Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
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

13468913

Posts

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Let me get this straight.

    If I marry three women, I'll feel the uncontrollable need to marry underage girls too? Or let someone else do the same? I didn't know I was such a baastard.

    No one in this thread has asserted this.

    The arguments against polygamy have revolved around abuse of girls and forced marriage. No one's said it explicitly, but the implication continues to be that polygamy -> abusing underaged girls.

    His post was making a ridiculous point. No, simply marrying more than one woman will not make you uncontrollably marry underage women, and no one ever said that it would.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Because I was bottom-paged:
    Feral wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    And your arguments so far have been pretty sucky and unconvincing. There, now that we've gotten the condescending d-bag part of this conversation out of the way, can we get back to you presenting a cogent case that addresses my concerns?

    What does it take for you to recognize that a practice should be illegal?

    That's an honest question. Slightly rephrased, what do you believe the law is for?

    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: »
    wwtMask is the Clawshrimpy of polygamy.

    And your arguments so far have been pretty sucky and unconvincing. There, now that we've gotten the condescending d-bag part of this conversation out of the way, can we get back to you presenting a cogent case that addresses my concerns?

    What are your concerns? All that you've shown is your complete failure to address any of our arguments logically, simply shrugging them all off and then re-iterating your opinion without any sort of rebuttal or discourse.

  • KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Yes you did. You just said polygamy was inherently conducive to that.

    mrsatansig.png
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Furthermore, people keep repeatedly stating that FLDS cults are the majority of polygamists, where is this assertion supported anywhere?

    I have seen no evidence of large communities of non-fundamentalist non-misogynist polygamists living anywhere in North America. There is significant evidence of large communities of fundamentalist misogynist polygamists living in Utah and bordering states.

    Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to say "selection bias"? The more we do this dance, the more I'm convinced that the problem everyone has isn't with polygamy but with fundamentalist Mormons.

    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
    Yes you did. You just said polygamy was inherently conducive to that.

    "Ripe" does not mean "conducive" and neither means "uncontrollable need."

    I would try rephrasing my point in a way that's not a flagrant strawman if I were you.

    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: »
    Furthermore, people keep repeatedly stating that FLDS cults are the majority of polygamists, where is this assertion supported anywhere?

    I have seen no evidence of large communities of non-fundamentalist non-misogynist polygamists living anywhere in North America. There is significant evidence of large communities of fundamentalist misogynist polygamists living in Utah and bordering states.

    That does not support the assertion whatsoever. There could be diffuse members of polygamists or potential polygamists who don't feel the need to start compounds living all over the place. And the people in favor of keeping polygamy illegal keep trotting it out as some sort of fact, so the onus is on them to provide some sort of evidence beyond 'this is what makes the news' or 'this is what I feel'.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Furthermore, people keep repeatedly stating that FLDS cults are the majority of polygamists, where is this assertion supported anywhere?

    I have seen no evidence of large communities of non-fundamentalist non-misogynist polygamists living anywhere in North America. There is significant evidence of large communities of fundamentalist misogynist polygamists living in Utah and bordering states.

    Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to say "selection bias"?

    You know, we have plenty of evidence that rhinos exist. We have no evidence that unicorns exist. All wankery about "absence of evidence" aside, I'm pretty confident in saying that rhinos are probably little bit more numerous than unicorns, simply by inductive reasoning.

    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.
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Yes you did. You just said polygamy was inherently conducive to that.

    And you said it would make you uncontrollably do that.

    Do you see the difference?

    "ripe for" or "inherently conducive to" abuse does not mean automatically abuse happens in every situation.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Let me get this straight.

    If I marry three women, I'll feel the uncontrollable need to marry underage girls too? Or let someone else do the same? I didn't know I was such a bastard.

    I guess, if you really wanted to, we could go over the social reasons why the two seem to correlate. Though no, I wouldn't suggest that you individually would do so.

