Is polyandry bad?

[Punished UMN]

Tbh I don't think lashing is any more barbaric than prison. That we tend to think it is, is 19th century Christian reformist propaganda seeping its way into culture, and I say that as a Christian.

Then maybe we need to reform prisons then, and not bring back lashings.

Unless you’re perfectly fine with you being subject to it that is.

I am fine with it. No matter how cushy you were to make prison, I would rather get a lashing (depending on the number of lashings) than serve a lengthy term in prison. Wounds heal, loss of time doesn't.

[Duvniask]

It already does. Adultery is perfectly legal and societally accepted reason in the west to divorce. We don’t need the ducking government enforcing religious law.

If by willing you mean that the partners are okay with it then by definition it’s not adultery, but rather an open relationship. And there’s nothing wrong with those.

If you don’t like that the relationship you’re in involves your partner sleeping around than grow up and dump them. No need to thing fucking Iron Age law into, let alone barbaric punishments such as lashings.

Tbh I don't think lashing is any more barbaric than prison. That we tend to think it is, is 19th century Christian reformist propaganda seeping its way into culture, and I say that as a Christian.

Are you sure about that? I wouldn't say giving children detention, i.e. "imposing on their freedom", is equivalent to slapping or beating them. I don't see why that shouldn't also apply, in principle, to adults, more or less.

[Adamede]

Then maybe we need to reform prisons then, and not bring back lashings.

Unless you’re perfectly fine with you being subject to it that is.

I am fine with it. No matter how cushy you were to make prison, I would rather get a lashing (depending on the number of lashings) than serve a lengthy term in prison. Wounds heal, loss of time doesn't.

If we’re going to do lashings I say we do it to the standards of the era, and that means no antibiotics.

See how much your wounds heal then.

[Punished UMN]

Tbh I don't think lashing is any more barbaric than prison. That we tend to think it is, is 19th century Christian reformist propaganda seeping its way into culture, and I say that as a Christian.

Are you sure about that? I wouldn't say giving children detention, i.e. "imposing on their freedom", is equivalent to slapping or beating them. I don't see why that shouldn't also apply, in principle, to adults, more or less.

Detention lasts a few hours, prison sentences can last decades. They are not equivalent.

[Punished UMN]

I am fine with it. No matter how cushy you were to make prison, I would rather get a lashing (depending on the number of lashings) than serve a lengthy term in prison. Wounds heal, loss of time doesn't.

If we’re going to do lashings I say we do it to the standards of the era, and that means no antibiotics.

See how much your wounds heal then.

Some countries, including some of the most modern countries in the world, have lashing, and lashing was legal as a punishment in most western countries well-into the 20th century.

This "standard of the time" bullshit is literally just the same propaganda I was talking about. The prison philosophy has only led to an overcrowded prison system filled with poorly-adjusted, mentally ill, and traumatized people. It's far less humane than literal beatings.

[Duvniask]

Are you sure about that? I wouldn't say giving children detention, i.e. "imposing on their freedom", is equivalent to slapping or beating them. I don't see why that shouldn't also apply, in principle, to adults, more or less.

Detention lasts a few hours, prison sentences can last decades. They are not equivalent.

And children being slapped by a teacher, or their parents, usually doesn't cause the kind of wounds you are referring to. Just as detention is not a punishment used for murderers.

But in the interests of analogy, I think it illustrates my point well enough.

[Adamede]

If we’re going to do lashings I say we do it to the standards of the era, and that means no antibiotics.

See how much your wounds heal then.

Some countries, including some of the most modern countries in the world, have lashing, and lashing was legal as a punishment in most western countries well-into the 20th century.

I don’t care, at all.

This "standard of the time" bullshit is literally just the same propaganda I was talking about.

Don’t see how. If you’re going use religious dogma to justify it, which it ultimately is, then use the standards of the time it was written.

The prison philosophy has only led to an overcrowded prison system filled with poorly-adjusted, mentally ill, and traumatized people. It's far less humane than literal beatings.

