Based muslim child
-
I know a decent amount of weird historical facts to know that the looted corpses are usually stored in the attic in Europe. There is also a non zero chance that if you live in an old enough house in Europe there could still be a corpse in the attic.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Welcome to the Aitre St Maclou in Rouen!
The cemetery was full in the XVIth century, so they built a nice building to keep the old corpses on the upper floors, all windows opened to everything can be nicely ventilated.
200 years later, they turned it into a school.
-
This post did not contain any content.
this really happened SOURCE: me, Albert Einstein who is also clapping
-
this really happened SOURCE: me, Albert Einstein who is also clapping
Nothing ever happens
-
Just off top of my head.
Inheritance - no explanation needed.
personal time - hard to get quality time and Love is can be selfish.
Issues with accidental incest - my dad side loves cheating. I have lots of half siblings and cousins id never meet all over globe. One uncle had 15ish kids that he knew of. So I dont date my dad's race. Nope train.
The dating market - One less wife available for men leads to anger for those without one. This is why I was told gay men are more accepted in certain cultures than lesbians.
One less wife available for men leads to anger for those without one.
Incels already exist and at the same time the most attractive men have a wife, a mistress, and occasional hookups. So it Wildente necessarily change much. Except the side pieces could have actual rights and more societal respect by becoming wives.
-
Not in a Muslim household it ain't.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's more common than you expect, which is basically none. I sure the women talk about stuff they don't want their husband to know, and they could be pretty close. Throw in some stress and people start fucking. It'd stay a secret, so I don't know that we'd know how common it is, but (as a straight man) if I was in a polygamous marriage with one woman but a bunch of men, is seek companionship with the other men in some form at least.
-
People confuse polygamy with polygyny.
Polygamy is when one person can marry multiple people.
Polygyny is when one person can marry multiple women.
Polyandry is when one person can marry multiple men.
There's no specific word for when one person can marry multiple nonbinary people.
Polyamory sounds close; if you presume that the other people would be allowed multiple marriages as well.
-
One less wife available for men leads to anger for those without one.
Incels already exist and at the same time the most attractive men have a wife, a mistress, and occasional hookups. So it Wildente necessarily change much. Except the side pieces could have actual rights and more societal respect by becoming wives.
If you want more incels, that's how you get more.
data also shows uneven male to female ratio leads to males being more violent. Specifically against women. Just look at countries with low female to male ratios. Disgusting behavior.
If the male pop was reduced then this argument goes out the window. But that would require a major war or some disease that effects only males.
-
If you want more incels, that's how you get more.
data also shows uneven male to female ratio leads to males being more violent. Specifically against women. Just look at countries with low female to male ratios. Disgusting behavior.
If the male pop was reduced then this argument goes out the window. But that would require a major war or some disease that effects only males.
Men are far more susceptible to be victims of violence, addiction, suicide, incarceration, mental illness, loneliness etc. already.
High male population nowadays is usually caused by elective abortions.
-
If someone supports gay marriage they have no basis for opposing polygamist or incestuous marriages outside of how it subjectively makes them feel. Marriage is historically a religio-cultural institution. Without that context there can be no restrictions that don't also violate foundational secular values such as personal freedom. Secularity and modernism gatekeeping marriage is a hilarious mental gymnastics routine. These days marriage is just something to keep lawyers in business anyway. The government should just get out of the marriage business entirely at this point.
I generally agree with you, but I've heard reasonable arguments like
- polygamy is patriarchy, gay marriage isn't
- incest is bad for the gene pool, gay marriage isn't
These raise their own questions of how to dismantle patriarchy, or if governments should have a say in our genes, etc. But I don't think they're equivalent discussions.
-
Nah mate, Jack Della Maddalena obviously. He's gonna stuff the takedowns and piece islam up on the feet.
Oof man of culture I see... this is the only one I got
-
Hooray for non-tribalism?
"Most" is doing some heavy lifting. There are for example some Ethereum "maximalists" who are extremely tribal.
-
This guy is pledging allegiance to two different cryptocurrency projects that are pretty much natural enemies and it's confusing
It's because he registered his handle when Ripple was still a thing, and has since pivoted to Ethereum.
This is why you don't make a brand your identity, and never listen to people who do. He already had a username and didn't want it associated with his crypto dealings.
-
Two wives?
That must be unbearable.
Wife bad
-
If someone supports gay marriage they have no basis for opposing polygamist or incestuous marriages outside of how it subjectively makes them feel. Marriage is historically a religio-cultural institution. Without that context there can be no restrictions that don't also violate foundational secular values such as personal freedom. Secularity and modernism gatekeeping marriage is a hilarious mental gymnastics routine. These days marriage is just something to keep lawyers in business anyway. The government should just get out of the marriage business entirely at this point.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]You can oppose both polygamist or incestuous marriage if it's in a context of religious and sexist oppression, which tend to be the case in most instances of those two types of marriages.
I wouldn't have complains about polyamory incestuous marriage of free people. But sadly most of practical cases are not like that.
-
I generally agree with you, but I've heard reasonable arguments like
- polygamy is patriarchy, gay marriage isn't
- incest is bad for the gene pool, gay marriage isn't
These raise their own questions of how to dismantle patriarchy, or if governments should have a say in our genes, etc. But I don't think they're equivalent discussions.
