Poll: Your stance on monogamy?

[DanDeFool]

Monogamy is the last vestiges of a dying human race--the race of the "last men," as Nietzsche called them. There is nothing good, noble, and praiseworthy about monogamy. Just as there is nothing special with polygamy.

If we were meant to be monogamous we wouldn't have any desire to cheat.

Simple as.

Penguins don't cheat, in-fact most of the time when one's partner dies. It will simply never mate again. Some die soon after, thoughts are from grief. Wanna know why? Because they were born to be monogamous.

Be careful with that, sir. When you say "we" how sure are you that you speak for 100% of the human populace, the dead, the living, and those that are not yet conceived? I'd be careful with generalizations like that....

It's human nature to be at the very least curious about having sex with other people. Even if someone doesn't cheat, there is a 100% chance that at some point during any relationship they've had. That they have looked at another prospective mate in sexual way. whether or not they act upon it is another matter.

What I am sure of is that monogamy, especially as far as males are concerned, is counter intuitive as far as survival of the species goes. Atleast in a primitive situation. Spreading your genes to as many mates as possible gives you a greater chance of special survival.

That's not so important now. But old habits are hard to kick. Especially ones that are ingrained on you at a genetic level.

I generalise because it's true.

Again, sir. Do you know if it's true for the 100% of those--even males--that have yet to be, those that are, and those that were? It's a disturbing trend that I've seen amongst humans: the trend to state their observations as the "truth."

you're not observant for pointing out the fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed. Is it also right to say that you don't know that every human is born with blood because you haven't tested every human to prove this? I think I choose to believe in hormones over inane philosophical prattle.

Just because you can't prove something to be statistically true doesn't mean it isn't.

If you must know, statistically, nothing is true, because nothing can really be tested to it's fullest. Name me a study in which the sample is the whole human population. A quick search of "statistics" on wikipedia should have yield you the results you need.

Only the ignorant call it "inane philosophical prattle." I guess, you need to fill in the hole in your, so called, "knowledge."

*woosh* right over your head.

That was kind of my point.

And biologically speaking.... yes... what I'm saying is true.

You don't stop being attracted to other people once you're in a relationship. There is no biological proof to suggest anything to that nature. In-fact oxytocin (the chemical linked with human bonding) begins to fade dramatically after only a few years. And rises once again when you find a new partner.

So yes. I'm going to continue calling what you're saying inane philosophical prattle. Because it doesn't mean anything. It's just a blatant fact that has no relevance to my point, dressed up as something poignant.

The fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed doesn't mean that what we know human biology is wrong. Again. Simply because I can't statistically prove something doesn't mean it's wrong... :/

Again, there is no single biological phenomenon that is universal. Every hormone secreted, every brain function, every twitch of the muscle, every beat of the heart is different in every single one of us. You know, the inconvenient word we use to describe everything that doesn't fit our narrative: mutation.

To prove my point, I heard it on npr, last week, this recorded mental patient who would reach orgasm at the sight of pins---yes, pins!

Though I regret I can't remember the exact name of the patient or the therapist who attended, and recorded that guy.

Ever heard the expression. 'The exceptions that prove the rule.' It is of course going to be true that there are anomalies, we're talking about biology here. Not factory crafted beings. For 99% of the population hormones are going to have the exact same effect. There may be slight differences in the process and length of time involved. But they all do the same thing.


There are bound to be those who are considered mentally retarded. And/or haven't reached sexual maturity. They won't have the desire for sex atall. I thought it was clear that I was talking about normal humans. Not the handicapped exceptions.

When someone is talking about the absolute in a discussion like this. They don't mean (including the anomalies.) If I rephrase 'Everyone' To 'Every healthy (mentally and physically) human.' Will you STFU?

I thought that would have been blatantly obvious and readily available to anyone reading. Clearly not.

You have superbly demonstrated the all-too-human folly: "they" are the exception, you are the rule. There are no "anomalies," it is only your ignorance that fails to see what really is. The human brain fears that which it cannot understand--and label--thus we label these as "exceptions" to the rule to prove a point. The fact is, you and nor any science cannot "prove" anything. There will always be "exceptions."

You, your mentality rather, is the reason man is not yet the "ubermensch."

I have one problem with what you are saying.

If biology works so differently for every person on the planet, why do most people bond, mate, and reproduce in roughly the same way?

If significant differences in biology and arousal were the rule, rather than the exception, it seems to me that mating just wouldn't work. There wouldn't be any reliable way for any one human to attract any other human as their mate.

Keep in mind, in terms of the evolutionary history of human beings, metal pins are a relatively recent invention. If that guy was only aroused by pins in 80,000 BC, would he have been able to find a mate and reproduce?

