|
United States7483 Posts
On December 20 2011 19:11 blah_blah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 18:17 shinosai wrote:
Isn't this exactly the same sort of thing as religious indoctrination, though? And we don't ban religion because of it. So, not sure if this is a good argument. Or maybe it is, but that has some interesting implications. Yeah, I think religious indoctrination of children is a very delicate ethical issue that most people are unaware of or choose to ignore. I believe that religious parents should of course be allowed to bring up their child according to the strictures of their religion, as long as these conform reasonably with acceptable behavior in modern, liberal, societies (i.e., child abuse is unacceptable), but on the other hand, bringing up a child with constant reminders of the existence of hell and eternal punishment, and inducing them to form opinions based on this, really is child abuse in a way, isn't it? Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 18:31 Nightfall.589 wrote:So, because battered women stay with their abusers, why aren't we banning monogamous relationships?
The exact same arguments against polygamy can be used just as effectively against monogamy... How do any of these arguments apply equally to monogamous relationships? Either you are trolling or just have a very poor grasp of logical argumentation. The majority of monogamous relationships are not abusive (unless you subscribe to a particularly radical feminist viewpoint, I guess). Monogamous relationships have a (very strong) net positive effect on society. Abuse may occur in just about any sort of relationship. Abuse is most common in relationships where there is some sort of power differential between the parties in the relationship; there are few societies with a greater average power differential than polygamist communities (highly patriarchal, religious societies are another, although most polygamist communities fall under this heading anyways). If you seriously believe that the arguments I have made in this thread easily show that monogamous relationships are wrong and harmful to society, please make the effort to elaborate in some detail as to how this is the case. The point of bringing up abusive relationships is that the idea that humans are rational actors who make informed decisions on important life issues is demonstrably false (the literature concerning this is basically endless); in fact, people routinely pursue actions which are obviously harmful to themselves and to society as a whole. This is why consent is not a sufficiently strong criteria for the legalization of various activities. This point is obvious but yet basically all libertarian-types choose to ignore it.
You're taking the route of "It might be abused, better ban it and let nobody do it." This whole argument about how some people make bad decisions or aren't always rational and therefore make bad mistakes that hurt them and society is fallacious, because if you extend it further with the exact same logic, you find that nearly everything should be illegal.
|
On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 17:58 blah_blah wrote:On December 20 2011 16:16 Whitewing wrote:No, not quite. This has historically generally been the case in circumstances where polygamy occurs, but there's no reason it has to, nor is there any sign that it's a result OF polygamy. Correlation =/= causation.
The overwhelming evidence that polygamy invariably leads to abuse of women and children is enough to ban it, in spite of the remote possibility of consenting, rational adults choosing this lifestyle; it's simply in the best interests of society. It's not terribly different than restricting predatory lending, banning drugs with sufficiently deleterious effects, or requiring that food be produced in accordance with certain health standards -- while people may 'consent' of their own 'free will' to such things, they all have significant negative social consequences, not just to those people who consume them 'willingly', but also to innocent people around them. Battered women often also 'consent' to stay in relationships with their abusers, just as many girls who grow up in polygamist communities 'choose' the lifestyle when they reach the age of majority (although they are often married far before that of course...); while such decisions may not legally be under duress, I hope that it is clear that these girls have no hope of making any sort of rational, fair decision under these circumstances. This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example. And your examples aren't particularly good ones. Predatory lending is bad by definition, you do not define "sufficiently deleterious" and I would argue that there's no reason to ban any drugs really, the drug war is a huge mistake, and food being produced in accordance with health standards isn't even remotely close as an analogy. There's also no rule preventing people from making food in their own homes and consuming it, even if it isn't healthy. The only laws refer to the sale of foods that meet health standards, not the producing of it. There's nothing inherent in polygamy that is bad. You're assuming that polygamy always (or even most of the time) will have these results. Well, we have no way of knowing, because it's pretty much always been illegal in the parts of the world where the concept of marriage is dependent on consent, it hasn't been tried. There's not one good reason why anyone can't marry more than one person at the same time if all participants are consenting adults, just this hypothesis that it won't work because it hasn't been that way in the past for people in different situations. The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced.
The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid).
A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london).
|
On December 20 2011 19:27 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote:On December 20 2011 17:58 blah_blah wrote:On December 20 2011 16:16 Whitewing wrote:No, not quite. This has historically generally been the case in circumstances where polygamy occurs, but there's no reason it has to, nor is there any sign that it's a result OF polygamy. Correlation =/= causation.
