What is your goal here in this conversation?

Would you have the women stay with their abusers and their beaters so that the child can have “two parents”?

People don’t leave relationships because they’re good, safe and healthy.

Love is what helps a kid grow well and the comradery and care two adults can have for each other can be reflected into children no matter the gender of the adults who serve as examples.

>the comradery and care two adults can have for each other can be reflected into children no matter the gender of the adults who serve as examples.

The love between a man and a woman is unique and no other arrangement replicates it.

How so? Would you describe this uniqueness so that I may understand it?

How is AB different from AA or BB? Is this a trick question?

It's definitely not a trick question.

I'm more than confident you don't mean to imply that a child gains benefit specifically because a biological man has an outie and a biological woman has an innie and because innie and outie go together and that that's the "love" that only a man and a woman can have together in that particular "arrangement" and that, again, a child benefits from that.

So, since a child's life isn't impacted by the specific configuration that a penis and vagina can happen to join in, what do you mean?

It sure seems like a trick question, because it seems like you want me to define man and woman in a way that you can say "ha gotcha." Instead, I'm leaving the definition of man and woman to you, and only requiring that you know there is a difference. "AB" doesn't refer to the genital configuration, but it is a required component of the arrangement. Whatever a man is to you, in addition to having a penis, that's "A". Whatever a woman is to you, in addition to having a vagina, that's "B". If you don't see how that's a unique arrangement, then I'm afraid I can't continue to explain it while also assuming your interactions are in good faith.

Alright, so it's not genitals, cool, cool and it's somehow "gender"-based that makes love across genders to be interesting.

Which philosophy of thought do you follow where gender would have an impact? Is this an argument about dominant / submissive? breadwinner / caretaker? Something else?

>Alright, so it's not genitals

I said genitals is "a required component of the arrangement." It's just not the whole thing.

Ah, sorry, I misread that part, then.

Why do genitals matter?

Because it is the only combination that produces life.

Sure; but what does the ability to produce life have to do with love?

Because the production of life in a loving relationship between a man and a woman is the best way to produce life.

"Life" ?

Quantitatively false:

    According to the team, there are almost 20 quadrillion ants on Earth right now. That’s a 20 followed by 15 zeroes, which is a number that’s hard to really get your head around.

https://newatlas.com/science/how-many-ants-total-earth

In terms of tonnage and sheer numbers there are many many more ants than humans - clearly their method of producing life "wins".

As a quick heads up, they don't have loving two parent families.

Human life, I thought it was pretty obvious that we were talking about humans, since men and women can't produce ants.

Is evolution surprising?

What does the physical act of having the form of sex that can produce a child have to do, at all, with what happens after that child is conceived?

Evolution only operates on "ability to live long enough and put oneself in a circumstance that enables making a baby."

They are strongly linked in a social organism sense to maximize gene transfer to the future.

You're not merely suggesting, you're asserting that there's widespread evidence of a serious problem, without pointing to any.

Got me, I totally made up this brand new social idea that men need fathers. It's so new and cutting edge that nobody has ever researched it or looked into it.

I see that your account is barely two weeks old, so in case you're new here, please take notice: this forum has standards [0]. You're posting in a manner that violates quite a few of the rules. Using snark and playing dumb to evade any risk of serious discussion will earn you a ban in any thread, with or without the context of your obvious undercurrent of bigotry.

As for this specific comment: you're still only pointing to hypotheses rather than evidence. And there are enough really obvious counterarguments that there's no way to pretend you're trying to engage in serious conversation.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It sounds like you're upset that I am pointing out the obviousness of thing you're requiring evidence for, and you're jumping to my use of sarcasm as a technical rule break to threaten reporting me.

I'll make my point without sarcasm then: Asking for proof that "men need fathers" is so common sense and obvious that denying it suggests to me that there is no evidence that you would accept. If you're serious and actually want me to find you studies, please describe, in detail, what evidence would change your mind. I want to have a clear understanding of the requirements and goal posts before I make effort towards that. If you don't want to do that, then unfortunately I can only conclude the question was in bad faith.

> Asking for proof that "men need fathers" is so common sense and obvious that denying it suggests to me that there is no evidence that you would accept.

You think I'm denying your claim that "men need fathers". That's because you're spoiling for a fight instead of trying to have a reasonable conversation.

Before I can take you seriously, you need to start showing some awareness that there are potential alternative explanations for what you claim is too obvious to require evidence. The questions and criticisms your comments raise and the fallacies your comments perpetrate are obvious and plentiful enough that you should be able to anticipate at least some of them yourself, and preemptively respond to them as a way of strengthening your case and making your comments substantive. Instead, you're continuing to make low-effort comments and treating this forum like a playground for your trollish behavior.

So it seems you're not interested in evidence of the thing you claim to seek, because you're not willing to define what would convince you, so that I can use that to find materials that fit your criteria. Ok, have a nice day :)

It's not just wtallis, I also second the opinion that you're failing to provide any comments of substance here.

You could be making a case, instead you're just demanding others carry your water for you.

A case for why men need fathers? These Kafkaesque lines of questioning don't make it clear what people are actually upset about or want to learn more about.