Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Polygamy] Will it legally stand or fall before the charter

145791013

Comments

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    There isn't any form of drunk driving that isn't inherently likely to cause harm. There are forms of polygamy are that aren't likely to cause harm.

    The difference between "inherently causing harm" and "inherently likely to cause harm" is pretty enormous.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also note that I'm not claiming that drunk driving is the same as polygamy. There are plenty of differences keeping the two from being analogous.

    I'm pointing out that wwtMask's legal philosophy, as stated, is fundamentally flawed (using drunk driving as an example), and thus any further conversation with him is probably masturbatory.
    Wait. Hold on. So you're telling me that people get drunk just so they can drive home drunk? Is that what you're telling me?

    Because I'm pretty sure people drive home drunk because they just don't care or are too lazy to do anything else. Yes, that's negligence.

    No, I'm saying people go out to drink with the intention of getting drunk, and the intention of driving home.

    And that 2+2=4.

    And that most of the time, they cause no harm.

    Thus wwtMask is retarded.

    Those people either haven't thought their plans through, or haven't arranged another way to get home, or haven't stopped themselves from getting drunk. They have neglected to act. Negligence.

    There is no negligence in a non-arranged polygamist relationship. Everyone in the relationship is acting with intent.

    mrsatansig.png
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    So wwtMask, How harmful should a practice be before we should outlaw it? I'd like to hear your philosophy that you keep saying but never elaborate on. I'd like you to give me a number.

    Let's say that drunk drivers only cause accidents 10% of the times they drive drunk. Should we legalize it because 90% of the time they aren't causing accidents?

    If 10% of polygamist marriages involve welfare fraud, rape, and child abandonment, should we still allow it, even though it's a situation that's highly conducive to such behavior?
    50%
    75%?
    99%?

    I'd like you put a number on how much suffering you're fine with allowing to happen in the name of protecting the people who are polygamous and aren't causing suffering - people who don't even need protection because almost nobody is prosecuted on charges of polygamy anyways.

    I'm just going to refute your only argument against it:
    We can prosecute them doing the other illegal things

    It doesn't stop the fact that the suffering occurred in the first place, which is the whole point of the law - To prevent suffering from occurring at all.

    Oh, is that the point of the law? Because if it is, the law is a terrible tool for preventing suffering. I was under the impression that laws existed to define acceptable behavior and provide penalties for people who do not conform to said acceptable behavior.

    And your refutation is inane because you don't actually address the point. Why does polygamy have to be illegal on top of the other stuff already being illegal? What purpose does it serve?

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Do you understand why criminal negligence is criminal?

    Hint: it's not because it's inherently harmful.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    So wwtMask, How harmful should a practice be before we should outlaw it? I'd like to hear your philosophy that you keep saying but never elaborate on. I'd like you to give me a number.

    Let's say that drunk drivers only cause accidents 10% of the times they drive drunk. Should we legalize it because 90% of the time they aren't causing accidents?

    If 10% of polygamist marriages involve welfare fraud, rape, and child abandonment, should we still allow it, even though it's a situation that's highly conducive to such behavior?
    50%
    75%?
    99%?

    I'd like you put a number on how much suffering you're fine with allowing to happen in the name of protecting the people who are polygamous and aren't causing suffering - people who don't even need protection because almost nobody is prosecuted on charges of polygamy anyways.

    I'm just going to refute your only argument against it:
    We can prosecute them doing the other illegal things

    It doesn't stop the fact that the suffering occurred in the first place, which is the whole point of the law - To prevent suffering from occurring at all.

    Oh, is that the point of the law? Because if it is, the law is a terrible tool for preventing suffering. I was under the impression that laws existed to define acceptable behavior and provide penalties for people who do not conform to said acceptable behavior.

    And your refutation is inane because you don't actually address the point. Why does polygamy have to be illegal on top of the other stuff already being illegal? What purpose does it serve?

    Holy shit, you still don't fucking get it. It's illegal because even if it's not well enforced, it's still society sending a message that the conditions that foster other illegal behavior will not be tolerated. Maybe you can call it a nanny state or whatever, I don't care, but all your philosophy would do is allow more harm to come to pass. Why is Jaywalking illegal, when Vehicular Manslaughter is just as illegal? It's to prevent people from getting run over in the first place.

