Replies

That was a bastard cutting up and ignoring of the whole of my post where I addressed your silly strawman objection before you brought it up

You didn't address a strawman objection. The fact is that your comparison was completely inane. You presented instruction for a potentially dangerous procedure filled with completley inappropriate emotives ("Fun!") as though that were somehow similar to an anthropology report where description of tribal attitudes would be completely relevant. Emotives are not appropriate or relevant in procedural instructions; I would not expect the manual for my telelvision to be filled with words like "fun" or "happy" in its setup procedures.

Also, many other fine replies on this thread have already made mincemeat of the claim you make that the article or the stody it is based on were merely presenting material in a unbiased way.

I don't see how it is endorsing or promoting anything. What I see is people who read the report that suggests that promiscuity might provide for a survival advantage amongst a species and somehow deriving from that an endorsement of promiscuity in society. The article is not a sociology report, it is an anthropology report. The article speculates on how promiscuity might possibly provide a species survival advantage, but that is not the same as saying that promiscuity is good for society or that it should be encouraged and endorsed. No, the article does not 'condemn' the promiscious lifestyle amonsgt the tribe, but it's an anthropology report -- such a condemnation would be as inappropriate as an endorsement (which despite the hemming and hawing, I haven't seen pointed out except for one misinterpreted statement where Crocker commented on the tribe's attitude toward such practices).