SOC Re: The Myth of Monogamy.

From: Brian D Williams (
Date: Wed Feb 14 2001 - 11:13:17 MST

From: KPJ <>

>It appears as if Brian D Williams <> wrote [re
>-------------------- START QUOTE [1] -------------------
>|Yeah, lately everytime some guy get's caught with his pant's
>|down someone bring's up this lame excuse. Humans have a large
>|brain and are supposed to use it, and no silly biological fact is
>|a good excuse for a lack of character or integrity.
>-------------------- END QUOTE [1] ---------------------

Although Jackson was mentioned in the article, I did not
specifically mention him in my quote. I was arguing the general

>If one find biological facts to not match one's meme system, and
>one decides to ignore the biological facts due to this, then I
>call that a "prejudice".

>From Websters: prejudice 1) an unfavorable opinion or feeling
formed beforehand and without knowledge or reason.

Obviously we use different definitions.

>It really appears as if you meant that referring to biological
>theories as to human male behavior, esp. Mr. Jackson's
>extramatrimonical activities, was a (quote) "lame excuse" (end

Not his in particular, although he is technically a member of the
set (of all male adulterers).

>Or did you react on the word "prejudice" as too harsh a word to
>classify such an opinion?

I though it incorrect, as it is we use different definitions

>Due to oppression of personal freedom from humans in government,
>religion, and in other groups, the only way for humans to live
>together requires that they do these meaningless rituals as
>required by the Government or the Right Religion. Those who
>mistake empty rituals for a lack of character or integrity make a
>great mistake, indeed. Most humans do not wish to fight oppression
>as ardently as Number 6 in the Prisoner TV series does.

An interesting tactic! You're attempting to claim that "the rules"
don't apply in certain communities.

>Societies consist of individuals, and individuals have customs, a
>"society" being an abstraction in the head of humans. Abstraction
>cannot feel, cannot have customs, etc. Individuals do. Minor
>point, though.

I would argue that societies are more than an abstraction, and they
have laws.

>You commented on the Jackson individual, so naturally I assumed
>you really meant to discuss him, as a specific example of a
>general rule. If you did not mean that, then I will naturally

>I claim only how it appeared to me. If I am in error, feel free to
>correct me.

It seems a simple difference, no repenting necessary. ;)

I would state in concluding that being ruled by animal instincts
may be appropriate for animals, but not appropriate for humans, and
definitely not for Extropians or other Transhumans.


Extropy Institute,
Adler Planetarium
Life Extension Foundation,
National Rifle Association,, 1.800.672.3888
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:39 MDT