Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vespucci" data-source="post: 5596995" data-attributes="member: 6675688">I have no idea how sturdy you are personally.  My remarks are directly purely at the arguments you've advanced.  On the same line, you seem to have a superior knowledge as to the breadth of my education than I do myself.  As this is a matter of some concern to me, perhaps you could offer some helpful suggestions on how I might improve my self-knowledge?  Does Wikipedia have an article on everything I've read? Less facetiously, that wikipedia article shows clear signs of design by committee. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  Without having read the Britannica article quoted, it's a little difficult to see why that Encyclopedia declared matriarchy hypothetical, or the basis on which it deems this a consensus view.  Wikipedia's further discussion on late 20th C. and 21st C. anthropology seems to indicate that it's been defined out of existence: there are matrifocal, matrilinear, matrilocal, anything but matriarchal societies. But if you buy that, then the same move can be applied to patriarchy.  There are societies which are focused on men, in which descent is primarily measured by paternity, etc, but none which are ruled by men simply because they're men.  While I know that it's common to regard Marx as putting forward statements of that type "Y happens regardless", such a position is scarcely credible.  If he really believed that, how can his political activity be explained?  Why would he have bothered writing propaganda and building parties?  (Note: we are skirting the edge of a ban on politics.  It doesn't matter whether Marx was right or wrong in his political activity: my point rests purely on the point that he appeared to be trying to change history.  This is at odds with the view being attributed to him.) Against this, I believe you've put forward the argument, "Agree with me, or you're an idiot."  To put it mildly, I don't find that terribly persuasive.</blockquote>

Verification