On Apr 22, 12:59 pm, help bot wrote:
On Apr 22, 8:33 am, samsloan wrote:

My research tends to show that most men had no children at all and a
few men had very large numbers of children, some men producing more
than 20 children.

My question is: Would the human race have survived at all and would
any of us be alive today had it not been for those few men who
produced large numbers of children?

I think this is wrong-headed thinking. Were it not
for these "over-achievers", those men who had no
children at all would very likely have gotten in on
the action.

This is quite correct. Laws forbidding polygamy can be considered to
be a form of sumptuary law, with a socialistic purpose; to equalize
sexual access among males.

By reducing the number of unhappy males, it provides for a more stable
society, with less productive effort channeled into policing. Ancient
societies that permitted polygamy, or which had other policies, like
primogeniture, that created a large class of dispossed men, usually
needed them as cannon fodder, and they had the hope of acquiring land
and wives through foreign conquest.

So we can welcome a ban on polygamy as part of human progress.

At the same time, though, it does have one negative consequence; it
reduces the selective pressure on humanity, creating a less eugenic
breeding pattern. If the men with the greatest achievements had the
most children by far, the breed would improve more quickly.

John Savard

On Apr 27, 9:09*am, Quadibloc wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:48 pm, wrote:

so far only a small number of pregnant underage girls were found

4 or 5 out of the 400+, that's 4 or 5%

what's the number in mainstream society?

Irrelevant, because in mainstream society, if an underage girl gets
herself pregnant, it's usually consensual - with no one else involved
except a boy around her own age. Here, fully-grown adults consipired
to create this situation, by controlling and limiting the girls'
choices.

Why shouldn't girls have thier choices limited?



So more serious criminality was involved; their pregnancies resulted
from activity that more closely resembled non-statutory rape.

All people in society are brainwashed to conform. So claiming mormons
'brainwash' their kids through "limiting choices" is convenient/one
sided use of the "lets stop the brainwashing" politic.

=====

btw, someone else, '4 out of 400' is _1%_.

On Apr 22, 2:59*pm, help bot wrote:
On Apr 22, 8:33 am, samsloan wrote:

Larry Parr is missing the big case

* Dog bites man.

It is known and the sisters have confessed that Papa Polgar used to
beat them to force them to play chess and study chess and it was
living Hell to live in that home where they were not allowed to go out
and associate and play with other kids their ages. Of course, this is
what made them great chess players. Otherwise, they would be working
as office secretaries somewhere today.

* So then, young women in Hungary who are not
forced to learn learn chess all end up in this same
profession?

And now, Susan Polgar is applying to her children the same techniques
that were applied to her, forcing her kids to play chess.

* Normally, children who are not happy about the way
they were raised will try something different.

Problem is
that her kids are boys who are often not as compliant as girls and the
youngest one does not like chess and has complained to the
authorities.

* What about checkers...or Chinese chess. *Can't he
be forced to learn some other game he does like?

What Larry Parr is missing is the big Texas case going on right now
where 416 children were taken from their parents and put into foster
care solely and entirely because their families were living in or
associated with a polygamous life style

* Polygamous? *So, they must like /many/ different
/games/?

In the vast majority of countries and societies of the world polygamy
was practiced and in most cases still is.

* I always hate it when a writer leaves out key links
to his "surveys" and deep research. *I was especially
interested to know the exact percentages, but... .

Here in the US it is not allowed. We only have girlfriends.

* Nonsense. *Lots of wealthy men have many wives;
they just have them one after another, instead of at
the same time.

A tiny minority.

And most western females have many, many boyfriends, overlapping with
each other's occurance --without even having done any activity to
aquire that status (unlike the minority of men).

So if you're concerned with serial philandering you should be focusing
on the teen females.



I have been doing research on my family history and I have found three
instances of my ancestors who had an unusually large number of
children.

All of them lived in the 1700s. None of them were related to each
other.

* Interesting. *So, none of Mr. Sloan's ancestors are
related to one another. *This raises an interesting
question: how then does he know they really are
his ancestors?

None of them were involved in any funny religions.

* I am awed by the fact that Mr. Sloan was able to
determine the religious beliefs of each and every one
of these "unrelated" ancestors of his, so far back in
time. *WOW.

They were all straight-line Methodists or Presbyterians. Some were preachers.

One of these was Andrew Graham who arrived in America in 1772. He was
married four times. Three of his wives were named Margaret. He has
more than 7,000 descendants alive today, which may explain why there
are so many people nowadays named Graham.

* Seven thousand is not very many, if that is the grand
total alive today; consider "Smith", for instance.

My research tends to show that most men had no children at all and a
few men had very large numbers of children, some men producing more
than 20 children.

My question is: Would the human race have survived at all and would
any of us be alive today had it not been for those few men who
produced large numbers of children?

* I think this is wrong-headed thinking. *Were it not
for these "over-achievers", those men who had no
children at all would very likely have gotten in on
the action.

* -- help bot

On Apr 27, 9:16*am, Quadibloc wrote:
On Apr 22, 12:59 pm, help bot wrote:

On Apr 22, 8:33 am, samsloan wrote:
My research tends to show that most men had no children at all and a
few men had very large numbers of children, some men producing more
than 20 children.

My question is: Would the human race have survived at all and would
any of us be alive today had it not been for those few men who
produced large numbers of children?