What dathwampeer is trying to say is not that everyone should be the same, or that everyone is the same. He's saying that human beings fit on a bell curve. Most people's anatomy works the same way, and most people respond predictably to biological impulses. Some people are not 'average' or 'normal', in that their biology works slightly differently.

In other words, pin guy may get aroused by unusual stimuli, but the actual feelings of arousal he experiences are probably not too different than anybody else's.

Try thinking about it this way. If everybody's biology was radically different, then how does modern medicine work? How can aspirin be succesfully marketed as an anti-inflammatory if it only works for a very small portion of the population, because only their biology is specifically tuned to allow aspirin to work? How can doctors routinely administer anesthesia, if the anesthetics they use only work for a small group of individuals?

Clearly, this is not the case. Most people's biology works about the same. There are variations (some men like tits, and some men prefer asses), ther are people who fall outside the mean (some people are allergic to aspirin; good luck with that headache), and some people who are outliers (like the guy who can only get it up if he gets stabbed with a sharp object, or whatever).

As for man becoming the "ubermensch", doesn't that involve the creation of a superior race by ELIMINATING all of the outliers, and bringing mankind into a state of consistent perfection? How does that philosophy jive with accepting the outliers as normal? Maybe you can explain that to me.

Basically, your post leads up to the explanation: modern medicine works. Does it? It has a higher percentage of "success" than ancient medicine. But it doesn't work--not to it's 100% claim. Name one pill, surgery, therapy, medicine, treatment, diagnosis for, forget 100% of the population--a hundred percent of people it's applied to.

No, the point of my post WAS NOT that modern medicine works ALL THE TIME (and you'd probably have a hard time finding any doctors who would make that claim. I DID say that some treatments don't work for some people (If you had actually bothered to read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I mentioned some people are allergic to aspirin - an excellent example of that fact).

The point of my post is that most people are about the same in terms of their biology, and that bringing up one random guy who blows his load whenever someone stabs him with a pointy stick doesn't prove that such extreme variances in sexual behavior are the rule and not the exception.

I was using the capabilities of modern medicine to demonstrate this point; if radical biological differences were the rule and not the exception, modern medicine WOULD NOT WORK AT ALL, because it would be impossible to predict what a particular chemical's effects would be on even a small portion of the population.

In reality, most people respond to common drugs in about the same way, and most people have their vital organs in about the same relative locations on their body. Human beings, biologically speaking, fit on a bell curve. Most people are in the middle. Only a small percentage of the population has radically different biology, and that also applies to sexual behavior.

And you didn't answer my question about the ubermensch. I've never read Nietzsche, so I don't know anything about his philosophy other than the very basic tenets.

 

[Giest4life]

Here, once again, Human Folly raises its ugly head: your claim to "understand" Nietzsche are entirely unfounded. Hell, I don't think Nietzsche himself had a firm grasp on what he was thinking--and writing--and the same would go for Kant. Pride is a good thing, said Nietzsche, but don't impress upon yourself a claim to understand Nietzsche--which is why I never used him as an argument. Also, Spark Notes don't count when you read Nietzsche.

As I have said before, it is precisely our claim that we know logic, mathematics, metaphysics, and Philosophy that renders us so useless. We claim to "know" so many things, and yet we demonstrate so little of it.

And once again you sidestep all of the points upon realising that you don't actually have an argument to make.

I didn't say I could write an in-depth book on Nietzsche and his works. But there are things you can understand from reading him. Basic understanding and mastery are two very different things.

And you were clearly at the very least alluding to Nietzsche with your pointless ?ubermensch? comment, oh so many posts ago.

And I have no idea what 'spark notes' are. Are they like Cliffnotes or something?

All I have to say to your last paragraph is to repeat this from earlier.

?Understanding and mastery are two different things.?

We clearly have humans who understand a great many things. Yet there is likely few who've mastered anything.

"Basic understanding" that you claim, is actually dangerous to the intellect. Go all in, or nothing. If things were so simple, that they could have been broken down into "basic" tenants for people to understand, we wouldn't have the thousands of sects, view points, nuances, and factions that we have now. No doubt your "basic understanding" comes at a cost of not understanding anything of relevance. My "ubermensch" is a reference not to Nietzsche; it is to an ideal.

Also, as with everything, you claiming that I don't have an argument does not make it say--well maybe for you. It only shows that you don't want an argument.

And yes, sparknotes are cliffnotes.

 

[Giest4life]

Monogamy is the last vestiges of a dying human race--the race of the "last men," as Nietzsche called them. There is nothing good, noble, and praiseworthy about monogamy. Just as there is nothing special with polygamy.

If we were meant to be monogamous we wouldn't have any desire to cheat.

Simple as.

Penguins don't cheat, in-fact most of the time when one's partner dies. It will simply never mate again. Some die soon after, thoughts are from grief. Wanna know why? Because they were born to be monogamous.

