I didn't tap dance around anything. I showed clearly that:
1) The average age of first menarche varies considerably due to social/psychological stress, individual biology, nutrician.
2) Different populations have had different average first menarche ages at different times. It is not true that because Americans 100 years ago did not begin their periods until their late teens that the trend is the further back you go the later the woman matured sexually or what have you.
That is clear from the INdian and Arabian research. There is no dancing involved.
No. That is not what you said. What you originally wrote was: "In the past girls menstrated earlier as the life span was shorter." This erroneous claimed was flatly denied by the very first source that you posted. To your credit, you continued to research the facts and gradually shifted your stance to the vague assertions above.
Your gradually changing your thesis, rather than admitting that you were mistaken is a violation of The Rules, paragraph 3.6.2. I did not call you it on at the time because it is not the topic of this thread. But if you continue to make an issue of it, you give me no choice. Either drop the age-of-menarche issue or face suspension.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 21 Oct 2008 15:58 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I didn't tap dance around anything. I showed clearly that:
1) The average age of first menarche varies considerably due to social/psychological stress, individual biology, nutrition.
2) Different populations have had different average first menarche ages at different times. It is not true that because Americans 100 years ago did not begin their periods until their late teens that the trend is the further back you go the later the woman matured sexually or what have you.
That is clear from the Indian and Arabian research. There is no dancing involved.
No. That is not what you said. What you originally wrote was: "In the past girls menstrated earlier as the life span was shorter." This erroneous claimed was flatly denied by the very first source that you posted. To your credit, you continued to research the facts and gradually shifted your stance to the vague assertions above.
Your gradually changing your thesis, rather than admitting that you were mistaken is a violation of The Rules, paragraph 3.6.2. I did not call you it on at the time because it is not the topic of this thread. But if you continue to make an issue of it, you give me no choice. Either drop the age-of-menarche issue or face suspension.
What do you want me to say.
I was not continuing to make an issue of it. Maybe what I said was not clear.
I can not support my initial claim so I said:
Quote:
"So let me rephrase what I said before "
I said that in this post:
Tue 21 Oct 2008 08:19
This meant I could not support my earlier statement so I wanted to restate it based on the evidence I found.
Being wrong and not being able ot support something are two different things, but if you perfer me to say I'm wrong, then fine.
I did read this before, but I can't recall the source, as it was some years ago (I'm referring to my original statement) but I'm thinking based on the stuff I looked up today and last night that it is probably not legitimate.
So, the real answer is I don't know, i'm not expert and I can't find one who specifically studied this issue in this way. SO I can not verify the statement so I withdraw it.
In any case the restatement was supported was it not?
Is that satisfactory?
Why did you post that chart? That chart, if I"m reading it correctly applies to people in Norway over the past 1.5 centuries?
Obviously, as I posted, Greek, Roman, and Indian people achieved menarche well before the age of 15 or 16 on average in the late classical period.
I've explained the implications of this on the thesis that girls today menstruate earlier and earlier than they did in the past.
That might be true in the Norway and In America (maybe in all Western countries) but that is not necessarily true for the world as there were obviously other factors involved than simply "Modernization" brought on by the industrial revolution or better health care in the last 1.5 centuries.
Also do you have some evidence of this:
Quote:
Also, barring accidents, disease, and murder, our species' natural lifespan has not changed in 120 ky.
I can't verify this as I attempted to look it up.
So where is this assertion coming from?
Last edited by Dragon Horse on Tue 21 Oct 2008 16:20; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 21 Oct 2008 16:14 Post subject:
[quote="chip"]
Dragon Horse wrote:
I have never seen somebody tapdance around the facts and conjure up and mix match information to save face as much as you.
Speaking of "but it was not always so in all societies." I suppose bestiality is ok
Isn't this a stawman:
2.3 Do not engage in straw man. — Make sure that you understand what the other person is saying before replying. Never caricature or distort another person’s argument.
Last edited by Dragon Horse on Tue 21 Oct 2008 16:20; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 21 Oct 2008 16:18 Post subject:
chip wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
In any case, I'm not defending having sex with a 9 year old in our modern cultural context.
You could have fooled me.
Dragon Horse wrote:
That is not only illegal but to me personally abominable, but it was not always so in all societies.
Oh how PC of you!!! Somehow because it is in a far away land it is ok? Are you also saying that Islamic law has changed regarding this topic?
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah, 1979-89 said in his official statements:
"A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister. It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."
