NationStates

Cekoviu wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:you're right, I should accept that Slenderman exists as an entity to oppress whamen

this but unironically tbh

Diopolis wrote:I don't think he is refusing to acknowledge that.
He's refusing to acknowledge patriarchy exists, but then again, patriarchy is more of a conspiracy theory than my beliefs are.

diop be like "patriarchy doesnt exist but inshallah it should"

Yes. Patriarchy is the mistaken belief that people who think like me are near positions of power.

Polygamy is not a sin.

Also, this is what we warned you about Obergefell. Incest is next.

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:Polygamy is not a sin.

Also, this is what we warned you about Obergefell. Incest is next.

if it's not a sin why are you concerned about this slippery slope :thinking:

Cekoviu wrote:

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:Polygamy is not a sin.

Also, this is what we warned you about Obergefell. Incest is next.

if it's not a sin why are you concerned about this slippery slope :thinking:

Slippery slope predictions have proven accurate thus far.

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:Polygamy is not a sin.

Also, this is what we warned you about Obergefell. Incest is next.

good, it should all be legal

Cekoviu wrote:if it's not a sin why are you concerned about this slippery slope :thinking:

Polygamy is not a sin. Polyamory and incest are.

BTW, do you think the Mormons are going to have another convenient "revelation" in order to bring back polygamy, when the government they feared enough to compromise their faith allows it?

Punished UMN wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:you're right, I should accept that Slenderman exists as an entity to oppress whamen

This is a stupid comparison. Your refusal to acknowledge that marriage exists primarily for the purpose of reproduction of capital, children, and social values, and that such a contract, when unregulated, would serve to increase the social power of those who already possess advantages in that area, is primarily driven by your libertarian ideology, and not by any kind of understanding of fact.

fwiw I was mostly rejecting the usage of "patriarchy"

it is evident that polygamy would end up concentrated with those most capable of acquiring and sustaining multiple romantic and sexual partners, and perhaps with a bias towards polygyny, largely because one man can make twenty women pregnant, but twenty men can't all make one woman pregnant

it wouldn't really be the work of a nebulous entity proposed by a sexist theory, and more a combination of personality and wealth, regardless of sex

however I don't see polygamy or polyamory as particularly concerning, as it doesn't seem like something most people would be particularly interested in anyways
the terminology is too cringe fail for that (lmao "polycule")

Diopolis wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:This is a stupid comparison. Your refusal to acknowledge that marriage exists primarily for the purpose of reproduction of capital, children, and social values, and that such a contract, when unregulated, would serve to increase the social power of those who already possess advantages in that area, is primarily driven by your libertarian ideology, and not by any kind of understanding of fact.

I don't think he is refusing to acknowledge that.
He's refusing to acknowledge patriarchy exists, but then again, patriarchy is more of a conspiracy theory than my beliefs are.

yes, exactly!

Diopolis wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:This is a stupid comparison. Your refusal to acknowledge that marriage exists primarily for the purpose of reproduction of capital, children, and social values, and that such a contract, when unregulated, would serve to increase the social power of those who already possess advantages in that area, is primarily driven by your libertarian ideology, and not by any kind of understanding of fact.

I don't think he is refusing to acknowledge that.
He's refusing to acknowledge patriarchy exists, but then again, patriarchy is more of a conspiracy theory than my beliefs are.

Patriarchy is irrelevant to the entire question. It exists only as a function of the reproduction of capital.

Cisairse wrote:good, it should all be legal

"I support incest", reads the statement of the man whose signature presents a statement appearing to endorse a domestic terrorist network that advocates for people like me to have my skull bashed in with a bike lock.

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:

Cisairse wrote:good, it should all be legal

"I support incest", reads the statement of the man whose signature presents a statement appearing to endorse a domestic terrorist network that advocates for people like me to have my skull bashed in with a bike lock.

anarcho-von habsburgism

Proctopeo wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:This is a stupid comparison. Your refusal to acknowledge that marriage exists primarily for the purpose of reproduction of capital, children, and social values, and that such a contract, when unregulated, would serve to increase the social power of those who already possess advantages in that area, is primarily driven by your libertarian ideology, and not by any kind of understanding of fact.

fwiw I was mostly rejecting the usage of "patriarchy"

it is evident that polygamy would end up concentrated with those most capable of acquiring and sustaining multiple romantic and sexual partners, and perhaps with a bias towards polygyny, largely because one man can make twenty women pregnant, but twenty men can't all make one woman pregnant

it wouldn't really be the work of a nebulous entity proposed by a sexist theory, and more a combination of personality and wealth, regardless of sex

however I don't see polygamy or polyamory as particularly concerning, as it doesn't seem like something most people would be particularly interested in anyways
the terminology is too cringe fail for that (lmao "polycule")

Orwellian in the literary sense.

