Umm...???
- Thread starter A.B.Normal
- Start date
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
freako104 said:
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.
freako104
Well-Known Member
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
New Member
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.
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
New Member
Gato_Solo said: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?
Gonz said:
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?
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).
Thulsa Doom
New Member
Gonz said:
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.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Thulsa Doom said:
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
New Member
Thulsa Doom
New Member
RDX said:
and you would replace it with... creationism im assuming?
RDX said:
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
Member
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.