The overwhelming evidence that polygamy invariably leads to abuse of women and children is enough to ban it, in spite of the remote possibility of consenting, rational adults choosing this lifestyle; it's simply in the best interests of society. It's not terribly different than restricting predatory lending, banning drugs with sufficiently deleterious effects, or requiring that food be produced in accordance with certain health standards -- while people may 'consent' of their own 'free will' to such things, they all have significant negative social consequences, not just to those people who consume them 'willingly', but also to innocent people around them. Battered women often also 'consent' to stay in relationships with their abusers, just as many girls who grow up in polygamist communities 'choose' the lifestyle when they reach the age of majority (although they are often married far before that of course...); while such decisions may not legally be under duress, I hope that it is clear that these girls have no hope of making any sort of rational, fair decision under these circumstances. This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example. And your examples aren't particularly good ones. Predatory lending is bad by definition, you do not define "sufficiently deleterious" and I would argue that there's no reason to ban any drugs really, the drug war is a huge mistake, and food being produced in accordance with health standards isn't even remotely close as an analogy. There's also no rule preventing people from making food in their own homes and consuming it, even if it isn't healthy. The only laws refer to the sale of foods that meet health standards, not the producing of it. There's nothing inherent in polygamy that is bad. You're assuming that polygamy always (or even most of the time) will have these results. Well, we have no way of knowing, because it's pretty much always been illegal in the parts of the world where the concept of marriage is dependent on consent, it hasn't been tried. There's not one good reason why anyone can't marry more than one person at the same time if all participants are consenting adults, just this hypothesis that it won't work because it hasn't been that way in the past for people in different situations. The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced. The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid). A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london).
And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario?
|
I personally think polygamy is disrespectful to the multiple partners and would never pursue a polygamous relationship...but it's their lives and as long as they're not hurting themselves with jealousy/trying to exploit taxes somehow I don't understand why they shouldn't just be left alone.
EDIT : I bet the kids love Christmas time though with all the parents around to give presents. :D lol
|
On December 20 2011 19:29 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 19:27 vetinari wrote:On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote:On December 20 2011 17:58 blah_blah wrote:On December 20 2011 16:16 Whitewing wrote:No, not quite. This has historically generally been the case in circumstances where polygamy occurs, but there's no reason it has to, nor is there any sign that it's a result OF polygamy. Correlation =/= causation.
The overwhelming evidence that polygamy invariably leads to abuse of women and children is enough to ban it, in spite of the remote possibility of consenting, rational adults choosing this lifestyle; it's simply in the best interests of society. It's not terribly different than restricting predatory lending, banning drugs with sufficiently deleterious effects, or requiring that food be produced in accordance with certain health standards -- while people may 'consent' of their own 'free will' to such things, they all have significant negative social consequences, not just to those people who consume them 'willingly', but also to innocent people around them. Battered women often also 'consent' to stay in relationships with their abusers, just as many girls who grow up in polygamist communities 'choose' the lifestyle when they reach the age of majority (although they are often married far before that of course...); while such decisions may not legally be under duress, I hope that it is clear that these girls have no hope of making any sort of rational, fair decision under these circumstances. This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example. And your examples aren't particularly good ones. Predatory lending is bad by definition, you do not define "sufficiently deleterious" and I would argue that there's no reason to ban any drugs really, the drug war is a huge mistake, and food being produced in accordance with health standards isn't even remotely close as an analogy. There's also no rule preventing people from making food in their own homes and consuming it, even if it isn't healthy. The only laws refer to the sale of foods that meet health standards, not the producing of it. There's nothing inherent in polygamy that is bad. You're assuming that polygamy always (or even most of the time) will have these results. Well, we have no way of knowing, because it's pretty much always been illegal in the parts of the world where the concept of marriage is dependent on consent, it hasn't been tried. There's not one good reason why anyone can't marry more than one person at the same time if all participants are consenting adults, just this hypothesis that it won't work because it hasn't been that way in the past for people in different situations. The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced. The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid). A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london). And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario?
Africa, the middle east, asia?
London?
And of course: LOGIC.
