Especially DEEP DOWN, that's where the problem lies.

It's called "Appeal to nature", and it consists of explaining one concept in term of another (love in reproductive drive), even though their fields of use are on completely different levels. It's a form of reductio ad absurdum, which, even if ultimately and factually correct, adds nothing to the argument other than to discard important facets of a problem that are important for understanding the problem on one level, but not on the other, like, e.g.

"I am capable of feeling love without sexual connotations, but deep down I understand that the reason my brain loves is because it has found a worthy mate"

I'm sure a brother/father would be fascinated by that sort of reasoning :)

This is just to show that in your reduction of the term "love" to purely reproductional terms, you cast out a lot of complex interaction, because "love" exists on the level of rational human interaction, and is complex behaviour, whereas reproduction is not; in fact, the complexity of love is what makes it worth having a seperate term for "love" and "reproductional drive", and worth arguing about what it entails and its place in society.

To redefine it in simpler but unequivalent (even if related) terms, is to change the subject entirely, and that's why it's a logical fallacy.

If you are sexually healthy, I hate to break it to you, but the reason your mind loves, respects, and is otherwise polite to women is because nature has made sure that you will do whatever you can to procreate with the mates you see fit. Nature has designed your mind such that it experiences a higher order of sexual attraction, which is called love. This attraction is based on judgment of a mate in terms of their physical and mental capacity. If you do not believe me, why have you never fallen in love with an obese or dim-witted person?

If you want to argue that nature has not designed you to seek reproduction...maybe you are the type of person that believes in soul-mates, one true love, and all that stuff, in which case I'm probably not the best person to argue with as our views are inherently different.

Nested too deep, but to reply to the comments below:

@hythloday - There are natural inclinations which we have deemed socially acceptable, and ones we have not. If you desire to murder someone, you are probably a sociopath, and obviously no one is going condone you murdering people. On the other hand, if you experience sexual attraction, you are probably normal (ask any scientist if that is hard to believe). If deep down, you desire to rape somebody, you are abnormal. If deep down, you feel sexual attraction towards someone, there is nothing wrong with that.

@swa14 - Have you ever tried to argue with a believer of god (from an atheist perspective)? It is pretty fruitless, which is why I would advise to avoid it, just as I would advise arguing against me if you believe in mysticism like soul-mates. Anything which cannot be scientifically proven or disproven (like the existence of a god) generally leads to fruitless arguments.

There are a bunch of different forces at play in the "design" (random evolution to local minima) of humans. There are also a huge set of behaviours that we throw out because we've decided they're not compatible with how we want to live, among them murder, rape, and paedophilia. So if you want to make the case for your "natural" inclination towards the opposite sex, can I assume that you are also a supporter of these "natural" inclinations too?

I'm afraid not. Your implication does not really define anything.

>>If you want to argue

I don't. But I'd like to impart the following.

>>If you <snip> maybe you are the type of person that believes in which case our views are inherently different.

That exceedlingly bad form in any sort of argument, and a very weak position to take.

To paraphrase: "If you don't believe in God, then maybe you are just the sort of person who believes not in God, in which case I'm just going to ignore any argument you make anyway because I'm inherently not that sort of person."

Basically it reduces whatever case you're arguing to your personal opinion/ pet theory.

It basically fails falsifiability, because every objection that can be made against your point can be countered with "Yes, but in my mind .... " reducing everything you say to "true", and becomes thus useless for further discourse.

@@gavanwoolery @swa14 - Have you ever tried to argue with a believer of god (from an atheist perspective)?

"God" was just a drop-in example to illustrate the point in arguing with someone who believes in his opinion so strongly that arguing against it would automatically classify that person as "that (opposite) kind of person".

So to answer your question, ironically, yes; in fact, I'm doing so right at this moment.

>It is pretty fruitless, which is why I would advise to avoid it, just as I would advise arguing against me if you believe in mysticism like soul-mates.

"mysticism like soul-mates" are your words and have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The "type of person" you argue with is not "they who believe in 'mysticism like soul-mates'", but, "They who do not take your inner ideas and values as granted truths".

The point of my post was that the way you put your argument puts it firmly in the "pretty fruitless" category, since it can neither be denied or confirmed. If you want your argument to be given serious though, you would need to rephrase it.

>>Anything which cannot be scientifically proven or disproven (like the existence of a god) generally leads to fruitless arguments.

Which is why token_female's "[citation needed]" was right on the spot.

I would love to see the study that demonstrates this, controlling for all societal factors.

Even if I find a women interesting, I would never think of touching them in any means, even if I am drunk. I am not sure what your problem is, but most men I know are perfectly capable of suppressing any urges in that respect. But I feel like "being a nice, intelligent guy" becoming a lost art?

So, please explain, who are those "all men" you are talking about?

[1]: At least, thats how I imagine they would put it.