So maybe don’t punish people for stupid shit then. The alternative to over crowded prisons isn’t fucking lashings.

[Adamede]

Are you sure about that? I wouldn't say giving children detention, i.e. "imposing on their freedom", is equivalent to slapping or beating them. I don't see why that shouldn't also apply, in principle, to adults, more or less.

Detention lasts a few hours, prison sentences can last decades. They are not equivalent.

And slapping a kid only takes a few seconds.

[Punished UMN]

Detention lasts a few hours, prison sentences can last decades. They are not equivalent.

And children being slapped by a teacher, or their parents, usually doesn't cause the kind of wounds you are referring to. Just as detention is not a punishment used for murderers.

But in the interests of analogy, I think it illustrates my point well enough.

It doesn't, because there is such a vast gulf in the harm caused by the two. People spend decades in prison, get out with no social life, no economic opportunities, etc. it ruins their lives forever, often for crimes that aren't even threats to anyone. There are crimes for which prison (the goal of which is the protection of society from dangerous elements) is a ridiculous punishment, but there are literally no alternative punishments in our system.

[Punished UMN]

Some countries, including some of the most modern countries in the world, have lashing, and lashing was legal as a punishment in most western countries well-into the 20th century.

I don’t care, at all.

This "standard of the time" bullshit is literally just the same propaganda I was talking about.

Don’t see how. If you’re going use religious dogma to justify it, which it ultimately is, then use the standards of the time it was written.

The prison philosophy has only led to an overcrowded prison system filled with poorly-adjusted, mentally ill, and traumatized people. It's far less humane than literal beatings.

So maybe don’t punish people for stupid shit then. The alternative to over crowded prisons isn’t fucking lashings.

I don't see how "it's more humane than prison" is religious dogma.

There are crimes which are not ridiculous but which do not pose a threat to society. Such crimes need to be punished, but putting people in prison for them accomplishes nothing.

[Punished UMN]

I don’t care, at all.


Don’t see how. If you’re going use religious dogma to justify it, which it ultimately is, then use the standards of the time it was written.

So maybe don’t punish people for stupid shit then. The alternative to over crowded prisons isn’t fucking lashings.

I don't see how "it's more humane than prison" is religious dogma.

There are crimes which are not ridiculous but which do not pose a threat to society. Such crimes need to be punished, but putting people in prison for them accomplishes nothing.

Also ridiculous is that religious dogma was almost entirely the justification behind the modern prison system. It was not created for secular interests but largely because religious groups believed that the most important aspect of criminal justice should be moral repentance, which was to be achieved by forcing people into cells to think about what they did for years at a time. It isn't humane and was never meant to be humane.

[Duvniask]

And children being slapped by a teacher, or their parents, usually doesn't cause the kind of wounds you are referring to. Just as detention is not a punishment used for murderers.

But in the interests of analogy, I think it illustrates my point well enough.

It doesn't, because there is such a vast gulf in the harm caused by the two. People spend decades in prison, get out with no social life, no economic opportunities, etc. it ruins their lives forever, often for crimes that aren't even threats to anyone. There are crimes for which prison (the goal of which is the protection of society from dangerous elements) is a ridiculous punishment, but there are literally no alternative punishments in our system.

It's more to illustrate that we find physical violence abhorrent.

And what you're saying is naturally a cause for concern, but I wouldn't exactly say it is inherent to any prison system. I suppose it merely shows that the choice between a terrible physical punishment and a (long?) prison sentence depends on the circumstances in prison.

[Elwher]

According to the laws of God, yes it is illegal.

That does depend on whose God, does it not?

[Elwher]

As long as all parties are legal adults, and all are agreeable to the relationship, I can see no reason why polyandry should be illegal, either as a relationship or formalized in a plural marriage.

[Adamede]

I don’t care, at all.


Don’t see how. If you’re going use religious dogma to justify it, which it ultimately is, then use the standards of the time it was written.

