Thread: Happily Married
View Single Post
  #19  
Old 05-22-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiepride View Post
Another derogatory, offensive and spiteful post.

I know about scholar, and as far as research into this field.. I have actually been reading it for many years.

Your use of an example of slavery is downright mind boggling and does not help the argument one bit. Equating that lots of people appear to stay monogamous , is like how slavery was what we all use to do..? How is that te se at all? Seems to me a profoundly ignorant thing to say...
TESTING a theory or idea about monogamy is inherently hard to do... Gathering some statistical data that "men like to fool around" is neither good science nor proof.
If you knew about Google Scholar, then explain your post in which you tried to equate it with simple "googling" and tried to make it look like what I was referring to was "unscientific." There is no other way to interpret your statement "Oh sorry I wasnt tought in school that google overdides stringent testing of hypothesis, as was once considered "shown scientifically""

And I did not equate slavery and monogamy. You know that, but it doesn't serve your purpose to admit to understanding that the statement wasn't about equating the two, but to point out that humans can accept something that isn't natural, regardless of what it is.

You don't like to be called out for your posts, and so you accuse others of bullying you. Once again, the record is clear, and my post in response to yours -- the one you chose to mock with your "google" bullshit -- could not be more clear itself.
Reply With Quote