    Wait wait though

    what if

    it's really easier for my argument




    To pretend that you are? Is that cool?

  • KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    Yes you did. You just said polygamy was inherently conducive to that.

    And you said it would make you uncontrollably do that.

    Do you see the difference?

    "ripe for" or "inherently conducive to" abuse does not mean automatically abuse happens in every situation.

    Or even the majority of situations.

    mrsatansig.png
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Because I was bottom-paged:
    Feral wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    And your arguments so far have been pretty sucky and unconvincing. There, now that we've gotten the condescending d-bag part of this conversation out of the way, can we get back to you presenting a cogent case that addresses my concerns?

    What does it take for you to recognize that a practice should be illegal?

    That's an honest question. Slightly rephrased, what do you believe the law is for?

    There needs to be evidence of harm caused by the practice itself. I've seen no evidence that the practice polygamy is causing the problems you guys are citing. Those problems aren't specific to polygamous sects, but no one is blaming regular marriage when a 14 year old girl is forced into an arranged, traditional marriage.

    Plutonium, I think I've done a pretty reasonable job of rebutting your side of the argument and presenting my own side. Maybe you should re-read my posts.

    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
    Feral wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Furthermore, people keep repeatedly stating that FLDS cults are the majority of polygamists, where is this assertion supported anywhere?

    I have seen no evidence of large communities of non-fundamentalist non-misogynist polygamists living anywhere in North America. There is significant evidence of large communities of fundamentalist misogynist polygamists living in Utah and bordering states.

    Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to say "selection bias"?

    You know, we have plenty of evidence that rhinos exist. We have no evidence that unicorns exist. All wankery about "absence of evidence" aside, I'm pretty confident in saying that rhinos are probably little bit more numerous than unicorns, simply by inductive reasoning.

    Except we have plenty of evidence that polyamorous people do exist that are not fundamentalist mormons, there are some here on this very forum. We just don't know how many of them there are or how many would be willing to make the leap to a contractually recognized relationship if it were available. But then again, I am not using their numbers in any sort of argument. So a comparison with unicorns is misleading.

  • KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Let me get this straight.

    If I marry three women, I'll feel the uncontrollable need to marry underage girls too? Or let someone else do the same? I didn't know I was such a bastard.

    I guess, if you really wanted to, we could go over the social reasons why the two seem to correlate. Though no, I wouldn't suggest that you individually would do so.

    Wait wait though

    what if

    it's really easier for my argument

    To pretend that you are? Is that cool?

    I am totally cool with that. Just be warned, when you use my in your hypothetical, it's going to be tough for me to contain my raging polygamist boner for underage women.

    mrsatansig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Except we have plenty of evidence that polyamorous people do exist that are not fundamentalist mormons, there are some here on this very forum.

    No way. Really?

    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
    Feral wrote: »
    Yes you did. You just said polygamy was inherently conducive to that.

    "Ripe" does not mean "conducive" and neither means "uncontrollable need."

    I would try rephrasing my point in a way that's not a flagrant strawman if I were you.

    But ad hominen is cool though, right?

    mrsatansig.png
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Furthermore, people keep repeatedly stating that FLDS cults are the majority of polygamists, where is this assertion supported anywhere?

    I have seen no evidence of large communities of non-fundamentalist non-misogynist polygamists living anywhere in North America. There is significant evidence of large communities of fundamentalist misogynist polygamists living in Utah and bordering states.

    Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to say "selection bias"?

    You know, we have plenty of evidence that rhinos exist. We have no evidence that unicorns exist. All wankery about "absence of evidence" aside, I'm pretty confident in saying that rhinos are probably little bit more numerous than unicorns, simply by inductive reasoning.

    That's cute, but there is evidence that non-criminal, non-abusive polygamists exist. How about you try again?

    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
  • KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Because I was bottom-paged:
    Feral wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    And your arguments so far have been pretty sucky and unconvincing. There, now that we've gotten the condescending d-bag part of this conversation out of the way, can we get back to you presenting a cogent case that addresses my concerns?