So maybe don’t punish people for stupid shit then. The alternative to over crowded prisons isn’t fucking lashings.

I don't see how "it's more humane than prison" is religious dogma.

There are crimes which are not ridiculous but which do not pose a threat to society. Such crimes need to be punished, but putting people in prison for them accomplishes nothing.

Maybe then those crimes shouldn’t be crimes at all then.
And what exactly is human about this?

I don't see how "it's more humane than prison" is religious dogma.

There are crimes which are not ridiculous but which do not pose a threat to society. Such crimes need to be punished, but putting people in prison for them accomplishes nothing.

Also ridiculous is that religious dogma was almost entirely the justification behind the modern prison system. It was not created for secular interests but largely because religious groups believed that the most important aspect of criminal justice should be moral repentance, which was to be achieved by forcing people into cells to think about what they did for years at a time. It isn't humane and was never meant to be humane.

You seem to be under the incorrect assumption that I support the modern prison system, which is weird because I’ve told several times now that I don’t. And yet you keep on repeating like a broken record, so let me make it clear, I do not support the modern prison system, nor I do I think lashings are an acceptable or preferable alternative.

[Punished UMN]

It doesn't, because there is such a vast gulf in the harm caused by the two. People spend decades in prison, get out with no social life, no economic opportunities, etc. it ruins their lives forever, often for crimes that aren't even threats to anyone. There are crimes for which prison (the goal of which is the protection of society from dangerous elements) is a ridiculous punishment, but there are literally no alternative punishments in our system.

It's more to illustrate that we find physical violence abhorrent.

And what you're saying is naturally a cause for concern, but I wouldn't exactly say it is inherent to any prison system. I suppose it merely shows that the choice between a terrible physical punishment and a (long?) prison sentence depends on the circumstances in prison.

In what way is putting people in prison not physical violence.

[Punished UMN]

I don't see how "it's more humane than prison" is religious dogma.

There are crimes which are not ridiculous but which do not pose a threat to society. Such crimes need to be punished, but putting people in prison for them accomplishes nothing.

Maybe then those crimes shouldn’t be crimes at all then.
And what exactly is human about this?

Also ridiculous is that religious dogma was almost entirely the justification behind the modern prison system. It was not created for secular interests but largely because religious groups believed that the most important aspect of criminal justice should be moral repentance, which was to be achieved by forcing people into cells to think about what they did for years at a time. It isn't humane and was never meant to be humane.

You seem to be under the incorrect assumption that I support the modern prison system, which is weird because I’ve told several times now that I don’t. And yet you keep on repeating like a broken record, so let me make it clear, I do not support the modern prison system, nor I do I think lashings are an acceptable or preferable alternative.

What is your alternative then?

[Jedi Council]

Doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

No but you can’t ban breaking a legal contract (marriage) without basing it on religion. Many atheists get married. It’s hard to say why people should be faithful to their spouse without religion but it’s also hard to explain why murder and rape are bad without one. All of those involve treating people badly but religion explains why people matter. There are attempts to develop morality without religion (Kantian+Utilitarianism for example) but how do they allow most cases of adultery?

I'm going to stop you right here, because I'm getting a whiff of the "you need to be religious to be moral" nonsense that is one of the most disgusting, offensive, and pervasive lies spread by people of faith. Who the fuck are you to tell me that because I am an atheist, I will have a harder time understanding that rape and murder are evil actions? Where exactly do you get off?

You do not need to be religious to think that adultery, rspe and murder are bad. All of these things can be explained to be bad without the prescriptions of the divine, and frankly, to say that one requires a God to tell you that these things are bad is incredibly pathetic. Likewise, humanism and many other philosophies explain why humanity and your fellow man matter far more than religion; indeed, religion has had the effect of dehumanizing those who lie outside a particular faith, so again, I say that its disgusitng, ridiculous and offensive to say that those without faith cannot explain why people matter.

