More like the Bourgeois version.

I was looking up wikipedia for data on (I can't remember why) previous US presidential elections and so by selecting a few links, I ended up here. Took a bit of time before I registered though.

The funny thing is that unscientific views on GM foods are far far more harmful than the young earth creationism that I keep hearing about.

Which doesn't make young earth creationism any more scientific or any more constitutional to teach in public schools. Anything useful to add?

Perhaps, but certainly GM is more pressing.  Besides, this shows the utter hypocrisy of the far-left when they claim to hold the mantle on scientific progress.  They don't.

OMG, LOL. Hungary has a nationalist quasi-fascist government, the furthest right in the EU. Not exactly "far left"

In Europe the right can be anti-GMO, but if we are talking about America, anti-GMO is the domain of the left.

This thread is about Hungary.

Yes, Coppola is consistently top drawer like Polanski and Scorsese, IMO. The Conversation was very good. When I find someone's work who I really like, because I'm not a genre fan, I try to see as much of what they do as I can. I still have not seen his Youth Without Youth, but I have heard that it is a really beautiful movie. Will catch it sometime.

I thought Coppola's Dracula from the early '90s was superb - one of the last true blockbusters yet emotionally resonating films made. Purists complained about this scene or that scene, but I loved it. The "Elizabeta" part fit the mood very well.

And what can I say about Apocalypse Now? One of my top five faves all time.

Go and watch Tetro. It's a bit of a required taste (most critics were indifferent to hating it) but I loved every over-the-top melodramatic minute of it.

Googled it earlier, someone to do with Heritage Foundation if I'm not mistaken.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/05/jason_richwine_hispanics_and_iqs_the_heritage_foundation_scholar_began_researching.html

Yes, most US blacks would be considered 'coloreds' in South Africa for example.

It's been awhile since I've heard that term.  The Europeans I know used the term "half caste."  It really grates on my ears.  I have no idea how a "black" American would react to it coming from a white person with a funny accent.

'Colored' was a legal term under apartheid. Most US Blacks had they lived under the apartheid system would have Coloreds, not blacks.

Denial of American Miscegnation has been one of the cornerstones of many, many schools of American history.

Actually it forms the entirety of recent American history and a disturbing amount of fringe "science."  My friends from Europe and Africa often do not consider many African Americans "black."  Before I explain to them the only way to keep the peace is to pretend they are "black" some of them (the Europeans) are inclined to ask American "blacks" about their lineage.  I explain to them that is an very very bad idea.  It is better to pretend there are just all part of a made up "black" race that includes everyone in subSaharan Africa.

It is only when scientists start using this concept of a "black" race and drawing all sorts of ludicrous straight lines do I put my foot down.

Anyone who does that is not a scientist.

Yes, most US blacks would be considered 'coloreds' in South Africa for example.

Denial of American Miscegnation has been one of the cornerstones of many, many schools of American history.

...and at what point do "white" genes that define any 'racial' difference in intelligence overpower those of "black" genes? Dark skin color is a dominant trait, but as we all know, skin is not where IQ lies.

The raw truth is that about everyone descended from African slaves in America is some part white. On Who Do You Think You Are the retired football star Emmett Smith was surprised that he was just under one-eighth white, and the genealogist told him upon showing the results of the DNA test that African-Americans were almost never less "white" than he.

I didn't say otherwise... (quite a few blacks - no idea of the number really - also have some Native American in them too... but that would be going quite a bit back actually).

Denial of American Miscegnation has been one of the cornerstones of many, many schools of American history.

Atlas asks the big questions, gets moronic, horrible answers.

I'm shocked and appaled at that thread.

Really?  Why so sensitive?  I for one have never thought about race.  It is like breeds of dog, right?

Opebo, no, no it's not and the thread was brought about by the Richwine debacle so, yeah, sensitive subject requires sensitive reactions.

And this proves...?

It is normal for people to react within the confines of cultural norms.  If they are by and large unaware of polyandry why would they care about it or bring it up in this thread?

Fair enough.

Except that if Polygamy is going to through a period of 'normalization' like homosexuality has done and which it will have to in order to be legalized then most of those norms will have to come into question by definition. But no doubt, you would probably be proved (mostly) right.

Atlas asks the big questions, gets moronic, horrible answers.

I'm shocked and appaled at that thread.

And this proves...?

The fact the one is more common than the other is due to history, not due to some spurious human nature. If it was, then why is there Polyandry? (And why can't there be in the future?)

For the record, I do think if Polygamy was legalized and accepted as homosexuality is now we would have more Polygynous type relationships but that would be a product of culture and history, not anything else (And we would have Polyandrous ones too, no doubt).

Also, as that originally article points out, polyandry is very likely undereported due to the belief that 'it just doesn't happen'.

If there is a correlation between wealth and IQ then I think that further discredits IQ tests. No genuinely intelligent person wants to be wealthy.

In the past was a bog-standard American liberal (with all that that entails). I don't know if he has changed or not.

Typing up my research notes on 17th Century Puritan Confessions is exhausting.

Marriage is more likely to disappear as a social and civil concept before then.

This is by far the most likely actually or would become some ceremony without any legal significance. I'm all for that (would take forever to change the laws though).

I would like to think that this would kill the idea that Ephebophilia is purely a male trait but of course it won't because gender roles.

Why does everyone assume we are talking about polygyny and not polyandry?

What's the difference?  I didn't make any assumptions - I just think Americans will oppose anything which smacks of selfish hedonism and promiscuity.  They oppose the enjoyment of sex for both males and females.

I wasn't talking to you, Opie, and yes I agree.

As I'm getting bored and being anal, I will point out that no language can possibly be 'weird' and by the standards of English, German most certainly is not when compared to, say, Margi or Warao.

[polyandry doesn't exist in most of the world]

Why does everyone assume we are talking about polygyny and not polyandry?

Because they are normal.

No, they are not.

From your link...

because polyandry doesn't exist in most of the world

Neither does Polygamy or Polygyny.

I have live and spent time in multiple countries where polygamy is widespread.  What I am posting in this thread is not theory, my friend.

No doubt. But it does not exist in most of the world either. More of the world, sure, but not most. But the existence of Polyandry is not zero (May need a sub for those two articles).

[polyandry doesn't exist in most of the world]

Why does everyone assume we are talking about polygyny and not polyandry?

Because they are normal.

No, they are not.

From your link...

because polyandry doesn't exist in most of the world

Neither does Polygamy or Polygyny.

The point is that, in Developed countries (whatever they are), we shouldn't assume that polygyny would become more common than polyandry. We have no reason to think that outside of rather isolated religious movements.

Why does everyone assume we are talking about polygyny and not polyandry?

Because they are normal.

No, they are not.

Doesn't exist

Why does everyone assume we are talking about polygyny and not polyandry?