democracy

[threaded]

Sorry, you extrapolate an assumption base no one 6000 year old skeleton to support your theory on life expectency in the middle ages?

I give up. I'd have more luck trying to get Osama Bin Laden to be handfed a pork sandwich from a jewish lapdancer than get sense from you.

No, I then went on to state how one can see from Medieval burials of the sick that communal caring and medical knowledge were quite high, and so must have been for a very long time.

So, saying a scratch would kill you is obviously nonsense, as I've given an example of someone who would have suffered numerous urinary tract infections yet recovered.

Try less of the invective, and attempt reasoned argument, you know you can, if you want to.

[snaw]

No, I then went on to state how one can see from Medieval burials of the sick that communal caring and medical knowledge were quite high, and so must have been for a very long time.

So, saying a scratch would kill you is obviously nonsense, as I've given an example of someone who would have suffered numerous urinary tract infections yet recovered.

Try less of the invective, and attempt reasoned argument, you know you can, if you want to.

Show me some proof of the bollocks you're spouting, beyond you doing walkabout in a 13th century burial ground (Yet to answer that one btw) and making some massive assumptions based on the epitaphs and I'll start reasoning with you.

[sasguru]

Show me some proof of the bollocks you're spouting, beyond you doing walkabout in a 13th century burial ground (Yet to answer that one btw) and making some massive assumptions based on the epitaphs and I'll start reasoning with you.

He's been back in his time machine, don't you know!

[threaded]

Show me some proof of the bollocks you're spouting, beyond you doing walkabout in a 13th century burial ground (Yet to answer that one btw) and making some massive assumptions based on the epitaphs and I'll start reasoning with you.

OK, another way to tackle the life expectancy myth. If child mortality was so high. and they lived such short lives, then there are simply not enough years between puberty and death for the population to replace itself. So they must have lived longer lives.

Another way to look at it, is that words for grand parents are quite embedded in languages, and are were not used in the past form, but in present forms. So grandparents must have been around commonly.

Go on. I'm enjoying you today.

[sasguru]

OK, another way to tackle the life expectancy myth. If child mortality was so high. and they lived such short lives, then there are simply not enough years between puberty and death for the population to replace itself. So they must have lived longer lives.

Another way to look at it, is that words for grand parents are quite embedded in languages, and are were not used in the past form, but in present forms. So grandparents must have been around commonly.

Go on. I'm enjoying you today.

What are you wittering on about?
So they lived to 50 or 60 if they were lucky.
If extremely lucky, some of their children survived.
Whoopety do dah!

Perhaps you should go on a medieval diet - as they were mostly hungry (if they weren't rich), at least they probably weren't lardy.

[snaw]

OK, another way to tackle the life expectancy myth. If child mortality was so high. and they lived such short lives, then there are simply not enough years between puberty and death for the population to replace itself. So they must have lived longer lives.

Another way to look at it, is that words for grand parents are quite embedded in languages, and are were not used in the past form, but in present forms. So grandparents must have been around commonly.

Go on. I'm enjoying you today.

Really? So say puberty is around 12/13 and life expectancy was around 33, that's 20 years of child bearing years, with no contraception, so even if 20% of your kids die there's a fair chance you'll leave behind more of them than there are of you (Parents) No? Plus men tended to marry more as wives tended to die fairly young.

Actually, as it happens there's a theory that most of us are descended from better off people in the past because they had far higher chances of survival than the poor, and the general rule over time is that generations get poorer, in a primogeniture system, like wot we have.

Not really interested in semantics around the use of the words grandxxx, pointless and really really poor reasoning.

[threaded]

What are you wittering on about?
So they lived to 50 or 60 if they were lucky.
If extremely lucky, some of their children survived.
Whoopety do dah!

Perhaps you should go on a medieval diet - as they were mostly hungry (if they weren't rich), at least they probably weren't lardy.

That's what I'm saying, that's not nasty, butish or short...

[EternalOptimist]

What are you wittering on about?
So they lived to 50 or 60 if they were lucky.
If extremely lucky, some of their children survived.
Whoopety do dah!

Perhaps you should go on a medieval diet - as they were mostly hungry (if they weren't rich), at least they probably weren't lardy.

oooooh
no potatoes = no chips = no fish n chips
no curry

I dont think I would have lasted

[DimPrawn]

snaw's a bit feisty today.

I blame Thatcher.

[xoggoth]

A complete @rse and not for the first time I'd have said.

Unless you can control what citizens are saying and doing and especially what children are taught you can't change a tribal society even in decades. Societies evolve at their own pace and it takes generations.

A Stalin or a Hoxha might have managed it, putting spies in every village, making kids inform on their parents and meting out harsh punishments. It's the only approach that would work.