Be careful with that, sir. When you say "we" how sure are you that you speak for 100% of the human populace, the dead, the living, and those that are not yet conceived? I'd be careful with generalizations like that....

It's human nature to be at the very least curious about having sex with other people. Even if someone doesn't cheat, there is a 100% chance that at some point during any relationship they've had. That they have looked at another prospective mate in sexual way. whether or not they act upon it is another matter.

What I am sure of is that monogamy, especially as far as males are concerned, is counter intuitive as far as survival of the species goes. Atleast in a primitive situation. Spreading your genes to as many mates as possible gives you a greater chance of special survival.

That's not so important now. But old habits are hard to kick. Especially ones that are ingrained on you at a genetic level.

I generalise because it's true.

Again, sir. Do you know if it's true for the 100% of those--even males--that have yet to be, those that are, and those that were? It's a disturbing trend that I've seen amongst humans: the trend to state their observations as the "truth."

you're not observant for pointing out the fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed. Is it also right to say that you don't know that every human is born with blood because you haven't tested every human to prove this? I think I choose to believe in hormones over inane philosophical prattle.

Just because you can't prove something to be statistically true doesn't mean it isn't.

If you must know, statistically, nothing is true, because nothing can really be tested to it's fullest. Name me a study in which the sample is the whole human population. A quick search of "statistics" on wikipedia should have yield you the results you need.

Only the ignorant call it "inane philosophical prattle." I guess, you need to fill in the hole in your, so called, "knowledge."

*woosh* right over your head.

That was kind of my point.

And biologically speaking.... yes... what I'm saying is true.

You don't stop being attracted to other people once you're in a relationship. There is no biological proof to suggest anything to that nature. In-fact oxytocin (the chemical linked with human bonding) begins to fade dramatically after only a few years. And rises once again when you find a new partner.

So yes. I'm going to continue calling what you're saying inane philosophical prattle. Because it doesn't mean anything. It's just a blatant fact that has no relevance to my point, dressed up as something poignant.

The fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed doesn't mean that what we know human biology is wrong. Again. Simply because I can't statistically prove something doesn't mean it's wrong... :/

Again, there is no single biological phenomenon that is universal. Every hormone secreted, every brain function, every twitch of the muscle, every beat of the heart is different in every single one of us. You know, the inconvenient word we use to describe everything that doesn't fit our narrative: mutation.

To prove my point, I heard it on npr, last week, this recorded mental patient who would reach orgasm at the sight of pins---yes, pins!

Though I regret I can't remember the exact name of the patient or the therapist who attended, and recorded that guy.

Ever heard the expression. 'The exceptions that prove the rule.' It is of course going to be true that there are anomalies, we're talking about biology here. Not factory crafted beings. For 99% of the population hormones are going to have the exact same effect. There may be slight differences in the process and length of time involved. But they all do the same thing.


There are bound to be those who are considered mentally retarded. And/or haven't reached sexual maturity. They won't have the desire for sex atall. I thought it was clear that I was talking about normal humans. Not the handicapped exceptions.

When someone is talking about the absolute in a discussion like this. They don't mean (including the anomalies.) If I rephrase 'Everyone' To 'Every healthy (mentally and physically) human.' Will you STFU?

I thought that would have been blatantly obvious and readily available to anyone reading. Clearly not.

You have superbly demonstrated the all-too-human folly: "they" are the exception, you are the rule. There are no "anomalies," it is only your ignorance that fails to see what really is. The human brain fears that which it cannot understand--and label--thus we label these as "exceptions" to the rule to prove a point. The fact is, you and nor any science cannot "prove" anything. There will always be "exceptions."

You, your mentality rather, is the reason man is not yet the "ubermensch."

I have one problem with what you are saying.

If biology works so differently for every person on the planet, why do most people bond, mate, and reproduce in roughly the same way?

If significant differences in biology and arousal were the rule, rather than the exception, it seems to me that mating just wouldn't work. There wouldn't be any reliable way for any one human to attract any other human as their mate.

Keep in mind, in terms of the evolutionary history of human beings, metal pins are a relatively recent invention. If that guy was only aroused by pins in 80,000 BC, would he have been able to find a mate and reproduce?

What dathwampeer is trying to say is not that everyone should be the same, or that everyone is the same. He's saying that human beings fit on a bell curve. Most people's anatomy works the same way, and most people respond predictably to biological impulses. Some people are not 'average' or 'normal', in that their biology works slightly differently.

In other words, pin guy may get aroused by unusual stimuli, but the actual feelings of arousal he experiences are probably not too different than anybody else's.

Try thinking about it this way. If everybody's biology was radically different, then how does modern medicine work? How can aspirin be succesfully marketed as an anti-inflammatory if it only works for a very small portion of the population, because only their biology is specifically tuned to allow aspirin to work? How can doctors routinely administer anesthesia, if the anesthetics they use only work for a small group of individuals?

