Umm...???

[Gato_Solo]

Obviously your anthropology needs a little work there.



so then are you saying that smoking is the equivilant of being gay? having sex with one's twin sister can lead to birth defects (to the baby who wasnt involved with the sex). smoking can lead to major health problems (including birth defects) to others not smoking. being gay doesnt lead to squat for any innocent bystander. once again apples and oranges.

Nope. He said that it's one small step at a time to completely remove something and replace it with another. You implied that he said something else.

 

[Gato_Solo]

do people get sick from second hand smoke?

Not as often as they'd like you to believe. Most of what you hear about 'second hand smoke' is mostly conjecture based on faulty data that came from only one study, and that study 'cherry-picked' it's data so that smoking looks worse than it actually is...Don't get me wrong.

 

[Gonz]

Obviously your anthropology needs a little work there.

Excuse me? Do you understand what a nuclear family is? Granted some households include additional next of kin, but the specific context has usually been there & is there is virtually every complex society.

Gato quite nicely handled part 2.

 

[freako104]

A nuclear family consits of a father a mother and children. at least thats what I was taught. I dont know that its the foundation for all societies in the world. I thought the idea of giving it a name was predominantly western. Though all cultures in one form or another do have that as a basis. But I alwyas thought of a family as being bound by love.

 

[BeardofPants]

Yeah? And how long have homo sapiens been around for? How long have they been practicing monogamy? And the real killer is: did Australopithecus afarensis practice having a nuclear family? Evidence suggests not. You know why? Because of the high degree of sexual dimorphism. Modern equivalents like the gorilla, which is a highly sexual dimorphic species, and other examples show that the more dimorphic a species, the more likely it is to practice the alpha male, multiple female groupings. Given that homo sapiens have only been around for a fraction of the time that other hominids have been around, all I can say is Pfffffft! to your nuclear family being the foundation of everything. That's the biological precept. As for the cultural one: don't be so fucking westernocentric.

And just so we're clear on the definition:

Main Entry: nuclear family
Function: noun
: a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children

I'd just like to add that in polynesian societies there are many examples of extended families, and matriarchal based families that do not support your nuclear family hypothesis. And that's not a modern basis. This was practiced before missionaries came over to convert them to the christian concept of marriage and 2.5 kids.


edit: must remember to finish sentences when I'm furiously typing.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Nope. He said that it's one small step at a time to completely remove something and replace it with another. You implied that he said something else.

nope. ACTUALLY he didn’t. Try reading the quote I gave with my comment before trying to ridicule my every response as a rule. Then youll notice I asked him a QUESTION about what it was his smoking analogy was supposed to represent. Generally when you start with “So then are you saying…” and end with a question mark it IMPLIES a question. I asked because I didn’t really get the connection between restricting something harmful and allowing something not harmful. capeesh? Hes using kind of a backwards faulty logic (smoking sections = gay marriage?) which I needed further explanation of. Is that ok?

Excuse me? Do you understand what a nuclear family is? Granted some households include additional next of kin, but the specific context has usually been there & is there is virtually every complex society.[/b]

well before I give you an anthropology lecture (and bop gives you a much more thorough lecture about hominids in the paleolithic) you are aware that our species has been inhabiting this planet for hundreds of thousands of years right? And that you are declaring that the FUNDAMENTAL and BASIC structure of hominid social grouping is and has always been “nuclear” (or as George would say “new-kler. We gotta give tax breaks to them newkler families. Strengthens the conomy”). When in fact for the vast vast majority of our distant past it was anything but modern judeo-christian nuclear.

EDIT: too late Bop beat me to it. Did i call that or what?

 

[Gonz]

did Australopithecus afarensis practice having a nuclear family?

Who cares? I explicitly said complex societies. That isn't western beacuse every modern (or even 12th century holdouts) practice it.

Once we westernocentrics stopped being th enorm, society started taking a nose dive. We westernocentrics changed the world. The matriarchal based societies, while quaint in their own right, never went to the moon or cured small pox or put one over on ma nature to make day of night (electricity).

 

[Gonz]

you are aware that our species has been inhabiting this planet for hundreds of thousands of years right?

Try 25000 years. Homo Sapien.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Try 25000 years. Homo Sapien.

actually most scientists support the idea that its somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 if im not mistaken. All the sources I looked up pointed to that. Some even pushed the window to as much as a million years.

 

[chcr]

Gonz, where did you get 25000 years from? Pretty much everyone agrees homo sapiens predate the last ice age and it ended over 50000 tears ago. Not arguing, just curious as I've never run across that figure before.

 

[Gonz]

It came from the modern version...Homo sapiens sapiens. I don't recall where that number came from but it has always stuck with me. It's possible it was 250k & I misread it but it really seems like 25k. That may be the out of Africa model. I don't recall.

 

[Gato_Solo]

nope. ACTUALLY he didn’t. Try reading the quote I gave with my comment before trying to ridicule my every response as a rule. Then youll notice I asked him a QUESTION about what it was his smoking analogy was supposed to represent. Generally when you start with “So then are you saying…” and end with a question mark it IMPLIES a question. I asked because I didn’t really get the connection between restricting something harmful and allowing something not harmful. capeesh? Hes using kind of a backwards faulty logic (smoking sections = gay marriage?) which I needed further explanation of. Is that ok?

Actually, I didn't ridicule your answer, I merely pointed out the logic you used to link with Gonz's post. I only clarified the statement that you misread. Nothing more.

As for the restriction of something harmful, you'd better come up with something more than one faulty study based on rickety factual presentation before you decide to ban something.

Now...back to the discussion...

 

[A.B.Normal]

 

[freako104]

Nice find there AB. but where did you get it may I ask?

 

[RDX]

That's a nice chart there, but what if we don't accept evolution? It seems that many people take this theory as law, and not what it is...just a theory (a rather flawed one at that).

 

[Thulsa Doom]

That's a nice chart there, but what if we don't accept evolution? It seems that many people take this theory as law, and not what it is...just a theory (a rather flawed one at that).

and you would replace it with... creationism im assuming?

 

[RDX]

For lack of any other all-inclusive theory of origin, I would say yes. Until scientists present a reasonable theory that can explain all the basic elements of origin, a theory that involves a deity is the only theory that I see as being plausible.

 

[Oz]

That's a nice chart there, but what if we don't accept evolution? It seems that many people take this theory as law, and not what it is...just a theory (a rather flawed one at that).

Well, personally I usually burst out laughing.....then I calm down, have a cup of tea then go to a quiet room and have another little chuckle about it

Although I should point out that I tend to stay away from copper buildings for a week or two afterwards......just in case of stray lightening bolts, plagues of frogs, locusts and wotnot

 

[RDX]

If that's the way you feel, then that's fine. I just cannot accept the theory of evolution blindly, when such sharp contradictions exist that it cannot (or at least has not) overcome. I am not stating that a sort of creation theory involving a deity must be true because evolution is false. I am rather saying that an origin theory involving a deity must be considered as the alternative, due to the lack of a more conceivable theory.

 

[Camelyn]

I am rather saying that an origin theory involving a deity must be considered as the alternative, due to the lack of a more conceivable theory.

I see.....
no bias there, nope, none, nada