    I'd still like you to give me that % of harmful polygamist marriages you'd let proceed in the name of protecting the ones that aren't harmful.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Polygamy is more visible than child abuse. It's a proxy indicator for a difficult problem space.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    There isn't any form of drunk driving that isn't inherently likely to cause harm. There are forms of polygamy are that aren't likely to cause harm.

    The difference between "inherently causing harm" and "inherently likely to cause harm" is pretty enormous.

    Well, to be fair I don't agree with wwtMask's legal ideas, I just don't think polygamy is harmful in and of itself and keeping it illegal to address the harm caused by crazy mormons is completelly ineffective. So you may as well make legal to allow those who want to freely engage in such acts to do so.
    Feral wrote: »
    Polygamy is more visible than child abuse. It's a proxy indicator for a difficult problem space.

    I don't see how it is except in those cases where it is egregious (IE Mormon compounds) in which case the existence of a religious compound is probably a better proxy indicator. I mean I could live with multiple women pretty much anywhere in the United States and no community groups would likely raise a finger unless I was flaunting it, but doing so would still leave me bereft of any legal benefits.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    There isn't any form of drunk driving that isn't inherently likely to cause harm. There are forms of polygamy are that aren't likely to cause harm.

    The difference between "inherently causing harm" and "inherently likely to cause harm" is pretty enormous.

    Well, to be fair I don't agree with wwtMask's legal ideas

    Okay fair enough.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium, I've answered your percentage question already. I know you feel like you're cleverly trapping me, but you're really just making my hands hurt typing up the same responses. Polygamy isn't the problem, people being abusive dickwads is the problem. Your percentages are irrelevant bullshit because polygamy's legal status doesn't automagically determine whether these guys are going to be abusive dickwads.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    The drunk driving is a strawman. There isn't any form of drunk driving that isn't inherently likely to cause harm. There are forms of polygamy are that aren't likely to cause harm.

    Plenty of people can drive with a BAC of .08 no more unsafely than the average driver on the road. But we make that a per se offense because it aids in the prosecution of those that are too intoxicated to drive.

    wwtMask, what is your opinion on this?

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Polygamy is more visible than child abuse. It's a proxy indicator for a difficult problem space.

    I don't see how it is except in those cases where it is egregious (IE Mormon compounds) in which case the existence of a religious compound is probably a better proxy indicator.

    Unfortunately that brings up some even worse freedom of religion issues.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    How exactly is employment benefits unworkable? Guess what, my place of employment already offers an option to insure an indeterminate number of children. I don't see how adult beneficiaries are special snowflakes.

    Employers generally cover part of the employee's benefits out of pocket, which is why they're "benefits" and not "things you can get on your own so why bother". If you have 20 spouses, that would get sort of expensive for your company. My last employer shelled out $1000/mo for me and my spouse and two children. If I had 10 wives and 15 children, they should be required to pay $6000k/month for me? And if they're not required to pay, then there's one less advantage of legalized polygamy.

    Except for the family plans it is all amortized in their actuarial tables as far as I understand. So no, at least on my plan, your company wouldn't be required to pay any more, other than maybe an extremely small increase in the 'family' category as a whole to account for the fairly small number of people involved in polygamous relationships.

    If polygamy was legalized, you can bet your sweet bippy that providers would start worrying more about how many dozen people were covered under each plan, and passing that cost on to the employers.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Plutonium, I've answered your percentage question already. I know you feel like you're cleverly trapping me, but you're really just making my hands hurt typing up the same responses. Polygamy isn't the problem, people being abusive dickwads is the problem. Your percentages are irrelevant bullshit because polygamy's legal status doesn't automagically determine whether these guys are going to be abusive dickwads.

    A clever evasion of the question. Your refusal to answer the question is on par with that of a master politician.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    So wwtMask, How harmful should a practice be before we should outlaw it? I'd like to hear your philosophy that you keep saying but never elaborate on. I'd like you to give me a number.

    Let's say that drunk drivers only cause accidents 10% of the times they drive drunk. Should we legalize it because 90% of the time they aren't causing accidents?

    If 10% of polygamist marriages involve welfare fraud, rape, and child abandonment, should we still allow it, even though it's a situation that's highly conducive to such behavior?
    50%
    75%?
    99%?

    I'd like you put a number on how much suffering you're fine with allowing to happen in the name of protecting the people who are polygamous and aren't causing suffering - people who don't even need protection because almost nobody is prosecuted on charges of polygamy anyways.

    I'm just going to refute your only argument against it:
    We can prosecute them doing the other illegal things

    It doesn't stop the fact that the suffering occurred in the first place, which is the whole point of the law - To prevent suffering from occurring at all.