Clearly, this is not the case. Most people's biology works about the same. There are variations (some men like tits, and some men prefer asses), ther are people who fall outside the mean (some people are allergic to aspirin; good luck with that headache), and some people who are outliers (like the guy who can only get it up if he gets stabbed with a sharp object, or whatever).

As for man becoming the "ubermensch", doesn't that involve the creation of a superior race by ELIMINATING all of the outliers, and bringing mankind into a state of consistent perfection? How does that philosophy jive with accepting the outliers as normal? Maybe you can explain that to me.

Basically, your post leads up to the explanation: modern medicine works. Does it? It has a higher percentage of "success" than ancient medicine. But it doesn't work--not to it's 100% claim. Name one pill, surgery, therapy, medicine, treatment, diagnosis for, forget 100% of the population--a hundred percent of people it's applied to.

No, the point of my post WAS NOT that modern medicine works ALL THE TIME (and you'd probably have a hard time finding any doctors who would make that claim. I DID say that some treatments don't work for some people (If you had actually bothered to read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I mentioned some people are allergic to aspirin - an excellent example of that fact).

The point of my post is that most people are about the same in terms of their biology, and that bringing up one random guy who blows his load whenever someone stabs him with a pointy stick doesn't prove that such extreme variances in sexual behavior are the rule and not the exception.

I was using the capabilities of modern medicine to demonstrate this point; if radical biological differences were the rule and not the exception, modern medicine WOULD NOT WORK AT ALL, because it would be impossible to predict what a particular chemical's effects would be on even a small portion of the population.

In reality, most people respond to common drugs in about the same way, and most people have their vital organs in about the same relative locations on their body. Human beings, biologically speaking, fit on a bell curve. Most people are in the middle. Only a small percentage of the population has radically different biology, and that also applies to sexual behavior.

And you didn't answer my question about the ubermensch. I've never read Nietzsche, so I don't know anything about his philosophy other than the very basic tenets.

I apologize for overlooking the ubermensch reference, in truth, it's a really complicated thing. But it's kind of the ideal, an "overman" a person who conquers man.

Also, again, I'm taking about proof. The point that something doesn't work for everything--so you admit--is proof that we really don't have knowledge. We have fragments what resembles knowledge, which we use to replenish our bruised ego. Since modern science is fallible, all I'm saying is that don't hold too much faith in it--there will be a time when people wiser than us will, too, cast it down and write about us in history books as we do of the Greek mythos.

We should not dismiss these things as mere "technicalities," because nothing remains proven while there is a contradiction. Because we then progress on things based on assumptions, which only take us further away from the "truth." But yes, I do agree: Suum Cuique. To each his own.

 

[Michael Logan]

Well since I live in a civilized part of the world, more than one spouse is idiotic.

And you base that on?

Your bias doesn't seem to be based on everything besides your own feeling of superiority. It is no better than those that think interracial or same sex relationships are wrong. You either have the right to tell adults who to love and how or its none of your business.

True I suppose, however you have to admit that you dont see alot of polygamy in civilized countries.

But you are right, its not really any of my buisness who or how many people someone is married to. However, we were asked to voice our oppinion about it in this thread.

 

[DanDeFool]

Monogamy is the last vestiges of a dying human race--the race of the "last men," as Nietzsche called them. There is nothing good, noble, and praiseworthy about monogamy. Just as there is nothing special with polygamy.

If we were meant to be monogamous we wouldn't have any desire to cheat.

Simple as.

Penguins don't cheat, in-fact most of the time when one's partner dies. It will simply never mate again. Some die soon after, thoughts are from grief. Wanna know why? Because they were born to be monogamous.

Be careful with that, sir. When you say "we" how sure are you that you speak for 100% of the human populace, the dead, the living, and those that are not yet conceived? I'd be careful with generalizations like that....

It's human nature to be at the very least curious about having sex with other people. Even if someone doesn't cheat, there is a 100% chance that at some point during any relationship they've had. That they have looked at another prospective mate in sexual way. whether or not they act upon it is another matter.

What I am sure of is that monogamy, especially as far as males are concerned, is counter intuitive as far as survival of the species goes. Atleast in a primitive situation. Spreading your genes to as many mates as possible gives you a greater chance of special survival.

That's not so important now. But old habits are hard to kick. Especially ones that are ingrained on you at a genetic level.

I generalise because it's true.

Again, sir. Do you know if it's true for the 100% of those--even males--that have yet to be, those that are, and those that were? It's a disturbing trend that I've seen amongst humans: the trend to state their observations as the "truth."

you're not observant for pointing out the fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed. Is it also right to say that you don't know that every human is born with blood because you haven't tested every human to prove this? I think I choose to believe in hormones over inane philosophical prattle.

