Blue3k:



Lol is your keyboard broken why are you spacing out your words like that and typing in all caps. You don't have a counter argument so your begging the questions a out correlation or causation. The factors in the study already controlled for various factors so we can see test polygamy vs monogamy. Your apples and oranges comparisons about drowning is useless stay in topic. Funny you suddenly dropped your productivity argument.

The number of children is in part determined by the number of partners. Ceteris paribus more partners for a man equals more children. This true because women's reproduction is limited by time, men can get younger wives and family size increases faster if getting more women pregnant in the course of your lifetime.

YES, MY KEYBOARD IS BROKEN AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SHAME IN THAT!
I TYPE IN WHICH EV ER WAY I FEEL LIKE TRYPING. THIS IS A MASSIV E EVIDENCE OF THE FREEDOM THAT I ENJOY!
YOU S E E , I HAVE SEEN YOUR TYPE SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE AND I WANT YOU TO K NOW IF YOU HAVE NOT AL READY SEEN IT THAT I AM NOT INTERESTED IN CONVINCING YOU. MY ONL Y REASON FOR GETTING ON HERE IS TO MAKE SURE I DO NOT GIVE YOU THE MONOPOLY OF THE AIRWAVES BECAUSE YOU SHAPE MINDS AND PUT THE C ORREC T INFOR MATION OUT THERE WITH YOUR WARPED WAY OF DRAWING C ONCLUSIONS.

MY ANA LOGY IS VERY M UC H ON POINT FOR ANYONE WHO IS FA IR MINDED.
YOUR PO INT IS THAT STUDIES WERE DONE, AND IT WAS FO UND THAT THERE IS A P O S ITIVE C ORRELATION BETWEEN NUMBER OF MOTHERS IN A HOME AND PRODUC TIVITY OF THAT HOME THEREFORE, HAVING MORE MOTHERS IN A HOME LEADS TO POVERTY!
NOTHING C A N BE FUNNIER THAN THAT POOR ASSERTION!
TO M AKE PLANE WHY THAT ASSERTION IS FU NNY AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, I GAVE THE ANALOGY THA T I GAVE AND I WILL REPEAT IT HERE. FOR YOU, I HAVE NO INTEREST IN CONVINCING YOU AND ALSO THAT @CHRISTISTRUTH01 GUY. HIS MONIKA ALREADY GIVES HIM AWAY SO I AM NOT SUPRISED ABOUT HIS POSITION ON THE ISSUE EVEN THOUGH IT CAN BE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE GETS IT WRONG THAT POLYGAMY IS NOT OF GOD OR CHRISTIAN. I CAN BEAT MY C HEST AND CHALLENGE ANYONE TO COME TO A FAIR DEBATE ON THAT.

SO THE ANALOGY THAT I GAVE IS THIS:
YOU TAKING A STUDY AND FINDING THAT THERE ARE MORE POOR POLYGAMOUS HOM ES THAN THERE ARE MONOGAMOUS HOMES THERE FORE POLYGAMY CAUSES POVERTY, CAN EQUATED TO SAYING SUMMER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DROWNING PEOPLE IN THE RIVER JUST BEC AUSE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO DROWN DURING SUMMER IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN THE NUMBER OF THOSE WHO DROWN IN THE OTHER SEASONS OF THE YEAR.

THE COMPARISON IS FOR YOU POLYGAMY CAUSESPOVERTY AND I AM SAYING NO! IT DOES NOT CAUSE POVERTY MORE THAN SUMMER DROWNS PEOPLE IN THE RIVER!

THERE IS A CORRELATION, YES! BUT TO SA Y SUMMER DROWNS PEOPLE IN THE RIVER, IS ABOUT THE MOST RIDIC ULOUS IDEA YOU CAN EVER C OME ACROSS! IN THE SAME WAY, THERE IS POORER LIVING STANDARDS AMONG THE AVERAGE POLYGAMOUS HOME THAN THERE IS IN MONOGAMOUS HOMES; BUT TO SAY POL YGAMY CAUSES POVERTY IS JUST LIKE SUMMER DROWNING PEOPLE IN THE RIVER, THE MOST RIDIC ULOUS AND DUMBEST ASSERTION THAT CAN EVER BE MADE!

