Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2021
- Messages
- 365
The Politics Megathread
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2018
- Messages
- 156
yes sir this one is politic thread sir, excuse me sir
military expenditure as percentage of gdp since 1960
military expenditure as percentage of gdp since 1960
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2021
- Messages
- 365
uh, thank you for sharing but...what am i supposed to get from that?
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2020
- Messages
- 3,251
Finally came up with another divergence that’s amusing. Spirit princess you better not mess this one up too.
Both polygamy and polyamory are considered illegal and legally the same thing under most current us state laws. Many cities and states are now changing language of laws in order to legally separate these two practices. Polygamy being what we know of as a harem but marriage wise (illegal for obvious reasons and a left over from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints involvement in government) and polyamory being where group is aware of the fact and consents that every member is in an open romantic relationship with every other member. Somerville, Massachusetts is among the first cities to allow the legal separation of these practices by redefining relationship from an entity between two people to an entity made up of people. Which means in future when this is considered the norm you aren’t just single because that one girl you know would like you is already with someone it’s because every one equally dislikes you.
This fun tangent brought to you by me reading about King Arthur and the Knights of the round table. If Guinevere, Lancelot, and Arthur could’ve just been all honest with their feelings we could’ve called it a polyarmory.
Both polygamy and polyamory are considered illegal and legally the same thing under most current us state laws. Many cities and states are now changing language of laws in order to legally separate these two practices. Polygamy being what we know of as a harem but marriage wise (illegal for obvious reasons and a left over from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints involvement in government) and polyamory being where group is aware of the fact and consents that every member is in an open romantic relationship with every other member. Somerville, Massachusetts is among the first cities to allow the legal separation of these practices by redefining relationship from an entity between two people to an entity made up of people. Which means in future when this is considered the norm you aren’t just single because that one girl you know would like you is already with someone it’s because every one equally dislikes you.
This fun tangent brought to you by me reading about King Arthur and the Knights of the round table. If Guinevere, Lancelot, and Arthur could’ve just been all honest with their feelings we could’ve called it a polyarmory.
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2019
- Messages
- 940
hmmmmmmm......
Let google find you a job AND give your employer all of your shitty mistakes at the same time? Sign me the fuck up!
@immortalartisan
Polyamory is disgusting. Every one of those "relationships" is full of power dynamics issues.
An old friend of mine was in one. She said she was basically a live in maid for the two attractive people that she third wheeled for.
These things are always either one woman + a million dudes, a lesbian harem with one bi woman + her boyfriend being a doormat, or two attractive people paying a third person with sex and free room and board in exchange for being a maid/butler.
Polygamy is even worse.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2021
- Messages
- 365
@wowfucktron
based off the definitions i looked up the difference between the two is amory doesnt require marriage and gamy does. wouldnt the promise of commitment be an improvement? its harder to divorce somone then to break up with them so somone in a polyamory relationship would have to walk on eggshells to remain in that relationship while polygamy at least gives the promise that they are there to stay.
i agree they are both vile irl but im contesting the statement that polygamy wouldnt be at least equal with polyamory
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2021
- Messages
- 365
correct, that is the basis on which socialism(government will share and treat everyone equally) and communism(everyone will share and treat each other equally) cant work
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2021
- Messages
- 484
But what about a meritocracy
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2019
- Messages
- 940
@kitsune_hellscythe
Shush! You don’t want to be labeled a white supremacist.
Shush! You don’t want to be labeled a white supremacist.
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2020
- Messages
- 3,251
Exactly that’s why we need to really work on ai tech and start replacing leaders with artificial intelligences with no personal needs
@wowfucktron I won’t say your wrong but I won’t say your right. As always there’s huge differences between some. I personally know people in a polyamory and honestly it seems to be working well for them. I’m never going to be in one those kinds of relationships for sure but then again governments have never had success attempting to define family’s (see gays and lesbians). Also what’s the difference between a lesbian harem and polyamory aren’t those the same? thing?
