x
Click to expand

belikea

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Video Games Played: A lot
Date Signed Up:11/28/2010
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#5051
Highest Comment Rank:#5052
Comment Thumbs: 1013 total,  1155 ,  142
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 20% (2/10)
Level 184 Comments: Anon Annihilator → Level 185 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:393
FJ Points:855

latest user's comments

#2 - There was a kekleon hanging out invisible on that side, though… 05/04/2015 on They dead +1
#6 - And it was probably hilariously improbable that it would happe… 05/04/2015 on Science 0
#5 - I like this content. really. But I'm pretty sure that at least…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/04/2015 on Science +2
User avatar #6 - belikea (05/04/2015) [-]
And it was probably hilariously improbable that it would happen, when it did. That's MY prediction
#1 - Something's screwy here...I'm on mobile, and I don't often wat…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/03/2015 on New Microsoft Horror Movie 0
User avatar #2 - baronvonhuckle (05/04/2015) [-]
Then its already begun...
The machines are taking over...
#71 - I see. Thanks for the link 05/01/2015 on Poacher Hunter +1
#12 - Wasn't she busted for lying? If I remember correctly,…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/01/2015 on Poacher Hunter +3
User avatar #65 - Torth (05/01/2015) [-]
warrior.scout.com/story/1535978-former-seal-blasts-poacher-hunter

It's not that she lied it's that when she went over she didn't do anything. Some people are pissed off she's getting all this fame for nothing.
User avatar #71 - belikea (05/01/2015) [-]
I see. Thanks for the link
#3 - Now, this is exactly why we lost Reach. Can't you all tell its a puma? 04/28/2015 on Cute lil cat 0
#166 - And for clarification, since I'm apparently sleep deprived and… 04/28/2015 on POWER! UNLIMITED POWER! 0
#160 - It's a risky move, in my opinion. As supposedly basic biology,…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/28/2015 on POWER! UNLIMITED POWER! 0
User avatar #177 - penileburglar (04/28/2015) [-]
Yeah man, it's a casual collegiate debate. If you ask for source on something this simple, you basically get laughed out of the building. If I had to do this in front of an external crowd, then yeah, I'd have to cite every last damn sneeze I make.

Again, we're not talking about human behavior, we're talking about reproductive capabilities. The whole point is that for us to even be discussing this issue, there are obviously both promiscuous men and promiscuous women in the hypothetical. And with our reproduction, a man who has lots of sex is doing his best to spread his genetic material around. A woman who has lots of sex can still only have one baby at a time, so she's only maximizing her genetic spread if she sticks to the strongest male she can find.

Whether we primarily monogamous prior to society is both irrelevant and difficult to determine. The issue is specifically how a person if viewed WHEN they're decidedly not monogamous, and why the viewpoint outlined above is actually in-line with our biology.
#16 - You have any scientific proof to back up the biology claim? be…  [+] (7 new replies) 04/27/2015 on POWER! UNLIMITED POWER! -5
User avatar #112 - twofreegerbils (04/28/2015) [-]
It's how it is for practically every other mammalian species. Men fight amongst themselves for the right to breed with the females. The male will usually breed with as many females as it can win. The females usually do not go looking for mates, and instead get pregnant by the alpha male and will proceed to protect and nurture the child, with or without the father. Human breeding patterns are not significantly different from, say, the breeding patterns of deer.
User avatar #49 - penileburglar (04/28/2015) [-]
It's just regular old here's-how-babies-are-made biology. Men have less commitment to reproduction because they don't carry the baby. Men have less responsibility afterwards because they also aren't the ones natural equipped to feed babies. Cuz, y'know. Boobies.

