(February 25, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You maintain your position on the relative difference between males and females, I maintain mine. Regardless of who is correct it will not be support for your statement, unless you can demonstrate that a change in said loci has an effect on the relative level of oppression or subservience. What is so difficult to understand about this?It's not difficult to understand, it's special pleading. Studies in evolution do not necessarily boil down to demonstrating that a change in a certain loci determines the attribute(s) being studied. You know that.
Quote:I'd say it's harder for a fat man to catch a skinny female to beat her in the first place. I'm not the one that focused on these attributes or brought them up in support of an ignorant statement, you did that. So I'm not exactly going to feel beholden to you to simply ignore them now when you clearly realize there's no traction in them.I'll claim you're being disingenuous in asking for "the loci for weight" and its direct effect on levels of oppression. Actually testosterone levels influence both muscle mass and aggression, but I don't care to look up the loci for testosterone levels, if such exists and is known.
But hell, we're on to weight. Show me the loci for weight (already touched on this) and how relative weight has a direct effect on levels of oppression or submissiveness. It's the same situation with height all over again and you'll fail here as hard as you failed there. Are you going to claim next that I'm being disingenuous when I focus on weight?
Anyway, I'm satisfied with my argument. Take the last word. I'm done on this part of it, unless something new is brought in.
Hopefully luckie will reply to my response, as that should be more interesting.