Do I really need to provide exhaustive proof that fucking over a large portion of the violent sex is bad for the society that is doing the fucking over?
|
United States7483 Posts
On December 20 2011 19:41 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 19:29 gruff wrote:On December 20 2011 19:27 vetinari wrote:On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote:On December 20 2011 17:58 blah_blah wrote:On December 20 2011 16:16 Whitewing wrote:No, not quite. This has historically generally been the case in circumstances where polygamy occurs, but there's no reason it has to, nor is there any sign that it's a result OF polygamy. Correlation =/= causation.
The overwhelming evidence that polygamy invariably leads to abuse of women and children is enough to ban it, in spite of the remote possibility of consenting, rational adults choosing this lifestyle; it's simply in the best interests of society. It's not terribly different than restricting predatory lending, banning drugs with sufficiently deleterious effects, or requiring that food be produced in accordance with certain health standards -- while people may 'consent' of their own 'free will' to such things, they all have significant negative social consequences, not just to those people who consume them 'willingly', but also to innocent people around them. Battered women often also 'consent' to stay in relationships with their abusers, just as many girls who grow up in polygamist communities 'choose' the lifestyle when they reach the age of majority (although they are often married far before that of course...); while such decisions may not legally be under duress, I hope that it is clear that these girls have no hope of making any sort of rational, fair decision under these circumstances. This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example. And your examples aren't particularly good ones. Predatory lending is bad by definition, you do not define "sufficiently deleterious" and I would argue that there's no reason to ban any drugs really, the drug war is a huge mistake, and food being produced in accordance with health standards isn't even remotely close as an analogy. There's also no rule preventing people from making food in their own homes and consuming it, even if it isn't healthy. The only laws refer to the sale of foods that meet health standards, not the producing of it. There's nothing inherent in polygamy that is bad. You're assuming that polygamy always (or even most of the time) will have these results. Well, we have no way of knowing, because it's pretty much always been illegal in the parts of the world where the concept of marriage is dependent on consent, it hasn't been tried. There's not one good reason why anyone can't marry more than one person at the same time if all participants are consenting adults, just this hypothesis that it won't work because it hasn't been that way in the past for people in different situations. The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced. The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid). A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london). And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario? Africa, the middle east, asia? London? And of course: LOGIC. Do I really need to provide exhaustive proof that fucking over a large portion of the violent sex is bad for the society that is doing the fucking over?
Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there.
Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there.
If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them.
|
On December 20 2011 18:58 vetinari wrote:
Blah_blah, why do you support the illegality of de jure polygamy when you clearly don't support making de facto polygamy illegal (no calls to put hugh hefner/cheating husbands/wives into prison).
Cheating is not equivalent to polygamy. Moreover I have no doubt that such laws would be used disproportionately to punish women, minorities, and the poor. I think that the social stigma of cheating as well as the possibility of civil penalties is enough.
On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote:
This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example.
So what? Typical Western societies disallow a wide variety of behavior for obvious reasons. It's clear that the consequences of banning polygamy are not 'disastrous'. There is ample evidence of polygamist communities operating within Western societies (or, you know, simple logic) to conclude that women and children (and, as vetinari noted, young men as well) are mistreated and abused in polygamist societies. If polygamy were legal, many of these sects would not be breaking a single law and would be able to continue their abhorrent and destructive behavior indefinitely. Without fear of legal consequences other sects would probably spring up as well. The latter point is extrapolation, but the first is not -- communities like Bountiful would be able to operate freely.
On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote:
The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced.
I agree, for what it's worth. The fact that there are instances of polygamy in which the parties involved all seem to be giving reasonably informed consent does not change my opinion in the slightest.
On December 20 2011 19:19 Whitewing wrote:You're taking the route of "It might be abused, better ban it and let nobody do it." This whole argument about how some people make bad decisions or aren't always rational and therefore make bad mistakes that hurt them and society is fallacious, because if you extend it further with the exact same logic, you find that nearly everything should be illegal.
This is a really dumb statement.
I am effectively making the statement that 'A practice which causes much more harm than it does good should probably be illegal'. You apparently believe that 'if you extend it further with the exact same logic', you get that 'Any practice which causes any sort of harm should be illegal'. If you believe that this is a logical extension of my argument you may wish to review basic logic before continuing to participate in discussions such as these.
|
United States7483 Posts
On December 20 2011 20:07 blah_blah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 18:58 vetinari wrote:
Blah_blah, why do you support the illegality of de jure polygamy when you clearly don't support making de facto polygamy illegal (no calls to put hugh hefner/cheating husbands/wives into prison). Cheating is not equivalent to polygamy. Moreover I have no doubt that such laws would be used disproportionately to punish women, minorities, and the poor. I think that the social stigma of cheating as well as the possibility of civil penalties is enough. Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote:
This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example.