I have never seen somebody tapdance around the facts and conjure up and mix match information to save face as much as you.
Speaking of "but it was not always so in all societies." I suppose bestiality is ok
A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.
3.2 Substantiate All Factual Claims. — Unsubstantiated statements of fact are not tolerated. Moderators will challenge any statement of fact that appears to be simply made up. No exceptions. This is the rule that most often trips up newbies. Do not make factual claims in this site that you cannot back up with credible (preferably peer-reviewed) sources. Never. Not once. Claims that do not allege facts, like "Vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate," are exempt.
Can you please validate the comments above with a peer reviewed source.
You made the statement:
Quote:
Are you also saying that Islamic law has changed regarding this topic?
Then you followed that with what the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini has said.
Are you saying this was "Islamic Law" in the general or in IRan?
If in general to Islam please provide a peer reviewed source as per the rules of this board.
Speaking of "but it was not always so in all societies." I suppose bestiality is ok
Isn't this a stawman?
I am not sure. It may be a strawman (suggesting that you justified bestiality via past acceptance) or perhaps he just wanted to change the subject. Either way, it would be a rules violation and Chip should consider himself warned.
Regarding the age at which members of H. sapiens suffer pre-programmed senescence (and my point that this has not changed since our species first appeared) I shall post references to standard texts in the "Molecular Anthropology" forum. The latest thinking is that it has to do with our telomeres. The only scientist today who hypothesizes that we underwent a significant evolutionary change subsequent to 120 kya is Ian Tattersal, but his hypothesis deals with brain neural organization and not with longevity.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 21 Oct 2008 16:25 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
chip wrote:
Speaking of "but it was not always so in all societies." I suppose bestiality is ok
Isn't this a stawman?
I am not sure. It may be a strawman (suggesting that you justified bestiality via past acceptance) or perhaps he just wanted to change the subject. Either way, it would be a rules violation and Chip should consider himself warned.
Regarding the age at which members of H. sapiens suffer pre-programmed senescence (and my point that this has not changed since our species first appeared) I shall post references to standard texts in the "Molecular Anthropology" forum. The latest thinking is that it has to do with our telomeres. The only scientist today who hypothesizes that we underwent a significant evolutionary change subsequent to 120 kya is Ian Tattersal, but his hypothesis deals with brain neural organization and not with longevity.
Fair enough. I'm not trying to challenge you. To be honest I"m actually curious.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 21 Oct 2008 16:29 Post subject:
chip wrote:
DH, you always seem to have an answer - except most if not all of your info about Iran is wrong. You seem to forget a best friend of mine is Iranian and his family and parents still live there. It isn't anything like you apparently are led to believe - this is from Iranians who live in Iran for goodness sakes.
3.6 In a Factual Dispute, State Your Thesis. — The position that you take in a dispute is called your thesis. Both parties in a dispute are expected to define their theses clearly, consistently, and falsifiably. State your thesis succinctly the moment that you enter a dispute.
You stated here that I was wrong, and I asked you here:
[To Chip]please provide a peer reviewed source as per the rules of this board.
Site rules do not require peer-reviewed sources. There has been quite a bit of discussion about this among moderators as well as members, but the current rules allow even outrageously unreliable and unpersuasive sources to be cited upon demand for substantiation. For the explanation of this, see Unsubstantiated claims: What constitutes substantiation?.
Unless I am missing something, with this point in mind it looks to me like Chip has already provided sources.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 21 Oct 2008 16:35 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
[To Chip]please provide a peer reviewed source as per the rules of this board.
Site rules do not require peer-reviewed sources. There has been quite a bit of discussion about this among moderators as well as members, but the current rules allow even outrageously unreliable and unpersuasive sources to be cited upon demand for substantiation. For the explanation of this, see Unsubstantiated claims: What constitutes substantiation?.
Unless I am missing something, with this point in mind it looks to me like Chip has already provided sources.
You are correct. I read the link and I understand the reasoning. I also see on the rules page it say "preferably peer-reviewed". My bad.
In Malaysia, these “Small Blacks” have been denoted as “Orang Asli” (Original Man). Pejoratively they are known as “Semang,” with the connotation of savage.
To my best recollection and verified by my Kamus (dictionary), your translation of the term orang asli is correct. However the word semang means employee or staff member and I do not ever recall it being used as a perjorative term.
