a manifestation of having sex in an opportunistic way on the off-chance it would result in offspring, then that is arguably advantageous. If the instinct is a manifestation of "pleasure-seeking", then that could arguably be advantageous to survival and reproduction in the long-term: it could also be disadvantageous. It really depends. If there was no drive at all, humans would die out as a species.

Humans and chimpanzees like the taste of sugar: many species don't. The pleasure we get from it is usually advantageous to our survival, but it can also be disadvantageous. It doesn't stop it being a "natural" instinct, if it is so.

Instinct is molded by successful reproduction, and that's it. It's not molded by what gives you pleasure... the pleasures purpose is the reproduction. That molding is the very reason males are attracted to females.
BTW - sugar intake obviously increases survival. But when you talk about refined sugar... that refinement is a modern industrial process. You don't have access to big gulps in nature, you're not gona get diabetes in nature...
I've said repeatedly I recognize that modern society is a derailment of instinct. I actually say it's interpreted by instinct as an extinction event.

It is known that bonobos have mutual homosexual sex: this does not produce offspring, but it does release oxotoxin, important for forming bonds between individuals in a group.

Yeah, I knew this went deeper for you. The bonobos example is an interesting one that I've heard before-
a) that behavior is the exception, not the rule
b) that species has had its habitat destroyed, they're also poached. Normally bonobos are evolved to roam in giant areas of hundreds of square miles... they don't do that now, humans surround them and they're in this small area. So the social structure is top-heavy. The females are evolved to select for monkeys at the top of the social hierarchy, but what happens is... they all go for just the alpha male monkey. And the other male monkeys are left trying to dethrone the alpha male. The gay monkeys are at the bottom of the pecking order, they basically have a sense of learned helplessness.
I'm not saying things like this don't happen in nature. All I'm saying is it isn't the natural instinct driving it, it's certain repressive circumstances that block the instincts. Under normal, healthy conditions, those monkeys would go claim their own territory & they'd be the alpha male roaming in a giant area. Some female would follow them & they'd go create their own little separate monkey tribe, and so the process would continue - that's evolution, that's what forms the instincts. In your example that isn't happening, the alpha male is claiming all the women.
To interpret natural instinct you have to keep in mind the ideal conditions, because those are the success conditions. The alpha male is the one spreading his seed in your example, not the repressed gay monkeys - their genes are dying out.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

How on earth could raping a child be advantageous to survival / reproduction? It doesn't produce offspring. And how is raping a child beneficial to the group...? Raping a child? BTW - group benefit has far less evolutionary weight than an individuals own reproduction. It is a tertiary benefit at best. People who want to promote their own anti-evolutionary ideals like to try & treat survival/reproduction & group benefit as equal alternatives, it's just nonsense, sexual selection is the primary driver of evolution.
No, you aren't making any sense here.

Well studies have told us most people who actually fondle kids are straight - so maybe the people touching kids are actually making more kids even if the act of pedophilia itself is so wrong (and even if saying that would trigger and troll everybody)

Didn't that Josh Duggar person get thrown in prison for having child porn? And didn't he have a lot of kids?

Although it sounds disgusting and immoral, a pedophile naturally would want to make more kids in order to have sex with them anyway.... the biggest case of vulnerable victims are ones that a perp can create for himself.

[DogOfDanger]

Well studies have told us most people who actually fondle kids are straight - so maybe the people touching kids are actually making more kids even if the act of pedophilia itself is so wrong (and even if saying that would trigger and troll everybody)

Didn't that Josh Duggar person get thrown in prison for having child porn? And didn't he have a lot of kids?

Although it sounds disgusting and immoral, a pedophile naturally would want to make more kids in order to have sex with them anyway.... the biggest case of vulnerable victims are ones that a perp can create for himself.

Generally people go after the thing that turns them on, and there's one main thing that does it... if it's kids that's where the energy will get channeled into, i.e. it won't be channeled into grown women to the same degree. So I really doubt that pedos have the same success ratio with grown women as do normal straight males.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

sorry but I can't really agree with that, considering how many guys I know like to say 'my wife is gone and I'm horny'

U could be into the kids more, but try to compartmentalize/hide it better because u also realize how wrong it is. People eat both their vegetables and their sweets after all.

