Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
I disagree, I think in common usage metaphysics, ethics, (some) logic, and a couple other disciplines have been grouped under a label of Philosophy, admittedly those subjects are prone to kooks for several reasons. While the term science (Natural and Social) has largely overtaken what used to be called philosophy.
Any good scientist understands the philosophy behind the methods they are using in an experiment, they know the philosophy behind what specific statistical tests they are using and all data interpretation is strictly philosophy (stats can say, at a certain probability, if your data is likely produced by chance, they can say nothing about what is causing the data. Cause can only be determined by the rigors of experimental design, which is almost entirely philosophy as well).
I agree science is different from most other types of philosophy, but at the end of the day, imho at least, it is really just a highly regulated form of epistemology.
Unless I'm mistaken, bigamy/polygamy was first banned in America (other than for record keeping/census hurdles) because of its long standing association with spousal abuse and abuse of women. Considering that this dates back to when women and children were more or less considered property, that's saying a lot.
__________________ Land of the free, home of the brave...
Do you think we will ever be saved?
In this land of dreams find myself sober...
Wonder when will it'll all be over...
Living in a void when the void grows colder...
Wonder when it'll all be over?
Will you be laughing when it's over?
I have no problem with polygamy as a possible way of marriage... now, some of the specific cultural trends associated with polygamy (and to me, totally different issues), are not so great.
Legally speaking the first wife/husband should be present at the second wifes/husband wedding and sign a consent form or something to make it legal etc with each successive wedding. The last thing we want is a bunch of douches running around setting up franchises, if you understand the Fight Club reference.
I'm against it, I think. There is something to be said about the unequal treatment of the spouses. Regardless of what people say, they WILL love one over the other. It's possible that a working relationship can be formed from a polygamous marriage, but it brings up too many problems. We already have people going out and getting married all over the place who shouldn't be getting married. Then they have kids, then they get divorced, or fight all the time. Either way, the life of the child or children gets screwed up. Imagine that with a bunch of wifes or husbands.
You can't trust people to be responsible, because most people aren't. It might be able to work out for some people, but I'm betting that "some" will be few, and you'll have way too many people taking advantage and abusing it and screwing it up for everyone else.
If you want to be with more than one person, then don't get married. Simple as that. Makes it a lot easier for everyone.
Yeah philosophy 101 - there's nothing special about the axiom I've chosen. Well that was easy. Lol. And yep, I'm trying to sell marriage as a biological process because anthropology regards marriage as an attribute derived through evolution (keep in mind I'm not claiming anything special about this assessment). Hence the field: biological anthropology. Although after denying consequential ethics and social Darwinism, I suppose you're now going to call me an idiot for bringing up biological anthropology, huh? Yes, please let's recap. I said "Philosophically I am with Darwin", Sym said "Darwin wasn't doing philosophy" - ignored the definition of philosophy, and denied that science is a philosophy (because, why was it - nobody's published on natural philosophy for a hundred years and biological anthropology doesn't count...). I pointed out that Darwinism provides a criteria, not a conclusion, for my stance. Which is the equivalent of saying I look at the evolutionary consequences of the polygamy rather than how it feels, but you came along and ignored the difference between criteria for and conclusion, and told me this bahaha: See, you have to understand: the person I was responding to was saying that perspectives that look at the outcome of something are not classified as philosophy. Mind you - he wasn't saying they 'shouldn't' be classified as philosophy, he was saying they aren't, which is a little like denying the existence of theism because you don't believe in God. All things considered, I felt it was appropriate to give him something to google. I also thought I was one of the younger, more illiterate members of the forum and I was free to throw around what vocabulary I had without being accused of getting too complex. My bad .
Thanks for that. I will never again use "jihad" incorrectly unless it's a typo.
Pretend my post says ,"Islamic jihad." Contrast that with "Christian sacrament."
Also, "Islamic Jihad" can apply to multiple groups, not just one. for example, the Islamic Jihad from the country of Yemen, the Islamic Jihad from Lebanon, etc.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Mar 18th, 2011 at 10:03 AM
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Saying "I'm with Darwin" is incorrect, you can't be "with" Darwin, cause he didn't make a statement on that, what you meant was "I derive some sort of moral ideas from what Darwin said", which is more or less what you tried to say in the second post (besides some semantic bickering about Philosophy), all I did is point out that what you initially said is still contrary to Sym's meaning.
So perhaps try to respond to what I am actually saying, rather than what you make up, I never denied consequential ethics nor social darwinism, you just used them incorrectly in the context.
Language should be used to communicate, not to obfuscate, and arguing about semantics to avoid the issue when the meaning is apparent is bad form, imo.
While I can agree my first statement was improperly worded, I was surprised that my explanation in the next post that I was using Darwin's theory as "criteria" and not as "morality" didn't clear up any questions. And on sym's part, absolute ridicule. And as you can see, the "someone" I mentioned was symmetric chaos.
they are fractions of al'zawahari's initial IJ though, are they not? same way the Muslim Brotherhood exists in more nations other than Egypt
as for the sacrament issue, can there be sacrament that isn't Christian? if not, I'd say it is equally redundant. in English, however, jihad only has the context of Muslim religious "violence". this isn't true in Arabic, for sure, but I'd think for English that would be the case
I don't even mean it as a matter of ignorance. I suppose the term could become defined more as it is in Arabic, I just don't think its use really conjures up anything other than Muslim religio-political struggle.
I prof I had from Morocco said they used to have "jihads against garbage" to clean the streets. The popular use of the term in an English language context isn't that fluid imho. maybe it will get there, but English has no real need of a term to fill that void, we have dozens (though, if there is anything English is good at, its taking words from other languages)
KMC Community Forums
Mar 16th, 2011 09:32 PM
about topic
.
