> "Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote in message
news:<bvgku7$gt5$1@news.onet.pl>...
> > > "Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote in message
> > news:<bvd11c$k18$2@news.onet.pl>...
> > > > news:a766a589.0401261129.4516665d@posting.google.com...
> > > > > AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> > news:<slrnc1843b.1j0.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>...
> > > > > > ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> > > > > > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:51:56 +0000 (UTC),
> > > > > > Piorokrat <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > news:slrnc167m3.bc.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem...
> > > > > > >> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would the crown fall from your head if you actually allowed my
> > group
> > to stay
> > > > > > > in the discussion, without making me write it back in every
time?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:58:31 +0000 (UTC),
> > > > > > >> Bennett Standeven <berry@pop.networkusa.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> > news:<buttes$csv$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > > > > > >> >> "Ineedmoney" <mail@atmycomputer.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message
> > > > > > >> >> news:butqab$a2v$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > >> >> > news:butoq1$4hq$0@pita.alt.net...
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > "Cheezits" <cheezits32@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > >> >> > >
news:Xns947A4B5CBF133cheezitsnetzeronet@129.250.170.83...
> > > > > > >> >> > > > laurieappieton@aol.com (LaurieAppIeton) won't even
try
> > to
> > > > defend
> > > > this
> > >
> > > I'm coming in late on this one, and I don't have your fancy book
> > > learnings you all do, but it seems to me, as a regular average joe on
> > > the street, that biology would have little to do with language
> > > evolution as human being have been biologically the same for as long
> > > as we have been humans.
> > >
> >
> > Well, if you say that, you say that behaviour is not part of biology.
> >
> > And since behaviour determines who breeds with whom, what you say
undermines
> > evolutionary theory.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Uncle Davey
>
> Of course biology determines behavior. We don't walk on our hands
> because biology has made it easier to use our legs. All I'm saying is
> that it is not biology that has dictated changes in mate selection
> over time, but other things like culture. That the standard of beauty
> for women seems to be an almost anorexic quality, in spite of several
> hundred years back this not being the case, does not correlate with
> any biological change in human anatomy is evidence to this fact.
>
Harry, Harry, Harry (said in the voice of Gilderoy Lockhart)
There we were, discussing how language interrelates with the behaviour that
enables us to choose our mate, and therefore IS part of human biology, and
you bring up the question of portly women.
And I was just about to have breakfast.
Let me tell you that there is no evidence that fat women have ever been
desirable to most men.
Just because Reubens and a few other people liked them and painted them,
that doesn't make it the norm.
He was painting rich people, that would pay him. And they tended to be able
to get a big share of the food and be idle. Whether he really preferred fat
women is highly debatable.
Walking around the Tretyakovsky or the Wilanow Palace or Zamek Krolewski,
which are the three most recent collections I've visited, you won't see many
fat chicks in party hats in the collection.
If you like them, you're welcome to them.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 |
|