    Oh, is that the point of the law? Because if it is, the law is a terrible tool for preventing suffering. I was under the impression that laws existed to define acceptable behavior and provide penalties for people who do not conform to said acceptable behavior.

    And your refutation is inane because you don't actually address the point. Why does polygamy have to be illegal on top of the other stuff already being illegal? What purpose does it serve?

    Holy shit, you still don't fucking get it. It's illegal because even if it's not well enforced, it's still society sending a message that the conditions that foster other illegal behavior will not be tolerated. Maybe you can call it a nanny state or whatever, I don't care, but all your philosophy would do is allow more harm to come to pass. Why is Jaywalking illegal, when Vehicular Manslaughter is just as illegal? It's to prevent people from getting run over in the first place.

    I'd still like you to give me that % of harmful polygamist marriages you'd let proceed in the name of protecting the ones that aren't harmful.

    You haven't given me any good reason to believe that polygamy is inherently more likely to foster the illegal behavior than any other marital setup. Your arguments have essentially been against offshoot Mormon polygamy sects. You want to beat that horse, have at it. That doesn't make you right when you try to hang the sins of those assholes on the general practice of polygamy.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    How exactly is employment benefits unworkable? Guess what, my place of employment already offers an option to insure an indeterminate number of children. I don't see how adult beneficiaries are special snowflakes.

    Employers generally cover part of the employee's benefits out of pocket, which is why they're "benefits" and not "things you can get on your own so why bother". If you have 20 spouses, that would get sort of expensive for your company. My last employer shelled out $1000/mo for me and my spouse and two children. If I had 10 wives and 15 children, they should be required to pay $6000k/month for me? And if they're not required to pay, then there's one less advantage of legalized polygamy.

    Except for the family plans it is all amortized in their actuarial tables as far as I understand. So no, at least on my plan, your company wouldn't be required to pay any more, other than maybe an extremely small increase in the 'family' category as a whole to account for the fairly small number of people involved in polygamous relationships.

    If polygamy was legalized, you can bet your sweet bippy that providers would start worrying more about how many dozen people were covered under each plan, and passing that cost on to the employers.

    No more than they 'worry' about people having tons of children and passing that cost on. Sure, some people may have to pay for a small increase in some section of their health care, but that is more or less attributed to the terrible way our health care is set up and not some inherent problem with polygamy. I mean, if I want to have 3 kids and someone else wants to have 8 and we are under the some umbrella policy, then I am paying for their choice. But welp, that is just the way the cookie crumbles. And given that polygamists aren't likely to compose a large percentage of the insurance pool, I doubt the increases would really be egregious.

  • KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Do you understand why criminal negligence is criminal?

    Hint: it's not because it's inherently harmful.

    I didn't say that drunk driving was inherently harmful. I was saying that there's a difference between drunk driving and non-arranged polygamy because drunk driving stems from negligence and you can't enter into a polygamist relationship without the intent of doing so. Unless you get stuck in an arranged marriage, but I don't think anyone here is down with that.

    mrsatansig.png
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    You haven't given me any good reason to believe that polygamy is inherently more likely to foster the illegal behavior than any other marital setup. Your arguments have essentially been against offshoot Mormon polygamy sects. You want to beat that horse, have at it. That doesn't make you right when you try to hang the sins of those assholes on the general practice of polygamy.

    Are you a polygamist yourself? Do you have personal experience with the practices of the polygamist community outside of the offshoot Mormon churches? Is there any community? I certainly don't see them calling their politicians or holding up signs.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Do you understand why criminal negligence is criminal?

    Hint: it's not because it's inherently harmful.

    I didn't say that drunk driving was inherently harmful. I was saying that there's a difference between drunk driving and non-arranged polygamy because drunk driving stems from negligence and you can't enter into a polygamist relationship without the intent of doing so. Unless you get stuck in an arranged marriage, but I don't think anyone here is down with that.

    That difference is pretty much irrelevant.

    The two situations are similar in that, while some people might be able to practice each without harm, the social ills prevented by keeping it illegal outweigh the social benefits of that legalization.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Your argument seems to be that polygamy, in an ideal situation and divorced from any cultural context, is not inherently harmful. Unfortunately, we don't get to divorce things from our cultural context in the real world.

    Only because our society maintains backwards and uptight views on divorce.