* I think this is wrong-headed thinking. *Were it not
for these "over-achievers", those men who had no
children at all would very likely have gotten in on
the action.

This is quite correct. Laws forbidding polygamy can be considered to
be a form of sumptuary law, with a socialistic purpose; to equalize
sexual access among males.

Controling the gender population-amounts of a community --ie having
way fewer males per females-- would contribute to content males.

If we are concerned about 'socialist' fairness for men, stopping the
ignoring-of-female privilege times all society --in pairbonding/ mate
selecting and everything else-- would be a priority.


By reducing the number of unhappy males, it provides for a more stable
society, with less productive effort channeled into policing.

If we were concerend about that, we would outlaw the brainwas... err
the 'confoming' methods that lead to the epidemic of single female
parents (which is a key indicator).


Ancient
societies that permitted polygamy, or which had other policies, like
primogeniture, that created a large class of dispossed men, usually
needed them as cannon fodder, and they had the hope of acquiring land
and wives through foreign conquest.

True.

If top men can be sure the 'other valley's' top men would not have
cannon fodder/ left overs, all cannon fodder everywhere can be
eliminated. Thus getting rid of idiotic sheep.



So we can welcome a ban on polygamy as part of human progress.

Progress is relative and it doesn't all lead to the same place. Eg
some man --alone-- could have a harem of females on a lone space
vehicle and that would still be progress.


At the same time, though, it does have one negative consequence; it
reduces the selective pressure on humanity, creating a less eugenic
breeding pattern. If the men with the greatest achievements had the
most children by far, the breed would improve more quickly.

Future medical technology can be used to make everybody the same, thus
obsoleting the need for standard 'darwinian' methods (which don't
always lead to breeds/results 'we' all agree with). But this is a nit
pick.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:31:57 -0400, Lajos
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:09:04 -0400, Quadibloc wrote
(in article
):

On Apr 22, 1:48 pm, wrote:

so far only a small number of pregnant underage girls were found

4 or 5 out of the 400+, that's 4 or 5%

No, it is not. It is 1 or 1.25%.

bravo!

your post proves that you value the importance of epiphany

On Apr 27, 7:16 am, Quadibloc wrote:

This is quite correct. Laws forbidding polygamy can be considered to
be a form of sumptuary law, with a socialistic purpose; to equalize
sexual access among males.

By reducing the number of unhappy males, it provides for a more stable
society, with less productive effort channeled into policing. Ancient
societies that permitted polygamy, or which had other policies, like
primogeniture, that created a large class of dispossessed men, usually
needed them as cannon fodder, and they had the hope of acquiring land
and wives through foreign conquest.

Actually, I don't think this is true of primogeniture. If men have an
average of more than one living son (as critics tacitly assume) then
the population is increasing, and therefore there will be less land
per person no matter how it is split up. Primogeniture might actually
make this less bad, by ensuring that at least one son has enough,
rather than all becoming paupers.

So we can welcome a ban on polygamy as part of human progress.

At the same time, though, it does have one negative consequence; it
reduces the selective pressure on humanity, creating a less eugenic
breeding pattern. If the men with the greatest achievements had the
most children by far, the breed would improve more quickly.

But - who are the 'men with the greatest achievements'? At many times
in history, that referred to the greatest thugs. And I have always
maintained that great men are precisely those that contribute to
society more with their works than they ever could through their
genes.

Andrew Usher

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:26:57 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Usher
wrote:

At the same time, though, it does have one negative consequence; it
reduces the selective pressure on humanity, creating a less eugenic
breeding pattern. If the men with the greatest achievements had the
most children by far, the breed would improve more quickly.

But - who are the 'men with the greatest achievements'? At many times
in history, that referred to the greatest thugs. And I have always
maintained that great men are precisely those that contribute to
society more with their works than they ever could through their
genes.

that might be so

nonetheless the early shakers who were really nice people and had
great achivements on multiple levels were more dangerous to society
because of their celibacy than mormons

mormons work a lot and play a lot

polygyny is good for society

try to think out of the box

Brian knows little about true "Cowboy" wisdom. As one who has lived in
Texas I can say that a true cowboy would tell you it is wise not to
follow a bull barefooted unless you like the feel of "turds 'tween yor
toes". But, maybe he does?

On Apr 27, 9:09 am, Quadibloc wrote:

Irrelevant, because in mainstream society, if an underage girl gets
herself pregnant


I don't think that is possible.


-- help bot

On Apr 30, 2:56 pm, wrote:

But - who are the 'men with the greatest achievements'? At many times
in history, that referred to the greatest thugs. And I have always
maintained that great men are precisely those that contribute to
society more with their works than they ever could through their
genes.

that might be so

nonetheless the early shakers who were really nice people and had
great achivements on multiple levels were more dangerous to society
because of their celibacy than mormons

mormons work a lot and play a lot

polygyny is good for society

try to think out of the box


As for "thinking", where is it? Above are a few
unsupported assertions, nothing more. If there
is any "thinking" behind the assertions, it must
be hiding behind or under the box.

Scrolling way, way up in this thread, all I was
able to find was a stupid comparison between
pedophile Catholic priests and the recent
brouhaha; key difference? Catholicism is legal,
while polygamy isn't. That's what happens when
you live in a box-- you can't see what's going on
outside!


-- help bot