Anonymous: Well if mistakes occur in Nature and by nature, then that means that Nature is flawed.
Of course Nature is flawed! Why is that even a question?
Anonymous: But that doesn’t make sense to me.
Why not?
Anonymous: Does that mean that Nature doesn’t have free will of its own?
Of course it doesn’t. It’s a process. It’s not like a creature that’s alive.
Anonymous: Since it recognises these occurrences as flaws then why does it allow them to appear over and over again?
Because it’s a process, and Nature is a system, not something with a mind and free will. It gets set in one way of doing things and then it just keeps on doing them. And Nature is amoral, completely. It could wipe us all off the face of the Earth if we allowed it to. It could care less about us or about much of anything really.
Anonymous: Maybe these flaws are Nature’s way of containing (depopulating) itself.
Not so sure about that part.
Anonymous: One thing is for sure is that Nature does seem to favour diversity. Progress only occurs when attributes are evenly spread. Suppose every single human only wanted to be a bodybuilder. We would get nowhere technologically but Nature has selected diverse people to have different interests.
OK, sure, but that’s just Evolution. Yet Evolution is another way of saying Nature. Nature is Evolution and vice versa. I fail to see any benefit of male or female homosexuality. As it’s apparently not genetic and only occurs when things go wrong in the womb, it’s not being selected for at all and it occurs at a low enough level that women with more stable hormonal flows in the womb are not selected for and the ones with less stable flows selected against.
Apparently the prenatal environment is pretty stable and doesn’t go off a Hell of a lot. Maybe 10% of the time at most and for the most part, all that occurs is lefthandedness which does not handicap offspring hence there’s no reason to select against it.
Anonymous: But why are those necessarily “masculine” characteristics? Just because on an average that males tend to have more of them than females?
Yep.
Anonymous: But doesn’t Nature also allows women with similar potential to get muscular, big, and strong?
Yep.
If they were strictly masculine traits, then there would be no girls with muscles.
That’s not so! Didn’t you read the fine print. Weininger says that the Masculine and Feminine Character are present in both sexes. All men have some feminine characteristics and that’s not necessarily a bad thing and vice versa. Some women have some masculine characteristics like being strong, well-built, muscular, and athletic and that’s not generally a problem except when women are at the extreme end of that spectrum, it seems like a lot of them are lesbians, and that’s not adaptive.
For the most part those things in a woman are not pathological, but there was no reason to select for them, hence women ended up much weaker than men. Furthermore, the strongest female bodybuilder is no match for even a middling male bodybuilder.
Anonymous: I like strong women.
Hmmm.
Anonymous: I don’t like chubby women
Understandable.
Anonymous: or the very girly girls.
Bad idea.
Anonymous: Strong women like Sandahl Bergman in Conan The Barbarian. The warrior female type of spirit. I find that sexy.
Change your mind. I understand the appeal of a badass chick, but the problem with those violent women who fight people who do them wrong is that sooner or later, all of that righteous anger is going to get turned on you. “Warrior” women are nothing but trouble. They’re bitches. They will fight you!
3
20
20
20
