It is currently Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:50 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:15 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
LessUSee:
Quote:
A young girl may in fact be treated respectfully by the middle-aged man to whom she was given. But the very fact that she was 'given' to him, that she had no choice in the matter, that she is denied the intimacy that is a a presumed benefit of marriage, that her needs/wants were irrelevant in the exchange, is itself abuse. ...

And herein lies the problem. Your statement above has no relationship to the reality of plural marriage as it was conducted in 19th century Mormonism. That's why I challenged you to demonstrate, with examples, the kind of "abuse" you believe took place during that era.

No young women were "given" to an older man in the sense you suggest. Unlike the deviant practices of the modern FLDS, the consent of each woman was paramount. No young women were "forced" into marriages. If you believe otherwise, I again challenge you to produce the empirical evidence of same. However, I warn you in advance, you will seek such evidence in vain.

The bottom line, sir, is that you simply do not know what you are talking about.
.
.
.
Edit: I want to clarify that, although one might be able to identify isolated examples of abuse, mistreatment, etc., within 19th Mormon polygyny, such instances--to the extent they can be identified--were the exception rather than the rule.
.
.
.
.
=====================>

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Last edited by William Schryver on Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:19 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:32 pm
Posts: 6190
Location: in the dog house
truth dancer wrote:
As someone who doesn't believe in a personal/human-male-being as God, I don't quite understand your comment.

I believe that God's love is supreme even surpassing the love soul-mates have for each other. It's my belief and I don't have anything to back it up other than perhaps scripture.

Quote:
And, no it is not possible when a man has multiple women. The soul-mate type of relationship requires exclusivity, sexually and otherwise.

I can't argue with that. It appears to me to simply be your faith or belief just as the previous one about God's love is one of mine. There's nothing wrong with that, but without supporting principles upon which this is based, there's really nothing for me to say other than it's probably best to look at life that way even though I don't see why it's a logical necessity. At best it's simply a statement of how things are instead of how they must logically be. For example, women cary the developing baby, but this is not a logical necessity (see seahorses).

Quote:
Finally, I remember as a believer contemplating the idea that if God loves perfectly and fully and we all become Gods and Goddesses (as much as this idea revolts me), would we not love everyone perfectly and completely?

I would think so.

Quote:
Which would mean the depth of love would be the same for every single person. Hmmm... then why have marriages? Why have families?

I don't know, but responsibility / stewardship comes to mind. It's easier to have a limited but manageable sphere of responsibility than to be responsible for the entire human race. Delegate or die as they say at church. In any case family is the structure God has in the heavens.

Quote:
Why limit sex with whomever one is sealed to on the earth?

I don't know, but promises are important as is manageability. We have a hard enough time managing custody on earth so that sdults can spend time with their kids from various relationships. One particularly difficult issue is coordinating the schedules of the various adults.

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 pm
Posts: 4947
I see the disagreement on this issue being largely a matter of emphasis. Those who view marriage mostly in terms of "family", may be less troubled by the notion of plural marriage. Whereas those who view marriage mostly in terms of "spousal intimacy", will more likley find plural marriage (concurrent, not serial) objectionable.

And, given the strong narcissistic tendancy of today's modern culture, it is not surprising which of the two emphasis above is most prevalent.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:27 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13226
Quote:
I see the disagreement on this issue being largely a matter of emphasis. Those who view marriage mostly in terms of "family", may be less troubled by the notion of plural marriage. Whereas those who view marriage mostly in terms of "spousal intimacy", will more likley find plural marriage (concurrent, not serial) objectionable.

And, given the strong narcissistic tendancy of today's modern culture, it is not surprising which of the two emphasis above is most prevalent.


Wow. I mean wow.

Seeing marriage in terms of spousal intimacy has narcissistic tendencies????

Wow.

This is telling in soooo many ways.

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:32 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 pm
Posts: 4947
beastie wrote:
Wow. I mean wow.

Seeing marriage in terms of spousal intimacy has narcissistic tendencies????

Wow. This is telling in soooo many ways.


It certainly tells me that you haven't a clue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:35 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:32 pm
Posts: 6190
Location: in the dog house
Maybe you can explain something for me Wade. What difference, if any, do you seee between the sealing of spouses together and that of sealing parents to children? Do they all end up together in the afterlife and in what manner? Do they live together and counsel together for creating worlds? How does it work with in-laws, etc.?