    I say we legalize the divorce of things from cultural context in cases of irreconcilable differences.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Jeffe, can you close this abortion of a thread?

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Your argument seems to be that polygamy, in an ideal situation and divorced from any cultural context, is not inherently harmful. Unfortunately, we don't get to divorce things from our cultural context in the real world.

    Only because our society maintains backwards and uptight views on divorce.

    I say we legalize the divorce of things from cultural context in cases of irreconcilable differences.

    Damn you, Puritans!

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Plutonium, I've answered your percentage question already. I know you feel like you're cleverly trapping me, but you're really just making my hands hurt typing up the same responses. Polygamy isn't the problem, people being abusive dickwads is the problem. Your percentages are irrelevant bullshit because polygamy's legal status doesn't automagically determine whether these guys are going to be abusive dickwads.

    A clever evasion of the question. Your refusal to answer the question is on par with that of a master politician.

    I'm not evading anything, I'm saying that your question is flawed in conception and was clearly designed to be a trap, and failed at it. Are you saying that polygamy necessarily leads to forced marriages? Because I have evidence that this is not true. All I'm asking is that you address the actual problems you cite and stop conflating polygamy with them. Your logic is more an argument against fundamentalist Mormonism than it is against polygamy.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    No more than they 'worry' about people having tons of children and passing that cost on. Sure, some people may have to pay for a small increase in some section of their health care, but that is more or less attributed to the terrible way our health care is set up and not some inherent problem with polygamy. I mean, if I want to have 3 kids and someone else wants to have 8 and we are under the some umbrella policy, then I am paying for their choice. But welp, that is just the way the cookie crumbles. And given that polygamists aren't likely to compose a large percentage of the insurance pool, I doubt the increases would really be egregious.

    Except polygamy would be ripe for abuse. You and your twelve friends need health insurance? Get married. In order to abuse the number of kids covered, you sort of need to squeeze out more kids.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Plutonium, I've answered your percentage question already. I know you feel like you're cleverly trapping me, but you're really just making my hands hurt typing up the same responses. Polygamy isn't the problem, people being abusive dickwads is the problem. Your percentages are irrelevant bullshit because polygamy's legal status doesn't automagically determine whether these guys are going to be abusive dickwads.

    A clever evasion of the question. Your refusal to answer the question is on par with that of a master politician.

    I'm not evading anything, I'm saying that your question is flawed in conception and was clearly designed to be a trap, and failed at it. Are you saying that polygamy necessarily leads to forced marriages? Because I have evidence that this is not true. All I'm asking is that you address the actual problems you cite and stop conflating polygamy with them. Your logic is more an argument against fundamentalist Mormonism than it is against polygamy.

    It's too bad, then, that we can't outlaw Fundamentalist Mormonism. So we do the next best thing.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Jeffe, can you close this abortion of a thread?

    People are continuing to argue in a civil manner. Nobody's being a dick. I think wwt's positions is all kinds of special, but if he wants to keep arguing it with people, I'mma let him. It's not like there's some awesome discussion of polygamy that's being buried by stupidity, or anything.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Jeffe, can you close this abortion of a thread?

    But then I won't find out who all these polyamorists are on the forums that Saammiel was talking about!

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    You haven't given me any good reason to believe that polygamy is inherently more likely to foster the illegal behavior than any other marital setup. Your arguments have essentially been against offshoot Mormon polygamy sects. You want to beat that horse, have at it. That doesn't make you right when you try to hang the sins of those assholes on the general practice of polygamy.

    Are you a polygamist yourself? Do you have personal experience with the practices of the polygamist community outside of the offshoot Mormon churches? Is there any community? I certainly don't see them calling their politicians or holding up signs.

    Dude, read the fucking thread. I've already answered a question similar to this that Medopine asked. My personal marital situation has nothing to do with what we're talking about, but I'm not ashamed to say that I have one wife and have zero desire to have a second one. But I don't begrudge someone who'd prefer to have more than one wife.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Plutonium, I've answered your percentage question already. I know you feel like you're cleverly trapping me, but you're really just making my hands hurt typing up the same responses. Polygamy isn't the problem, people being abusive dickwads is the problem. Your percentages are irrelevant bullshit because polygamy's legal status doesn't automagically determine whether these guys are going to be abusive dickwads.

    A clever evasion of the question. Your refusal to answer the question is on par with that of a master politician.