"Normal str8 males" are most likely the ones being caught with real kids lol. Sorry but that just isn't a token of righteousness or purity to me.

[DogOfDanger]

Not all behaviors have a broad evolutionary benefit, or are primarily driven by natural instinct. You can have instincts that are smothered and express in deferred ways. For example, in extinction conditions, where the instincts are blocked - like in the example with the 9 male manta rays mounting their females - what you see is not a broad evolutionary behavior, it's the unhealthy desperate expression of the instincts.
This is more like a derailment of the instincts - in the same way an autoimmune disorder is a derailment of the immune system. The instincts are not serving their purpose, they're not within the environment they evolved for. They're expressing in maladaptive ways...

Look again at the scenario with the spider eating the male before laying eggs. Now consider whether there's some condition where it would actually be in the best interest of human survival to kill the partner and eat it... or eat members of your family. Look at the Dahmer party, where these pioneers got stuck on a mountain and had to eat one another to survive.
This is not driven primarily by instinct. Instinct takes billions of years and repeated selection to evolve. This is a practical consideration that the pioneers took, in spite of and in conflict with their instincts, they decided to eat one another.
This would be a grotesque thing for you to do - it would not be instinctual, it would be contrary to all your instincts....
So this is what we're dealing with in these extinction-like scenarios. Instinct is something honed by circumstances that are homeostatic, and it is honed over billions of years...
For a spider it IS instinctual to eat the mate, because for them it's an evolutionary behavior, their instinct evolved or that....

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

You get ppl telling gay men that "It's okay to be gay, as long as you don't do anything gay, because that would be gay" - then naturally there's a high chance their homosexuality would express itself in ways that are immoral and predatory. Look at the weird mind fuck they're doing to ppl while pretending they are more righteous and good on top of it etc.

U can't blame heteronormative society entirely, but if both the self-hating gays and anti-gay Karens work together to make the gay person accepted as long as they can't actually be gay- it's little surprising that it would express itself in twisted ways. I mean Conservatives loooove to talk about the link between homosexuality and pedophilia ((and it's in cases like there really is one)), but it's not really as black and white as they make it out to be. And objectively we need heterosexuality to make people, but as soon as there's enough there's more and more gays get born to naturally balance that anyway. Civilizations that aren't developed very well always put heterosexuality on a pedastal, cuz it obviously needs more str8 ppl & heterosexuality to make it thrive - but they are only correct in the short term. And it becomes a thing to scapegoat or an illusion, where they think throwing more heterosexuality at the problem will fix it- but they are still just poor and suffering.

[DogOfDanger]

You get ppl telling gay men that "It's okay to be gay, as long as you don't do anything gay, because that would be gay" - then naturally there's a high chance their homosexuality would express itself in ways that are immoral and predatory. Look at the weird mind fuck they're doing to ppl while pretending they are more righteous and good on top of it etc.

U can't blame heteronormative society entirely, but if both the self-hating gays and anti-gay Karens work together to make the gay person accepted as long as they can't actually be gay- it's little surprising that it would express itself in twisted ways. I mean Conservatives loooove to talk about the link between homosexuality and pedophilia ((and it's in cases like there really is one)), but it's not really as black and white as they make it out to be. And objectively we need heterosexuality to make people, but as soon as there's enough there's more and more gays get born to naturally balance that anyway. Civilizations that aren't developed very well always put heterosexuality on a pedastal, cuz it obviously needs more str8 ppl & heterosexuality to make it thrive - but they are only correct in the short term. And it becomes a thing to scapegoat or an illusion, where they think throwing more heterosexuality at the problem will fix it- but they are still just poor and suffering.

