| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
|
You have trouble understanding emoticons?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Free-Radical wrote: | | In many ancient cultures it was perfectly acceptable to leave "unsuitable" children to die of exposure somewhere. Since resources were much scarcer (everything was produced by manual labor) it was a matter of survival for one's remaining children to dispose of those who were obviously a waste of resources. |
I ask;what are the odds that this belief became popular within academia round about the time that Socialism and Fascism were taking hold in the world politically?
Trace the idea to its origin and its provenance becomes suspicious.
I say human beings haven't changed. They did their best to preserve the lives of even the weakest members of the tribe -- and I say more: Resources have never been scarce relative the population, anywhere or at anytime, except in times of famine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Free-Radical
|
|
|
|
The practice is well known in mythology. Many of the heroes such as Perseus or Oedipus were deliberately abandoned because of a prophecy that they would be a threat. You may say that myths are necessarily dramatic and simplified. But it doesn't look much like a rare thing, or a fashionable opinion of recent historians when letters from the ancient world show casual reference to the practice.
http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/wlgr-privatelife249.shtml
Or when early Roman law actually mandated it for the physically deformed.
http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps01_1.htm
Law III.
A father shall immediately put to death a son recently born, who is a monster, or has a form different from that of members of the human race.
The revival of interest in the practice, which does coincide rather neatly with the rise of some anti-modern political philosophies, may be regarded as suspicious. The fact of its common practice in the ancient world is very difficult to question.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
I want to know when these laws were first discovered/published.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Free-Radical
|
|
|
|
The Twelve Tables are well-known from ancient times. I don't think they were ever lost and re-discovered. A fairly simple search shows English translations from the mid to late 19th century, but nailing down exactly when the originals were first known, if they were ever lost, would take some sort of historical research.
The Oxyrhyncus documents are almost all recent discoveries since they come from the "dump" outside the former provincial capital of part of Egypt that was discovered in the late nineteenth century. It was the early 20th century before the project to sift through the dump really got going. But the documents being turned up are quite authentic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhyncus
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Free-Radical wrote: | | The Twelve Tables are well-known from ancient times. I don't think they were ever lost and re-discovered. |
I assure you they were never lost. Because they did not exist to be lost.
| But the documents being turned up are quite authentic. |
Authentic. Sure sure. But even if granted, authentic to what time and people?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Dolphins and Bonobo Apes. What have they in common? I mean in addition to having so much sex?
Dolphin Orgies
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Extreme promiscuity. If a species does not operate on the basis of sexual selection but just bangs anyone is sight there is, according to neo-Darwinism, no chance of 'improving' the species. However, taking the twelve million species in the world today, the bonobos and the dolphins would be considered to be right up there among the 'improved species' (nos 4 and 7 respectively according to my Big Red Animal Bok).
So promiscuity improves the species.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| Dolphins and Bonobo Apes. What have they in common? I mean in addition to having so much sex? |
They are all neotenous - ie they retain juvenile characteristics through their adult lives. The dolphin is basically a big tadpole; the bonobo a baby chimp. That's why they are sexually so adventurous. They love to play.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Dolphins and Bonobo Apes. What have they in common? I mean in addition to having so much sex? |
They are both matriarchal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | | They are all neotenous |
Matriarchy fits with neoteny... (in fact it's a symptom of it).
Acceptance of maternal authority into adulthood and suppression of adult male aggression.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | Dolphins and Bonobo Apes. What have they in common? I mean in addition to having so much sex?
|
They can recognise themselves in a mirror.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Wile E. Coyote wrote: | | Ishmael wrote: | | Dolphins and Bonobo Apes. What have they in common? I mean in addition to having so much sex? |
They can recognise themselves in a mirror. |
They must be able to see the funny side then.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