Punished UMN wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:fwiw I was mostly rejecting the usage of "patriarchy"

it is evident that polygamy would end up concentrated with those most capable of acquiring and sustaining multiple romantic and sexual partners, and perhaps with a bias towards polygyny, largely because one man can make twenty women pregnant, but twenty men can't all make one woman pregnant

it wouldn't really be the work of a nebulous entity proposed by a sexist theory, and more a combination of personality and wealth, regardless of sex

however I don't see polygamy or polyamory as particularly concerning, as it doesn't seem like something most people would be particularly interested in anyways
the terminology is too cringe fail for that (lmao "polycule")

Orwellian in the literary sense.

what the fuck do you mean by that

Proctopeo wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:This is a stupid comparison. Your refusal to acknowledge that marriage exists primarily for the purpose of reproduction of capital, children, and social values, and that such a contract, when unregulated, would serve to increase the social power of those who already possess advantages in that area, is primarily driven by your libertarian ideology, and not by any kind of understanding of fact.

fwiw I was mostly rejecting the usage of "patriarchy"

it is evident that polygamy would end up concentrated with those most capable of acquiring and sustaining multiple romantic and sexual partners, and perhaps with a bias towards polygyny, largely because one man can make twenty women pregnant, but twenty men can't all make one woman pregnant

it wouldn't really be the work of a nebulous entity proposed by a sexist theory, and more a combination of personality and wealth, regardless of sex

however I don't see polygamy or polyamory as particularly concerning, as it doesn't seem like something most people would be particularly interested in anyways
the terminology is too cringe fail for that (lmao "polycule")

Diopolis wrote:I don't think he is refusing to acknowledge that.
He's refusing to acknowledge patriarchy exists, but then again, patriarchy is more of a conspiracy theory than my beliefs are.

yes, exactly!

In-practice polyamory would probably just turn out to be polygyny most of the time. Except that's not true polyamory, because true polyamory lives on the astral plane with true communism, but whatever. The simple fact of the matter is that men, on average, have more interest in having multiple partners.
I'm not sure that socially sanctioning some rapper's side chicks is to the common good, which is what it would amount to in practice. And of course, if we treat it like alphabet soup behavior then it gets promoted to middle schoolers so we wind up with more people doing that.

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:

Cisairse wrote:good, it should all be legal

"I support incest", reads the statement of the man whose signature presents a statement appearing to endorse a domestic terrorist network that advocates for people like me to have my skull bashed in with a bike lock.

Yes. Is there a problem?

Diopolis wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:if it's not a sin why are you concerned about this slippery slope :thinking:

Slippery slope predictions have proven accurate thus far.

Good. We should run down the slope.

This Is Awful News.

Kowani wrote:

Diopolis wrote:Slippery slope predictions have proven accurate thus far.

Good. We should run down the slope.

I'll note that except for the bottom of the slippery slope, it is legal to do whatever it is you want on the slope unless you happen to be in Saudi Arabia. There just isn't state support for it. I'm not sure why you need it.

KingFerdinand1 wrote:This Is Awful News.

Incorrect, it's actually great news.

Proctopeo wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:Orwellian in the literary sense.

what the fuck do you mean by that

That you are expressing rejection of something's existence, followed by an in-depth explanation of why said thing exists. It's not so much that you object to patriarchy theory as you object to the use of the term "patriarchy theory." It's Orwellian in the sense of the type of linguistic euphemisms used by the government in 1984.

Proctopeo wrote:

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:
"I support incest", reads the statement of the man whose signature presents a statement appearing to endorse a domestic terrorist network that advocates for people like me to have my skull bashed in with a bike lock.

anarcho-von habsburgism

If it fits, this is going into my signature.

Punished UMN wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:what the fuck do you mean by that

That you are expressing rejection of something's existence, followed by an in-depth explanation of why said thing exists. It's not so much that you object to patriarchy theory as you object to the use of the term "patriarchy theory." It's Orwellian in the sense of the type of linguistic euphemisms used by the government in 1984.

that's not patriarchy theory though

Diopolis wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:if it's not a sin why are you concerned about this slippery slope :thinking:

Slippery slope predictions have proven accurate thus far.

yes, they have. and?

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:if it's not a sin why are you concerned about this slippery slope :thinking:

Polygamy is not a sin. Polyamory and incest are.

BTW, do you think the Mormons are going to have another convenient "revelation" in order to bring back polygamy, when the government they feared enough to compromise their faith allows it?

uhhh im not sure how you can oppose polyamory but not polygamy tbh given that they're essentially the same thing but with different legal recognition

no, i do not think the mormons will do that.

Kowani wrote:

Diopolis wrote:Slippery slope predictions have proven accurate thus far.

Good. We should run down the slope.

this is an unsurprising take from someone who said rape is not intrinsically wrong

Cisairse wrote:

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:
"I support incest", reads the statement of the man whose signature presents a statement appearing to endorse a domestic terrorist network that advocates for people like me to have my skull bashed in with a bike lock.

Yes. Is there a problem?

You support a domestic terror group that wants me beaten to a bloody pulp, and has beaten people like me to a bloody pulp. Advocating violence against the innocent is never okay, much less making statements that support terrorists.

Your support of incest needs no explanation as to why it is wrong.

Cekoviu wrote:

Diopolis wrote:Slippery slope predictions have proven accurate thus far.

yes, they have. and?

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:
Polygamy is not a sin. Polyamory and incest are.

BTW, do you think the Mormons are going to have another convenient "revelation" in order to bring back polygamy, when the government they feared enough to compromise their faith allows it?

uhhh im not sure how you can oppose polyamory but not polygamy tbh given that they're essentially the same thing but with different legal recognition

no, i do not think the mormons will do that.

IIRC he's a protestant fundamentalist who thinks men having many wives is fine but not women having many husbands because biblical literalism.

Proctopeo wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:That you are expressing rejection of something's existence, followed by an in-depth explanation of why said thing exists. It's not so much that you object to patriarchy theory as you object to the use of the term "patriarchy theory." It's Orwellian in the sense of the type of linguistic euphemisms used by the government in 1984.

that's not patriarchy theory though

You basically provided an in-depth explanation of why, without social regulation, men will gain more influence over social dynamics than women, then even said that, while sex does not dictate this relationship, that simple correlation will lead to this social shift. If you don't think that's based heavily in patriarchy theory, then I'm not sure what you think patriarchy theory is.