[quote]pookie wrote:
If all the successful males have four wives, then you have the bottom 75% of men who are alone and can’t reproduce.
[/quote]
Why is it bad that genetic rejects do not get to reproduce? That is how nature is supposed to work.
[quote]Anonymous Coward wrote:
pookie wrote:
Human births are very close to 50/50 among boys and girls. Any societal arrangement that gives more than one woman exclusively to each man will mean that a lot of men will find themselves without mates.
But for how long? It seems that in areas heavy with certain chemicals, the ratio is moving towards 2/1 for girls over boys. If this continues and we maintain the current trend of 1:1 marriages, we could end up with a lot of women finding themselves without mates. Would that be as bad or worse than men without mates? What if polygyny were legalized in those areas just to give everyone a chance?[/quote]
We need a map please.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pookie wrote:
…
You know precious little about the topic. So temper your posts.
The places where most terrorists come from are mostly societies where polygamy is a social taboo, painstakingly difficult in practice, if not downright forbidden.
Every single major terrorist attack carried after 9/11 was carried out by citizens of the attacked country. And that’s the way it’s going to keep happening in the future. That somebody feels the need to blow him/herself up along with others doesn’t have much to do with polygamy.
[/quote]
We’re up to 12402 Islamic terror attacks since 9/11. All have been carried out by “citizens of an attacked country?” Seems to me jihad is just jihad - it doesn’t need a reason beyond the existence of non-Muslims.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
If all the successful males have four wives, then you have the bottom 75% of men who are alone and can’t reproduce.
Why is it bad that genetic rejects do not get to reproduce? That is how nature is supposed to work.[/quote]
If 75% of men aren’t getting any and have no reason to believe they ever will, we’ll be dealing with plenty of bitter and frustrated guys. They’ll need to release somehow.
[quote]Anonymous Coward wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
If all the successful males have four wives, then you have the bottom 75% of men who are alone and can’t reproduce.
Why is it bad that genetic rejects do not get to reproduce? That is how nature is supposed to work.
If 75% of men aren’t getting any and have no reason to believe they ever will, we’ll be dealing with plenty of bitter and frustrated guys. They’ll need to release somehow.[/quote]
Which of course makes the question of whether or not to allow gay marriage even more important
[quote]pat wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
jawara wrote:
How come Muslims are allowed to be polygamistist’s but fundementalist Mormans arent? In other words people were freaking out on Mitt Romney because of his religion thinking that he was a polygamist, but at the same time if a Muslim moved in down the street from them and they were to be polygamistist the neighbors would let that slide.
i think its because Mormons in the US have a track record of coupling abuses and assault into their polygamy, and i have yet to hear a Muslim arrested for it. Not to say that bias is O.K. just sayin thats how id imagine people justify it.
but ive also never heard of people being accepting of Muslim polygamists either.
This post really should have read " A Westerner" not “Westerners”
You seriously haven’t heard of muslim men abusing women?..LOL![/quote]
im sorry you have a reading problem. let me spell it out a bit more clearly. I’ve yet to see a news report about a muslim man in america being arrested for polygamy and domestic violence.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
pat wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
jawara wrote:
How come Muslims are allowed to be polygamistist’s but fundementalist Mormans arent? In other words people were freaking out on Mitt Romney because of his religion thinking that he was a polygamist, but at the same time if a Muslim moved in down the street from them and they were to be polygamistist the neighbors would let that slide.
i think its because Mormons in the US have a track record of coupling abuses and assault into their polygamy, and i have yet to hear a Muslim arrested for it. Not to say that bias is O.K. just sayin thats how id imagine people justify it.
but ive also never heard of people being accepting of Muslim polygamists either.
This post really should have read " A Westerner" not “Westerners”
You seriously haven’t heard of muslim men abusing women?..LOL!
im sorry you have a reading problem. let me spell it out a bit more clearly. I’ve yet to see a news report about a muslim man in america being arrested for polygamy and domestic violence.
[/quote]
Took me 10 seconds:
[quote]orion wrote:
Anonymous Coward wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
If all the successful males have four wives, then you have the bottom 75% of men who are alone and can’t reproduce.
Why is it bad that genetic rejects do not get to reproduce? That is how nature is supposed to work.