So what? Typical Western societies disallow a wide variety of behavior for obvious reasons. It's clear that the consequences of banning polygamy are not 'disastrous'. There is ample evidence of polygamist communities operating within Western societies (or, you know, simple logic) to conclude that women and children (and, as vetinari noted, young men as well) are mistreated and abused in polygamist societies. If polygamy were legal, many of these sects would not be breaking a single law and would be able to continue their abhorrent and destructive behavior indefinitely. Without fear of legal consequences other sects would probably spring up as well. The latter point is extrapolation, but the first is not -- communities like Bountiful would be able to operate freely. Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote:
The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced. I agree, for what it's worth. The fact that there are instances of polygamy in which the parties involved all seem to be giving reasonably informed consent does not change my opinion in the slightest. Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 19:19 Whitewing wrote:You're taking the route of "It might be abused, better ban it and let nobody do it." This whole argument about how some people make bad decisions or aren't always rational and therefore make bad mistakes that hurt them and society is fallacious, because if you extend it further with the exact same logic, you find that nearly everything should be illegal. This is a really dumb statement. I am effectively making the statement that 'A practice which causes much more harm than it does good should probably be illegal'. You apparently believe that 'if you extend it further with the exact same logic', you get that 'Any practice which causes any sort of harm should be illegal'. If you believe that this is a logical extension of my argument you may wish to review basic logic before continuing to participate in discussions such as these.
Except that you have no evidence that it causes more harm than it does good! In none of the circumstances where polygamy is involved and the net result of all circumstances is obviously negative are you able to single out polygamy and say "this is a problem." There's no way to conclude that polygamy is a bad thing from this, one can only conclude that in certain circumstances polygamy can be a bad thing. We've never tried it in most of the societies where women aren't treated as pure objects and property.
To conclude that polygamy does more harm than good most of the time and on the whole, one would need to be able to single it out as a variable, which hasn't been done. We don't have studies on it when the adults participating are informed and consenting, because it isn't legal!
Your argument is invalid: "Polygamy is historically been a bad thing in most of the situations it's been used in. Therefore, polygamy is always going to be more harmful to society than any positive benefits derived from it." This isn't valid!
|
On December 20 2011 19:47 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 19:41 vetinari wrote:On December 20 2011 19:29 gruff wrote:On December 20 2011 19:27 vetinari wrote:On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote:On December 20 2011 17:58 blah_blah wrote:On December 20 2011 16:16 Whitewing wrote:No, not quite. This has historically generally been the case in circumstances where polygamy occurs, but there's no reason it has to, nor is there any sign that it's a result OF polygamy. Correlation =/= causation.
The overwhelming evidence that polygamy invariably leads to abuse of women and children is enough to ban it, in spite of the remote possibility of consenting, rational adults choosing this lifestyle; it's simply in the best interests of society. It's not terribly different than restricting predatory lending, banning drugs with sufficiently deleterious effects, or requiring that food be produced in accordance with certain health standards -- while people may 'consent' of their own 'free will' to such things, they all have significant negative social consequences, not just to those people who consume them 'willingly', but also to innocent people around them. Battered women often also 'consent' to stay in relationships with their abusers, just as many girls who grow up in polygamist communities 'choose' the lifestyle when they reach the age of majority (although they are often married far before that of course...); while such decisions may not legally be under duress, I hope that it is clear that these girls have no hope of making any sort of rational, fair decision under these circumstances. This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example. And your examples aren't particularly good ones. Predatory lending is bad by definition, you do not define "sufficiently deleterious" and I would argue that there's no reason to ban any drugs really, the drug war is a huge mistake, and food being produced in accordance with health standards isn't even remotely close as an analogy. There's also no rule preventing people from making food in their own homes and consuming it, even if it isn't healthy. The only laws refer to the sale of foods that meet health standards, not the producing of it. There's nothing inherent in polygamy that is bad. You're assuming that polygamy always (or even most of the time) will have these results. Well, we have no way of knowing, because it's pretty much always been illegal in the parts of the world where the concept of marriage is dependent on consent, it hasn't been tried. There's not one good reason why anyone can't marry more than one person at the same time if all participants are consenting adults, just this hypothesis that it won't work because it hasn't been that way in the past for people in different situations. The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced. The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid). A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london). And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario? Africa, the middle east, asia? London? And of course: LOGIC. Do I really need to provide exhaustive proof that fucking over a large portion of the violent sex is bad for the society that is doing the fucking over? Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there. Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there. If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them.
people with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society. y/n?
people without wives and children have less to lose. y/n?
in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. y/n?
in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. y/n?
in a society with widepsread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. y/n?