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2021
- Messages
- 484
@wowfucktron ;
But giving awards based on your deeds...
But giving awards based on your deeds...
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2020
- Messages
- 3,251
@Kitsune_Hellscythe
List of reasons why meritocracy wouldn’t work
1: human nature
2: see 1
3: see 1
4: see 1
5: see 1
List of reasons why meritocracy wouldn’t work
1: human nature
2: see 1
3: see 1
4: see 1
5: see 1
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2021
- Messages
- 484
@immortalartisan ;
Good to know you took that seriously and not a joke, as the joke it was meant to be
Good to know you took that seriously and not a joke, as the joke it was meant to be
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2020
- Messages
- 3,251
@Kitsune_Hellscythe that was also a joke and why I listed human nature 5 times.
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2021
- Messages
- 484
@immortalartisan ;
You never know, if you've seen some of the arguments in the thread... 👀
You never know, if you've seen some of the arguments in the thread... 👀
Group Leader
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2019
- Messages
- 7,086
I laughed so hard when i read this.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,562
@pandascepter
Well, it's true
@immortalartisan
The conclusion I've come to with monogamy/polygamy is that generally society should consider monogamy the norm for stability reasons, but it should not discriminate or look down upon people who choose polygamy in which all parties consent.
The reason for this is because naturally women will typically all go to well-established and high-performing men if given the opportunity because of differences in evolutionary psychology and the fact women seek stability in relationships due to the fact they have much more investment both physically and mentally in ensuring that their children are well supported and given good access to resources, and so will look for mates who are good picks. Generally, this means older, more established men with greater resources will be more attractive to women, whereas younger men will seem unattractive by comparison. In nature, this problem sorted itself out because men tended to die more through riskier actions which could yield bigger rewards but were more likely to result in death like hunting or warfare, which meant there were less men around. However, because there were more women around who tended to raise their young and work on agriculture, it meant more women would go to certain men, meaning more men who were older with more resources, and thus had survived more and were more reliable, were able to reproduce more often.
The issue with polygamy in the modern era is that it would lead to more of a demand for women than there is a supply as most of the women would go to a select few men, and leave a lot of men not satisfied emotionally or mentally, which history has shown to lead to disastrous consequences due to the extremes men are willing to go to in order to seek those satisfactions, so people generally settled on monogamy when men started to die less often the gender balance became more 1 to 1. Therefore, it means that more men would be more content because it means they would get the emotional satisfaction and women would get the security they were both looking for generally, though monogamy has many issues due to how people change over time and the issues of investing in one person being a potential risk in certain scenarios.
The reason why I would want polyamory to be socially accepted but not the norm is due to the fact that I believe individuals should be free to choose whomever they wish to be in a relationship with if everyone involved consents, and that the government does not have the right to deny a person that ability. The issue is that we meet equilibrium broadly if the median is one man gets with one woman, (with the exclusion of gays and lesbians due to them canceling one another out due to their populations being roughly equal) so that the dating market doesn't get tilted, though if oneside has surplus, it should generally go to be in a relationship with the side with the deficit.
It's an economic/biological thing.
As for meritocracy, obvious a perfect meritocracy will never exist where people are based solely on competence, but if we can get as close to one as feasibly possible, that would be ideal, due to the fact human diversity allows for people to specialize in multiple areas leading to different systems that people can rise to various ranks in based on skill and competence, meaning there won't be competition solely in one area of human success, such as what happens under Communism and Fascism where the only way to gain prestige or power is through government. Ideally, you want to minimize the factors of luck, birth, inherited wealth, nepotism, etc. as much as possible, even if it's impossible to completely remove, whilst maximizing positions based on skill and ability. It's never going to be flawless due to human power always tending towards corruption, but if you can put systems in place to minimize that corruption such as ensuring competition in the market and putting selection pressures on certain aspects of society to be more efficient, you can down play its effects over time. Unfortunately, we haven't done that as effectively as we should have...
