Conquer Club

vtmarik wrote:

chewyman wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:Its no body elses business except the people involved, that's what I say.

You can say the same about heroine, child pornography, incestuous relationships and suicide pacts. That doesn't mean any of them should be allowed.

Heroin - A drug that funds massive cartels and wars. If it wasn't illegal, it would cease to do such though. Drugs aren't bad, the illegal sale of such is.

Child Pornography - The exploitation of children who cannot give consent. It is completely wrong and disgusting

Incest - See previous item

Suicide pacts - Well, suicide shouldn't be illegal, thus whatever else may follow.

Polygamy is the consensual activity amongst adults to marry more than one partner.

Since when is monogamy a law?

I feel all points have been adequately made here. Well said.

And there's a very slight majority in favour of polygamy if you count together the different versions of yes.

Sometimes polygamy can be an important part of a culture (various southern African tribes I read about in Cultural Anthro this year need it in order to create a viable population, for example). If all the women are consensually married and cared for equally, it is fine and no problems should arise. Same with polyandry (that's having more than one husband). Granted, it's not really necessary in Western civilization, but that doesn't make it wrong.

polygamy is a person's own choice...if they want to have more then one spouse, so be it...

the problem that i have personally (and this is from the people in texas, with the leader who the police arrested or are trying to arrest) is when the girls are forced into it by their parents at a young age...that is just wrong to me...

but polygamy in itself is fine.

polyandry is a practice extremely rare in human society, except for a surprising prevalence among Nepalese. (The best hypothesis is that it mitigates the npossiblity of quibbling among brothers for sparse land.

jay_a2j wrote:Drugs ARE bad. Only the irrational would think otherwise.
Child porn...If they were enticed ie. money, candy etc. you could get their consent. Incest can be consensual. Suicide should be legal?

Nice attempt at painting a grey world with no right and wrongs.

Drugs aren't bad. You only think they are bad because you were raised to believe it. They are the ultimate emobdiment of gray are there is. First of all, alcohol (a drug) helps your heart in small doses, so it is good. In large doses, it can make Eileen the Hobgoblin look like Carmen Electra, that's bad (it can also lead you to beat your spouse, etc).

Suicide, I'd legalize it. You should be able to do whatever to yourself as long as it doesn't affect others.

One thing some people don't understand is these 'common sense laws'. Why make things illegal if common sense goes against it? Cannibalism for instance. It's illegal, even though most of us wouldn't engage in it in the first place, even if it was. Drug use also. All we really need are stable drug prevention programs; anybody with common sense won't be smoking cigarrettes or shooting heroine at an early age with the education they receive. Same goes for polygamy. If both the woman and the man agree to have a second woman or man enter the fray, so be it. I know most couples wouldn't agree to this, again common sense, but some would. Good for them, nobody else is hurt.

spurgistan wrote:polyandry is a practice extremely rare in human society, except for a surprising prevalence among Nepalese. (The best hypothesis is that it mitigates the npossiblity of quibbling among brothers for sparse land.

I love this way of approaching things - that everything has to be 'paid for'. It makes such perfect sense. Peacocks' tails, cheetahs' speed, wolves howling - all this expending of valuable energy in one form or another is paid for somehow. Like religion, in a way.

heavycola wrote:

spurgistan wrote:polyandry is a practice extremely rare in human society, except for a surprising prevalence among Nepalese. (The best hypothesis is that it mitigates the npossiblity of quibbling among brothers for sparse land.

I love this way of approaching things - that everything has to be 'paid for'. It makes such perfect sense. Peacocks' tails, cheetahs' speed, wolves howling - all this expending of valuable energy in one form or another is paid for somehow. Like religion, in a way.

Sorry, I'm not very high, so I couldn't understand that.

jay_a2j wrote:Suicide should be legal?

Yep, it should be illegal, and the punishment should be death

spurgistan wrote:polyandry is a practice extremely rare in human society, except for a surprising prevalence among Nepalese. (The best hypothesis is that it mitigates the npossiblity of quibbling among brothers for sparse land.

Guys are WAY to insecure for this. Can't give birth and you've got competition on the honey-do list. .................

Hey, Um, wait a minute.

vtmarik wrote:

chewyman wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:Its no body elses business except the people involved, that's what I say.

You can say the same about heroine, child pornography, incestuous relationships and suicide pacts. That doesn't mean any of them should be allowed.

Heroin - A drug that funds massive cartels and wars. If it wasn't illegal, it would cease to do such though. Drugs aren't bad, the illegal sale of such is.

Child Pornography - The exploitation of children who cannot give consent. It is completely wrong and disgusting

Incest - See previous item

Suicide pacts - Well, suicide shouldn't be illegal, thus whatever else may follow.