    I'm not evading anything, I'm saying that your question is flawed in conception and was clearly designed to be a trap, and failed at it. Are you saying that polygamy necessarily leads to forced marriages? Because I have evidence that this is not true. All I'm asking is that you address the actual problems you cite and stop conflating polygamy with them. Your logic is more an argument against fundamentalist Mormonism than it is against polygamy.

    It's too bad, then, that we can't outlaw Fundamentalist Mormonism. So we do the next best thing.

    This is a dangerous and utterly retarded view. "We don't like your religious views, so we're going to make up a reason to punish you for it." Get the fuck out of here with that crap.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    So wwtMask, How harmful should a practice be before we should outlaw it? I'd like to hear your philosophy that you keep saying but never elaborate on. I'd like you to give me a number.

    Let's say that drunk drivers only cause accidents 10% of the times they drive drunk. Should we legalize it because 90% of them aren't causing accidents?

    If 10% of polygamist marriages involve welfare fraud, rape, and child abandonment, should we still allow it, even though it's a situation that's highly conducive to such behavior?
    50%
    75%?
    99%?

    I'd like you put a number on how much suffering you're fine with allowing to happen in the name of protecting the people who are polygamous and aren't causing suffering.

    I'm just going to refute your only argument against it:
    We can prosecute them doing the other illegal things

    It doesn't stop the fact that the suffering occurred in the first place, which is the whole point of the law - To prevent suffering from occurring at all.

    Except the whole crux of this is that I don't see any evidence that the law is preventing any suffering. The people abusing polygamy are engaging in it despite it being illegal and will continue to do so probably regardless of the punishment levied against them short of wholesale slaughter. On top of this the abuse is perpetuated by violating a slew of laws unrelated to polygamy and which have punishments unto themselves. So at best it is just a crutch for prosecutors to use to jail them for those other crimes. Which in my opinion is a poor use of the law. It shouldn't be a punishing neutral behavior as a lazy way to try people for doing things that actually cause harm. Then there are people who could practice polygamy without any abuse whatsoever but are prevented from doing so by its current status of being illegal.

    The drunk driving is a strawman. There isn't any form of drunk driving that isn't inherently likely to cause harm. There are forms of polygamy are that aren't likely to cause harm.

    My example works.

    Should slavery be legal just because certain couples find it helpful to their relationship?

  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    You're free to have your views, and it's not like arguing over the internet is going to change them, no matter how wrong they are.

    It's not like I'm going to wake up one day and polygamy will be legal. I won't deny you the fun of your self-righteousness.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    So wwtMask, How harmful should a practice be before we should outlaw it? I'd like to hear your philosophy that you keep saying but never elaborate on. I'd like you to give me a number.

    Let's say that drunk drivers only cause accidents 10% of the times they drive drunk. Should we legalize it because 90% of them aren't causing accidents?

    If 10% of polygamist marriages involve welfare fraud, rape, and child abandonment, should we still allow it, even though it's a situation that's highly conducive to such behavior?
    50%
    75%?
    99%?

    I'd like you put a number on how much suffering you're fine with allowing to happen in the name of protecting the people who are polygamous and aren't causing suffering.

    I'm just going to refute your only argument against it:
    We can prosecute them doing the other illegal things

    It doesn't stop the fact that the suffering occurred in the first place, which is the whole point of the law - To prevent suffering from occurring at all.

    Except the whole crux of this is that I don't see any evidence that the law is preventing any suffering. The people abusing polygamy are engaging in it despite it being illegal and will continue to do so probably regardless of the punishment levied against them short of wholesale slaughter. On top of this the abuse is perpetuated by violating a slew of laws unrelated to polygamy and which have punishments unto themselves. So at best it is just a crutch for prosecutors to use to jail them for those other crimes. Which in my opinion is a poor use of the law. It shouldn't be a punishing neutral behavior as a lazy way to try people for doing things that actually cause harm. Then there are people who could practice polygamy without any abuse whatsoever but are prevented from doing so by its current status of being illegal.

    The drunk driving is a strawman. There isn't any form of drunk driving that isn't inherently likely to cause harm. There are forms of polygamy are that aren't likely to cause harm.

    My example works.

    Should slavery be legal just because certain couples find it helpful to their relationship?

    Isn't slavery forced servitude against the consent of the enslaved party? Oh hey, that sounds like harm, we should probably make that illegal.

    Are there anymore false equivalencies that I ought to be shooting down?

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    You're free to have your views, and it's not like arguing over the internet is going to change them, no matter how wrong they are.

