Based muslim child
-
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.
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Their icky emotions about it predate religion.
You're going to have to prove that one because religion has existed alongside humanity for all of known history and marriage of first cousins is still common in the Arab world.
We already know that rules against incest don't lead to rules against people with defects reproducing.
Says who? We've only just started our journey down the path of total secularity. We have no idea how this is going to play out. China's CRISPR program has already demonstrated that gene editing is possible and Canada is letting people kill themselves. Brave New World already imagined how these ideas will run wild once free of the baggage of the past. Secularity has no moral construct. All options are on the table including the sterilization of people with hereditary defects.
You're expecting people who support gay marriage to convince you about some other thing.
No I'm saying that gay marriage crosses the rubicon. It is a complete departure from what marriage means in any historical or religious context. Which begs the question of what it is and why it even exists. If gays can marry despite prohibition across all cultures for all of human history then where are the limits? Who sets those limits and why to they get to be in charge of who gets to be married? It all falls apart you see.
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.
Don't dismiss the argument because you are uncomfortable with the possible implications. Contend with the premise. You drew that conclusion not me.
-
Nothing ever happens
Ehrm, some right winger said it on twitter, it's here black and white.
-
Hi. I don't have sources but I think it makes sense logically.
Like if you're a lesbian and want to be with someone in a society like the one where you can't have lesbian relationship but a guy can have multiple wives, I think you'd get into the same harem. You'd consider the guy as a cost of being with the one you want.
And maybe there are good guys too, and they just let you be there and live how you like. I don't know how prominent arranged marriage is in those cultures, but some guys could be doing that and just sheltering people too.
eh I bet they're all just bitter and don't like each other and don't look forward to sex lol
-
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.
Totally agree.
Which is why removing more females from the dating pool will make it worse for male populations.
