What I said about tall men is not something I made up, it is stuff I have read. Your analogy about MMA fighters is wrong. First, your average cave man was not a highly skilled MMA fighter so your theory dies there. In a contest between two evenly matched opponents, the taller one has the advantage. I have spoken with MMA fighters and they all say that it is by far best to be the tallest person in your weight class. BJ, though a great champion would get crushed by Anderson Silva.
From the age of 10 to 23 my life consisted of grappling sports. I love MMA, Wrestling, Bjj, boxing, pretty much all sports, so even more than what I currently know about my field of study, and can say with 100% certainty, what you are saying is not what I had said, Silva vs Penn would be a classic example of a WEIGHT difference, The height advantage would have nothing over the extra 50-60lbs silva's natural body weight would give.
And for your thinking that not everyone is a MMA fighter, congrats on the obvious, but that is a example of what I am saying, if you prefer I could have said Steve Fraiser for a wrestling example, but figured you would not have a clue who he is even though he is from Hazel Park.
And I would again disagree with it dying there, because you did not look at the fact that it is a fact of life. Almost every guy on the planet grew up wrestling around as a kid with others. That is pretty much how the pecking order on the play ground was decided. You put a couple boys together and your pretty much assured that a wrestling match will break out eventually.
It is the same with almost every species too, we practice fighting from a very young age, and only recently have we slowed the amount of contact that we allow our children to participate in. So I will again disagree, we knew how to effectively fight from our earliest evolution. And skill, practice and tenacity trumps height every time. Size can be a great equalizer though.
If you want to talk about actual advantages, you would have been better off looking into things like leverage and how the length of the arms will impact the strength of a punch, But even then it all comes down to skill.
And like I tell my very pro gun friends, if someone is breaking into my house, they always like to talk shit about how they will shoot them, but I like to point out, that they are sleeping and unless the person is loud you may not be awake until it is too late.
On the other hand (just like our early ancestors) I will always know because my 2 big ass dogs will take care of the issue and let me know what is happening. Hell I may not even have to get out of bed for the situation to be fixed.
So again protection due to height is bullshit in my opinion.
But you know what, that is actually my whole point to all of this, it is my OPINION. I have been going back and forth with you the last couple rounds, not because I disagree that a portion of women prefer tall men.
But you seem to have actually studied this phenomenon right? You are pulling out scientific terms, and pointing to data (which is disputable, but still A for effort, I am sure you have more stuff you could point to it is just not as easy as the BK post.), you talked with professors about this, you talk about having a paper ready to be published.
You really have dedicated a lot to this. So me coming in with just my real life examples, and guesswork and peicemeal theories, doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and all I can really do is continue to belittle you and call you out on where your theory breaks apart, never really using data because it can be used to show what you are saying right?
Like 5-10 stat, you could point to the fact in evolutionary terms that IS tall in comparison, and that is why developing countries are about 5-7. It is because natural selection and improvements in diet have been pushing us to becoming larger species.
So in the end you have science on your side. And this adds weight to my original intention, the established sciences and education is in place because it has held up, and nothing has been able to push it aside yet, because it doesn't have as much science and data to support it.
And that is why when you rally against the "Liberal Educational Brainwashing", you are just taking the side of the unestablished garbage that is spewed. If it is that great it will rise to the top.
Just like everything else that was true in history that eventually has had to become excepted, leaving the old thoughts to become something of a joke: Earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth, the continents not moving, on and on.
All these ideas that were so controversial at their times, were ridiculed more out of fear (doesn't help when scientists are murdered for talking heresy) but their science was generally excepted right away by the people that could understand it, as they already had their own questions about the methodology of their current 'science'.
So next time you are arguing something that is against the establishment, maybe you should look into using more data, and stay away from generalizations. Because unless you can put together a case that is stronger than the people who devoted their lives to studying what you are talking about, you will always be the cook.
And maybe you will have a little better idea of why when you say Obama has appointed a disproportionate amount of black people, I say where is the data to back up your claim.
Many people use the term "marriage" to mean a holy union between a man and a woman that is blessed by God. This is clear from the term "holy matrimony."
So why not just coin the term "Holy Union" for the church to put onto the strait people that get married? I mean isn't it more about what the word is representing than the actual fact that they have the same benefits? This would allow you all to continue to feel differentiated over gay marriages.
Gays have been offered civil unions with all the same rights as traditional couples. They don't want that. What they want is to destroy the distinction between their union and the traditional type. The goal is to eliminate the way we think and speak of traditional marriage by eliminating the term used to make the distinction.
Really?
Name one time that they have been offered the same rights as a traditional married couple? Just one, and then show how they said they don't want it. That is such a retarded statement you made. These things are not up to the gay community like you somehow seem to think.
They are voted on by the public or politicians. And have nothing to do with the gay communities decision to not want it. That is just a stupid assertion you made.
Anyway, back to the definition of marriage. You need to understand that words are very powerful things. Words, are the currency though which ideas are traded. If one were to regularly refer to Blacks as "niggers" you would probably see this word as having a powerful effect, right?
Yup you are off your rocker again, using that word is the same as marriage describing a union of two people under the law.
So, once the term "marriage" referees to two men as well as a man and woman, it can NEVER be used to specifically mean the holy union of man and woman. In fact, there will be no word for this specific arrangement. So, by merging the two distinct definitions into one word (same sex with opposite sex) you have in effect, eradicated the distinction. Picture all bathrooms being called "unisex" - how would you ask where the men's room is? You could not - you could only ask where the unisex room is. Now if you are not real clear on this, read it a few times if that is what it takes. I know it is confusing.
Now, do you see that some people might want to mean only opposite sex marriage when they say the word marriage? Can you see that some people might want to teach their kids about traditional marriage? kind of hard to do when the word means something else isn't it?
lol no, see you again put prejudice into the word 'marriage', you called it a holy union use that, would it piss you off if instead of marriage they had same sex marriage become the term "Holy Union"? I would bet it would, even though it is not the word marriage. You think somehow calling it "Same Sex Marriage" is akin to only having a "Unisex" bathroom?
I mean you don't realize instead of men and women on the stalls, it would be "Human" if you want the analogy your making to be more appropriate. And even then there are distinctions inside of the word human, like female and male. You said something about the snake analogy, but it is you that did not get it.
You have a hierarchy of terms, like
All rectangles are not squares, but all squares are rectangles.
All snakes are reptiles, but not all reptiles are snakes.
And same with all same sex marriages are marriages, but not all marriages are same sex.
You really think that is so difficult you could not figure out how to explain marriage to your kid?
