The level of retardation in this world never ceases to amaze me.
Woman furious at male duck for mating with female
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
lefties are determined to break all previous records
She was probably a rightie redneck, huh?
She didn't say anything particularly left wing.
Maybe she recognized the female duck from a previous life and she is trying to block her.
Last edited:
What matters is survival, nothing else. Lions will kill cubs that aren't theirs. Praying mantis females will eat males while mating. Morality is a human construct, and we should not judge animal behaviour based on our moral codes. They have to do what they have to do to survive this insanely harsh world.
That is a very difficult question to answer.
Even extreme cases, such as man who rapes women, is doing what is in his best interest to spread his genes. If that male is not desirable to females, he has no choice to do that, or else his genes die out. It happens in animal world too. You can imagine a world in which males are very sexually passive, and do not aggressively mate. That could mean the extinction of the species. Of course, in no way am I condoning rape, but we are animals, and rape exists because it was a selected behaviour that allowed for genes to pass on. It could very well be that you owe your existence because some ancestor committed rape.
Same for adultery. In human society, cheating is immoral. But it can be beneficial to human fitness. A fit male benefits society by spreading his good genes to as many females as possible, creating a healthy variety of offspring with his good genes. If he mated with just one female, they offspring would not be genetically disverse, and there would also be fewer offspring. Similarly, a female who cheats also is not putting all her eggs in one basket, and is creating more chances for genetically diverse children which is healthy for human survival. This is why females will cheat with high quality males (tall, strong, rich (signifying their fitness and ability to secure resources and provide).
Same goes for murder. In prehistoric times, any kind of undesirable behavior that threatened the well being of society needed to be eliminated. For example, one violent individual who stole and terrorized the group needed to be killed. Those who were willing to kill because they felt their was injustice were actually doing the group a favor by eliminating a threat.
The reality is that morals change with times. It used to be that it was completely acceptable for men to marry girls as young as 12 in many societies. This was because people died a lot sooner, and it was important to breed early while the girls were fertile.
It turns out that usually what is moral is what is best for the survival of the human species and its well being. Say, for example that murder and rape were traits that allowed the human species to flourish, and not having those traits meant the extinction of humans. In that case, it may mean that humans would somehow modify their moral code to make those behaviours acceptable, if not commendable.
However, we know that a person who murders innocent victims who are beneficial to society are actually committing harm. And we know that a man who rapes women is spreading his genes without a woman's consent, thereby bypassing natural selection (survival of the fittest, as chosen by females) and therefore spreading possibly inferior genes, and again being harmful to the fitness of the human species.
Thus, murder is moral if it benefits society. For example executing a man who killed an innocent child. Or defending yourself from a violent person who was about kill you.
Last edited:
I'm surprised she could tell which one is male or female.
I remember walking in a park and a woman told her kids, look at the duck with the beautiful green head, that's the girl, and the brown one is the guy.
I remember walking in a park and a woman told her kids, look at the duck with the beautiful green head, that's the girl, and the brown one is the guy.
Since all humans have an understanding of rules of society, I think perhaps, but it's more nuanced. Since society has agreed on a set of rules that are enforced, breaking the contract can be seen as being immoral.
However, many people, rightfully so, disagree with the moral code that society imposes on us. And, of course, even today morals vary widely by region and culture.
It may be seen as highly immoral to eat beef in Hindu society. Yet, Muslims may be fine with it, but find it highly objectionable to eat pork. Western society in general will see neither of those as objectionable. There is no universal set of moral truths, and hence the conflict we have in today's world,
We try to enforce what the majorty of society thinks is right, but just because a majority have agreed upon a set of moral rules, doesn't make them right.
Is a Muslim woman who cheats on her husband because he is abusive and she is suicidal doing something immoral? Society says cheating is wrong, so does her relligion. But who are we to judge her? She broke the societal contract, but I would find it hard for me to call her immoral.
It's in their nature.
Go to the political section and the proof will be their.
It's about evolution.
But that includes "feelz".
Coercive sex is the term in animals (since "rape" carries so much culturally-specific baggage).
And coercive sex is different than non-coercive sex, even in ducks.
Ducks do both.
The females choose mates, and also unchosen males often try and force themselves onto females.
It's part of why they have the elaborate corkscrew and anti-spiral genitals. (Since the females don't want to be bred by the rapey ducks they didn't choose.)
Last edited:
Right.
This isn't unknown.
Which is why it is so weird that people here are acting as if the idea that ducks rape is shocking and silly to believe.
You do know that people study animal behaviour, right?
Strange question.
I don't think the people confused about duck mating habits on the thread are more likely to be one political ideology or not.
Help me understand the difference between a female duck that consents to some dick and one that doesn't? Do they decipher the quacks?