You should try to remember that I'm only talking about how instinct evolves and expresses in nature, not how it expresses within civilization. I would simply tell you that I think on the level of instinct, modern living is interpreted as a kind of extinction event, in that sense that the instincts are completely smothered and can only express in very deferred ways. For example, when you drive to work / work for 8 hours / drive home... you sit in your car stationary for an hour and a half there, hour and a half back. At work you have to smile and bow your head, and try not to piss off angry random people. This is very smothering of you, and this is nothing like what life would be like in nature. This smothering is inevitable, we are detached from nature.. but the truth is you really have no idea what you would be like if you did not have to deal with this sort of thing on a regular basis. My opinion is you, me, and everyone would feel and act much differently. So you have this very solid identity about yourself and who you are... but that identity is a social construct. I don't think of myself as a social creature, I think of myself as a fish out of water.
Now... as for what you should or should not be doing - I leave that for you to decide. I wouldn't say I'm anti-gay, I think I am pro-gay in the sense that my viewpoint provides some clear understanding as to why human beings act the way they do in a variety of ways. I think I'm correct about it, and I think it actually justifies various behaviors... But I am also realistic about the unchanging parts of nature, the things we are detached from... to me this is the most important part of human beings, their truest selves that have been forgotten. For example, you evolved to have sperm - those sperm have a very definite purpose, it is go to into the egg of a female. There is simply no escaping that. Your body produce that for a reason... Nonetheless, you are a modern repressed creature like everyone.
So... is that a prejudicial attitude? You decide that, I think it is a realistic and well rounded viewpoint of the whole matter. I don't think you're going to get very far by denying evolution, if your identity hinges on that... it's time to reassess your identity.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Toad with a "natural" instinct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITY9luBw3_I
but useless in this context.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

and evolution cares about the group not individuality or society's morals anyway... a pedophile has 10 children, he gets sent to prison for his crimes (as he abused a few of his own kids and also others as well) and then was killed off by a thug in prison who hates pedophiles for how immoral and gross they are - but the 10 children he made all became productive members of society & contributed to the gene pool themselves, even tho their daddy was just a creepy pedo.

There is no such thing as looking at actions in a vacuum like that... even though everybody in their right mind knows and agrees pedophila is bad, even that doesn't exist in a wormhole.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

@DogOfDanger you argue against being like Genghis Khan (the most successful person from an evolutionary perspective in the last 800 years), and yet you seem fond of being an asshole.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

@DogOfDanger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

[DogOfDanger]

@DogOfDanger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

lol, read your first paragraph:
"The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with the appeal to nature, which is exemplified by forms of reasoning such as "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable" or "This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesirable.""

[Socionics Is A Cult]

lol, read your first paragraph:
"The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with the appeal to nature, which is exemplified by forms of reasoning such as "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable" or "This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesirable.""

So why do you have a teleological view of evolution, that does not exist in nature?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Under normal and healthy conditions, you would feed the dog in your avatar and show him some compassion.

Does the dog deserve it for being gay and not a str8 white alpha male?

I suppose I can understand it then. Carry on being an alpha male with Ben Shapiro.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

For example, you evolved to have sperm - those sperm have a very definite purpose, it is go to into the egg of a female. There is simply no escaping that. Your body produce that for a reason... Nonetheless, you are a modern repressed creature like everyone.
So... is that a prejudicial attitude? You decide that, I think it is a realistic and well rounded viewpoint of the whole matter. I don't think you're going to get very far by denying evolution, if your identity hinges on that... it's time to reassess your identity.

Your hole is just something to be used for other men's pleasure. You were evolved with a prostate inside your anus, why aren't you getting it stimulated by a thick Italian dick right now instead of wasting time with a woman who you will probably end up disrespecting and devaluing anyway because she will get tired of your insufferable rants about male and female compatibility. And she will see thru how ur not an alpha male and laugh at your beta male ways.

Considering I knew I was gay ever since I was 5- I highly doubt that's the purpose of my cum- and I wanted to show you what it felt like.

[DogOfDanger]

Your hole is just something to be used for other men's pleasure. You were evolved with a prostate inside your anus, why aren't you getting it stimulated by a thick Italian dick right now instead of wasting time with a woman who you will probably end up disrespecting and devaluing anyway because she will get tired of your insufferable rants about male and female compatibility. And she will see thru how ur not an alpha male and laugh at your beta male ways.