WHY DON' T WE GO TO PRE-INDUSTRIAL A GGRA RIA N SOC IETIES A ND TAKE THIS STUDY AGAIN AND SEE W HA T RESULTS WE WILL GET! DO WE NOW SAY THAT MONOGAMY CAUSES REDUC ED PRODUCTIVITY AND HENCE, POVERTY?

SO, WHILE YOU WILL STILL COME UP WITH WHAT YOU THINK IS A RUBUTTAL AGAINST THIS SUBLIME POINT OF MINE, I CAN BET YOU THAT YOUR SO-CALLED REBUTTAL WILL BE AN OBJECT OF LAUGHTER TO ANY FAIR MINDED INDIVIDUAL READING OUR COMMENTS!


I NEVER DROPED MY PRODUC TIVITY ARGUEM ENT, IT IS STILL THERE. YOU CAN SEE I JUST BROUGHT IT BACK IN M Y LAST TWO PARRAGRAPHS AFTER I LAUGHTED AT YOUR THINKING WITH THOS E EMOJIS! LOL

I REALLY LIKE THE WAY YOU SAID IT IS " IN PART DETERMINED BY THE NUMBER OF WI VES" YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN BRAVE ENOUGH TO ATTRIBUTEB IT AL L TO THE NUMBER OF WIVES HENCE POLYGAMY, AND LET EVERY ONE LAUGH AT YOU ONCE MORE.

Corporate2020:
The writer is mad.

UAE, Saudi, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, e.t.c. practice polygamy, they are all successful nations. Even the writers has many brothers slaving in the Arab nations and sisters prostituting there. Polygamy kee you there.

Uae own is understanding the indegenous Arab population is very low

MiddleDimension:

WHY DON' T WE GO TO PRE-INDUSTRIAL A GGRA RIA N SOC IETIES A ND TAKE THIS STUDY AGAIN AND SEE W HA T RESULTS WE WILL GET! DO WE NOW SAY THAT MONOGAMY CAUSES REDUC ED PRODUCTIVITY AND HENCE, POVERTY?

SO, WHILE YOU WILL STILL COME UP WITH WHAT YOU THINK IS A RUBUTTAL AGAINST THIS SUBLIME POINT OF MINE, I CAN BET YOU THAT YOUR SO-CALLED REBUTTAL WILL BE AN OBJECT OF LAUGHTER TO ANY FAIR MINDED INDIVIDUAL READING OUR COMMENTS!

You're correct it's your prerogative if you want to type like an idiot so carry on. The mods don't enforce the rule against such foolishness anyway. Polygamy in industrial society might have been useful since people we generally farmers who needed as many hands as possible but that age is long gone. The current reality shows monogamy simply leads to better outcomes economicly and socially when controlling for various factors.

You can continue begging the question since you don't have any empirical data to show only useless analogies. You clearly don't understand what control factors are in scientific studies. Keep laughing the data already proves you wrong. Lol I wish they would conduct the study here to see if the result can be reproduced.

Blue3k:


Marriage is actually great and benefits society. It tends makes more responsible, productive and reduces criminality in society because of its civilizing effects on males. As for the criminality experienced in east and west I dont know for sure but I assume it's more about fatherless homes or simply risk seeking behavior from unmarried men. Its clear their behavior stems from no respect for laws or other people's property.

Lol just because the facts don't agree with worldview doesn't mean your hated. Nobody saying polygamy should be banned the author himself is a libertarian. Polygamy is becoming less popular worldwide as the data shows even in Muslim majority nations its not that common. People are freely choosing what they want.

It is not only un married men that behave badly in the east and west. married men also get involved in shameless activity.
I am very pleased with you when you said you ASSUME it is due to fatherless men. But bear in mind that it is not only men who behave badly in the east and the west.