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:44 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:43 am
Posts: 2395
Location: In an Utrecht coffeehouse with my lady friend
Quote:
Will wrote:

No young women were "given" to an older man in the sense you suggest. Unlike the deviant practices of the modern FLDS, the consent of each woman was paramount. No young women were "forced" into marriages. If you believe otherwise, I again challenge you to produce the empirical evidence of same. However, I warn you in advance, you will seek such evidence in vain.


I don't know Will. (Oh, congratulations by the way.)

The three women my great great great grandfather brought from England to the valley, among with many others from England that had converted, were, I am sure, surprised that immediately after arriving in the Valley, they were introduced to the Governor as he was affectionately called, and were sealed all three to my ggg grandfather at the same time. He then proceeded home with the three new wives in tow, to introduce them to his other wives.

What choice did any of these women have really? The three he married had left their family in England and had been entrusted into his care. He promised their mother he would 'take care' of them. Little did they know. They had no money. They were stuck in the valley. What? Should they have said 'no.?' Could they have said 'no?' Really?

And when he knocked on his wives' door after being away in England for 5 years, what could they say? At least, finally his first put an end to it. She divorced him later. And moved out. When the mother arrived late from England, she was surprised, to say the least. What could she have done? Again, no money. Stuck in the desert. What is that, if not force?

_________________
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:47 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13226
Quote:
It certainly tells me that you haven't a clue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Wade,

We already know you've never been married. I'm going to assume that, since you're LDS, that you've also never been in a long-term, intimate relationship, either. I don't know if this is why you have such a distorted view of marriage, but, believe me, anyone who thinks seeing marriage primarily in terms of spousal intimacy indicates narcissism has a very distorted view of marriage and, likely, intimate relationships over-all. I would have thought all those years of watching Dr. Phil may have made a dent, but apparently not.

The fact is that marriage must be primarily about spousal intimacy in order to create a loving, thriving home in which the children can thrive as well. Marriages that are not primarily about spousal intimacy do not provide healthy environments for children. Since you've never had children, either, you may not realize this, but all children want to know that their parents love each other deeply, and value their intimacy as the primary core of their marriage.

You ought to stick to subjects you know something about, and marriage isn't one of them.

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:57 pm 
Will wrote:
You would do well to read more of the first-hand accounts of plural wives in 19th century Utah. I perceive a considerable disconnect between our current attitudes and the attitudes of those who took part in "the principle."


Thanks for your thoughtful response, Will.

Do you have any particular books you would recommend? (Links to any possible online books would be appreciated as well.)


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:32 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
gramps wrote:
Quote:
Will wrote:

No young women were "given" to an older man in the sense you suggest. Unlike the deviant practices of the modern FLDS, the consent of each woman was paramount. No young women were "forced" into marriages. If you believe otherwise, I again challenge you to produce the empirical evidence of same. However, I warn you in advance, you will seek such evidence in vain.


I don't know Will. (Oh, congratulations by the way.)

The three women my great great great grandfather brought from England to the valley, among with many others from England that had converted, were, I am sure, surprised that immediately after arriving in the Valley, they were introduced to the Governor as he was affectionately called, and were sealed all three to my ggg grandfather at the same time. He then proceeded home with the three new wives in tow, to introduce them to his other wives.

What choice did any of these women have really? The three he married had left their family in England and had been entrusted into his care. He promised their mother he would 'take care' of them. Little did they know. They had no money. They were stuck in the valley. What? Should they have said 'no.?' Could they have said 'no?' Really?

And when he knocked on his wives' door after being away in England for 5 years, what could they say? At least, finally his first put an end to it. She divorced him later. And moved out. When the mother arrived late from England, she was surprised, to say the least. What could she have done? Again, no money. Stuck in the desert. What is that, if not force?

gramps,

With all due respect, the story you seem to be suggesting as factual (that these three young women had no prior knowledge of, nor gave their consent to being married to this man, and then had no subsequent power or opportunity to "escape" from the virtual dungeon of their "forced" marriages) is patently ridiculous. In other words, I'm proclaiming the whole story (or at least the version you are attempting to pawn off on us) as b***s***.