Thats my logic. Which bit is erroneous?
|
On December 20 2011 19:47 Whitewing wrote:Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there.
Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there.
If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them.
Unless you do not believe in mathematics, it should be easy for you to understand that small-scale polygamist communities are essentially unsustainable; any society which relies on having several wives for each older male must necessarily exile most of their younger males in the interests of preventing social unrest. Large-scale polygamist communities (i.e., societies) inevitably result in social unrest because there are simply not enough wives to go around (this is well documented in countries where sex-selective abortion or sex-selective infanticide is common). It's not even a matter of data (although there is ample data in both scenarios) -- these are just structural, logical consequences of polygamy.
|
On December 20 2011 20:22 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 19:47 Whitewing wrote:On December 20 2011 19:41 vetinari wrote:On December 20 2011 19:29 gruff wrote:On December 20 2011 19:27 vetinari wrote:On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote:On December 20 2011 17:58 blah_blah wrote:On December 20 2011 16:16 Whitewing wrote:No, not quite. This has historically generally been the case in circumstances where polygamy occurs, but there's no reason it has to, nor is there any sign that it's a result OF polygamy. Correlation =/= causation.
The overwhelming evidence that polygamy invariably leads to abuse of women and children is enough to ban it, in spite of the remote possibility of consenting, rational adults choosing this lifestyle; it's simply in the best interests of society. It's not terribly different than restricting predatory lending, banning drugs with sufficiently deleterious effects, or requiring that food be produced in accordance with certain health standards -- while people may 'consent' of their own 'free will' to such things, they all have significant negative social consequences, not just to those people who consume them 'willingly', but also to innocent people around them. Battered women often also 'consent' to stay in relationships with their abusers, just as many girls who grow up in polygamist communities 'choose' the lifestyle when they reach the age of majority (although they are often married far before that of course...); while such decisions may not legally be under duress, I hope that it is clear that these girls have no hope of making any sort of rational, fair decision under these circumstances. This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example. And your examples aren't particularly good ones. Predatory lending is bad by definition, you do not define "sufficiently deleterious" and I would argue that there's no reason to ban any drugs really, the drug war is a huge mistake, and food being produced in accordance with health standards isn't even remotely close as an analogy. There's also no rule preventing people from making food in their own homes and consuming it, even if it isn't healthy. The only laws refer to the sale of foods that meet health standards, not the producing of it. There's nothing inherent in polygamy that is bad. You're assuming that polygamy always (or even most of the time) will have these results. Well, we have no way of knowing, because it's pretty much always been illegal in the parts of the world where the concept of marriage is dependent on consent, it hasn't been tried. There's not one good reason why anyone can't marry more than one person at the same time if all participants are consenting adults, just this hypothesis that it won't work because it hasn't been that way in the past for people in different situations. The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced. The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid). A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london). And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario? Africa, the middle east, asia? London? And of course: LOGIC. Do I really need to provide exhaustive proof that fucking over a large portion of the violent sex is bad for the society that is doing the fucking over? Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there. Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there. If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them. people with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society. y/n? people without wives and children have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widepsread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. y/n? Thats my logic. Which bit is erroneous?
The making popygamy legal would lead to widespread polygamy....
Also your second statement means jack shit and makes your ending conclusion hugely suspect.
Nowhere in there do you quantify how much harmful this would be to our world even if you take all those statements for truth.
|
On December 20 2011 20:28 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 20:22 vetinari wrote:On December 20 2011 19:47 Whitewing wrote:On December 20 2011 19:41 vetinari wrote:On December 20 2011 19:29 gruff wrote:On December 20 2011 19:27 vetinari wrote:On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote:On December 20 2011 17:58 blah_blah wrote:On December 20 2011 16:16 Whitewing wrote:No, not quite. This has historically generally been the case in circumstances where polygamy occurs, but there's no reason it has to, nor is there any sign that it's a result OF polygamy. Correlation =/= causation.