You and everyone else also seem to have forgotten the fact that not only men are [product of polygamy in the north. so if polyga,y leads to banditory and terrorism, why then have the women not take into the same crime like some of the men have? they are not product of polygamy too? why does it not have the same effect on them like it has on the men?
getting drunk makes one behave in a staggery and sluggish way. since it is what is responsible for that behaviour, it does not matter if it is a man or a woman, anyone who drinks and gets drunk will behave in that kind of way drunk people behave. This is what it means for something to be responsible for another thing! and so far, no one, not even the most polygamy-hateful person can prove that polygamy causes poverty and it is left with the one who says otherwuse, to present his points AND SHOW THAT THEY ARE SUPERIOR TO THE ONES I HAVE GIVEN HEREIN.

Its clear their behavior stems from no respect for laws or other people's property.

You could not have said it any better. So, in essence you are saying polygamy is not responsible for the bad behaviour you see among people turning to criminality, right?

Lol just because the facts don't agree with worldview doesn't mean your hated.

which facts are you talking about? and which interpretation of those 'facts' are you refering to? is it the one that interpretated correlation to mean causative, or which one? If one interpretes correlation to mean causative, why then should any fair minded individual out not conclude the 'researcher' is inept in drawing conclusions from findings, or suspect that the researcher has an alterior motive?

Nobody saying polygamy should be banned the author himself is a libertarian

then what have you been campaigning for all these while? what have you been peddling here since this thread began? what then is your motive for publishing this 'paper' on this forum?

Polygamy is becoming less popular worldwide as the data shows even in Muslim majority nations its not that common

polygamy is becoming less and less common for understandable reasons, and the reason is certainly not because it is an unwise, uncivilized way to organize society.
If it is becoming less and less common, it only has to do with the current socio-economic situation we have in the modern world, a socio-economic model that is already fading away now as many of the countries that pioneered indsutrialization are now a post-industrial societies.
with that reality, comes the less and less desire to get married and even hav e children. What do you say then...that getting married to even one wife and having children is bad and uncivilized? I challenge you to refute my points here, if you can and also show that the alternatives you will propose to rebuff my points are superior to the ones I have given here.

People are freely choosing what they want.

So, if people freely choose what they want, what then is your problem?

MiddleDimension:


It is not only un married men that behave badly in the east and west. married men also get involved in shameless activity.
I am very pleased with you when you said you ASSUME it is due to fatherless men. But bear in mind that it is not only men who behave badly in the east and the west.

You and everyone else also seem to have forgotten the fact that not only men are [product of polygamy in the north. so if polyga,y leads to banditory and terrorism, why then have the women not take into the same crime like some of the men have? they are not product of polygamy too? why does it not have the same effect on them like it has on the men?
getting drunk makes one behave in a staggery and sluggish way. since it is what is responsible for that behaviour, it does not matter if it is a man or a woman, anyone who drinks and gets drunk will behave in that kind of way drunk people behave. This is what it means for something to be responsible for another thing! and so far, no one, not even the most polygamy-hateful person can prove that polygamy causes poverty and it is left with the one who says otherwuse, to present his points AND SHOW THAT THEY ARE SUPERIOR TO THE ONES I HAVE GIVEN HEREIN.


You could not have said it any better. So, in essence you are saying polygamy is not responsible for the bad behaviour you see among people turning to criminality, right?


which facts are you talking about? and which interpretation of those 'facts' are you refering to? is it the one that interpretated correlation to mean causative, or which one? If one interpretes correlation to mean causative, why then should any fair minded individual out not conclude the 'researcher' is inept in drawing conclusions from findings, or suspect that the researcher has an alterior motive?


then what have you been campaigning for all these while? what have you been peddling here since this thread began? what then is your motive for publishing this 'paper' on this forum?



polygamy is becoming less and less common for understandable reasons, and the reason is certainly not because it is an unwise, uncivilized way to organize society.
If it is becoming less and less common, it only has to do with the current socio-economic situation we have in the modern world, a socio-economic model that is already fading away now as many of the countries that pioneered indsutrialization are now a post-industrial societies.
with that reality, comes the less and less desire to get married and even hav e children. What do you say then...that getting married to even one wife and having children is bad and uncivilized? I challenge you to refute my points here, if you can and also show that the alternatives you will propose to rebuff my points are superior to the ones I have given here.


