heretic on 4/12/2007 at 02:24
Quote Posted by catbarf
To sum it up, it's great for the progression of the human race. If the brilliant, handsome men each score a bunch of wives so the inbred genetic freaks don't, then natural selection will work its magic and pretty soon the inbred genetic freaks are gone and most of humanity becomes the superhuman types.
I guess that would eventually make it hard to avoid incest.
Also, is it really worth all of the confusion just to have my laundry done thrice as fast?
Vasquez on 4/12/2007 at 06:24
Quote Posted by Convict
Well in the American culture, for example, it was decided that voluntary polygamy was immoral and should be outlawed.
Huh? You asked "Should voluntary polygamy be allowed?" and I told you my opinion. What does this have to do with it? :weird:
It's illegal in Finland, too, but I still don't see why that would make it universally WRONG.
Quote Posted by heretic1dg
At face value I love the idea of polygamy, but my wife most certainly does not.
Are you suuuuure? Even if she could have 3 hubbies? ;)
heretic on 4/12/2007 at 06:47
Quote Posted by Vasquez
Are you suuuuure? Even if she could have 3 hubbies? ;)
ha ha, well played.
:joke: I don't dare ask...
Convict on 4/12/2007 at 07:15
Quote Posted by Vasquez
Huh? You asked "Should voluntary polygamy be allowed?" and I told you my opinion. What does this have to do with it? :weird:
It's illegal in Finland, too, but I still don't see why that would make it universally WRONG.
I am arguing that different cultures say
e.g. polygamy is morally wrong (e.g. Finland generally) or morally acceptable (e.g. Hard core Mormons). My point then is that moral relativism is surely true since how can Finns objectively state that voluntary polygamy is morally wrong and the Mormons state that it is morally acceptable?
So I'm not arguing that it is universally wrong - quite the opposite in fact.
Papy on 4/12/2007 at 15:42
Quote Posted by hopper
this [me saying arbitrary killing, ranging from mass murdering like genocides, to "local" murdering like terrorism is commonly supported by societies] is as hyperbole as it gets.
I really think teaching history in school should be back because some people are obviously lacking in that domain. Can you name a few countries which didn't support some form of murder at some point in their history? Is there one?
Thirith on 4/12/2007 at 15:56
Quote Posted by Convict
I am arguing that different cultures say
e.g. polygamy is morally wrong (e.g. Finland generally) or morally acceptable (e.g. Hard core Mormons). My point then is that moral relativism is surely true since how can Finns objectively state that voluntary polygamy is morally wrong and the Mormons state that it is morally acceptable?
What does group A stating something and group B stating the opposite have to do with the truth of what they're stating? Just because there was a time when some people said the earth was flat and others said it was actually round doesn't mean that the earth's actual shape was relative at that time.
Swiss Mercenary on 4/12/2007 at 17:26
Quote:
it's obvious random killing is supported by most societies. From genocides to terrorism, blind killing is commonly supported and considered as a justified.
Genocide isn't random or arbitrary. It is, instead, by it's nature, highly targeted.
Terrorism, on the other hand is a "You didn't give me cookie so I'll blow myself up in a bus." It's a response to a real or perceived slight by an entire nation. The victims may be random, but so are the soldiers that are killed in a war. Again, hardly arbitrary.
hopper on 4/12/2007 at 17:29
Quote Posted by Papy
Can you name a few countries which didn't support some form of murder at some point in their history?
No, you brought it up. You name a few societies where
Quote Posted by Papy
it's obvious random killing is supported (...). From genocides to terrorism, blind killing is commonly supported and considered as a justified.
No backtracks like "some form of murder", "at some point in history" or similar, please.
Genocide. Terrorism. Blind killing. Random killing. Commonly justified without circumstance, caveats or qualifiers, like you said it in your post.