If 75% of men aren’t getting any and have no reason to believe they ever will, we’ll be dealing with plenty of bitter and frustrated guys. They’ll need to release somehow.
Which of course makes the question of whether or not to allow gay marriage even more important[/quote]
Ha!
There will be plenty of female societal outcasts working in the sex business to keep them entertained but fortunately still the best ones will be off limits to them.
[quote]orion wrote:
Anonymous Coward wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
If all the successful males have four wives, then you have the bottom 75% of men who are alone and can’t reproduce.
Why is it bad that genetic rejects do not get to reproduce? That is how nature is supposed to work.
If 75% of men aren’t getting any and have no reason to believe they ever will, we’ll be dealing with plenty of bitter and frustrated guys. They’ll need to release somehow.
Which of course makes the question of whether or not to allow gay marriage even more important[/quote]
Only if they’re gay, and there’s no reason to assume that suddenly 75% of men would become gay.
This thread DELIVERS!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
If all the successful males have four wives, then you have the bottom 75% of men who are alone and can’t reproduce.
Why is it bad that genetic rejects do not get to reproduce? That is how nature is supposed to work.[/quote]
It is bad because some people have convinced the “genetic rejects” that if they kill enough infidels (or die trying), they’ll get to reproduce abundantly in the next life.
You don’t need a big success rate to get enough volunteers to seriously disrupt civil society.
[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
If all the successful males have four wives, then you have the bottom 75% of men who are alone and can’t reproduce.
Why is it bad that genetic rejects do not get to reproduce? That is how nature is supposed to work.
It is bad because some people have convinced the “genetic rejects” that if they kill enough infidels (or die trying), they’ll get to reproduce abundantly in the next life. [/quote]
Poppycock! Show me where any Al-Qaeda leader or affiliate said anything to that regard. If you’re going to base your anti-multiple-partners argument on something, try at least to avoid blatant myths.
And what about all the married terrorists? How are they “genetic rejects”?
Arguably, Pakistan has the highest number of Islamists willing to kill in the name of their ideology. And that’s a place where polygamy is almost non-existant.
While you’re at it, I want to know what makes you think sex in the after-life has a reproductive function (from a Quranic perspective).
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
The right thing to do is to have one wife and cheat on her, the way civilized men have always done. Polygamists are stupid.
Or repress it, then in a blinding rage murder the wife, and get a new one.
[/quote]
Or call themselves mongamous, when in reality what they practice is serial mongamy, having mutliple partners but one at a time.
Hell, maybe a society like that would even embrace the practice of divorce, so that marriage becomes nothing more than “super dating”, and the norm is to have multiple spouses in ones life.
There are trains running between Glasgow and Motherwell every 15 minutes until 10pm and every night of the week except Sundays and Holidays and it’s only a 30 minute journey, why can’t the guy take a train?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Or call themselves mongamous, when in reality what they practice is serial mongamy, having mutliple partners but one at a time.
[/quote]
Maybe that’s the key to understanding the judges sympathy?
[quote]JamFly wrote:
There are trains running between Glasgow and Motherwell every 15 minutes until 10pm and every night of the week except Sundays and Holidays and it’s only a 30 minute journey, why can’t the guy take a train?[/quote]
I don’t know why, but I thought this was hilarious. Well played.
[quote]JamFly wrote:
There are trains running between Glasgow and Motherwell every 15 minutes until 10pm and every night of the week except Sundays and Holidays and it’s only a 30 minute journey, why can’t the guy take a train?[/quote]
Why can’t the guy be deported to his country of origin where Islamic norms are acceptable?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
JamFly wrote:
There are trains running between Glasgow and Motherwell every 15 minutes until 10pm and every night of the week except Sundays and Holidays and it’s only a 30 minute journey, why can’t the guy take a train?
Why can’t the guy be deported to his country of origin where Islamic norms are acceptable? [/quote]
At the moment, his only crime is speeding. While I get what you’re saying, I think deportation is a bit harsh for most any traffic violation. 
While we’re on the UK’s justice system:
But, clearly, the case of the bigamous speeder is more important.
[quote]lixy wrote:
While we’re on the UK’s justice system:
But, clearly, the case of the bigamous speeder is more important.[/quote]
Shall we start discussing Muslim rape jihad against infidel women in the UK? I heard there’s one in Sweden too.