Since you’ve demonstrated that you’re incapable of sustaining a sensible debate, I’ve closed the discussion. But I sincerely hope that you find another website where your invective is appreciated more.

300 matches have been played, with Australia winning 121 times, England 95 times, and 88 draws.

You retards get beaten by a county a third your size.

Not to mention NHS only introduced dental cover last decade, you crooked tooth retard.

UK v Australia facts:
* Australia has better weather;
* Australia has more land per person (even after removing deserts);
* girls are hotter;
* beaches are superior;
* lifestyle romps yours;
* play sport better;
* is a better tourist destination;
* is far better.

This is my last post.

Of course you can’t… similar to in a court of law, where it’s up to the person advocating an argument to prove it, and not for someone else to disprove it. If I ask you to prove you’ve never killed anybody, then you’d have to account for every second of your life (which would be fairly difficult).

Go and search for Bertrand Russell’s 1952 essay, The Celestial Teapot. That might help you understand your lack of logic; or perhaps a more scientific explanation, for someone that claims to be an alumnus of a prestigious University: If someone invents a new medicine for some disease, it’s up to the Pharmaceutical company trying to sell it to prove that it works to the satisfaction of the Medicines Control Agency (MCA), it’s not for the MCA to prove otherwise. The same goes for all other sensible cases that need to be proved, scientific, legal or otherwise.

I’ve demonstrated that there are people in my society that aren’t shy from birth, that there are other cultures where people don’t have sexual hang-ups. And I’ve come to the opinion that that shyness (or lack thereof) is transmitted societally or mimetically. So, maybe an easier path for you to go down is to disprove that shyness is transmitted societally or mimetically. Of course, if you can do that, it brings no evidence that shyness is inherited genetically, but it will narrow down the number of possibilities, and then, perhaps between the two of us, we can produce a better explanation. Incidentally, for you to prove that shyness at puberty is genetic, you need to show that it’s something other than huge amounts of hormones causing big changes to the child’s body. We already accept that people are scared of what they don’t understand. So, as an example, imagine that you woke up one morning and found an excrescence, I expect then you might feel quite nervous, regardless of whether there’s a woman about or not.

Next, in a (small) tribe you must go out and look for women, because it’s quite likely that you’d be related to most of the ones in your tribe, and the resulting inbreeding depression would be a lot worse for the tribe as a whole than for the one member getting turfed out. But pairing up with a girl from the neighbouring tribe gives you the opportunity to control more land, have more friends and colleagues to hunt/gather food and defend the newly enlarged tribe, as well as the various genetic advantages. Plus, avoiding incest is something else that seems to be universal across all cultures and societies.

Nervousness exists on a continuum, some people are extremely nervous to the point of locking themselves away and living as hermits, whilst other people would tend to be classed as shameless. Both ends of the spectrum would be likely to make fools of themselves, but the remarkable thing is that unless the individual concerned does something really really idiotically stupid (and that’s quite rare), then people just laugh it off, and a few days later it’s all forgotten about. Laughter is something else that seems to be universal across all cultures and societies.

Finally, your attitude and language is getting to the point where it’s starting to bug me. If you want to insult me or claim that people from the UK are shitty little islanders, I want to see evidence to back it up (that way it becomes fair comment (you’ll find your sentences tend to continue: because… as… or since…)), but if it’s just an irrational prejudice because some of your ancestors were ejected from my tribe, and transported to the land down under, then it becomes Libel, there’s no excuse for it, and you’ll force me to terminate the discussion.

In summary, show me evidence, but not supposition, guesswork or wishful thinking.

>Now, as the advocate of the theory, it’s your responsibility to prove it
You’re the fool who’s writing articles on a website - I think it’s your responsibility to defend your assertions. Your position is that the theory is impossible. My position is that you’re incorrect - ie the theory’s not impossible. I’m not claiming I can prove it, just saying that you can’t disprove it. Hence the burden of proof lies with you.

>Fear of meeting women certainly falls into this second category, since you have nothing
>to fear until someone tells you horror stories about girls being nasty, mean and spitting
>in the faces of boys that offer to buy them a drink or give them flowers.
God, what a shitty little island you live on. I’ve never heard of stories like that.

>Yet you probably
>played quite happily with girls when you were a little boy (I know I did), then puberty came
>along and family, friends, colleagues or the media trotted out some crappy old story about
>all girls being bitches, or showed you cartoon strips about henpecked husbands etc.
This is clear evidence against your hypothesis. If it were really the media or society imposing these views on women, children would be just as scared as adults of girls. The fact that nervousness is linked with a genetically inherited trait (puberty) directly implies nervousness is inherited.

>The upshot of this is that when you say that someone who was shy and wouldn’t meet women in
>2007AD would end their life as a lonely virgin then I’ll agree with you. But, if you claim
>that you had an ancestor in 2007BC, who was shy and wouldn’t meet women, then I’ll have to call you a liar.

