I have a hedgehog named Hegeamon...
Why is polygamy taboo-ed?
Sort:
I don't like western movies or music.
Oct 23, 2015
0
#84
Umm you don't make much sence... Kayknight is a horse. I said my hedgehog.
BluRRVelocity wrote:
Thanks but I'm just bored of people talking about stuff like this just so they can argue...
If only there were some way to avoid such discussions by not clicking on them...
But all his favorite people are here!
Oct 23, 2015
0
#87
clockblockerz wrote:
trysts wrote:
ChessMadam wrote:
I live in a part of the world polygamy where is legal, it possibly came about to ensure survival in a harsh environment. I would suggest not judging it, evolution will eventually do its job. Western society is still influenced by male dominance, it is not exclusive to societies which practice polygamy by any stretch of the imagination. Women are unequal the world over to different degrees and I think change will come in its own time when individuals and systems reach a level of awareness which equips them for change.
Don't judge polygamy because evolution will take care of it?? That sounds like the process of evolution corrects moral injustices, so it sounds pretty absurd to me. Moral injustices require criticism in order for change to occur, in my view.
The only thing awareness will bring is the simple fact that men and women are not equal.
Unfortunately, this inherent biological and psychological inequality has meant, especially, in western societies for women to be second class. In the future, both men and women will be free enough to able to accept this, and not dominate or be feel dominated.
What is moral injustice? How do you decide what is right and wrong? And please don't say 'you just know' as the criteria.
A moral injustice would be based upon the existence of a community--where free individuals live with and interact with other free individuals. Clearly murder, abuse, torture, systematic oppression, and theft would feature as crimes against the well-being of the community in general and the free individuals residing there in particular.
Doesn't that kinda' depend on the community? Say, one individual out of a hundred person community controls 95% of the resources. Within the context of that community, would it be immoral to steal from her?
Oct 23, 2015
0
#89
Would it be considered theft if her monopoly is damaging the well-being of the community?
Supposin' one member won't do shit, or you gotta' set a stake to see 'em move? Would it be immoral to motivate that individual? Would that be abuse?
Oct 23, 2015
0
#91
That's an excellent question, Nathan:) My feeling is that the community should never demand an individual to work if the individual doesn't want to work. Of course there are ways the individual may subsist independent of working--charity being one. But if the individual cannot subsist without working and cannot obtain charity and decides to be a thief, well then the community would have set up a detention center/prison for such criminal actions. Right?
Prison is weird and sick. Banishment would be a better option if available. Were I the thief, and given the option, I would chose corporal punishment over imprisonment.
Probably just the once, though.
Oct 23, 2015
0
#93
Banishment would be better, I agree, if there was a place where the community does not exist. Like the moon?
Or Ann Arbor?
[COMMENT DELETED]
MorraMeister wrote:
I think Polygamists are people that play many games at the same time. Why should they not be allowed to get tatoo's like the rest of society?
I don't think society should support people who do not want to work. unless they have the means to support themselves. what if everyone decided they didn't want to work? what then? we would all just be playing games. Maybe many games since we didn't have to work. So then we would all by poly-gamists. what if we all wanted tatoo's? someone would have to work to let us have our tatoo's. wow, what a conundrum!!
What in God's holy name are you blathering about?
Damn, I hate it when my film quotes fall flat.
History suggests that plural marriage is really so bad. A new study out of the University of British Colombia documents how societies have systematically evolved away from polygamy because of the social problems it causes. The Canadian researchers are really talking about polygyny, which is the term for one man with multiple wives, and which is by far the most common expression of polygamy. Women are usually thought of as primary victims of polygynous marriages, but as cultural anthropologist Joe Henrich documents, the institution also causes problems for the young, low-status males denied wives by older, wealthy men who have hoarded all the women. And those young men create problems for everybody.
Thanks but I'm just bored of people talking about stuff like this just so they can argue...