    It's not like I'm going to wake up one day and polygamy will be legal. I won't deny you the fun of your self-righteousness.

    I'm not under the illusion that polygamy will ever be legal in my lifetime, thanks in large part to cultural traditions left over from a long time ago. And I don't really care so much about it that I'd advocate for it. The things I've been saying have been in defense of what I think is the logical approach to the issue.

    But I'll say this, if polygamy became legal tomorrow, I doubt very much that your life would change noticeably.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    if you love more than 1 person why do you have to marry more than one person.

    there (i think) are legal ways to declare someone you are not related to but are living with as your dependent so theres the tax reasons.

    health insurance maybe? but im pretty sure if it was legal they would just change the family coverage to only one spouse and offer a special polygamist insurance that would cost more anyway....

    theres nothing wrong with being polyamorous but whats the benefit of being a polygimist?

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    People are really attached to the idea of having a recognized marriage. Religion probably comes into play as well.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Jeffe, can you close this abortion of a thread?

    Jeffe is a strong supporter of a forum's right to choose.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Except Gay marriage would be ripe for abuse. You and your buddy need health insurance? Get married.

    actually, even better:
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Except marriage would be ripe for abuse. You and your buddy who is of the opposite sex need health insurance? Get married.

    the idea of banning a form of marriage because "well, they'll just use it to abuse various benefits" is appalling, to me.

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    theres nothing wrong with being polyamorous but whats the benefit of being a polygimist?

    What's so special about marriage that gays want to marry? It';s just what some people want, for others it's about equality.

    I see where Plutonium is coming from exactly. He's made his point clear.

    I think he's being a little overly critical on wwtMask, though.

    Mask's opinion is just as valid, in that because someone can lead to abuse doesn't mean it has to be illegal to prevent suffering.

    Like, why not ban cigarette's? Or how about marriages entirely? Surely that would eliminate domestic abuse.






    A point brought up earlier is that people don't want to legalize polygamy because it will lead to abuse. But abuse is happening already, and it's illegal.

    OK, so we must think that legalizing it will lead to more abuse. But... where is the precedent for that belief? Who here can honestly say that if it were legal they'd certainly shack up some wives and start beating them? Or know anyone who would?

  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    People are really attached to the idea of having a recognized marriage. Religion probably comes into play as well.

    people are really attached to stereotypes and glazed doghnuts as well....

    if the only reason someone who is polyamorous wants to be a polygimist is so that the world can know, then im fine with not letting that happen. there are better ways to tell the world.

    edit: the difference here is that people can be married but just not all 3 of them. gays can't be married at all.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Lanz wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Except Gay marriage would be ripe for abuse. You and your buddy need health insurance? Get married.

    actually, even better:
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Except marriage would be ripe for abuse. You and your buddy who is of the opposite sex need health insurance? Get married.

    the idea of banning a form of marriage because "well, they'll just use it to abuse various benefits" is appalling, to me.

    The difference is that 1+1 marriage only allows for you to claim one "fraudulent" dependent.

    With legal polygamy, the potential for abuse approaches infinity.

    Not that this alone is an argument in favor of keeping it illegal, more just rebutting your specific point.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    theres nothing wrong with being polyamorous but whats the benefit of being a polygimist?

    What's so special about marriage that gays want to marry? It';s just what some people want, for others it's about equality.

    I see where Plutonium is coming from exactly. He's made his point clear.

    I think he's being a little overly critical on wwtMask, though.

    Mask's opinion is just as valid, in that because someone can lead to abuse doesn't mean it has to be illegal to prevent suffering.

    Like, why not ban cigarette's? Or how about marriages entirely? Surely that would eliminate domestic abuse.






    A point brought up earlier is that people don't want to legalize polygamy because it will lead to abuse. But abuse is happening already, and it's illegal.

    OK, so we must think that legalizing it will lead to more abuse. But... where is the precedent for that belief? Who here can honestly say that if it were legal they'd certainly shack up some wives and start beating them? Or know anyone who would?

    well, actually given various states domestic abuse laws, it wouldn't necessarily. Virginia, for example, just requires you to live together for a certain period of time

    I'm still reading the rest of the thread, but wondering: has anyone broached the topic of, say, a simple bisexual polyamorous marriage? That is, a person is bisexual and has a boyfriend and girlfriend and wishes to marry both of them?

    SEGATA SANSHIRO! LIVE AGAIN!
    Lanz.gif
145791013
Sign In or Register to comment.