Here’s two of the amazing fallacies of your logic.

1) In a tribe, you can’t go out and meet women; all your mating partners are there already there.

2) Nervous people do get laid. They grow out of it, get married, and be successful. Alternatively, a woman just picks them. (Had they not been nervous, they may have made a fool of themselves and been permanently shunned)

I reiterate: your whole argument rests on the on the blind assumption that nervousness cannot have any evolutionary benefit. We all know nervous people who have gone on to have kids; how can you jump to the conclusion that they all die “a lonely virgin”?

Now, as the advocate of the theory, it’s your responsibility to prove it. That means you need solid evidence, firm logic and a strong argument. I grant you it’s not easy, especially since as a critic, all I have to do is show one instance where the hypothesis fails, and the whole theory becomes invalid. But, having said that, I would actually be happy were you proved right; because then I would have learned something new, and the sum of my knowledge and experience would better for it.

Your correction of my “extreme aberration from logic” is quite amusing, since you are disagreeing with my counter-example. Read my previous comment again, [Rape gene idea was invented by radical feminists] Funnier still is that whilst you’re essentially correct that in any society, primitive or modern, rape would be prohibited and the perpetrator punished. In an evolutionary sense, it could actually be a good strategy since transience of the father isn’t important, so long as the gene is passed on (look at Praying mantises as an example). So, your reasoning is incorrect, whilst the correct reasoning is that the rape gene theory fails to predict the state of the modern population, when modelled via something like simple game theory, it also fails to offer any explanation for male-male rape, and, no doubt fails plenty of other tests too.

Back to genetic shyness; you postulate that human beings are badly evolved for the current world, because some adaptation from their past (shyness) interferes with their living in the modern world. I’ve countered that shyness is not universal across all society or even culture; lets look at some adaptive behaviours that might be hardwired (to use your term) because they are universal across all societies and cultures:

Avoiding decaying food
Avoiding objects moving towards you at speed
Avoiding Incest
Exploring the area around you

And then compare these to some adaptive fears, which need to be learned:

Dentophobia
Cyberphobia
Triskaidekaphobia
Phasmophobia

All the behaviours in the first category are autonomic: So, if someone were to offer you badly decomposed food, you wouldn’t need to assess how decayed or stinking it was, you’d decline instantly; If you saw something coming towards you fast, you wouldn’t stand there trying to work out what it was, you’d just duck. And all are excellent behaviours that stop you getting sick or damaged.

The behaviours in the second category must be learned before you can exhibit them: So, until you’ve learned bad things about Dentists, you can’t react to them. Likewise, until someone tells you ghost stories, you don’t know to be worried in old houses. Wrongly or rightly, you then avoid the pain of a root canal filling, or the dangers of encountering a gang of crackhead squatters.

Fear of meeting women certainly falls into this second category, since you have nothing to fear until someone tells you horror stories about girls being nasty, mean and spitting in the faces of boys that offer to buy them a drink or give them flowers. Yet you probably played quite happily with girls when you were a little boy (I know I did), then puberty came along and family, friends, colleagues or the media trotted out some crappy old story about all girls being bitches, or showed you cartoon strips about henpecked husbands etc.

Personally, I think that we’re not configured to understand how the world around is works, merely to survive in it and procreate. In order to do that, our brains create illusions and shortcuts for us to help us operate. For example, we all know that time moves forwards, yet we remember things backwards; we can only see in the visible light spectrum, yet specially designed equipment tells us that things do exists in the ultra-violet and infra-red range. But it’s just not necessary for us to understand these things in day-to-day living, and even were it available, all this extra information could just overload the brains processing capability, leaving us less able to cope.

Modern seducers such as Russell Brand regularly make fools out of themselves and seem to suffer no adverse consequences. Then there are a number of famous seducers that claim they were always confident and unafraid of women; Casanova was certainly confident all through his life, Frank Harris recollects a conversation between himself, George Meredith, Walter Pater and Oscar Wilde in which they discuss the awakening of sexual feelings, where Mr Harris recalls finding himself being attracted to girls legs at an age of between four and five. Iceberg Slim talks of getting Georgied when he was three. He is terrified of the beatings his stepfather gives him, yet:

I was frantic to sock it into every young girl weak enough to go for it. I had to run for my life one evening when an enraged father caught me on his back porch punching animal-like astride his daughter’s head. I had become impatient with the unusual thickness of her maidenhead.

Finally, one of the more interesting genetic laws is that ‘if your parents didn’t have children, then chances are that you won’t either’. The upshot of this is that when you say that someone who was shy and wouldn’t meet women in 2007AD would end their life as a lonely virgin then I’ll agree with you. But, if you claim that you had an ancestor in 2007BC, who was shy and wouldn’t meet women, then I’ll have to call you a liar.