A very interesting discussion, for my part I would like to observe that it is surely, (no
matter what the “Law” proclaimed) what the people, consciously or sub-consciously,
believed and practised that mattered? I sometimes think that we fail to take into account
the deep-seated beliefs and influence of contemporaries and parents, the prevailing
social, religious and moral beliefs and mores of our ancestors. For example in my own
lifetime, (born 1946) the prevailing “social, religious and moral beliefs and mores” of
marriage have changed beyond what I thought “right” when I was, say, 23 when I married:
now I learn that more couples are living together before marriage than there are married,
unthinkable in 1969!
On 23 Jan 2014, at 17:19, Adrian Bruce <abruce(a)madasafish.com> wrote:
I agree; the logic is impeccable. But if the first premise of an argument is
no more than an assertion/belief, the logic is worthless.
Yes - if the first premise falls, then it is clear the rest of the argument
is worthless. That's why I put "logic" in quotes.
However - there is no real point in saying - "Our ancestors were wrong
because ..." It's much more valuable to try to understand why they thought
as they did, which was what I was trying to explain. It's anachronistic to
talk in terms of genetics and blood relationships. The first was unknown
then and I'm not sure the second doesn't lead us into more widespread
problems with the further degrees of cousinship.
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request(a)rootsweb.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the