Secondly, and more to the point, polyamory or polygyny of any form is, by definition, not adultery. Adultery is the relations outside of wedlock, while polyamory and polygyny imply that those involved are consenting to the participation of multiple partners.

[Adamede]

Maybe then those crimes shouldn’t be crimes at all then.
And what exactly is human about this?

You seem to be under the incorrect assumption that I support the modern prison system, which is weird because I’ve told several times now that I don’t. And yet you keep on repeating like a broken record, so let me make it clear, I do not support the modern prison system, nor I do I think lashings are an acceptable or preferable alternative.

What is your alternative then?

Prison reforms and doing away with the crimes that aren’t threats to society form the sound of it.

Don’t like that your partner is cheating on you? Dump them and find someone else, they’re garbage but that doesn’t mean you should drag the legislature into it.

[Prel Malick]

As long as it is between consenting adults and the relationship is not abusive in some way, all forms of Polyamorous relationships and Polygamous marriages are fine as far as I'm concerned.

[Duvniask]

It's more to illustrate that we find physical violence abhorrent.

And what you're saying is naturally a cause for concern, but I wouldn't exactly say it is inherent to any prison system. I suppose it merely shows that the choice between a terrible physical punishment and a (long?) prison sentence depends on the circumstances in prison.

In what way is putting people in prison not physical violence.

Taking someone to a place against their will doesn't in itself constitute an act of physical harm or abuse on that person's body. Maybe if they resist, but so is the case with anything.

[Punished UMN]

What is your alternative then?

Prison reforms and doing away with the crimes that aren’t threats to society form the sound of it.

Don’t like that your partner is cheating on you? Dump them and find someone else, they’re garbage but that doesn’t mean you should drag the legislature into it.

There are crimes that are threats to society but which are not in themselves harmful. Ponzi schemes, for example.

In what way is putting people in prison not physical violence.

Taking someone to a place against their will doesn't in itself constitute an act of physical harm or abuse on that person's body. Maybe if they resist, but so is the case with anything.

That's my point. You can't decry physical violence without also decrying the state. Physical violence is the modus operandi of the state and its basis for existence.

[Adamede]

Prison reforms and doing away with the crimes that aren’t threats to society form the sound of it.

Don’t like that your partner is cheating on you? Dump them and find someone else, they’re garbage but that doesn’t mean you should drag the legislature into it.

There are crimes that are threats to society but which are not in themselves harmful. Ponzi schemes, for example.

Did I mistype? I’m not talking about those. I know that definition what is or isn’t a threat to society is but most of western civilization has agreed that adultery doesn’t fall under it.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I think a big part of whether we ought to perform lashings as a penalty for crime is the question of why we have a criminal justice system.

Personally, I don’t believe in punishment at all. I think “you have made others suffer, so you ought to suffer” is a childish way of looking at things. I believe that the criminal justice system should serve two purposes: isolation, making society safer by physically separating the law-abiding citizens from convicted criminals, and rehabilitation, providing the environment and education to turn criminals into law-abiding citizens.

The way I see it, lashings serve neither purpose, so I oppose it.

But if you happen to believe more in punishment or deterrence, then I can see why lashings would appeal more to you. I don’t think it’s a particularly unacceptable thing to do to a human being, as some people here have claimed - as already noted, taking away years of freedom from a person can be as brutal as taking away physical health and comfort.

In any case, if we want to seriously discuss this we should open a new thread. :p

[Thepeopl]

Prison reforms and doing away with the crimes that aren’t threats to society form the sound of it.

Don’t like that your partner is cheating on you? Dump them and find someone else, they’re garbage but that doesn’t mean you should drag the legislature into it.

There are crimes that are threats to society but which are not in themselves harmful. Ponzi schemes, for example.

Taking someone to a place against their will doesn't in itself constitute an act of physical harm or abuse on that person's body. Maybe if they resist, but so is the case with anything.

That's my point. You can't decry physical violence without also decrying the state. Physical violence is the modus operandi of the state and its basis for existence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway

That's how prisons should be.