The overwhelming evidence that polygamy invariably leads to abuse of women and children is enough to ban it, in spite of the remote possibility of consenting, rational adults choosing this lifestyle; it's simply in the best interests of society. It's not terribly different than restricting predatory lending, banning drugs with sufficiently deleterious effects, or requiring that food be produced in accordance with certain health standards -- while people may 'consent' of their own 'free will' to such things, they all have significant negative social consequences, not just to those people who consume them 'willingly', but also to innocent people around them. Battered women often also 'consent' to stay in relationships with their abusers, just as many girls who grow up in polygamist communities 'choose' the lifestyle when they reach the age of majority (although they are often married far before that of course...); while such decisions may not legally be under duress, I hope that it is clear that these girls have no hope of making any sort of rational, fair decision under these circumstances. This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example. And your examples aren't particularly good ones. Predatory lending is bad by definition, you do not define "sufficiently deleterious" and I would argue that there's no reason to ban any drugs really, the drug war is a huge mistake, and food being produced in accordance with health standards isn't even remotely close as an analogy. There's also no rule preventing people from making food in their own homes and consuming it, even if it isn't healthy. The only laws refer to the sale of foods that meet health standards, not the producing of it. There's nothing inherent in polygamy that is bad. You're assuming that polygamy always (or even most of the time) will have these results. Well, we have no way of knowing, because it's pretty much always been illegal in the parts of the world where the concept of marriage is dependent on consent, it hasn't been tried. There's not one good reason why anyone can't marry more than one person at the same time if all participants are consenting adults, just this hypothesis that it won't work because it hasn't been that way in the past for people in different situations. The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced. The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid). A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london). And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario? Africa, the middle east, asia? London? And of course: LOGIC. Do I really need to provide exhaustive proof that fucking over a large portion of the violent sex is bad for the society that is doing the fucking over? Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there. Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there. If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them. people with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society. y/n? people without wives and children have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widepsread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. y/n? Thats my logic. Which bit is erroneous? The making popygamy legal would lead to widespread polygamy.... Also your second statement means jack shit and makes your ending conclusion hugely suspect. Nowhere in there do you quantify how much harmful this would be to our world even if you take all those statements for truth.
oh god.
Women are attracted to high status males.
Women are often willing to share high status males.
Hence, polygamy will be widespread where it is legal.
Very well. Let as assume that my second statement means nothing.
Men (M) without wives and children (WC) have the same to lose as men with wives and children.
P = P + WC
WC = P - P
WC = 0
Therefore, Wives and children have no worth to men.
|
I think the law gives too much respect to religion and religious practices. That being said, I'm also having a hard time understanding what exactly is morally/ethically wrong about polygamy...
|
On December 20 2011 20:46 synapse wrote:
I think the law gives too much respect to religion and religious practices. That being said, I'm also having a hard time understanding what exactly is morally/ethically wrong about polygamy...
Absolutely is nothing morally/ethically wrong about polygamy.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that polygamy, in and of itself, is wrong. The problem is the consequences of polygamy.
Just like there is nothing morally/ethical wrong choosing to not have a child, because you believe you would not make a good father. But if every man decided that they would not make a good father, and hence not have children . . . humanity would go extinct. Obviously, this is an extreme example, but you get the general idea.
The anti-polygamists maintain that polygamy has consequences that are sufficiently harmful to warrant it staying illegal. The pro-polygamists claim that either polygamy has no such consequences or that it is worth it, in the name of liberty.
|
On December 20 2011 20:22 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 19:47 Whitewing wrote:On December 20 2011 19:41 vetinari wrote:On December 20 2011 19:29 gruff wrote:On December 20 2011 19:27 vetinari wrote:On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote:On December 20 2011 17:58 blah_blah wrote:On December 20 2011 16:16 Whitewing wrote:No, not quite. This has historically generally been the case in circumstances where polygamy occurs, but there's no reason it has to, nor is there any sign that it's a result OF polygamy. Correlation =/= causation.