Well, it's true
@immortalartisan
The conclusion I've come to with monogamy/polygamy is that generally society should consider monogamy the norm for stability reasons, but it should not discriminate or look down upon people who choose polygamy in which all parties consent.
The reason for this is because naturally women will typically all go to well-established and high-performing men if given the opportunity because of differences in evolutionary psychology and the fact women seek stability in relationships due to the fact they have much more investment both physically and mentally in ensuring that their children are well supported and given good access to resources, and so will look for mates who are good picks. Generally, this means older, more established men with greater resources will be more attractive to women, whereas younger men will seem unattractive by comparison. In nature, this problem sorted itself out because men tended to die more through riskier actions which could yield bigger rewards but were more likely to result in death like hunting or warfare, which meant there were less men around. However, because there were more women around who tended to raise their young and work on agriculture, it meant more women would go to certain men, meaning more men who were older with more resources, and thus had survived more and were more reliable, were able to reproduce more often.
The issue with polygamy in the modern era is that it would lead to more of a demand for women than there is a supply as most of the women would go to a select few men, and leave a lot of men not satisfied emotionally or mentally, which history has shown to lead to disastrous consequences due to the extremes men are willing to go to in order to seek those satisfactions, so people generally settled on monogamy when men started to die less often the gender balance became more 1 to 1. Therefore, it means that more men would be more content because it means they would get the emotional satisfaction and women would get the security they were both looking for generally, though monogamy has many issues due to how people change over time and the issues of investing in one person being a potential risk in certain scenarios.
The reason why I would want polyamory to be socially accepted but not the norm is due to the fact that I believe individuals should be free to choose whomever they wish to be in a relationship with if everyone involved consents, and that the government does not have the right to deny a person that ability. The issue is that we meet equilibrium broadly if the median is one man gets with one woman, (with the exclusion of gays and lesbians due to them canceling one another out due to their populations being roughly equal) so that the dating market doesn't get tilted, though if oneside has surplus, it should generally go to be in a relationship with the side with the deficit.
It's an economic/biological thing.
As for meritocracy, obvious a perfect meritocracy will never exist where people are based solely on competence, but if we can get as close to one as feasibly possible, that would be ideal, due to the fact human diversity allows for people to specialize in multiple areas leading to different systems that people can rise to various ranks in based on skill and competence, meaning there won't be competition solely in one area of human success, such as what happens under Communism and Fascism where the only way to gain prestige or power is through government. Ideally, you want to minimize the factors of luck, birth, inherited wealth, nepotism, etc. as much as possible, even if it's impossible to completely remove, whilst maximizing positions based on skill and ability. It's never going to be flawless due to human power always tending towards corruption, but if you can put systems in place to minimize that corruption such as ensuring competition in the market and putting selection pressures on certain aspects of society to be more efficient, you can down play its effects over time. Unfortunately, we haven't done that as effectively as we should have...
Group Leader
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2019
- Messages
- 7,086
@Tamerlane
I laughed not because it's true. I laughed because of how easy he said it.
First Polyamory is just weird you know?? Its like youre having a threesome with, but only as a sex friend.
Polygamy is a-okay nothing's bad comes from it, but the man needs to pay attetion to them. Will he be able to achieve their sexual desire? If he's able to do so then go on. How about legacy? There's already a heir.
Dun wanna continue because idk much about how Polygamy works in my religion. But trust me, when you read it, there's nothing bad comes from it unless you can't do it.
I laughed not because it's true. I laughed because of how easy he said it.
First Polyamory is just weird you know?? Its like youre having a threesome with, but only as a sex friend.
Polygamy is a-okay nothing's bad comes from it, but the man needs to pay attetion to them. Will he be able to achieve their sexual desire? If he's able to do so then go on. How about legacy? There's already a heir.
Dun wanna continue because idk much about how Polygamy works in my religion. But trust me, when you read it, there's nothing bad comes from it unless you can't do it.
- Status
Similar threads