Polygamy is the consensual activity amongst adults to marry more than one partner.

Since when is monogamy a law?

Heroine - And it also ruins the lives of those who take it. Society then has to go and pay to keep these people alive in injection centres (in some countries), housing commissions, asylums etc etc. You aren't the only one you're affecting when you take dangerous drugs.

Child pornography - But it's just the law that says children cannot give consent. I thought the law was evil etc etc (see every leftists rant for drugs in this forum). Of course children can give consent, say they were offered lollies for a couple pictures. It's only the law that says that this shouldn't be treated as legal consent. Besides, it's not like the child is actually getting raped so if we go by the belief that society should not involve itself in things that don't concern it then you are officially sanctioning child pornography.

Incest - Now this truly baffles me. Why can't a thirty year old brother and sister consent to sexual intercourse? There is no effect on anybody outside of the relationship, so you MUST support incest if you support flashleg's opinion.

Suicide Pacts - You aren't the only one affected when you commit suicide. There are also those around you, your family, your friends, your coworker and peers. Teenage angst is not an excuse to hurt those who know and love you and end the life of somebody who, who knows, may be the person to discover the cure for a type of cancer or a new way to harness renewable energy. Imagine if Einstein had committed suicide.

Polygamy - Incest is also consensual amongst adults...

chewyman wrote:Incest - Now this truly baffles me. Why can't a thirty year old brother and sister consent to sexual intercourse? There is no effect on anybody outside of the relationship, so you MUST support incest if you support flashleg's opinion.

This reminds me of this morality quiz called "Taboo". If you're at all unsure about the morality of consensual incest, try the quiz.

(As it happens, if you haven't seen this site before, a couple of the other games are quite good, too.)

Stopper, how did they find out about your thing for frozen chickens?

Stopper wrote:

chewyman wrote:Incest - Now this truly baffles me. Why can't a thirty year old brother and sister consent to sexual intercourse? There is no effect on anybody outside of the relationship, so you MUST support incest if you support flashleg's opinion.

This reminds me of this morality quiz called "Taboo". If you're at all unsure about the morality of consensual incest, try the quiz.

(As it happens, if you haven't seen this site before, a couple of the other games are quite good, too.)

Perhaps they are just opposed to incest because they know that incest is against nature's (or God's if you're religious) law and thus the higher chance of birth defects. But then again, then they'd be against homosexuality as well, since that's clearly against nature/God's law as well (can't reproduce). Wow, all these contradictory liberals are giving me a spinning headache.

b.k. barunt wrote:Stopper, how did they find out about your thing for frozen chickens?

I don't have a thing for frozen chickens - that's disgusting. I always thaw them out first.

chewyman wrote:Perhaps they are just opposed to incest because they know that incest is against nature's (or God's if you're religious) law and thus the higher chance of birth defects. But then again, then they'd be against homosexuality as well, since that's clearly against nature/God's law as well (can't reproduce). Wow, all these contradictory liberals are giving me a spinning headache.

Well, I don't know that all liberals are against incest.

Personally, I'd say that in principle, I don't have any objections to consensual, adult, sexual relations, that had no chance of bearing offspring, between family members. But I'm not against outlawing it in practice, as the relations between close family members are usually such that it's impossible to be assured that relations between them are genuinely consensual. Eg, parents generally have more influence over children than people in general.

Well, that's my pitifully weak retroactive reasoning, anyway. Don't question me too closely on it. Especially as it doesn't address this recent German case.

Stopper wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:Stopper, how did they find out about your thing for frozen chickens?

I don't have a thing for frozen chickens - that's disgusting. I always thaw them out first.

seems much more hygenic that way

EDIT

spurgistan wrote:

heavycola wrote:

spurgistan wrote:polyandry is a practice extremely rare in human society, except for a surprising prevalence among Nepalese. (The best hypothesis is that it mitigates the npossiblity of quibbling among brothers for sparse land.

I love this way of approaching things - that everything has to be 'paid for'. It makes such perfect sense. Peacocks' tails, cheetahs' speed, wolves howling - all this expending of valuable energy in one form or another is paid for somehow. Like religion, in a way.

Sorry, I'm not very high, so I couldn't understand that.

well, the design features of any living thing have been chosen by natural selection because their net effect on propagation of the organism's genes is positive. Peacocks have to expend a lot of energy growing their tails, for example, and they must be a hassle to carry around - not so good when you are outrunning predators. But they are 'paid for' because they make peahens horny. Evolution rocks.

As the token Mormon on this site (well, actually I'm pretty sure there are plenty of others) I just wanted to state that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices polygamy and anyone who says they are a member of our church and does practice polygamy is lying.

