Today, 07:00 AM
I would like to addend this post by saying that I believe dannno's regurgitation of Stefan Molyneux's self-justified theories is utter garbage. What he's doing is lining up examples of bad reproductive behavior and examples of good reproductive behavior and saying they're two sides of Molyneux's imaginary coin. In the past, I've accused him of using this completely useless theory just to explain something he's noticed without the theory itself having any real explanatory value beyond categorizing behavior according to its own made-up boundaries. While that is all still very true, I think it's a bit more insidious than that, the revelation of which comes from his nonchalant identification of some of the most heinous and self-destructive sexual behaviors as simply "r-type" reproductive strategies while completely failing to identify the more important scale on which this should be measured, which is the scale of safety/effectiveness in reproductive methods, tried and true. While seemingly innocuous on its face, his theory reveals a very flawed understanding of the world that attacks the very core of sexual ethics and morality by arbitrarily splitting up good and bad behaviors and grouping them under neutral labels that belie their ethical urgency.
(Where's my 'best-of' thread?)