GirlChat #517461

Start A New Topic!  Date Index  Thread Index

Re: Yes, but . . .

Posted by Lateralus on 2010-December-14 07:19:10 EST, Tuesday
In reply to Re: Yes, but . . . posted by Scotty on 2010-December-14 06:09:15 EST, Tuesday
  Views: 0    Likes: 0     
If you doubt that this was the case then you reveal an abysmal ignorance of historical reality, and your own intrinsic bias - judging past societies through the prism of your own contemporary one.

Yeah, whatever. I doubt it because there's no real evidence for it. I am hardly biased against the idea; indeed, I would welcome it. In any case, you are poisoning the well here. None of us can judge history from the point of view of the past, since we do not live in the past. All we have are the accounts of historians, who are often incredibly biased and/or ignorant of the real events themselves.

Until well into the 19th century the average life expectancy was 30, maybe 35, depending upon the country. If you are going to die at 30, would you wait until your twenties to begin a family? Yes,if you are so retarded that you cannot grasp reality. Otherwise, no.

That may be so, but many was any people did live past that age. The average life expectancy was dragged down by the fact that many children died before the age of 2. If you lived past 2, then your life expectancy increased significantly. I hardly think most people planned their lives around the possibility that they were going to kick the bucket early. And in fact I never said it was flat wrong; I merely expressed skepticism in the face of a lack of real supporting evidence. You know . . . critical thinking. I have no doubt it happened far more frequently than it does now (in Western nations anyway); I just don't believe it was the rule rather than the exception.

Late marriages and teenaged celibacy are conceits that only a relatively advanced culture can afford.

Well, first off there are often vast differences between 11-year-olds, 14-year-olds and 17-year-olds, though all of these might be adolescents, depending on the child. My hunch is that age was less a factor than the mother's ability to bear healthy children and not be killed in the process. Before the age of modern medicine it could be very dangerous for women to give birth, let alone girls whose bodies had not reached full maturity.

Mary and the Bible aside, intergenerational relationships were the norm through human history, not the exception.

Wait, are we talking about ALL intergenerational relationships or just adult-child and adult/adolescent relationships? Because that would change the context considerably. My answer to that is that, yes, it was not uncommon for much older men to marry younger women, but a lot of that had to do with the fact that it was all extremely patriarchal back then, and women didn't really have much of a choice if they wanted to live decently. The culture was such that often only older men were well-established and financially secure. However, if you meant the latter, then I'm afraid the evidence is against you. Such relationships occurred, but they were by far the exception.

The point is that God was not the first pedophile; merely the most famous.

This statement is historically, empirically and philosophically meaningless.

This post is archived, preventing any new replies.

Responses