Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     10 years ago 

    Huh? He (she?) doesn't explain anything about what the theory is in this post but you think he's throwing out evolution?

    [-]
     10 years ago 

    I think one must throw out evolution to push narratives like this. we evolved out of polyamory into monogamy because of "R" and "K" selection.

    Trying to push the idea of "R" selection is only pushing the idea that evolution should not matter so we can regress backwards.

    The moment you bring evolution into it the idea of an open relationship is smashed it to shit. This is pushing an idea that we should move backwards on the evolutionary scale.

    So I do not need to hear the full theory when the basis of it is completely flawed.

    [-]
     10 years ago 

    its fine you obiously are going to keep pushing your narrative no matter how much proof I supply

    You have literally provided no proof. All you've done is claim polyamory is r selected behavior and defined r selected behavior, without giving any reason whatsoever as to why polyamory is r selected.

    at worst you will waste a little it reading something and them moving on laughing at my silliness right?

    More likely I'll get caught up arguing with you about it... ;)

    also none of your picts load

    What pics? I haven't posted any in this thread...

    [-]
     10 years ago 

    weird this pops up I just thought it was a pict.

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       10 years ago 

      That is a pic, but I'm not op. :p

      Also it does load for me so might be a problem on your end...

      [-]
       10 years ago 

      op?
      It loads for you but that does not mean it loads for everyone else. I have ran into this before. Your image is not viewable by all internet browsers. Just trying to help so everyone can see the picts. :/

      [-]
       10 years ago 

      Ahh... Nope. Not even a little. If anything there's a lot of support for polyamory if you look at evolution.

      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         10 years ago 

        lol
        R and K selection.

        Polyamory is R selective actions. it is for dumb stupid animals that can't do anything but reproduce because they don't have a long life and is a very slow evolution.

        Monogamy is K selective behavior, leads to longer life, less kids but smarter because more time invested in them and evolution like the speed we have had in a monogamous society.

        Here are some links about R vs K
        http://jaredreser.com/Background/Biology/randkstrategies.html
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

        [-]
         10 years ago 

        Stupid comment limit...

        You're making big assumptions about how polyamory works. There's no reason parental involvement needs to be affected, and in fact you often see the most kids among religious monogamous couples.

        $0.00
          Reply
          [-]
           10 years ago 

          lmfao!
          You must not understand evolution.
          Thank you for the push to write a post about R vs K
          :D

          [-]
           10 years ago 

          Given that your own sources say k/r is defunct... Go ahead amd write that post.

          lost importance in the early 1990s, when it was criticized by several empirical studies.[4][5] A life-history paradigm has replaced the r/K selection paradigm

          Won't change the fact that you're making giant, incorrect assumptions in order to fit your beliefs.

          Polyamory doesn't mean more kids and less attention. It means alternative arrangements for relationships. A "monogamous" father might have a mistress while a polyamorous father would simply be honest about having a second girlfriend. Literally no difference between the two as to how kids are raised.

          $0.00
            Reply
            [-]
             10 years ago 

            I did make the post, check it out if you want and feel free to correct anything im wrong about in it. it is always good to learn how I was wrong about something.
            cheers!

            [-]
             10 years ago (edited)

            lol, lost importance is not the same as defunct. -smh-

            also you chopped up that quote. it says it has been criticized. if you understood what it was you would understand why it is criticized and is actually banned from ted talks, yahoo and google. because if you use the r vs k structure with race it becomes very "raciest". also the link you took that quote from is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a quick refrence, the basis to start your research not the end of the line for most, considering it changes weekly by people that don't always know what they are talking about. here is the full quote not distorted like you did to it,

            The theory was popular in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was used as a heuristic device, but lost importance in the early 1990s, when it was criticized by several empirical studies. A life-history paradigm has replaced the r/K selection paradigm but continues to incorporate many of its important themes.

            so if you look at a life history paradigm it is almost the exact same, in fact it is basdes of rvsk. only has reproducitive risks and reproductive timing added to it basically. it is all based off r vs k

            its fine you obiously are going to keep pushing your narrative no matter how much proof I supply and im going to continue to write this post no matter how much you push r selective ideas.

            maby check out my post on it. prolly wont be dne till tomorrow im hella tired and already after 2am. at worst you will waste a little it reading something and them moving on laughing at my silliness right?

            have a good night and hopefully talk to you soon. also sorry I often come off as an asshole.

            also none of your picts load

            [-]
             10 years ago 

            op?

            Original Poster. That is I did not write the first post, therefore it is not my image... and it works for me...