So, if people freely choose what they want, what then is your problem?

Nice you fixed your keyboard. Anyway I didn't say marriage or fatherless was sole reason. We already know women generally don't engage in many criminal risk taking behaviors like men. The alcohol example with apples and oranges so its an irrelevant argument from analogy.

• I didn't say it was polygamy was sole cause of any bad behaviour. We just see lead to certain social ills comparatively speaking.

• The facts and data you can't debunk hence why your always arguing against it with pointless analogies. You can't cite one study proving your point and won't ever do so.

• I presented an article showing monogamy simply leads to better outcomes economicly than polygamy. You took to as a personal attack because it hurt your feelings. Lol its no different from other studies I post here that hurt others like NYSC popularity among nigerian.

• I already explained why marriage is beneficial for men and society. Tell me your disagreements.

• lol did I say I have a problem? Were debating the economic and social outcomes of both types of marriages on society not if people should be allowed to engage in either. Don't confuse the argument.

The OP is foolish and has agenda.


They want us to be gay and miserable...


Nonsense.

In Favor for and of Polygamy!

Banmeallday:
The OP is foolish and has agenda.


They want us to be gay and miserable...


Nonsense.

In Favor for and of Polygamy!

Lol you deranged weirdos think everyone out yo get you. I dont get why you guys have this foolish world view. The libertarians author doesn't believe the institution should be illegal.

However, ceasing polygamy must be the decision of Africans. Only Africans can decide if the pleasure derived from polygamy is worth the cost of lower economic growth.

Blue3k:


You're correct it's your prerogative if you want to type like an idiot so carry on. The mods don't enforce the rule against such foolishness anyway. Polygamy in industrial society might have been useful since people we generally farmers who needed as many hands as possible but that age is long gone. The current reality shows monogamy simply leads to better outcomes economicly and socially when controlling for various factors.

You can continue begging the question since you don't have any empirical data to show only useless analogies. You clearly don't understand what control factors are in scientific studies. Keep laughing the data already proves you wrong. Lol I wish they would conduct the study here to see if the result can be reproduced.

You're correct it's your prerogative if you want to type like an idiot so carry on. The mods don't enforce the rule against such foolishness anyway

foolishness: adjective
resulting from or showing a lack of sense; ill-considered: unwise:
a foolish action;
a foolish speech.
lacking forethought or caution.
trifling, insignificant, or paltry.

idiot
/ˈɪdɪət/
Learn to pronounce
noun
INFORMAL
a stupid person.
Similar:
fool
halfwit
nincompoop
dunce
dolt
ignoramus
cretin
slowpoke
dullard
slowpoke
simpleton
clod
dope
ninny
chump
dimwit
nitwit
goon
dumbo
dummy
dum-dum
dumb-bell
loon
jackass
bonehead
fathead
numbskull
blockhead
dunderhead
chucklehead
knucklehead
muttonhead
pudding-head
thickhead
wooden-head
airhead
pinhead
lamebrain
pea-brain
birdbrain
zombie
jerk
nerd
dipstick
donkey
noodle
nit
twit
numpty
ass
clot
plonker
berk
prat
pillock
wally
git
wazzock
divvy
nerk
twerp
twonk
charlie
mug
muppet
nyaff
balloon
sumph
gowk
gobdaw
schmuck
bozo
boob
lamer
turkey
schlepper
chowderhead
dumbhead
dumbass
goofball
goof
goofus
galoot
dork
lummox
klutz
putz
schlemiel
sap
gink
cluck
clunk
ding-dong
dingbat
wiener
weeny
dip
simp
spud
coot
palooka
poop
squarehead
yo-yo
dingleberry
wing nut
drongo
dill
alec
galah
nong
bogan
poon
boofhead
mompara
tomfool
noddy
clodpole
loggerhead
spoony
mooncalf
vulgar slangknobhead
asshat
Opposite:
genius
ARCHAIC
a person of low intelligence. reference google.
please show how my style of typing is idiotic or foolish? unless of course, you disagree with the ones presented herein and in which case, present yours and show that it is superior to the ones given here.