Just because you can't prove something to be statistically true doesn't mean it isn't.

If you must know, statistically, nothing is true, because nothing can really be tested to it's fullest. Name me a study in which the sample is the whole human population. A quick search of "statistics" on wikipedia should have yield you the results you need.

Only the ignorant call it "inane philosophical prattle." I guess, you need to fill in the hole in your, so called, "knowledge."

*woosh* right over your head.

That was kind of my point.

And biologically speaking.... yes... what I'm saying is true.

You don't stop being attracted to other people once you're in a relationship. There is no biological proof to suggest anything to that nature. In-fact oxytocin (the chemical linked with human bonding) begins to fade dramatically after only a few years. And rises once again when you find a new partner.

So yes. I'm going to continue calling what you're saying inane philosophical prattle. Because it doesn't mean anything. It's just a blatant fact that has no relevance to my point, dressed up as something poignant.

The fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed doesn't mean that what we know human biology is wrong. Again. Simply because I can't statistically prove something doesn't mean it's wrong... :/

Again, there is no single biological phenomenon that is universal. Every hormone secreted, every brain function, every twitch of the muscle, every beat of the heart is different in every single one of us. You know, the inconvenient word we use to describe everything that doesn't fit our narrative: mutation.

To prove my point, I heard it on npr, last week, this recorded mental patient who would reach orgasm at the sight of pins---yes, pins!

Though I regret I can't remember the exact name of the patient or the therapist who attended, and recorded that guy.

Ever heard the expression. 'The exceptions that prove the rule.' It is of course going to be true that there are anomalies, we're talking about biology here. Not factory crafted beings. For 99% of the population hormones are going to have the exact same effect. There may be slight differences in the process and length of time involved. But they all do the same thing.


There are bound to be those who are considered mentally retarded. And/or haven't reached sexual maturity. They won't have the desire for sex atall. I thought it was clear that I was talking about normal humans. Not the handicapped exceptions.

When someone is talking about the absolute in a discussion like this. They don't mean (including the anomalies.) If I rephrase 'Everyone' To 'Every healthy (mentally and physically) human.' Will you STFU?

I thought that would have been blatantly obvious and readily available to anyone reading. Clearly not.

You have superbly demonstrated the all-too-human folly: "they" are the exception, you are the rule. There are no "anomalies," it is only your ignorance that fails to see what really is. The human brain fears that which it cannot understand--and label--thus we label these as "exceptions" to the rule to prove a point. The fact is, you and nor any science cannot "prove" anything. There will always be "exceptions."

You, your mentality rather, is the reason man is not yet the "ubermensch."

I have one problem with what you are saying.

If biology works so differently for every person on the planet, why do most people bond, mate, and reproduce in roughly the same way?

If significant differences in biology and arousal were the rule, rather than the exception, it seems to me that mating just wouldn't work. There wouldn't be any reliable way for any one human to attract any other human as their mate.

Keep in mind, in terms of the evolutionary history of human beings, metal pins are a relatively recent invention. If that guy was only aroused by pins in 80,000 BC, would he have been able to find a mate and reproduce?

What dathwampeer is trying to say is not that everyone should be the same, or that everyone is the same. He's saying that human beings fit on a bell curve. Most people's anatomy works the same way, and most people respond predictably to biological impulses. Some people are not 'average' or 'normal', in that their biology works slightly differently.

In other words, pin guy may get aroused by unusual stimuli, but the actual feelings of arousal he experiences are probably not too different than anybody else's.

Try thinking about it this way. If everybody's biology was radically different, then how does modern medicine work? How can aspirin be succesfully marketed as an anti-inflammatory if it only works for a very small portion of the population, because only their biology is specifically tuned to allow aspirin to work? How can doctors routinely administer anesthesia, if the anesthetics they use only work for a small group of individuals?

Clearly, this is not the case. Most people's biology works about the same. There are variations (some men like tits, and some men prefer asses), ther are people who fall outside the mean (some people are allergic to aspirin; good luck with that headache), and some people who are outliers (like the guy who can only get it up if he gets stabbed with a sharp object, or whatever).

As for man becoming the "ubermensch", doesn't that involve the creation of a superior race by ELIMINATING all of the outliers, and bringing mankind into a state of consistent perfection? How does that philosophy jive with accepting the outliers as normal? Maybe you can explain that to me.

Basically, your post leads up to the explanation: modern medicine works. Does it? It has a higher percentage of "success" than ancient medicine. But it doesn't work--not to it's 100% claim. Name one pill, surgery, therapy, medicine, treatment, diagnosis for, forget 100% of the population--a hundred percent of people it's applied to.