There is absolutely no precedent for such a thing. Plain and simple, things such as you describe simply DID NOT HAPPEN. If you sincerely believe otherwise, you are the victim of either misinformation or your own ignorance.

Who were this man and women of whom you speak?

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:37 pm 
Elder

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 329
Daniel Peterson wrote:
Morrissey wrote:
If you want to defend polygamy Dan you cannot realistically expect people to have no moral objections to it, can you?? I mean, does your devotion to Mormonism leave you so detached from the real world that you cannot understand this?

No.

And I've said nothing to suggest otherwise.

Morrissey wrote:
Oh, and, Yes, I take it as a self-evident truth that woman's needs, hopes, desires, etc. are every bit as important as man's. I also take it as a self-evident truth that people inherently posses value in and of themselves; that they are more than a means to someone else's ends.

So do I.

Morrissey wrote:
Polygamy as practiced by early Mormons violates both of these self-evident truths.

I disagree.


And here is no better demonstrated your blind devotion to the Mormon tribe and your willingness to overlook/rationalize clear moral failings of LDS Inc and its leaders so as to defend the faith.

One comes away with the impression that there's no behavior, no doctrine, no moral failing of LDS Inc., its leaders, or its God that you won't rationalize in defense of the faith.

I'm actually quite disappointed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:42 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
Morrissey wrote:
And here is no better demonstrated your blind devotion to the Mormon tribe and your willingness to overlook/rationalize clear moral failings of LDS Inc and its leaders so as to defend the faith.

One comes away with the impression that there's no behavior, no doctrine, no moral failing of LDS Inc., its leaders, or its God that you won't rationalize in defense of the faith.

I'm actually quite disappointed.

Happy to disappoint!

You presented no argument, no historical data. Only assertions, tricked out with the occasional expression of contempt.

If I'd immediately genuflected before such insubstantial stuff, it would have been shameful to me.

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:47 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:43 am
Posts: 2395
Location: In an Utrecht coffeehouse with my lady friend
Will wrote:

Quote:
Who were this man and women of whom you speak?


Sorry. Not on this board. It is in my family history. If it is a lie, then my ancestors were lying and passed it down the generations.

But, I am truly sorry it blows your theory. What else could you do but call it b.s.?

Some time when I visit the Valley again, I will stop in and we can read it together. Until then, I don't really care what you think about it.

I am really tempted to drop some hints, but I just don't think it is wise, at the time.

_________________
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:55 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:25 pm
Posts: 4947
beastie wrote:
Wade,

We already know you've never been married. I'm going to assume that, since you're LDS, that you've also never been in a long-term, intimate relationship, either. I don't know if this is why you have such a distorted view of marriage, but, believe me, anyone who thinks seeing marriage primarily in terms of spousal intimacy indicates narcissism has a very distorted view of marriage and, likely, intimate relationships over-all. I would have thought all those years of watching Dr. Phil may have made a dent, but apparently not.


Believe me when I say that all the dissmisively sterotypical smoke you just blew simply confirms your cluelessness.

Quote:
The fact is that marriage must be primarily about spousal intimacy in order to create a loving, thriving home in which the children can thrive as well. Marriages that are not primarily about spousal intimacy do not provide healthy environments for children. Since you've never had children, either, you may not realize this, but all children want to know that their parents love each other deeply, and value their intimacy as the primary core of their marriage.


I understand how, in the narrow confines of your closed mind, and in your mono-dimensional, binary way of thinking, that this is how you see things.

But, again, this simply evinces that you haven't a clue.

Quote:
You ought to stick to subjects you know something about, and marriage isn't one of them.


Yet, more evidence.

I would bother to help you get more of a clue, but that would take you openning your mind, and we both know that ain't going to happen.

So, I will just leave it at that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

_________________
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:03 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13226
Quote:
Yet, more evidence.

I would bother to help you get more of a clue, but that would take you openning your mind, and we both know that ain't going to happen.

So, I will just leave it at that.


Of course. Even you must realize that your assertion was patently ridiculous, and would prefer to just claim I'm clueless.

Hey, weren't you once taking courses in human psychology? Why don't you ask one of your professors if viewing spousal intimacy as the primary core of marriage indicates narcissism?

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:34 pm 
Elder

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 329
Daniel Peterson wrote:
Morrissey wrote:
And here is no better demonstrated your blind devotion to the Mormon tribe and your willingness to overlook/rationalize clear moral failings of LDS Inc and its leaders so as to defend the faith.