Just wanted to get that out there and keep things straight. Yes, we did practice polygamy way back in the day but no longer do so.

Optimus Prime wrote:As the token Mormon on this site (well, actually I'm pretty sure there are plenty of others) I just wanted to state that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices polygamy and anyone who says they are a member of our church and does practice polygamy is lying.

Just wanted to get that out there and keep things straight. Yes, we did practice polygamy way back in the day but no longer do so.

Some people do...

Wikipedia:
"Mormon fundamentalism (also called fundamentalist Mormonism) is a branch of Mormonism that believes or practice what its adherents consider the fundamental aspects of Mormonism as taught and practiced in the 19th century, usually during the administration of Brigham Young as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Adherents generally accept principles and doctrines they believe were wrongly abandoned or changed by the LDS Church, including plural marriage, the Law of Consecration, the Adam-God theory, the principle of blood atonement, and the exclusion of black men from the priesthood."

Sorry to say but whether or not they claim to be a "branch" of Mormonism, they aren't. They are not recognized by the LDS Church, and their beliefs are pretty far gone from ours. They aren't members, they are their own church that unfortunately casts a negative image on ours.

Sounds like the Roman Catholic church saying Protestants aren't really Christians. Actually these polygamists follow the original tenets of Mormonism laid down by the founder (Joseph Smith) and also the first president of the church (Brigham Young) - you do not.

Optimus Prime wrote:Sorry to say but whether or not they claim to be a "branch" of Mormonism, they aren't. They are not recognized by the LDS Church, and their beliefs are pretty far gone from ours. They aren't members, they are their own church that unfortunately casts a negative image on ours.

Oh please, the only reason you and Mitt Romney are so against polygamy
is because Christians are so against you, your trying to gain acceptance from the conformity cult. Dont do it.(I dont agree with arranged marriages) Ofcourse arranged marriages are the human attribute to Polygamy not the religious one. Polygamy is ordained as ok because the majority of humanity leads the wrong path, Creating the need for new marital pairs to be made, sometimes unevenly.

This is an example of why we should seperate church from state(and keep it that way) Instead of having laws concerned with safety(control) we also have laws concerned with morality(control) in order to protect the profits(control)

Oh and Chewyman, its my choice to do heroine, your the ones who decided to intefere. Leave us heroine addicts alone already.(For the record I do not use synthetic drugs) End your constant conservative interferance and save yourself.

This is an example of why we should seperate church from state(and keep it that way) Instead of having laws concerned with safety(control) we also have laws concerned with morality(control) in order to protect the profits(control)

Of course, we should stick with classic utilitarianism and never let morality touch our decisions! But wait, utilitarianism is cold, merciless and inhumane... Oh well, I'm learning new things about your personality at least.

Want proof? Lets look at a case study then. Five people are dying, each of them has organ failure in a different organ. You are nabbed off the street one day by a doctor without your consent. This doctor plans on cutting you up, stealing your organs and saving the lives of the five innocent people who will otherwise die. A true utilitarian wants nothing but the greatest amount of happiness in the world, therefore you don't have any rights. Your body is forfeit to the greater cause.

Oh and Chewyman, its my choice to do heroine, your the ones who decided to intefere. Leave us heroine addicts alone already.(For the record I do not use synthetic drugs) End your constant conservative interferance and save yourself.

Should it be a person's right to take heroine? Well the answer seems an obvious yes; you should be able to do whatever you want to your own body if it doesn't affect others, right? But I've got news for you, taking drugs like heroine does affect others, it affects all of society. Let's look at what heroine on the black market has brought us:
- insane addicts
- addicted babies
- birth defects
- a whole range of disabilities
- theft/burglary/assault/numerous other crimes
- break up of many families
- deaths in the war on drugs
- ruins peoples lives
- loss of otherwise productive members of the workforce
Do I really need to continue? Drugs like heroine have medical properties that can be used to help save peoples lives or to make their last days on earth more pleasant. They are not to be abused by otherwise normal people for a rush at parties.

extremist examples on both of them, good point though.

However the morality issue on polygamy is far different then your doctor example, I guess what i mean to say is that if morality is the only contributing factor then it shouldnt be allowed to become law(keep thinking of homosexuality wanting to say by people it does not effect)

Heroine is bad-I agree, but some of your examples arent entirely heroines fault(whole guns dont kill people,people kill people example)
im suggesting that drugs shouldnt be illegalised on moral grounds but due to the negative impact they have on society, not on fabricated evidence either.
(which is how you managed to compare all illegal drugs to heroine, heroine isnt illegal because people use it, it is illegal because people abuse it- negative impact on society etc...)