that age is not long gone. there are still a tone load of such societies in this world and when you go there, the economic output of such a home far exceed those of monogamous homes.
also, the human being is not just an economic entity, he is other things as well. he is psycological, political and social as well. if one factor changes, in polygamous homes, there is more support for one another. this is not just a living reality for me, but also for a whole lot of other people in different part of the world amo ng whom the writters of the encyclopedia britannica did their research to come up with what they have outlined as the benefits of polygyny in the link provided you by the other comerade.

Polygyny has several economic, social, and health advantages over monogamy. In most cultures, women contribute significantly to the wealth of the household and can thus materially benefit from the labour of an additional spouse. Where mortality rates of men consistently exceed those of women, polygyny can be seen as a resolution to the “deficit” of males and the “surplus” of females.

Socially, cowives and their children may accrue enhanced status and prestige as members of a large (and therefore inherently prosperous) household. In societies that provide no institutionalized role for unmarried women, the status of a cowife may be preferable to that of a single woman.

Polygyny can also have a positive effect on maternal and child health. During postpartum recovery, for instance, cowives can usually rely upon each other to perform the most strenuous work of the household. By creating opportunities for sexual companionship among the other members of the marriage, polygyny also supports the once common expectation that women will remain sexually abstinent for two or more years beginning in the last months of pregnancy (or upon parturition). This practice fosters adequate birth spacing for the mother to recover from the physiological and emotional stresses associated with pregnancy, lactation, and the care of a young child. source: encyclopedia britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/polygyny-marriage

You can continue begging the question since you don't have any empirical data to show only useless analogies. You clearly don't understand what control factors are in scientific studies. Keep laughing the data already proves you wrong. Lol I wish they would conduct the study here to see if the result can be reproduced.

i know enough to understand that the one who makes a proposition is the one who has something to defend beyond reasonable doubt. like they say in the court of law: the onus is on accuser/prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and not on the defendant to prove otherwise.
you posted that paper here to make the point that polygamy causes poverty. here are your exact words: "Lol it seems nairalanders who said polygamy leads to poverty in northern Nigeria were correct." that is an assertion! my only job as the defendant is to throw the slightest doubt, no matter how minute it is as far as it logically and coherently blows a hole in your assertions, I have done my job and given you more job to do. Filure to do that job means you are either incompetent, or that polygamy does not lead to poverty.

onumadu:
I abandoned this thread because simpletons took it over. lol
There is a reason Economics is classified as a SOCIAL SCIENCE.
The world is NOT white or black. The world is a place of SHADES OF MANY COLOURS.
The greatest lie ever told is that COMPULSORY MONOGAMY= WEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT.
BTW what is "wealth"?
A sophisticated social system sees far beyond pedestrian premises, and institutes economic plans that take advantage of each system of marriage to create a better society (note that I did not say "developed" society).

This was me, 20 years ago! lol

Bye all till my "match" steps into this thread.

@blue3k did you see that in bold?

MiddleDimension:





that age is not long gone. there are still a tone load of such societies in this world and when you go there, the economic output of such a home far exceed those of monogamous homes.
also, the human being is not just an economic entity, he is other things as well. he is psycological, political and social as well. if one factor changes, in polygamous homes, there is more support for one another. this is not just a living reality for me, but also for a whole lot of other people in different part of the world amo ng whom the writters of the encyclopedia britannica did their research to come up with what they have outlined as the benefits of polygyny in the link provided you by the other comerade.

Polygyny has several economic, social, and health advantages over monogamy. In most cultures, women contribute significantly to the wealth of the household and can thus materially benefit from the labour of an additional spouse. Where mortality rates of men consistently exceed those of women, polygyny can be seen as a resolution to the “deficit” of males and the “surplus” of females.