One comes away with the impression that there's no behavior, no doctrine, no moral failing of LDS Inc., its leaders, or its God that you won't rationalize in defense of the faith.

I'm actually quite disappointed.

Happy to disappoint!

You presented no argument, no historical data. Only assertions, tricked out with the occasional expression of contempt.

If I'd immediately genuflected before such insubstantial stuff, it would have been shameful to me.


I have no obligation to cite chapter and verse to satisfy you. This is not an academic journal but an internet discussion board. Is this a difficult concept for you to grasp?

While you may have time to drop over 4,000 posts here, plus thousands elsewhere, and to take time to post links, do research, write long posts with high-sounding rhetoric, I (like many others and, apparently, unlike you) have a job that requires constant time. I can spare a few minutes here and there to post at most.

My conclusions are drawn from several books and articles I've read over time, plus my own observations about the nature of power and its use. You are free to accept or reject. Still, I maintain that the sexist, demeaning, and dehumanizing nature of Mormon 19th century polygamy is so obvious as to be self-evident. Your refusal or inability to recognize its sexist, demeaning, and dehumanizing nature is evidence of your self-delusion. Sorry to be frank, but there it is.

(While we're at it, you make your own share of unsubstantiated assertions. I'm trying to figure out whether you are completely clueless as to your inconsistency or whether you are being willfully obtuse.)

No Dan, what's shameful is you schilling for polygamy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:49 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
Morrissey wrote:
I have no obligation to cite chapter and verse to satisfy you.

Quite true. Just as I have no obligation to pay any attention to you.

Morrissey wrote:
This is not an academic journal but an internet discussion board. Is this a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Not at all!

(Contemptuous put-down duly noted.)

Is it difficult for you to understand that, when you offer only assertion, without either evidence or argument, it's more than enough for your opponent to simply deny your assertion?

Morrissey wrote:
While you may have time to drop over 4,000 posts here, plus thousands elsewhere, and to take time to post links, do research, write long posts with high-sounding rhetoric, I (like many others and, apparently, unlike you) have a job that requires constant time.

I note your expression of personal contempt, and appreciate it fully.

The fact remains, however, that if you offer nothing of substance, you can't really blame me for the insubstantial character of the exchange.

Morrissey wrote:
I can spare a few minutes here and there to post at most.

That's fine.

Morrissey wrote:
My conclusions are drawn from several books and articles I've read over time, plus my own observations about the nature of power and its use.

As are mine.

Morrissey wrote:
You are free to accept or reject.

And yet, when I reject, you absolutely hate it, and grow insulting.

Morrissey wrote:
Still, I maintain that the sexist, demeaning, and dehumanizing nature of Mormon 19th century polygamy is so obvious as to be self-evident.

A proposition that I deny.

Morrissey wrote:
Your refusal or inability to recognize its sexist, demeaning, and dehumanizing nature is evidence of your self-delusion. . . . No Dan, what's shameful is you schilling for polygamy.

See above.

Morrissey wrote:
Sorry to be frank, but there it is.

Oh, not at all! I appreciate your willingness to illustrate my point, that when I disagree with you, you absolutely hate it and resort to insults.

Have a great day.

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:32 pm 
Elder

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 329
Morrissey wrote:
I have no obligation to cite chapter and verse to satisfy you.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Quite true. Just as I have no obligation to pay any attention to you.


And yet you are :confused:

Morrissey wrote:
This is not an academic journal but an internet discussion board. Is this a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Not at all!

(Contemptuous put-down duly noted.)


Not a put-down but rather serious question as in repeated posts you seem to indicate that we have a responsibility, plus the free time, to document each and every assertion we make (whereas you make numerous undocumented assertions).

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Is it difficult for you to understand that, when you offer only assertion, without either evidence or argument, it's more than enough for your opponent to simply deny your assertion?


I recognize that my opponent can do whatever he/she likes. I have no expectations. In fact, I tend to think that they are being unwise if they take time to offer documentary evidence, as this is too unimportant to warrant such an investment of time.

Morrissey wrote:
While you may have time to drop over 4,000 posts here, plus thousands elsewhere, and to take time to post links, do research, write long posts with high-sounding rhetoric, I (like many others and, apparently, unlike you) have a job that requires constant time.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
I note your expression of personal contempt, and appreciate it fully.