- polygamy is patriarchy, gay marriage isn't
First of all this is a self-refuting assumption. It assumes out of the gate that women aren't equally capable of leveraging polygamy to the subjugation of men. If women are not equally capable of abusing polygamy then patriarchy is naturalistic. If they ARE equally capable then this objection collapses.
Secondarily modernity leverages nothing but subjective feelings to make a moral claim about why something like patriarchy is wrong in the first place. "Patriarchy is bad" says who? And why should anyone care? Most of the world and history disagrees with that characterization. If cultural imperialism is "bad" isn't it culturally imperialist to wholly reject all surviving traditions that predate the last 150 years because they aren't compatible with an emergent value system? I could go on but hopefully you get my point about rootless modernism and it's lack of justification for ought claims. Not to mention the lack of logical consistency for their ever-changing framework.
- incest is bad for the gene pool, gay marriage isn't
Should people with genetic defects be able to reproduce? To what extent are we just acting as eugenicists?
Marriage and the rules around it are inherited from traditions that modernism rejects. The attempt to continue PARTS of these traditions by arbitrarily picking and choosing rules because of what makes us "comfortable" undermines the authority of marriage in general. Why even continue it?
Modernist takes on marriage are anathema to the entire point of marriage in the first place. Furthermore modernism offers no satisfactory reasons for why "modern marriages" should exist at all. "Taxes" is often cited but this could be managed in many other ways. (e.g. legal contractual relationships that enable many of the same benefits ala power of attorney)
-
It’s a complicated question to answer. Consent can’t be given under duress, and the rate of abuse in polygamous marriages is astoundingly high. If there was some magical way that the state could verify that everyone is consenting with a true option to say no without their life being ruined, that would be great. However having the state decide who can marry would go really poorly at some point. As a result, I think we’re left with the western status quo where we throw the baby out with the bath water and ban the whole thing. It’s kinda like how some people can be responsible handgun owners but others are murderers and the potential downsides are great enough that nobody gets the privilege. Same for selling cocaine.
Oh, I agree, but in those instances there might also be the possibility of women being forced to mary (even as first/only wife).
And Islam is already very explicit with the consent of the woman being required, just like western laws do that (and yet it can still happen)
But you bringing up handguns, I think we should always consider benefit and risks, and the risks of everybody owning handguns do definitely exceed the risks of some people having multiple wifes (as in risks for society, as well as risks for personal safety)
-
You can oppose both polygamist or incestuous marriage if it's in a context of religious and sexist oppression, which tend to be the case in most instances of those two types of marriages.
I wouldn't have complains about polyamory incestuous marriage of free people. But sadly most of practical cases are not like that.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Your view is an intellectually honest one from a modernist perspective. I would go further though and say that marriage should have no secular existence at all.
-
Nothing ever happens
It would be pretty weird for a teacher to get excited that a child doesn't hate their moms
-
Welcome to the Aitre St Maclou in Rouen!
The cemetery was full in the XVIth century, so they built a nice building to keep the old corpses on the upper floors, all windows opened to everything can be nicely ventilated.
200 years later, they turned it into a school.That's actually kinda interesting, sorta the opposite of the Paris catacombs. Also shout-out to the bone churches.
-
- polygamy is patriarchy, gay marriage isn't
First of all this is a self-refuting assumption. It assumes out of the gate that women aren't equally capable of leveraging polygamy to the subjugation of men. If women are not equally capable of abusing polygamy then patriarchy is naturalistic. If they ARE equally capable then this objection collapses.
Secondarily modernity leverages nothing but subjective feelings to make a moral claim about why something like patriarchy is wrong in the first place. "Patriarchy is bad" says who? And why should anyone care? Most of the world and history disagrees with that characterization. If cultural imperialism is "bad" isn't it culturally imperialist to wholly reject all surviving traditions that predate the last 150 years because they aren't compatible with an emergent value system? I could go on but hopefully you get my point about rootless modernism and it's lack of justification for ought claims. Not to mention the lack of logical consistency for their ever-changing framework.
- incest is bad for the gene pool, gay marriage isn't
Should people with genetic defects be able to reproduce? To what extent are we just acting as eugenicists?
Marriage and the rules around it are inherited from traditions that modernism rejects. The attempt to continue PARTS of these traditions by arbitrarily picking and choosing rules because of what makes us "comfortable" undermines the authority of marriage in general. Why even continue it?
Modernist takes on marriage are anathema to the entire point of marriage in the first place. Furthermore modernism offers no satisfactory reasons for why "modern marriages" should exist at all. "Taxes" is often cited but this could be managed in many other ways. (e.g. legal contractual relationships that enable many of the same benefits ala power of attorney)
Ok let's just focus on the sciencier one for a second. Say someone doesn't like incest because it's bad for the gene pool. Their icky emotions about it predate religion.
That isn't a slippery slope to eugenics. Inbreeding depression is real, but eugenics is discredited as unscientific. We already know that rules against incest don't lead to rules against people with defects reproducing.
The problem with this line of thinking is that you're expecting people who support gay marriage to convince you about some other thing. And if any of these social taboos are actually a good idea, then you're lumping gay marriage in with them, like comparing gays to pedophiles.