Socially, cowives and their children may accrue enhanced status and prestige as members of a large (and therefore inherently prosperous) household. In societies that provide no institutionalized role for unmarried women, the status of a cowife may be preferable to that of a single woman.

Polygyny can also have a positive effect on maternal and child health. During postpartum recovery, for instance, cowives can usually rely upon each other to perform the most strenuous work of the household. By creating opportunities for sexual companionship among the other members of the marriage, polygyny also supports the once common expectation that women will remain sexually abstinent for two or more years beginning in the last months of pregnancy (or upon parturition). This practice fosters adequate birth spacing for the mother to recover from the physiological and emotional stresses associated with pregnancy, lactation, and the care of a young child. source: encyclopedia britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/polygyny-marriage





i know enough to understand that the one who makes a proposition is the one who has something to defend beyond reasonable doubt. like they say in the court of law: the onus is on accuser/prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and not on the defendant to prove otherwise.
you posted that paper here to make the point that polygamy causes poverty. here are your exact words: "Lol it seems nairalanders who said polygamy leads to poverty in northern Nigeria were correct." that is an assertion! my only job as the defendant is to throw the slightest doubt, no matter how minute it is as far as it logically and coherently blows a hole in your assertions, I have done my job and given you more job to do. Filure to do that job means you are either incompetent, or that polygamy does not lead to poverty.

Lol this isn't a criminal case. Besides the preponderance of the evidence shows this already the case like it would in civil case. All you need scientificly is good methodology then see if the studies finding can be reproduced. Yes polygamy can have benefits but when compared with monogamy in controlled studies the studies show monogamy simply leads to better outcomes economicly and socially.

The are some parts of the world that are pre industrial ok. Now show us the study where the economic output far exceed monogamous families. Lol you said its your job to show the evidence right? The writer here also mentioned social ills in comparison to each other.

Research reveals that in sub-Saharan Africa children in polygamous families are 24.4 times more likely to die when compared with children in monogamous families. Similarly, a study comparing the outcomes of children in polygamous families in Mali to their peers in monogamous families found that children in polygamous families are less likely to be enrolled in school. Furthermore, in Tanzania polygamy is a risk factor for poor nutritional status among children even when controlling for household wealth.

Unsurprisingly, a 2015 review found more mental health problems, social problems, and lower academic achievement for children and adolescents from polygamous than monogamous families. 

Abohboy:


Try and learn about correlation and causation because clearly whoever wrote that article doesn't understand those things

Do they live in a rich area as most monogamous people do?
Is there an abundance of food in the areas where polygamy is practiced?
Are there schools where polygamy is mainly practiced?

The problem isn't polygamy but the government failing to provide fair development for all people

@blue3k can you see someone pointing out the same thing I told you in the bolded part? and I never knew some one had told you this before I came in.

@Abohboy can you please scroll down and see the analogy i made about summer and people drowning in the river and judge if it is on point and illustrate in a very clear way the point i tried to make with it, which is that correlation is not causation?

MiddleDimension:


@blue3k can you see someone pointing out the same thing I told you in the bolded part? and I never knew some one had told you this before I came in.

@Abohboy can you please scroll down and see the analogy i made about summer and people drowning in the river and judge if it is on point and illustrate in a very clear way the point i tried to make with it, which is that correlation is not causation?

Lol do you know how controlled scientistic studies work? I already debunked both of you. He cried that methodologies were flawed until he read them himself. You do everything but compare and contrast the two types of marriage even when you cite a study. Its like you don't understand what your arguing.

Polygamy isn't the sole cause but it is a factor as all the studies show when doing the comparison. Show your study to the contrariy instead of begging the question about correlation or causation.

