Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="generic" data-source="post: 7871545" data-attributes="member: 6923088">Conversing on the basis of ideas is one of my greatest passions.  The problem is that what Horwath wrote is not only laughably false, it is unbelievably insulting.  Take away, for a moment, the "insulting" part, and read what [USER=6801299]@Horwath[/USER] wrote.Here, I'll quote a portion of his post below"Due to human slow reproductive rate, women were much to valuable to be risked on a battlefield, unless above mentioned it was a last stand.Women can have a child once per year if we are optimistic on medieval standards and if we calculate that 30-50%(depending on sources) chance of dying in childbirth, no society can afford to risk women in battles.Men are simply more expendable in reproductive terms.Man can impregnate a woman(lets be very optimistic also, but calculate for giving time for sperm count to go up in numbers and not every "shot" counts <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> ), every 2 or 3 weeks. ballpark figures.That still gives one man opportunity to impregnate 20 women in one year, if situation appears that more than 95% of men died in battle."Do you truly see no fallacious statements there?</blockquote>