Why I Published Those Cartoons

[Richards 0]

Quote

I wasn't expecting to, but I actually found some statistics. From Wikipedia:

Polygamy worldwide

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook derived from George P. Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas recorded the marital composition of 1231 societies, from 1960-1980. Of these societies, 186 societies were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.

I am not sure if that answers the quaestion as to how many polygamist relationships are;

a) One husband-multiple wives
b) One wife-multiple husbands
c) Husband and wife- each has other spouses

Again I suspect that the majority of these relationships are the standard male pig fantasy where a man can get total devotion from each of his wives yet is not beholden specifically to any one and therefore gets to decide which of his "treats" he will take into his bed that night while the others further demean themselves by trying to further ingratiate themselves to him, and compete against each-other for his attention. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[GTAVercetti 0]

polygyny - man with mutiple wives


polyandry - woman with multiple husbands

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Again I suspect that the majority of these relationships are the standard male pig fantasy where a man can get total devotion from each of his wives yet is not beholden specifically to any one and therefore gets to decide which of his "treats" he will take into his bed that night while the others further demean themselves by trying to further ingratiate themselves to him, and compete against each-other for his attention. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

oink oink

maybe it sounds good, but, to me, it sounds like something that could really backfire. at 20? jealous of the guy (except a single life could be lived that way anyway), by 25 and older, you just have to pity the fool

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Thank you

• Quote

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

polygyny - man with mutiple wives


polyandry - woman with multiple husbands

pollyanna - woman with multiple braids

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Richards 0]

Thanks for clearing that up.

However as I see it 453 occasional Polygyny(man with multiple wives) and 588 frequent polygyny means a total of 1041 total polygyny. Compared to 4 polyandry(woman with multiple husbands) this again seems a wee bit stacked in the favour of the guys. This again is the primary concern as that implies a greater importance is attributed to men. I suspect that most polygamist societies are not exceptionally liberal when it comes to equality for women.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Richards 0]

Quote

pollyanna - woman with multiple braids

We simply have to do something about those damned immoral Polyannas

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[billvon 3,070]

>pollyanna - woman with multiple braids

Polly-O - cheese

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>pollyanna - woman with multiple braids

Polly-O - cheese

now I'm getting righteously enraged at that response (or self righteously enraged, I can never tell which at the time - or find the horn on my steering wheel either)

somebody find me some poster board, I need to march on city hall

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lurch 0]

The people screaming to censor are asking us to take huge steps backwards.

Thats the problem. They are not asking.
They are demanding, with the oldest rationale in existence... Do it or I'll kill you your family your kids and anything else that isn't islamic.

Its ultima ratio regis ... the last argument of kings. They insist that we are subject to their laws and cave-man religious taboos, and they back it up with bombs and AKs. And our insistence on refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of islamic law over all else drives them utterly insane. So we get muslims even slaughtering each other, just because they're so mad about a bunch of danish cartoons. Wheres the sense in THAT?

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

I think this sums it all up quite nicely.

What if the believer claims that his god tells him that you, as a non-believer, should be either forcibly converted or destroyed?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

What if the believer claims that his god tells him that you, as a non-believer, should be either forcibly converted or destroyed?

You mean like God telling Bush that invading Iraq is the right thing to do?

[Richards 0]

***Thats the problem. They are not asking.
They are demanding, with the oldest rationale in existence... Do it or I'll kill you your family your kids and anything else that isn't islamic.

Its ultima ratio regis ... the last argument of kings. They insist that we are subject to their laws and cave-man religious taboos, and they back it up with bombs and AKs. And our insistence on refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of islamic law over all else drives them utterly insane. So we get muslims even slaughtering each other, just because they're so mad about a bunch of danish cartoons. Wheres the sense in THAT?

[Richards 0]

***Drugstores are allowed to refuse to serve people based on religious principles.

[Guest]

Quote

>But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his
> taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for
> my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

So if a woman bares her breasts in public because she believes that clothing is dishonest, arresting her is incompatible with a secular democracy? If a cartoonist in the US draws an explicit comic of a man having sex with a goat, and they refuse to publish it, is that incompatible with democracy? Is that asking for society's submission?

Every culture has its own taboos; some of them codified into law. The problem here is not that the cartoonist broke some taboos - if he did, then by all means boycott the paper or whatever. The problem is not that he broke a law - if he did, arrest him (or the publisher or whoever.) The problem is that their _reaction_ was unreasonable. Had all the Muslims of the world boycotted the paper (or even had the cartoonist arrested and tried under local laws) I would have had no problems with their actions. Instead a bunch of extremists started rioting - and THAT'S the problem.

The most interesting part of the whole brou-ha-ha is that those cartoons were published in an Egyptian newspaper back in October, and nobody rioted then.

[rasmack 0]

Quote

***Drugstores are allowed to refuse to serve people based on religious principles.

Wendy, this statement has really piqued my interest. Please let me know specifically what that is all about.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

***Drugstores are allowed to refuse to serve people based on religious principles.

Wendy, this statement has really piqued my interest. Please let me know specifically what that is all about.

I'm not Wendy but I'll venture a guess she was talking about contraception and morning-after pills.