I'm not making radical claims. Yeah, I could probably go back it up, but electricclover kinda hit the nail on the head--this is just basic discovery-channel level ecology. I know it sounds weird, but sometimes in debates, you don't go out of your way to cite stuff like this, because even if your opponent demands citation, it's just going to make them look terrible if they're demanding citation for something everyone else in the room already knows. I'll probably have some basic citations prepared to cover my ass if I go any further with it, though.
User avatar #166 - belikea (04/28/2015) [-]
And for clarification, since I'm apparently sleep deprived and somewhat incoherent, I don't mean citing the basics of how reproduction works. That is in fact basic scientific knowledge. I mean citing examples of how this applies to humans. Because some animals that are equipped to reproduce with as many others as possible don't due to certain benefits of an (at least temporarily) stable pairing (like, for example, children who are more likely to survive), so you need to make sure that this isn't necessarily true regarding humans, so as to then posit that current society is based on social fact
User avatar #160 - belikea (04/28/2015) [-]
It's a risky move, in my opinion. As supposedly basic biology, it should be easy to come up with something that supports your claim, and a quick Google search turns up some promising leads. It's just extra insurance, really. It can make you look bad if you don't have evidence.
And I don't really know if you can validly claim that basic biology is a good enough source, considering that some mammals (albeit not many, but that's the kind of number you'd want to have ready, wouldn't it?) are in fact monogamous by biology, and human history seems to place them in that camp. You can say that this is because of social fact, but that's what your arguing in the first place, isn't it?

I mean, I'm not you, and it's entirely possible that I'm misunderstanding the debate or its format or something else, in which case, my bad, but it jut seems like an easy way to get insurance.

TL;DR, if you want to be a master debater, you have to have sauce
User avatar #177 - penileburglar (04/28/2015) [-]
Yeah man, it's a casual collegiate debate. If you ask for source on something this simple, you basically get laughed out of the building. If I had to do this in front of an external crowd, then yeah, I'd have to cite every last damn sneeze I make.

Again, we're not talking about human behavior, we're talking about reproductive capabilities. The whole point is that for us to even be discussing this issue, there are obviously both promiscuous men and promiscuous women in the hypothetical. And with our reproduction, a man who has lots of sex is doing his best to spread his genetic material around. A woman who has lots of sex can still only have one baby at a time, so she's only maximizing her genetic spread if she sticks to the strongest male she can find.

Whether we primarily monogamous prior to society is both irrelevant and difficult to determine. The issue is specifically how a person if viewed WHEN they're decidedly not monogamous, and why the viewpoint outlined above is actually in-line with our biology.
#41 - penileburglar has deleted their comment.
#28 - electricclover (04/28/2015) [-]
I don't have a Wikipedia link to give you or anything, but it's the basics of ecology you learn in first year bio classes.

Put simply: the fundamental difference between males and females is the size/function of their gametes. Male gametes (sperm) are mobile and contain only genes; because they have no resources they are cheap to make and so males make lots of them. Because each gamete is less valuable, males can be less choosy and should mate as much as possible. Therefore, they are only "mate-limited," meaning their success depends on the willingness of mates. Female gametes (eggs), on the other hand, are immobile and contain both genes and resources; because they are costly to make, females make only a few and so they are valuable. Female reproductive success is therefore "resource-limited" as more resources=more/better gametes, therefore females must choose the "best" male for resources.

As a result, sexual selection involves two groups: male-male competition, and female choice. Males can ensure their genes get passed on by fighting and beating other males for females, mate-guarding, etc. and females can ensure their genes get passed on by choosing the most resource-providing male or the "best" male (i.e. the male with genes that are good for surviving/reproducing) which she can identify by his: physical markers of good feeding ability, being older (and therefore proven to survive better), being healthy (symmetric, showing skin in the case of mammals), and possessing traits attractive to females so that her offspring will possess traits attractive to females (sexy sons hypothesis).

tl;dr because of the difference in gametes males have to fight for females and mate with as many as possible, and females must be choosy based on the resources and genes of males. This is just well-established ecology but you could probably just Google search to find more.

It's just interesting how much of this was retained as human social constructs evolved. In the end our fundamental biology determines so much of our behavior.

items

Total unique items point value: 7363 / Total items point value: 11491

Comments(0):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)