    What does it take for you to recognize that a practice should be illegal?

    That's an honest question. Slightly rephrased, what do you believe the law is for?

    There needs to be evidence of harm caused by the practice itself. I've seen no evidence that the practice polygamy is causing the problems you guys are citing. Those problems aren't specific to polygamous sects, but no one is blaming regular marriage when a 14 year old girl is forced into an arranged, traditional marriage.

    Plutonium, I think I've done a pretty reasonable job of rebutting your side of the argument and presenting my own side. Maybe you should re-read my posts.

    I also find it funny to note that no one is blaming dating when underage kids have sex with each other, or a 17 year girl has sex with a 20 year old guy.

    mrsatansig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Because I was bottom-paged:
    Feral wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    And your arguments so far have been pretty sucky and unconvincing. There, now that we've gotten the condescending d-bag part of this conversation out of the way, can we get back to you presenting a cogent case that addresses my concerns?

    What does it take for you to recognize that a practice should be illegal?

    That's an honest question. Slightly rephrased, what do you believe the law is for?

    There needs to be evidence of harm caused by the practice itself.

    This is a theory of law that's supported by nobody beyond the most wacko libertarians, and puts you in basically an extremist position. It would result in all sorts of things that are currently illegal being legalized, from drunk driving to pederasty.

    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.
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Yes you did. You just said polygamy was inherently conducive to that.

    "Ripe" does not mean "conducive" and neither means "uncontrollable need."

    I would try rephrasing my point in a way that's not a flagrant strawman if I were you.

    But ad hominen is cool though, right?

    That wasn't an ad hom attack.

    Anyway, since you appear to have cleverly trapped me in my own words above, I shall stop posting now, since clearly I no longer have a leg to stand on

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I also find it funny to note that no one is blaming dating when underage kids have sex with each other, or a 17 year girl has sex with a 20 year old guy.

    Underage kids with each other is commonly healthy. And in most states, legal. 17 and 20 is actually commonly healthy as well (though less commonly so), and legal in many states.

    50 and 12, less so.

    EDIT: And notice, that 50 and 12 rarely results from dating.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Yes you did. You just said polygamy was inherently conducive to that.

    "Ripe" does not mean "conducive" and neither means "uncontrollable need."

    I would try rephrasing my point in a way that's not a flagrant strawman if I were you.

    But ad hominen is cool though, right?

    Switching gears to a red herring isn't improving this line of discourse.

    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
    Feral wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Because I was bottom-paged:
    Feral wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    And your arguments so far have been pretty sucky and unconvincing. There, now that we've gotten the condescending d-bag part of this conversation out of the way, can we get back to you presenting a cogent case that addresses my concerns?

    What does it take for you to recognize that a practice should be illegal?

    That's an honest question. Slightly rephrased, what do you believe the law is for?

    There needs to be evidence of harm caused by the practice itself.

    This is a theory of law that's supported by nobody beyond the most wacko libertarians, and puts you in basically an extremist position. It would result in all sorts of things that are currently illegal being legalized, from drunk driving to pederasty.

    Except there's plenty of evidence that these things you mentioned are harmful. You're essentially arguing that it's not possible for there to be non-harmful polygamy, when there is evidence that it is indeed possible.

    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
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Let me get this straight.

    If I marry three women, I'll feel the uncontrollable need to marry underage girls too? Or let someone else do the same? I didn't know I was such a bastard.

    I guess, if you really wanted to, we could go over the social reasons why the two seem to correlate. Though no, I wouldn't suggest that you individually would do so.

    Wait wait though

    what if

    it's really easier for my argument

    To pretend that you are? Is that cool?

    I am totally cool with that. Just be warned, when you use my in your hypothetical, it's going to be tough for me to contain my raging polygamist boner for underage women.

    Look you've ruined it. I was you in that, or a stand in for your position not... you just... ugh. Ruined.