The overwhelming evidence that polygamy invariably leads to abuse of women and children is enough to ban it, in spite of the remote possibility of consenting, rational adults choosing this lifestyle; it's simply in the best interests of society. It's not terribly different than restricting predatory lending, banning drugs with sufficiently deleterious effects, or requiring that food be produced in accordance with certain health standards -- while people may 'consent' of their own 'free will' to such things, they all have significant negative social consequences, not just to those people who consume them 'willingly', but also to innocent people around them. Battered women often also 'consent' to stay in relationships with their abusers, just as many girls who grow up in polygamist communities 'choose' the lifestyle when they reach the age of majority (although they are often married far before that of course...); while such decisions may not legally be under duress, I hope that it is clear that these girls have no hope of making any sort of rational, fair decision under these circumstances. This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example. And your examples aren't particularly good ones. Predatory lending is bad by definition, you do not define "sufficiently deleterious" and I would argue that there's no reason to ban any drugs really, the drug war is a huge mistake, and food being produced in accordance with health standards isn't even remotely close as an analogy. There's also no rule preventing people from making food in their own homes and consuming it, even if it isn't healthy. The only laws refer to the sale of foods that meet health standards, not the producing of it. There's nothing inherent in polygamy that is bad. You're assuming that polygamy always (or even most of the time) will have these results. Well, we have no way of knowing, because it's pretty much always been illegal in the parts of the world where the concept of marriage is dependent on consent, it hasn't been tried. There's not one good reason why anyone can't marry more than one person at the same time if all participants are consenting adults, just this hypothesis that it won't work because it hasn't been that way in the past for people in different situations. The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced. The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid). A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london). And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario? Africa, the middle east, asia? London? And of course: LOGIC. Do I really need to provide exhaustive proof that fucking over a large portion of the violent sex is bad for the society that is doing the fucking over? Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there. Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there. If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them. people with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society. y/n? people without wives and children have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widepsread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. y/n? Thats my logic. Which bit is erroneous?
Without getting in between your little tussle, let me say my own answers:
people with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society. N
people without wives and children have less to lose. N
in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. N
in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. Y
in a society with widepsread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. N
just being honest. I think your sliding on a slippery slope.
|
On December 19 2011 00:21 theBALLS wrote:Not for Islam. Up to 4 wives you can have, at least in my side of the globe.
Men can have 4, women can only have one.
|
On December 20 2011 20:43 vetinari wrote:
oh god.
Women are attracted to high status males.
Women are often willing to share high status males.
Hence, polygamy will be widespread where it is legal.
The evidence disagrees with you. Polygamy has been legal for the vast majority of human history and studies have shown that monogamy has been the norm among most societies.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929710000339 for one such study.
Not to mention that cohabitation is in fact not illegal RIGHT NOW, yet you don't have that many powerful men living with multiple women. (Note that this does not apply to the US, where unlawful cohabitation seems to in fact be illegal, where exactly the line is drawn regarding this, I have no idea, it seems it is actually illegal for a man and a woman to live together in certain states without being married. Having sex and not living together is however perfectly fine, go figure.).
I think the matter of keeping polygamy illegal is more to do with keeping marriage and estate laws simple. Say for example you have a 60 year old woman, with 2 husbands, one has been her husband for 40 years, other for 5 years. The woman dies, how should her estate be distributed? Are her 2 husbands now married to eachother? There's just a whole lot of legislation you need to change in order to make it legal and fair to everyone and it is not widespread enough for that to be reasonable.
|
United States7483 Posts
On December 20 2011 20:23 blah_blah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 19:47 Whitewing wrote:Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there.
Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there.
If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them. Unless you do not believe in mathematics, it should be easy for you to understand that small-scale polygamist communities are essentially unsustainable; any society which relies on having several wives for each older male must necessarily exile most of their younger males in the interests of preventing social unrest. Large-scale polygamist communities (i.e., societies) inevitably result in social unrest because there are simply not enough wives to go around (this is well documented in countries where sex-selective abortion or sex-selective infanticide is common). It's not even a matter of data (although there is ample data in both scenarios) -- these are just structural, logical consequences of polygamy.
No. First, you're assuming that legalizing polygamy is the same as it becoming ubiquitous. Just because it is legal does not mean everyone would be a member of such a family. History would suggest that I am right here, polygamy was legal in most societies in history and most families did not partake. Secondly, you're assuming that there would never be women with multiple husbands, which would be legal also. Thus, this entire point is invalid.
|
United States7483 Posts
On December 20 2011 20:22 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 19:47 Whitewing wrote:On December 20 2011 19:41 vetinari wrote:On December 20 2011 19:29 gruff wrote:On December 20 2011 19:27 vetinari wrote:On December 20 2011 19:09 Whitewing wrote:On December 20 2011 17:58 blah_blah wrote:On December 20 2011 16:16 Whitewing wrote:No, not quite. This has historically generally been the case in circumstances where polygamy occurs, but there's no reason it has to, nor is there any sign that it's a result OF polygamy. Correlation =/= causation.