No, the point of my post WAS NOT that modern medicine works ALL THE TIME (and you'd probably have a hard time finding any doctors who would make that claim. I DID say that some treatments don't work for some people (If you had actually bothered to read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I mentioned some people are allergic to aspirin - an excellent example of that fact).

The point of my post is that most people are about the same in terms of their biology, and that bringing up one random guy who blows his load whenever someone stabs him with a pointy stick doesn't prove that such extreme variances in sexual behavior are the rule and not the exception.

I was using the capabilities of modern medicine to demonstrate this point; if radical biological differences were the rule and not the exception, modern medicine WOULD NOT WORK AT ALL, because it would be impossible to predict what a particular chemical's effects would be on even a small portion of the population.

In reality, most people respond to common drugs in about the same way, and most people have their vital organs in about the same relative locations on their body. Human beings, biologically speaking, fit on a bell curve. Most people are in the middle. Only a small percentage of the population has radically different biology, and that also applies to sexual behavior.

And you didn't answer my question about the ubermensch. I've never read Nietzsche, so I don't know anything about his philosophy other than the very basic tenets.

It's pointless arguing with the guy. He twists everything you say. You may as-well do away with well reasoned and logical arguments. He apparently doesn't agree with logic. It's beneath him.

He's either a supreme idiot. Or just so far up his own ass that he can't see anything but his own shit.

The guy seems bound and determined to ignore simple logic and just claim that there is no such thing as normality or anomaly.

I don't know whether he actually believes the stuff he's saying, or whether he's just butchering philosophies he's read about in the hope it makes him sound intellectual.

All I do know is that arguing with him is like whacking one off into the wind. Sure it's fun making him look like a tool, but you're inevitably gonna end up getting something splashing back on you.

"Don't feed the trolls", in other words?

I know I shouldn't, and I know it's pointless to argue with some people, but I find making well-reasoned arguments that elucidate my own opinions and beliefs to be its own reward.

I feel that the purpose of discussions is not to convince someone else that you're right and they're wrong, but rather to learn something. Sometimes contending a point with an obstinate person forces you to more closely examine your own thoughts on a subject, and come to a better understanding about why you think the way you do (if nothing else, that is).

 

[Lady Nilstria]

...marriage...is "traditional" for a reason.

Actually that...was...picked up from Roman/pagan tradition. In the law...multiple marriages are just fine. The patriarchs...had multiple wives and god gave laws governing the relationship between husbands and multiple wives and the offspring from different mothers. So it looks like god was ok with it. In fact there was at least one law given directly by god that REQUIRED you to take a second wife in some circumstances.

In fact, someone saying a person can't control himself or herself is an insult to all humanity.

So, as a Christian, you find people like Abraham and Moses to be an insult to all humanity?

I recall some people named Adam and Eve, and that they lived faaaaaaar before the Romans, or even the Apulians. I also seem to recall how that was a monogamous marriage.

Also, your argument is that because there was a law about it, God approved it. He knows how Men work. He made laws because if He didn't restrict them somehow, there would be no stopping them! We all know the Israelites were not the picture of obedience, or even restraint. In fact, they did everything wrong that they could have. Repeatedly. According to Genesis 2:24, a man is to cleave unto his wife, and they would become one body. this is God's ideal. Obviously, the Israelites didn't pay much attention to that, but that in no way means that they were doing the right thing. Actually, by making those laws, all God did was give evidence that the practice of polygamy was incredibly widespread, and was getting a tad out of control. He couldn't just say "don't do it" because the Israelite's necks were as stiff as iron rods, and they probably would have taken twenty wives each just to spite Him.

Deuteronomy 21 gives a law about loving the offspring of multiple wives equally, while a few chapters earlier in 17, tells that a man should not have multiple wives. So, there was a law about not having multiple wives, but just in case you decided to be rebellious and disobedient, another law so at least your family would remain slightly stable and your wives wouldn't take a knife to you while you slept, or kill each other.

Also, you give the examples of Abraham and Moses. I'll toss in Jacob and David too. Their families were horrendous. They were plagued with problems. Obviously, there are consequences to disregarding God's ideal. David didn't control himself too well, you know, the whole Bathsheba thing.

Now, about the marrying the widow thing in Deuteronomy 25, which I assume is the passage you're talking about requiring a man to take a wife under some circumstances. You happen to be tossing in the "second wife" part, which isn't actually there.

5:5 - If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.

Married men had separate households, so this second brother must not have had a wife if he lived with his brother. This law is only applicable if there is an unmarried brother available. Not that I'm sure the Israelites didn't mess up the meaning and married brothers married their brother's widow. Giving them, that would not be far fetched, but that's not what this law said. A woman, particularly not the widow of your brother, was not to be left alone and without a house.

(I shorted the quotes for space.)

