Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (364586)	2/28/2003 12:00:47 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Wrong. Go back to my original post to you on this. History is replete with examples of societies organized differently... and pre-society, there is little evidence for monogamy, and considerable evidence for polygamy. -- (sigh) History is replete with examples of treachery, betrayal and all manner of behavior that is contrary to man. >>> You concede my point. History is FULL of such examples (whether they be deemed 'good' or 'bad'... never-the-less, they exist... so whatever evidence exists from the history of man seems weighted against your claims of 'biological destiny'. Looking outside of sociology for a minute, as I pointed out, the biological science give us innumerable examples across the animal kingdom to disprove your claim of 'biological destiny' for monogamy. -- The biological sciences do no such thing. >>> Of course they do! Easily thousands of mammalian examples exist. Er, wrong! [The indisputable evidence of biology is NOT 50-50 one man/one woman for the duration of life.] If you've got such 'evidence', present it. -- The evidence is in your own body. You are comprised of fundamental biological contributions of exactly one man and exactly one woman. >>> No one denies that each human individual is composed of genetic contributions from both father and mother... but that doesn't prove anything about 'preferred sexual behavior' in humans. >>> If a wife or girlfriend with single male partner became pregnant from a trist with another male (not exactly an unheard of occurance)... the offspring would also be a result of genetic contributions from the father and the mother. >>> This simple fact obviously doesn't 'prove' what you are claiming. >>> In the many societies throughout history where polygamy was the norm... children also were the result of 'genetic contributions from father and mother'. So what? Does that 'prove' that polygamy is the 'genetic imperative'?