It's not personal contempt. I don't feel contempt for you. I am merely noting that at over 4,000 posts here (and probably a higher number at MAD board), plus numerous posts who knows where else, along with the frequent lengthy nature of the posts, you appear to have an abundance of time to spend debating on internet discussion boards. I, and many others, don't have the luxury of time that you obviously have (as judging from the above stated evidence). That said, you ought not have expectations that others take the time to document carefully their arguments. You should try to avoid projecting your abundance of time to engage in internet debates onto others.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
The fact remains, however, that if you offer nothing of substance, you can't really blame me for the insubstantial character of the exchange.


Ah yes, the ol' 'lack of substance' chestnut. If I had a nickel every time you resorted to this, I'd be rich by now. You may want to try a new line. This one has been repeated enough that I think everyone can see through it.

Morrissey wrote:
I can spare a few minutes here and there to post at most.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
That's fine.


Indeed.

Morrissey wrote:
My conclusions are drawn from several books and articles I've read over time, plus my own observations about the nature of power and its use.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
As are mine.


And they're wrong. Sorry, but I think you've amply demonstrated that you lack capacity to objectively assess criticisms of Mormonism. For you, it's all about defending the tribe.

Morrissey wrote:
You are free to accept or reject.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
And yet, when I reject, you absolutely hate it, and grow insulting.


???? Questioning the judgment of someone who defends 19th Century Mormon polygamy is no less insulting than questioning the judgment of someone who defends racism. If you want to come down on the side of a dehumanizing, demeaning practice, you ought not be surprised that some people question your moral grounding on this issue.

Morrissey wrote:
Still, I maintain that the sexist, demeaning, and dehumanizing nature of Mormon 19th century polygamy is so obvious as to be self-evident.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
A proposition that I deny.


Of course you do. Who would have even dared to assume anything different? It's all about defending the tribe with you Dan. As I said, you've shown that there's nothing you won't excuse away if the interests of Mormon Inc. are at stake.

Morrissey wrote:
Your refusal or inability to recognize its sexist, demeaning, and dehumanizing nature is evidence of your self-delusion. . . . No Dan, what's shameful is you schilling for polygamy.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
See above.


Seen, noted, and responded to.

Morrissey wrote:
Sorry to be frank, but there it is.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Oh, not at all! I appreciate your willingness to illustrate my point, that when I disagree with you, you absolutely hate it and resort to insults.


I suspect also that a racist finds it insulting to be called a racist. Homophobes find it insulting to be called a homophobe (see Nehor and Wade). So it's no surprise that someone who pimps for demeaning and dehumanizing women feels insulted for being called out.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Have a great day.


Thanks. You too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:36 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
And you can read minds!

Still, no substance. And simply pointing out that I say that pretty often isn't much of a response. And certainly isn't substantial.

Supplying evidence and analysis would refute me. Whining that you don't have time to provide evidence and analysis won't.

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:46 pm 
Elder

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 329
Daniel Peterson wrote:
And you can read minds!


Nope, but you're anything but opaque as regards your tendencies on these issues. It's not like I'm reading into a blank slate.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Still, no substance. And simply pointing out that I say that pretty often isn't much of a response. And certainly isn't substantial.


Aw shucks, I guess I'll have to live with this on my conscience. :rolleyes:

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Supplying evidence and analysis would refute me. Whining that you don't have time to provide evidence and analysis won't.


There's nothing I could ever do to refute you, as you'd never reach any other conclusion than the one you've already reached.

In any case, it's a waste of time to try to do so on this or any other board.

I'm fully confident that on subjecting the evidence to impartial observers (made up of those who accept modern notions viz human rights, liberties, etc.), that you'd be on the losing end. Do you really doubt this?

It's all about the tribe with you Dan. All about the tribe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:04 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:32 pm
Posts: 6190
Location: in the dog house
You know, all this talk about how monogamy is vital for deep intimate relationships makes me wonder: what about the generally open relationships of gays? From what smac and C.I. have said elsewhere, it appears that even ones who get married in scandinavian countries still tend to have open relationships. What does this imply about their relationships?

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kairos, MSNbot Media, seven7up, Shiloh and 36 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group