[Victoribus Spolia]

I am saying that this major/minor thing is just something you came up with and is not an actual biological thing.

Unless you can show ne that biologists actually use this distinction in a clear and consistent way and that this applies here, there is no reason for me to do waht you asked.

Instead, the burden of proof is on you to support your claim.

I like how you do this thing where you deal in semantics when you are losing an argument.

If you are not going to quote anything relevant, then I am not going to do your work for you.

And if you do not care about the debate, please stop replying to me.

I reference the work, and I said that if such was not good enough, I don't care to listen through my audible to find a location that you would just ignore if I cited anyway as you are just sea-lioning here.

Patriarchy has nothing to do with preserving the species.

So you are denying sexual dimorphism, which is the basis of patriarchy, did not contribute to human evolution and survival?

It is about social power and preserving social power. Having lots of kids is both a symbol of power and a method of attaing and preserving social power.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Thanks.

I have already provided evidence for the concrete biological basis for egalitarianism, which stated that it is beneficial given certain social conditions.

No you didn't. You have not shown a biological basis for egalitarianism in a manner commensurate to sexual dimorphism being a basis for patriarchy.

[Pants-of-dog]

I like how you do this thing where you deal in semantics when you are losing an argument.

To me, it seems like that is what you are doing.

You simply coined a term and then rewrote your original argument using the new word and pretended that this is somehow evidence.

[
I reference the work, and I said that if such was not good enough, I don't care to listen through my audible to find a location that you would just ignore if I cited anyway as you are just sea-lioning here.

Your continued use of sealioning is an ad hominem.

If you do not like repeated requests for evidence, stop writing posts with no evidence in succession.

So you are denying sexual dimorphism, which is the basis of patriarchy, did not contribute to human evolution and survival?

Please provide evidence for the claim that sexual dimorphism contributed to human evolution and survival. Thanks.

No doubt you will accuse me of sealioning. But since you have repeated this claim over and over again and never supported the claim with evidence, I have no option but to keep asking you,

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Thanks.

No, as it is not a particularly important tangent. If I was wrong about this, my claims would still stand and you would still be wrong.

No you didn't. You have not shown a biological basis for egalitarianism in a manner commensurate to sexual dimorphism being a basis for patriarchy.

You are sorta correct.

I actually provided more support than you did because I actually cited a study with evidence and everything. So yes, we did not provide an equal amount of support for our respective claims.

I provided more than you.

[Victoribus Spolia]

To me, it seems like that is what you are doing.

You simply coined a term and then rewrote your original argument using the new word and pretended that this is somehow evidence.

Please provide evidence for the claim that sexual dimorphism contributed to human evolution and survival. Thanks.

I ask you a question and you responded with a request, You need to answer the question.

No, as it is not a particularly important tangent.

Good. Dismissed.

You are sorta correct.

I actually provided more support than you did because I actually cited a study with evidence and everything. So yes, we did not provide an equal amount of support for our respective claims.

I provided more than you.

False:
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=174496&start=20

[Pants-of-dog]

I ask you a question and you responded with a request, You need to answer the question.

Good. Dismissed.

False:
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=174496&start=20

So you have no evidence that sexual dimorphism was beneficial to our survival. I will now dismiss this claim as unsupported.

As to your question, I have no idea if sexual dimorphism contributed to our survival or not. I do know that you have not presented evidence that it has.

Was that link supoosed to lead to something?

[Sivad]

Glen Ford, executive editor, Black Agenda Report, talks to Chris Hedges about the history of affirmative action, reparations, and the con of diversity in America.

[foxdemon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVjRR3yMmp4

If the Dems are ever to become viable again, they will have to embrace that sort of community focus. The Australian Labor Party still has that common people’s leftism. But it has it’s right wing and radical left wing too.

The American dems have let the right wing and radicals have too much control. The only way out now is for heads to roll. Sorry, but that old guard like Hillary, Pelosi and Waters have to go.

Cortez is radical. So people like her aren’t the solution. The lady in your vid is spot on. However, I doubt the plutocrats will relinquish their hold on the Democrats until the party is completely destroyed.