 

[Giest4life]

Here, once again, Human Folly raises its ugly head: your claim to "understand" Nietzsche are entirely unfounded. Hell, I don't think Nietzsche himself had a firm grasp on what he was thinking--and writing--and the same would go for Kant. Pride is a good thing, said Nietzsche, but don't impress upon yourself a claim to understand Nietzsche--which is why I never used him as an argument. Also, Spark Notes don't count when you read Nietzsche.

As I have said before, it is precisely our claim that we know logic, mathematics, metaphysics, and Philosophy that renders us so useless. We claim to "know" so many things, and yet we demonstrate so little of it.

And once again you sidestep all of the points upon realising that you don't actually have an argument to make.

I didn't say I could write an in-depth book on Nietzsche and his works. But there are things you can understand from reading him. Basic understanding and mastery are two very different things.

And you were clearly at the very least alluding to Nietzsche with your pointless ?ubermensch? comment, oh so many posts ago.

And I have no idea what 'spark notes' are. Are they like Cliffnotes or something?

All I have to say to your last paragraph is to repeat this from earlier.

?Understanding and mastery are two different things.?

We clearly have humans who understand a great many things. Yet there is likely few who've mastered anything.

"Basic understanding" that you claim, is actually dangerous to the intellect. Go all in, or nothing. If things were so simple, that they could have been broken down into "basic" tenants for people to understand, we wouldn't have the thousands of sects, view points, nuances, and factions that we have now. No doubt your "basic understanding" comes at a cost of not understanding anything of relevance. My "ubermensch" is a reference not to Nietzsche; it is to an ideal.

Also, as with everything, you claiming that I don't have an argument does not make it say--well maybe for you. It only shows that you don't want an argument.

And yes, sparknotes are cliffnotes.

It really is just pointless talking to you isn't it?

Basic understanding is all we have. There are obvious levels of human understanding, from absolutely zero to relatively comprehensive. No true scientist claims to have total knowledge of anything. Because through research and hypothesis. We inevitably expand on our original understanding. IT IS NOT DANGEROUS. It is how we develop understanding. Without the basic understanding. How exactly would we come to have total understanding?

Knowledge isn't something we can just meditate on and pray for. We have to wok for it. The way you are talking is very dangerous. It's so nihilistic I could spit. You seem to think that everything we know is wrong simply because we can't prove that it is 100% correct. (The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence) Patterns and observable correlations do actually mean something. If only that they are the key to eventually reaching total knowledge. If such a thing could even exist.

Simply saying 'we don't understand anything fully so we should just accept that and not understand anything at-all', is so ass-backwards in dark-age zeal that I want to scream in rage that there are still people who think and practice it.

As humans. I believe we are going to have to always accept that we can't know 100% about anything. But that should not discourage us from believing in what we currently think to be correct. If we approach everything in a fair and logical way. Then eventually. We will correct most of our commonly held misnomers. This is evidenced in history. And thousands of years from now, people may look back at this time as an age of relative ignorance to their present. Just as we do to those who lived thousands of years before us. But it will have been through our mistakes and our triumphs that they found what they believe to be truth. This is human progression. And sitting back feeling smug because you think you've found out something special in that no one truly knows anything get's us precicely nowhere.

That's the problem I have with you.

And Nietzsche is credited for the concept of Ubermensch. It's not really odd that I'd assumed you mentioning was your way of alluding to it,

It seems that we have reached the exact same conclusion. Had you read my original post on the subject (though I don't fault you for that). I had merely suggested to a user that broad generalizations should serve no purpose in such a personal thing as human relationships. That was all.

But what I do dispute is your assumption that things are "fair," "logical," and "true." Each and everyone of them were, are, and will change with each passing thought in each an everyone of us. It is a gross mistake to say that we should look at things in a "logical" manner and strive to achieve "fairness" in what we do. These things simply don't exist. Our basic cerebral processes have changed continuously, and the manner at which we experience the world are in a constant flux. Any idea of "logic" "rationality" and "justice" you come to will be smashed by a later generation, and then we will be back to square one.

This is what I'm advocating we should change.

 

[Giest4life]

Here, once again, Human Folly raises its ugly head: your claim to "understand" Nietzsche are entirely unfounded. Hell, I don't think Nietzsche himself had a firm grasp on what he was thinking--and writing--and the same would go for Kant. Pride is a good thing, said Nietzsche, but don't impress upon yourself a claim to understand Nietzsche--which is why I never used him as an argument. Also, Spark Notes don't count when you read Nietzsche.

As I have said before, it is precisely our claim that we know logic, mathematics, metaphysics, and Philosophy that renders us so useless. We claim to "know" so many things, and yet we demonstrate so little of it.

And once again you sidestep all of the points upon realising that you don't actually have an argument to make.

I didn't say I could write an in-depth book on Nietzsche and his works. But there are things you can understand from reading him. Basic understanding and mastery are two very different things.