    Anyways, saying some social practice should be illegal for possiblility of abuse when practiced on a large scale isn't exactly crazy.

    Here: slavery is illegal. Some people get waaay off on slavery-related things. There are lots of Dom/Domme-Sub/Subbe pairs that pretty much act that out in every manner possible 24/7. But it's not legal to allow a consenting adult to actually be reduced to chattel because certain specific situations aside, legalizing slavery would be a bad idea.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Because I was bottom-paged:
    Feral wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    And your arguments so far have been pretty sucky and unconvincing. There, now that we've gotten the condescending d-bag part of this conversation out of the way, can we get back to you presenting a cogent case that addresses my concerns?

    What does it take for you to recognize that a practice should be illegal?

    That's an honest question. Slightly rephrased, what do you believe the law is for?

    There needs to be evidence of harm caused by the practice itself.

    This is a theory of law that's supported by nobody beyond the most wacko libertarians, and puts you in basically an extremist position. It would result in all sorts of things that are currently illegal being legalized, from drunk driving to pederasty.

    Except there's plenty of evidence that these things you mentioned are harmful. You're essentially arguing that it's not possible for there to be non-harmful polygamy, when there is evidence that it is indeed possible.

    Drunk driving is not inherently harmful. In an ideal situation, you can drive with a BAC higher than .08 and get home just fine without hurting anybody.

    Pederasty is not inherently harmful. Numerous societies from the ancient Greeks to various Pacific Islander cultures have practiced it without evidence of harm. It's only harmful in our current cultural context.

    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.

    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.
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I like my example better, Feral, it involves sexy-ness.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    This is a theory of law that's supported by nobody beyond the most wacko libertarians, and puts you in basically an extremist position. It would result in all sorts of things that are currently illegal being legalized, from drunk driving to pederasty.

    Except there's plenty of evidence that these things you mentioned are harmful. You're essentially arguing that it's not possible for there to be non-harmful polygamy, when there is evidence that it is indeed possible.

    It's entirely possible to have non-harmful drunk driving as well. According to the little posters I saw recently up here, 20% of Montanans have driven drunk in the last 30 days or so.* Yet how many, as a percentage, of those drunk driving incidents lead to accidents, property damage, injury, or death?

    * - The funny part is that this was an anti-drunk driving campaign, the slogan was "Most of Us" as in "Most of us don't drive drunk." With "4 out of 5" being "most of us." But what the poster really suggests is that a startling percentage of us do drive drunk, and have done so recently. But I digress.


    EDIT: Feral just needs to change his avatar to a lime.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I like my example better, Feral, it involves sexy-ness.

    I do too actually.

    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
    Also, it seems to me that another concern people have is with forced marriage, which is fine by me. No one should be forced into marriage and parental consent to marry underaged is an idea I don't support. If that's your beef with polygamy, then you really ought to be arguing against forced/arranged marriage.

    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
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    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.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Hell, I'm kind of liking the drunk driving comparison.

    I mean, traffic deaths happen all the time absent alcohol. And people drive drunk all the time without causing harm.

    I see no evidence that driving drunk is inherently a bad thing. Why is it illegal again?

    Oh, wait it's because that's a retarded argument and libertarians are retarded.

    EDIT: The cool part? I've heard actual libertarians make this exact argument before.

  • KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    This is a theory of law that's supported by nobody beyond the most wacko libertarians, and puts you in basically an extremist position. It would result in all sorts of things that are currently illegal being legalized, from drunk driving to pederasty.

    Except there's plenty of evidence that these things you mentioned are harmful. You're essentially arguing that it's not possible for there to be non-harmful polygamy, when there is evidence that it is indeed possible.

    It's entirely possible to have non-harmful drunk driving as well. According to the little posters I saw recently up here, 20% of Montanans have driven drunk in the last 30 days or so.* Yet how many, as a percentage, of those drunk driving incidents lead to accidents, property damage, injury, or death?