The overwhelming evidence that polygamy invariably leads to abuse of women and children is enough to ban it, in spite of the remote possibility of consenting, rational adults choosing this lifestyle; it's simply in the best interests of society. It's not terribly different than restricting predatory lending, banning drugs with sufficiently deleterious effects, or requiring that food be produced in accordance with certain health standards -- while people may 'consent' of their own 'free will' to such things, they all have significant negative social consequences, not just to those people who consume them 'willingly', but also to innocent people around them. Battered women often also 'consent' to stay in relationships with their abusers, just as many girls who grow up in polygamist communities 'choose' the lifestyle when they reach the age of majority (although they are often married far before that of course...); while such decisions may not legally be under duress, I hope that it is clear that these girls have no hope of making any sort of rational, fair decision under these circumstances. This position has been taken before in other areas to disastrous results. Temperance, for example. And your examples aren't particularly good ones. Predatory lending is bad by definition, you do not define "sufficiently deleterious" and I would argue that there's no reason to ban any drugs really, the drug war is a huge mistake, and food being produced in accordance with health standards isn't even remotely close as an analogy. There's also no rule preventing people from making food in their own homes and consuming it, even if it isn't healthy. The only laws refer to the sale of foods that meet health standards, not the producing of it. There's nothing inherent in polygamy that is bad. You're assuming that polygamy always (or even most of the time) will have these results. Well, we have no way of knowing, because it's pretty much always been illegal in the parts of the world where the concept of marriage is dependent on consent, it hasn't been tried. There's not one good reason why anyone can't marry more than one person at the same time if all participants are consenting adults, just this hypothesis that it won't work because it hasn't been that way in the past for people in different situations. The example in the OP is an example where everyone is consenting and doesn't seem to be forced. The problem is that things, when they occur on a small scale, can be beneficial/neutral but extremely harmful on a large scale. Such as: unemployment (prevents inflations, allows efficient allocation of labour / depression, poverty, mass suicides.), divorce (people and children get away from abusive partners and are supported by extended family / children are seperated from perfectly good parents and are not supported by extended family, who need support due to their own divorces), parasites (less auto-immune diseases / malnutrition leading to death), income disparities (motivation to work harder / dichotomy between absolute poverty and spectucular wealth), sexism (regarding women as weak and therefore protecting them / regarding women as weak and therefore exploiting them.), altruism (providing food aid during unexpected famine / fostering dependency on food aid). A few polygamists makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. A sizeable proportion of the male population having no hope for the future, no investment into the community (also known as having a wife and children to support) is a good way to burn cities (e.g. london). And what other than your own fears do you have to support that scenario? Africa, the middle east, asia? London? And of course: LOGIC. Do I really need to provide exhaustive proof that fucking over a large portion of the violent sex is bad for the society that is doing the fucking over? Sorry, what? You're making terrible logical leaps here. You're looking at those areas of the world and concluding that polygamy is present, and therefore bad because of how bad various other things are. This isn't exactly narrowing down the variables. There are a host of other issues in these parts of the world that when combined make polygamy bad there. Many of these aren't present in other areas of the world. You have no way of knowing that polygamy would be bad there. If you're going to drop the logic bomb, at least know the difference between a valid and an invalid argument, and know how to identify and recognize them. people with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society. y/n? people without wives and children have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. y/n? in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. y/n? in a society with widepsread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. y/n? Thats my logic. Which bit is erroneous?
People with little to lose are more likely to act in a manner harmful to society: More likely yes, definitely going to? No.
People without wives and children have less to lose: Not necessarily. I disagree with this premise. Many people don't want wives or children, and there are plenty of poor families who have less than rich single men/women.
In a society with widespread polygamy, many men will not have wives and children. Yes, but the same is true now, less than half of all eligible people in the U.S. are married now.
in a society with widespread polygamy, many men will have less to lose. No, I don't agree, based upon my previous refutation.
in a society with widespread polygamy, more men will act in a manner harmful to society. No, I don't agree.
You are also ignoring the entire idea that a woman might have multiple husbands, which would also be legal.
The argument isn't even valid even if you assume that all the premises are true. The conclusion is not guaranteed by the truth of the premises. You also ignore the concept that the net benefits of polygamy (freedom and liberty and all that, and other non-visible benefits, like potentially less STD through less cheating) might outweigh any negatives.
|
Polygamy does not allow for multiple husbands. Just wives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