The rest of the publication information is in Malay which would probably be useless to you but it was published by the Victory Agencie in Kuala Lumpur in 1996
YOu also have to remember that before Islam, in Arabia most women had little standing in the community and were basically slaves to their father or husband. If Muhammad hated women he would not have given them so many rights (like the right to acquire property from inheretance). Muslims would have have followed Muhammad's wife Aliyah into battle...etc.
As with most things...over time people twist religion to suit their own purposes, cultural norms, attitudes, etc.
Yes but not equal rights in any appreciable sense. Women under Islamic law inherit half of what a man inherits. There testimony in court is worth half of a man's as well.
Muhammad didn't hate women, but he was like any other man from the 7th Century from that part of the world; he saw women as beneath him, and although he ended such things as infanticide of females, he still allowed himself more than four wives and had sex with a child who was probably around nine years of age. People like him did those kinds of things back then, but he isn't as Muslims see him- the perfect human being whose example is timeless and a man without sin.
Are you saying we don't have pedophilia in America? Are you saying that in AMerica Christian men (Jerry Lee Louis comes to mind) did not marry their 12 and 13 year old cousins in churches?
There is general condemnation of people who do such things in the U.S. Lewis was a pariah more or less after he married his 13 year old cousin in the 50s. White people in the South are often lampooned based on the belief that they marry their cousins or engage in marriages involving a very young females and older males.
Pedophilia is illegal and culturally condemned in our society. It exists on the fringes.
We do not have things like child brides or a legal age for female marriage as low as nine in the U.S. And these rules aren't based on the behavior of a man who lived in the 7th Century.
Additionally, marrying your 13 year old cousin and marrying a nine year old female (or legally being allowed to do so) are two very different things.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 23 Oct 2008 14:54 Post subject:
You can marry in this country as young as 13, with parents permission, in the 1950's Jerry Lee Lewis married his 12 year old cousin, legally, in a CHristian church.
Usually marrying a 9 year old does not mean she moves in with you and you sleep with her.
I can't find a Muslim country where that is allowed today. These marriages aer basically "I promise my daughter will be your wife when she is of proper age."...
It is not normal that men in most Muslim nations marry 9 year olds...that is an extreme fringe thing as well.
If you have evidence that this is the "norm" in most Muslim countries please show it.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 {Posts: 110 } Location: Somewhere...
Posted: Thu 23 Oct 2008 15:00 Post subject:
Thank you DH for this thread. The Muslim and Arab comments/issues during this election have been most saddening to me. Some have made it seem like it is crime to be Muslim or Arab. I wonder how they feel. Some of the comments here are saddening too though, but guess this is the reality.
As G-Man said, most Arab-Americans in this country are Christian. But does that really matter? They are people too. And yes, the young man that was killed certain was of South Asian heritage - but of Caribbean descent, from Trinidad & Tobago to be specific. T&T has a significant Muslim population, a larger percentage than the U.S. There are Muslims all over the world. Good and bad, just like with everyone else.
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Thu 23 Oct 2008 15:53 Post subject:
divana wrote:
There are Muslims all over the world. Good and bad, just like with everyone else.
There certainly are. I don't believe in mistreating a group of people is the right thing to do, however I am completely opposed to applying a double standard as is so common in our Western PC obsessed society. ie it is almost completely verboten to discuss the "bad" things Mohamed or some Muslims do or even there GROSS intolerance to other religious groups as if it weren't relevant, while Christian history thought the centuries is a valid and often used target. This is a shame and is utterly scandalous. There should be one standard to be used for all.
There are Muslims all over the world. Good and bad, just like with everyone else.
There certainly are. I don't believe in mistreating a group of people is the right thing to do, however I am completely opposed to applying a double standard as is so common in our Western PC obsessed society. ie it is almost completely verboten to discuss the "bad" things Mohamed or some Muslims do or even there GROSS intolerance to other religious groups as if it weren't relevant, while Christian history thought the centuries is a valid and often used target. This is a shame and is utterly scandalous. There should be one standard to be used for all.
What are you talking about? Muslims are demonized worldwide for the actions of the few. You have done it personally while never acknowledging the actions/acts you abhor are not committed or even sanctioned and/or embraced by the majority of muslims.
There is a double standard and for the most Muslims get the short end of the stick.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 {Posts: 110 } Location: Somewhere...
Posted: Fri 24 Oct 2008 00:42 Post subject:
chip wrote:
divana wrote:
There are Muslims all over the world. Good and bad, just like with everyone else.