Considering I knew I was gay ever since I was 5- I highly doubt that's the purpose of my cum- and I wanted to show you what it felt like.

Your sperm is definitely designed for fertilizing a female egg cell. If your identity hinges on denying this fact... you need to reformulate your identity, as I've explained. You have a right to be gay, I've provided plenty of rational justification for why you may be gay - may have always been gay - but you do not have a right to deny facts about nature and biology. If this is what you require of me I'm sorry, but that is just an unrealistic requirement, and I'm not pretending black is white.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Your sperm is definitely designed for fertilizing a female egg cell. If your identity hinges on denying this fact... you need to reformulate your identity, as I've explained. You have a right to be gay, I've provided plenty of rational justification for why you may be gay - may have always been gay - but you do not have a right to deny facts about nature and biology. If this is what you require of me I'm sorry, but that is just an unrealistic requirement, and I'm not pretending black is white.

Why aren't you having gay anal sex right now. Your prostate gland was definitely designed to be stimulated by a penis. If your identity hinges on the ability to merely breed, I don't know what to tell you.

[DogOfDanger]

Why aren't you having gay anal sex right now. Your prostate gland was definitely designed to be stimulated by a penis. If your identity hinges on the ability to merely breed, I don't know what to tell you.

Since that has zero survival reproductive value this claim just makes no sense, but I don't think for you it is about making sense, I think it is this need to emotionally justify yourself... but again, I'm not pretending - you can come up with an identity that allows you to be gay but still does not deny biology, it is very doable... keep trying.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Since that has zero survival reproductive value this claim just makes no sense, but I don't think for you it is about making sense, I think it is this need to emotionally justify yourself... but again, I'm not pretending - you can come up with an identity that allows you to be gay but still does not deny biology, it is very doable... keep trying.

It actually has tons of survival reproductive value, since gay men are often caregivers to children where str8 ppl can't or won't be. You are not more rational or logical than me just because ur a breeder male, what a fucking stupid and tired card. U were the one trying to emotionally justify YOUR fragile heterosexual identity by attacking me, I was merely showing u what it felt like.

It's not as simple as 'durrr str8 sex make da baby I am such a special person' /drool. Studies have proven that the female siblings of gay males are MORE fertile than other females... so the very fact of me being gay HELPS THE HUMAN POPULATION & REPRODUCTION, it doesn't hinder it- you simple minded Republicunt idiot.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Your sperm is definitely designed for fertilizing a female egg cell. If your identity hinges on denying this fact... you need to reformulate your identity, as I've explained. You have a right to be gay, I've provided plenty of rational justification for why you may be gay - may have always been gay - but you do not have a right to deny facts about nature and biology. If this is what you require of me I'm sorry, but that is just an unrealistic requirement, and I'm not pretending black is white.

You're being teleological again.

[DogOfDanger]

Evolution does give nature a purpose. For example, your penis has a purpose - it is to get sperm into a vagina. Evolution gives nature a purpose, correct.

Ok, I'm tired and you aren't saying anything interesting. Goodbye!

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Evolution does give nature a purpose. For example, your penis has a purpose - it is to get sperm into a vagina. Evolution gives nature a purpose, correct.

Ok, I'm tired and you aren't saying anything interesting. Goodbye!

That's literally the Naturalistic fallacy right there.

Parts of the body have a purpose from an evolutionary perspective, but evolution does not give nature a purpose. That is your belief.

[DogOfDanger]

That's literally the Naturalistic fallacy right there.

Parts of the body have a purpose from an evolutionary perspective, but evolution does not give nature a purpose. That is your belief.

What we are doing here is describing natural instinct - what it is, how it behaves, and we do this by looking at how it evolved... this is not a matter of belief, it actually just brushes up against your beliefs .. instead of looking deeper for a reconciliation, you spaz about it and deny reality... you do this because you are stupid.