And you were clearly at the very least alluding to Nietzsche with your pointless ?ubermensch? comment, oh so many posts ago.

And I have no idea what 'spark notes' are. Are they like Cliffnotes or something?

All I have to say to your last paragraph is to repeat this from earlier.

?Understanding and mastery are two different things.?

We clearly have humans who understand a great many things. Yet there is likely few who've mastered anything.

"Basic understanding" that you claim, is actually dangerous to the intellect. Go all in, or nothing. If things were so simple, that they could have been broken down into "basic" tenants for people to understand, we wouldn't have the thousands of sects, view points, nuances, and factions that we have now. No doubt your "basic understanding" comes at a cost of not understanding anything of relevance. My "ubermensch" is a reference not to Nietzsche; it is to an ideal.

Also, as with everything, you claiming that I don't have an argument does not make it say--well maybe for you. It only shows that you don't want an argument.

And yes, sparknotes are cliffnotes.

It really is just pointless talking to you isn't it?

Basic understanding is all we have. There are obvious levels of human understanding, from absolutely zero to relatively comprehensive. No true scientist claims to have total knowledge of anything. Because through research and hypothesis. We inevitably expand on our original understanding. IT IS NOT DANGEROUS. It is how we develop understanding. Without the basic understanding. How exactly would we come to have total understanding?

Knowledge isn't something we can just meditate on and pray for. We have to wok for it. The way you are talking is very dangerous. It's so nihilistic I could spit. You seem to think that everything we know is wrong simply because we can't prove that it is 100% correct. (The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence) Patterns and observable correlations do actually mean something. If only that they are the key to eventually reaching total knowledge. If such a thing could even exist.

Simply saying 'we don't understand anything fully so we should just accept that and not understand anything at-all', is so ass-backwards in dark-age zeal that I want to scream in rage that there are still people who think and practice it.

As humans. I believe we are going to have to always accept that we can't know 100% about anything. But that should not discourage us from believing in what we currently think to be correct. If we approach everything in a fair and logical way. Then eventually. We will correct most of our commonly held misnomers. This is evidenced in history. And thousands of years from now, people may look back at this time as an age of relative ignorance to their present. Just as we do to those who lived thousands of years before us. But it will have been through our mistakes and our triumphs that they found what they believe to be truth. This is human progression. And sitting back feeling smug because you think you've found out something special in that no one truly knows anything get's us precicely nowhere.

That's the problem I have with you.

And Nietzsche is credited for the concept of Ubermensch. It's not really odd that I'd assumed you mentioning was your way of alluding to it,

It seems that we have reached the exact same conclusion. Had you read my original post on the subject (though I don't fault you for that). I had merely suggested to a user that broad generalizations should serve no purpose in such a personal thing as human relationships. That was all.

But what I do dispute is your assumption that things are "fair," "logical," and "true." Each and everyone of them were, are, and will change with each passing thought in each an everyone of us. It is a gross mistake to say that we should look at things in a "logical" manner and strive to achieve "fairness" in what we do. These things simply don't exist. Our basic cerebral processes have changed continuously, and the manner at which we experience the world are in a constant flux. Any idea of "logic" "rationality" and "justice" you come to will be smashed by a later generation, and then we will be back to square one.

This is what I'm advocating we should change.

I read your original post. I still disagree with it. Human biology isn't so diverse. chemically. Most of us are the same. Hormones play a large enough part in our love lives for me to generalise accurately. Normality isn't just a concept. Especially when you're talking about biological normality.

Logic isn't really something that suffers from the passage of time. It can strengthen. But it still follows the same basic pattern as it did thousands of years ago. And hubris aside. It is clearly heading in the right direction. The last few hundred years have been so important scientifically. With the secularisation of societies. Discovery has bloomed. Just because things we've found out will be expanded upon and re-written after we're dead doesn't mean we should act as if we're not correct now. And our current definitions of fairness and truth are all we can act upon. Until someone re-writes them to be more accurate.

And the conclusion from my last post isn?t something I've just arrived at. I've always know the fragility of understanding. I just choose not to let that hinder my though process. We can't imagine the changes the new few hundred years will bring to science. We make do with what we currently understand.

I respectfully disagree. Especially with the logic part.

Logic isn't a separate entity. It's a fragment of human understanding--his fragile spirit and reasoning.

I see what you are saying with us acting upon our available knowledge, now. But all I'm saying is that we need to break this cycle, and come with new standards of knowledge. It may be a futile effort, because as Nietzsche said, "truth is the folly without which certain species can't survive." But that, to me, is no deterrent.

Also, if it may seem that I'm denying the usefulness of science, I'm not. I'm merely suggesting that our faith in it seems unfounded, but that I guess, is the characteristic of faith.