There certainly are. I don't believe in mistreating a group of people is the right thing to do, however I am completely opposed to applying a double standard as is so common in our Western PC obsessed society. ie it is almost completely verboten to discuss the "bad" things Mohamed or some Muslims do or even there GROSS intolerance to other religious groups as if it weren't relevant, while Christian history thought the centuries is a valid and often used target. This is a shame and is utterly scandalous. There should be one standard to be used for all.
Like I said, GOOD AND BAD, just like with everyone else.
I know this thread has veered slightly away from the title, but I just wanted to add that the McCain campaign and the GOP in general has disgusted me in ways I never thought possible in modern American politics. The idea that certain Americans are "traitors" or "not true Americans" because they are voting for a democrat over 2 bumbling republicans makes me want to vomit. The idea that one section of the country is "real America" while another section is "fake America" is an insult to our country, our people, and the ideology this country was founded upon.
Finally the notion that Arabs and Muslims aren't decent people is utterly despicable, and should be condemned in all forms of media for years to come. Its a complete embarassment for that level of racism and bigotry to be on display for all the world to see. My brother who is a Muslim, a marine, and a devoted family man deserves way more respect than that.
Only 11 more days of this garbage left to go. Frankly, I can't wait till its over...
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 24 Oct 2008 13:39 Post subject:
I do not know many Muslims. But the ones (2) I do know, are vehemently against Obama. Not that they are big fans of McCain, they are not. The Muslims I do know, support traditional family values, in other words, they tend to be more "conservative" if you will. They see Obama and people like him as a threat to "family values". I know this will drive some people here nuts, but this is what I was told by them. I know one of the men cannot vote, but the other can. I am not sure who he is voting for because he did not tell me and I did not ask.
The thing that bothers me with the Muslim association with Obama is that many US Muslims tend to be more "conservative", at least socially. I would want these folks on my side, because I know many agree with me on a lot of things. Many folks here in the US only see Muslims as terrorists, which is unfortunate and wrong. A good Muslim will be an excellent ally.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 24 Oct 2008 14:22 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
I do not know many Muslims. But the ones (2) I do know, are vehemently against Obama. Not that they are big fans of McCain, they are not. The Muslims I do know, support traditional family values, in other words, they tend to be more "conservative" if you will. They see Obama and people like him as a threat to "family values". I know this will drive some people here nuts, but this is what I was told by them. I know one of the men cannot vote, but the other can. I am not sure who he is voting for because he did not tell me and I did not ask.
The thing that bothers me with the Muslim association with Obama is that many US Muslims tend to be more "conservative", at least socially. I would want these folks on my side, because I know many agree with me on a lot of things. Many folks here in the US only see Muslims as terrorists, which is unfortunate and wrong. A good Muslim will be an excellent ally.
Most Muslims vote Democrat for the same reason black conservatives still predominately vote Democrat...they knoew a good portion of the Republican party (much likely a larger portion than the the DEM party) hate them. Hispanics are also fairly conservative but most still vote Democrat.
If people don't minimize the "hate" wing of the REpublican party you will never attach a large % of minorities, regardless of personal leanings becaue in the end...A LOT OF THINGS TRUMP FAMILY VALUES.
JCPES didn't highlight this one, but I calculated it using their sample size and plugging in the numbers that the poll listed of people's self-identifying ideology. 43.6% of respondents self-identified as liberal, 24.4% as moderate, and 31.3% as conservative (the other .7% must not have answered the question). Among those who identified as conservative, 78.3% self-identify as Christian conservative and 21.7% as secular conservative.
There has been an increase of self-identified liberals and conservatives from the 2004 poll, and a contraction in self-identifed moderates. Given that only 4% of the entire sample identified as Republican, it should be noted that the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file, self-identified black conservatives remain Democrats or independent and not Republican.
Can't speak for "Muslims" but Arabs support Obama btw...on average.
James Zogby, brother of pollster John Zogby, is president of the Arab American Institute, which commissioned the survey released Sept. 18. James Zogby says the results confirm there is an important ideological shift taking place among Arab-American voters.
"The floor has fallen out [from] underneath the Republican Party," he says. "They have half of the strength this year that they had in 2000, and this is not a surprise. You pursue bad policies, and you get bad results."
Zogby notes that in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, the overall Arab-American vote was 44 percent for Republican George W. Bush and 38 percent for Democrat Al Gore. But this year, the survey shows 54 percent favor Obama, and just 33 percent support McCain.
So Arab Americans are not monolithic but most support Obama by a good margin (not as large as Hispanics but about as much as Asians).
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
