Replies

There is a simple way to argue this with a Liberal, which will have ton more effect on them than the way it is being argued now.

Liberals have the same quirk Narcissists have, in that they can be backed into a corner logically, in argument, provided it is done as an afterthought to an already settled debate. I used to enjoy doing this to a Narcissist I knew. If the corner they are backed into forces them to confront an uncomfortable truth, the Liberal will melt down.

Here, you can argue the merits of parenting styles all you want, and Liberals will ignore you. You need to take a different tack. To do that, you need to understand Liberals, and their ideology better. All of these issues relate to the underlying difference between our ideologies. Stop by my website at anonymousconservative.com, and read the first page where I discuss reproductive strategies, and how they relate to idoelogy. If you want, and have the time, pull the paper at

http://www.anonymousconservative.com/modern.pdf

Then explain to the Liberal dismissively that all of this relates to r/K Theory. Explain that the r-strategy is about producing as many offspring as possible, as quickly as possible, similar to how a prey species like Rabbits reproduce. Explain that single parenting is a common strategy in such species, along with docility, promiscuity, and early age at first intercourse. Explain that all of these are attempts to maximize offspring production by producing as many offspring as possible as quickly as possible, regardless of the offspring’s ultimate quality on maturity.

Then point out that Liberalism, as an r-type strategy is naturally comfortable with all of the aspects of such a strategy, and that Conservatism, as a K-selected strategy innately wants two-parent rearing instinctually, since it is focused upon producing as capable an offspring as possible. Point out logic has nothing to do with it, that is just an instinctual difference.

If you explain the science clearly enough, and do it dismissively, as if you don’t even care about the debate, because all of this is settled, Libs will get irate. One of the things which will exacerbate the effect is to do it as if you don’t even care about the argument, because it is already settled. That is key. Never give the Liberal the least bit of indication you care what they think, or care what their opinion is. Take the posture that all of this is settled, and they can argue if they like, but they are just wasting their breath.

In a Lib’s mind, this simultaneously backs them into the corner of being some bunny rabbit type human, who has adopted an r-type reproductive strategy by the position they take on this issue, and it prevents them from arguing back, since you are acting as if there is no debate.

If they try to attack the argument, go back to r/K Theory, and emphasize that r-type organisms have five behavioral traits (Competition and conflict aversion, promiscuity, single-parent rearing, early sexualization of youth, and diminished loyalty). K-type organisms have five traits as well, (competitiveness/aggression, monogamy, two-parent rearing, abstinence until monogamy, and loyalty to in-group.) Tell them Liberalism is just an intellectual manifestation of an r-type reproductive strategy, and Conservatism is just a manifestation of a K-type strategy. Repeat as necessary, since there is no argument against that.

For the readers here, I would just note on this subject, that in nature single parenting will increase in any population, of any species, which does not expressly cull it. Give any population free resources with no competition, and those who engage in promiscuity and single parenting will increase in number, relative to the two-parent parenters, due to the increased number of offspring such a low-investment rearing strategy produces. Known as r-selection, this unselective environment is the origin of the “Idiocracy effect.” In the movie, the retard Cletus has an impact on the population’s (de)evolution because none of his 37 imbecile kids get’s culled by Darwin, and they each go on to have 30 kids themselves. In nature, Cletus get’s outcompeted by a guy just like him, who impregnates 37 women, each with 37 kids, none of whom he hangs around to father. That’s not good for evolutionary greatness.

High-investment, two-parent rearing only gains favor in a population under conditions of K-selection, and it only occurs there because the single-parenting parents see their less capable offspring culled by Darwinian competition, while the lower number of higher quality, two-parent parented offspring survive the competition.

Of course, today, the nanny state offers no disincentive to this highly fecund, r-type cohort, so we can expect it to increase, until it creates an economic collapse, and is then culled back. This is why every productive civilization is destined to collapse. The productivity induces free resource availability, which eliminates any form of selection. Everyone who produces fifteen kids with an r-strategy, while eschewing productivity will gradually become the baseline standard of the population. As a result, the population gradually devolves, since the populations becomes more r-selected. Eventually, there will be a collapse, K-selection will return by force, the population will become K-type and productive again, and then the cycle will repeat.

Nobody will understand politics, or what is happening to our nation, without understanding the effects of r/K selection theory in population biology, and how it relates to political ideology.