Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
If, as it has been suggested by one or two different posts, nature refers to human nature and not nature as a whole then there is some basis here.
1. Males are larger than females suggesting a role in fighting.
2. Male skulls are thicker and better suited to fighting than female skulls, suggesting a role in fighting.
3. Male hormones predispose males to agression and fighting.
4. Statistically a human population could reproduce and grow much quicker if they lose some males in battles rather than females. Once again suggesting that the male role, in part, is battle.
Yes, Absalom had long hair, but that only proves the point. He died by getting his hair caught in the trees and was a sitting duck for David's men to kill. That death was shameful.
US doctrine on crew cuts for warriors is based on solid analysis for what works best and has nothing to do with culture. We have US citizens from every culture on this planet.
|
5 sentences and a list of 4 items, none of which actually address what I said. The fact that crew cuts work best for modern soldiers has nothing to do with whether it is a shame for a man to have long hair.
And rather than proving the point, the fact that Absalom died because of his long hair (indirectly) does not say anything about long hair being a shame. To say otherwise is strictly spin.