Well, that was a curious conversation with Razib Khan...
View 13 previous comments
Actually my reading is that he shot you down pretty quickly, you just forgot to graciously back down when he did.Jul 18, 2012
My point was that standard ancient demographics provided exactly the long marriages he claimed were unusual. Where in his rants did he show they were in fact unusual?
(Or is 'shot you down' now slang for insulted, ranted at, and banned?)Jul 18, 2012
+gwern branwen, he seems to have been trying to draw a distinction between the 30-40 year marriages you cite and his 50 year milestone. He was literally correct that 30 years is not 50 years, but in focusing on that he came off as deliberately ignoring your point. However, since he was waiting for you to acknowledge that difference as a sanity test, the whole conversation faltered on that point.Jul 18, 2012- +gwern branwen Long marriages/lives were less common. That strikes me as a valid counter to the point you raised. (I am referring to the first response (comment 12) where he's not exactly gracious, but is far from the point at which he insults, rants at, and bans you.)Jul 18, 2012
- Comment 12 just says it was 'considerably higher'
To quote from his OP:
> But speaking of natural impulses, modern social conservatives are asking people to maintain monogamous commitment for 50+ years. This is a profoundly extreme expectation, as pre-modern mortality rates were such that the likelihood of such a long pair-bond was low in any case. This does not mean that such long-term monogamy is not a laudable goal (I have such a goal myself), but many social conservatives haven’t grappled with the daunting hand which they’ve been dealt. This isn’t 1600 any longer.
'low'? 'profoundly extreme'? Do the ancient or medieval demographics with adult life expectancy in the 50s+ really fit that? I don't think they do, but I suppose I can't prove it to any inclined to read him very charitably because he doesn't give any numbers...Jul 18, 2012 - Update: Khan has unbanned me.Aug 14, 2012
