Seattle, WA - Ballard
report this user
Aug 17, 2012 Omnifarious commented on Libertarians Sue to Have Romney Kicked Off Washington Ballot.
"This lawsuit is using the letter of the law to undermine the spirit."

Yes, and this is on purpose. You know what the spirit of the law is, the spirit is "There shall be only two parties, and they shall be the Democrats and the Republicans, and all the others will be called 'minor' parties.". It's offensive and an affront to democracy. Codifying two parties into the law is no better than codifying just one (like the communists typically do).

This isn't about getting votes. It's about forcing the people who write the law to admit that the basic idea is to make sure that the only parties that are ever taken seriously by anybody are the democrats and the republicans.
Nov 2, 2010 Omnifarious updated his or her location.
Nov 2, 2010 Omnifarious joined My Stranger Face
Nov 2, 2010 Omnifarious commented on So What You're Saying Is That No One Should Be Monogamous?.
I just started reading this book, and it is significantly better than I hoped. It gains much of its compelling power precisely because it DOESN'T focus solely on western cultures. It tries very hard to include the full spectrum of current observed human sexual behavior as a datapoint.

The best thing I can say about what I've read so far is that the book is unflinching. I get the strong sense that the authors would've been happy to come to any conclusion the evidence suggested. The book has a bit of a preachy tone, but that's mostly because they express (in a scientific way) a sense of upset and betrayal over how so much evidence has been 'monogamy washed' when it's been interpreted. Some of the examples given in the book are incredibly egregious examples of clearly serious scientists having blinkers on that are opaque to all known forms of radiation, not just visible light.

As for the people here who proclaim that monogamy is just 'better' or that we're 'rising above our nature' when choosing it, why do you feel that way? What's better about it? Who's kool-aid have you drunk, and which unicorn did you listen to?

The woman who was cheating and suddenly saw her behavior as not pathologically bad may now choose to go to her spouse and state what she really needs. Being told that you're evil or wrong your entire life for wanting something tends to make you really reluctant to bring it up with a partner and tends to cause people to do things shamefully in secret. I don't think that her revelation makes her cheating less of a betrayal, but I do hope that it gives her the courage to begin living a more honest life.

And for the people who claim that monogamy is only 'designed' to last as long enough to raise a child, you're just coughing up the same fallacies that have been fed to us for so long in a more palatable form.

One really striking example from the book is that there are a large number of hunter-gatherer tribal cultures in which its thought that paternity is a shared responsibility. That all the men a woman has had sex with are responsible for raising the children the woman has.

And this isn't just a quaint 'myth' they share, it has real consequences in their everyday behaviors and their value systems, it's as serious a belief as any of our hard-core religious beliefs and assumptions.

The model you assume must be correct is not the only model. There is no need for a pair-bond to ensure that offspring are cared for. Your assumption that its required is a pernicious form of circular reasoning.