Thoughts on Polygamy

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think he did, maybe he will explain to us which he meant.

I think he meant Mormon Fundies, not Mormons.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I am againist it and think it should be illegal. If a man really loved a woman that he is with married or not he should not have any other one beside that woman.

So, have you ever been in a threesome?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think he meant Mormon Fundies, not Mormons.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I think he meant whoever it was applied to. Kind of like how we talk about Islamic Jihad and we don't add extra adjectives to specify that most Muslims don't do suicide bombings to get virgins.

Well, Islamic Jihad has many different forms in multiple sects of Islam. It's not quite the same. "Jihad" would be equivalent (symbolically, not literally) to, say, sacraments or baptism: it's a common religious held belief/practice that is executed (no pun intended, as that would be horrible) in different ways.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, Islamic Jihad has many different forms in multiple sects of Islam. It's not quite the same. "Jihad" would be equivalent (symbolically, not literally) to, say, sacraments or baptism: it's a common religious held belief/practice that is executed (no pun intended, as that would be horrible) in different ways.

Originally posted by Darth Piggott
How do you guys feel about polygamy? Do you think it should be illegal?

I just watched the second season premiere of Sister Wives, and was shocked to find out that they were being investigated. I thought it was ok for fundamentalist Mormons to have multiple wives, because it was part of their religion. I didn’t even know some Mormons still practiced polygamy until this show, which I thought was amazing that women in today’s day and age would be comfortable with their husband having other wives. How do you guys feel about it?

Polygamy is fine, as long as each and every person involved in the relationship is eqaual and signed up for their aspect of the relationaship.

When you analyze the relationships, you typically find that they aren't equal. HBO series and fiction aside, they end up sucking for most of the people involved. Well, at least those who are willing or grew up outside of the insanity. (Yes, I'm talking about Mormons...or any other batshit religion (as though there isn't one))

Originally posted by Robtard
So, have you ever been in a threesome?

No and I don't plan too.

Originally posted by Darth Piggott
How do you guys feel about polygamy? Do you think it should be illegal?

I just watched the second season premiere of Sister Wives, and was shocked to find out that they were being investigated. I thought it was ok for fundamentalist Mormons to have multiple wives, because it was part of their religion. I didn’t even know some Mormons still practiced polygamy until this show, which I thought was amazing that women in today’s day and age would be comfortable with their husband having other wives. How do you guys feel about it?

1. its a..o..kay in my book.

2. it should be legal if they are willing adults.

3.. pfff.. its every males biological right to procreate with as many women as he can 😮‍💨

Philosophically I'm with Darwin on this one, though a little loyalty can't hurt when culture calls for it.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Philosophically I'm with Darwin on this one, though a little loyalty can't hurt when culture calls for it.

Darwin wasn't doing philosophy. Evolution says nothing about what you "should" be doing.

It's just like in my japanese animes....

Clearly polygamy is pretty much the best thing ever.

My views on marriage are kinda along the same lines as bardocks. If someone wants to consider themselves married then fine. If they want their religion to view them as married that's also fine. Same sex/multiple people whatever. But there should be no such thing as a marriage license.....for anyone.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Darwin wasn't doing philosophy. Evolution says nothing about what you "should" be doing.

Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

Or does it have to ring a memory from philosophy class to fit that criteria?

Indeed. Darwin may never have intended it to have philosophical implications, but it does and has done so. See: Social Darwinism.

No one is denying that you can derive philosophical ideas (opposing ones if you are so inclined, too) from Darwin's theory, but the theory itself does not have moral or philosophical implications. It does not state what is "better" it just states what develops and why.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No one is denying that you can derive philosophical ideas (opposing ones if you are so inclined, too) from Darwin's theory, but the theory itself does not have moral or philosophical implications. It does not state what is "better" it just states what develops and why.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Implications of his theory allow derivation of a criteria for what is considered rational about marriage.

Sure, so long as you realize that there is nothing special about the axiom you've chosen. I can derive a rational concept of marriage from John Norman's Gor series but, due to the different axioms, my conclusion would be very different.

Originally posted by Quark_666
The details matching such a criteria remain controversial despite much anthropological and biological exploration on the subject, but such a criteria offers an escape from cultural questions like "what feels right to me" or whatever.

Are you seriously trying to sell marriage as a biological process?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

Or does it have to ring a memory from philosophy class to fit that criteria?

It's been over a hundred years since we removed "natural philosophy" from the realm of philosophy in general. With that precedent behind me I feel comfortable saying that evolution is science and not philosophy.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Huh. Well since I was claiming a Darwinian 'criteria' based off the results of a decision and not a Darwinian 'rightness', the derivation of two possible conclusions seemed irrelevant to me, but I appreciate you clarifying for me anyway. Though I was somehow under the impression that "what develops and why" had major implications (by definition) on at least one valid branch of ethics (see consequentialism). Its absolute irrelevance to catagorical ethics again appeared irrelevant.

Lets recap quickly. You said "Philosophically I am with Darwin", Sym explained to you that that's impossible as Darwin wasn't any philosophical statement about polygamy with his work, and Sym was correct in saying that.

I don't think trying to sound particularly knowledgeable about philosophy, especially when what you said could be communicated in much simpler terms makes anyone here overlook what has actually been the topic of discussion.

point of fact: Islamic Jihad is a proper name of a jihadi group. for any language that is not Arabic, the Islamic qualification is redundant. Jihad only has an Islamic connotation in English (there is no Communist jihad).

also, unless part of a proper name, like Islamic Jihad, the term "jihad" does not need to be capitalized, the same way "struggle", "resistance" and "soldier" aren't capitalized.

I hate to sound like a grammar Nazi here (I'm the last person who should criticize, lol), but there were a series of posts above that are a little confusing. there is a big difference between Islamic Jihad and Islamic jihad, is all I'm saying

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
With that precedent behind me I feel comfortable saying that evolution is science and not philosophy.

i get what you are saying, but "science" is still a philosophy. I think the only reason we differentiate the two is because people tend to treat philosophy as "I can say any damn thing I want and people have to acknowledge and respect it". I don't think that the fact science works should be taken to say it isn't a philosophy.