Abohboy:


It never specified an area most polygamous families live in rural villages and depend on subsitent farming meanwhile most monogamous families tend to live in the city and be middle class so unless the study specifies the wages or the area that each family lives in and the government facilities available to them e.g. Schools, hospitals, good roads, electricity then it isn't an actual based study but rather one clearly made to propagate an agenda

Blue3k:


Did you read the study he was citing before making these claims on the main website. He sources and cited these things for you. Even when you account for them living in rural areas the monogamous couple still comes out on top. The study controlled for the factors you mentioned. You guys just make these lazy retorts even when some goes through the trouble of giving you all the sources to study.

We control for three groups of factors consistent with the multilevel structure of the data and the analytic strategy used in this study. First, we control for two country-level factors: gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and the proportion of a country’s population that is Muslim. It is expected that the country-level factors will have an independent effect on child mortality and will account for a substantial portion of the overall between-country variation in mortality levels and in the effect of polygyny. Second, we control for household socioeconomic status
(SES), education, and place of residence because polygynous families face potential dilution of resources, women in these households are more likely to be less educated, and most live in rural areas. Finally, the analysis includes four childlevel factors: gender, interbirth intervals, birthorder, and maternal age at child’s birth. These factors may affect child survival differently depending on the type of family structure. Regarding child’s gender, the data used here comprise countries of diverse cultures, and there may be child-care practices in different types of families that could result in mortality differentials by gender (e.g., Gillett-Netting & Perry, 2005).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249406242_Family_Structure_and_Child_Mortality_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa_Cross-National_Effects_of_Polygyny

ivolt:
Coming back.

Lol still coming back or you got nothing insightful to add.

Blue3k:


Lol still coming back or you got nothing insightful to add.

Don't run more than your shadow.
I have read the so-called research and it is filled logical fallacies.
I will mention you when I update my post.

ivolt:

Don't run more than your shadow.
I have read the so-called research and it is filled logical fallacies.
I will mention you when I update my post.

Looking forward to it. Hopefully one of you has something reasonable to retort.

ivolt:

Don't run more than your shadow.
I have read the so-called research and it is filled logical fallacies.
I will mention you when I update my post.

Still waiting. There's no shame in admitting you had nothing insightful retort.

Blue3k:


Still waiting. There's no shame in admitting you had nothing insightful retort.

It is rather self unflattering for you to consider copying and pasting a poorly done research as an insightful activity.

I didn't bother responding after seeing the level of fallacies the authors were willing to
condone just to promote a fantasy lifestyle.

For the sake of future readers, I will leave a brief response.

I am going to tear into these "research" from quality perspectives and various fallacies it promotes.

First, it failed to clearly define monogamy.
Is it monogamy to have 2 kids with 2 different woman while being unmarried
Do babymamaism, temporary cohabitations, and countless lifetime marriages with
children spread across multiple homes also counts as monogamy?

In the UK for example more people remarry after separation, 25 per 1000 than first time marriages 20 per 1000.
What happens to children in those relationship with cross-parents, are they in monogamy or polygamous home according to this research?

Which categories did the authors put these people who now make a significant part of many countries
population?

BTW, the fact that the author is Libertarian is actually meaningless to the discussion. Libertarians like other groups have pervasive agendas and will pursue it through whatever means necessary, intellect or facts be damned.

When you or the less than thorough authors are able to clarify the language, then we can have a proper discussion of
1. causation or correlation.
2. Whether designing a dying population and relying on immigrants workforce is really a sustainable iidea

ivolt:

It is rather self unflattering for you to consider copying and pasting a poorly done research as an insightful activity.

I didn't bother responding after seeing the level of fallacies the authors were willing to
condone just to promote a fantasy lifestyle.

For the sake of future readers, I will leave a brief response.

Its not his fault you don't understand the meaning of monogamy or polygamy dude. How do you consider extramarital affairs in the category or monogamy or polygamy? Baby momma can't count by definition since you aren't married. That first critique is out the window. Besides I'm pretty sure the studies referenced define terms for you.

You have to prove an agenda not just accuse with no evidence.

Correlation isn't causation isn't a counter arguments when the conteol factors were accounted for.

False dichotomy when you can incentivize population growth.