    * - The funny part is that this was an anti-drunk driving campaign, the slogan was "Most of Us" as in "Most of us don't drive drunk." With "4 out of 5" being "most of us." But what the poster really suggests is that a startling percentage of us do drive drunk, and have done so recently. But I digress.


    EDIT: Feral just needs to change his avatar to a lime.

    You know, the drunk driving parallel made me pause for a second and think about it. What is the difference between harm caused by drunk driving and harm caused by polygamy? Neither act is inherently harmful.

    The difference between drunk driving and polygamy is that drunk driving is a form of negligence. When you drive drunk, chances are that you don't really care that you're driving drunk. That's why you're doing it, right?

    It's funny to consider the thought, but I don't think you can wander your way into a polygamist relationship out of negligence, or marry underaged girls, or abuse welfare, or whatever else. All of those things have to carry intent with them.

    mrsatansig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    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.

    There are people who don't agree with this, and think (in general) the law should only step in after the harm has occurred.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The difference between drunk driving and polygamy is that drunk driving is a form of negligence. When you drive drunk, chances are that you don't really care that you're driving drunk. That's why you're doing it, right?

    Bullshit. Plenty of people drive to the bar intending to have several drinks, and with absolutely no plan whatsoever that doesn't involve them driving to get home. Plenty of people intentionally drive with a BAC over the limit, intoxicated, or both.

    And I'm comfortable saying that a majority of them never cause any harm in doing so.

  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    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.

    There are people who don't agree with this, and think (in general) the law should only step in after the harm has occurred.

    Yeah, they're called callous assholes. Thank god they're not in charge of lawmaking.

  • KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The difference between drunk driving and polygamy is that drunk driving is a form of negligence. When you drive drunk, chances are that you don't really care that you're driving drunk. That's why you're doing it, right?

    Bullshit. Plenty of people drive to the bar intending to have several drinks, and with absolutely no plan whatsoever that doesn't involve them driving to get home. Plenty of people intentionally drive with a BAC over the limit, intoxicated, or both.

    And I'm comfortable saying that a majority of them never cause any harm in doing so.

    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.

    mrsatansig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    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.

  • SaammielSaammiel 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 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.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    This is a theory of law that's supported by nobody beyond the most wacko libertarians, and puts you in basically an extremist position. It would result in all sorts of things that are currently illegal being legalized, from drunk driving to pederasty.

    Except there's plenty of evidence that these things you mentioned are harmful. You're essentially arguing that it's not possible for there to be non-harmful polygamy, when there is evidence that it is indeed possible.

    It's entirely possible to have non-harmful drunk driving as well. According to the little posters I saw recently up here, 20% of Montanans have driven drunk in the last 30 days or so.* Yet how many, as a percentage, of those drunk driving incidents lead to accidents, property damage, injury, or death?

    * - The funny part is that this was an anti-drunk driving campaign, the slogan was "Most of Us" as in "Most of us don't drive drunk." With "4 out of 5" being "most of us." But what the poster really suggests is that a startling percentage of us do drive drunk, and have done so recently. But I digress.


    EDIT: Feral just needs to change his avatar to a lime.

    These are pretty good examples, I'll admit. However, it still doesn't convince me. Drunk driving is the practice of one person deciding to involve himself and other people in a dangerous situation without the consent of others. Pederasty is the practice of one person who has the legal ability to give consent involving themselves with someone who can't give consent. Polygamy is the practice of three or more adults with the legal ability to give consent agreeing be married. In the first two cases, consent is not obtained (or is unable to be obtained). So the argument then reduces not to a problem with polygamy itself, but to the forced marriage aspect, a problem which occurs independently 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
  • PlutoniumPlutonium 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.

    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.

    That's bullshit. I'd pose the same question to you - put a number on the % of harmful polygamist relationships that you would allow to occur in the name of protecting the remaining percent.

13468913
Sign In or Register to comment.