Its weird that you’d be for polygamous marriages, even from a utilitarian perspective it’s PLAIN wrong, it leads to social unrest because some men don’t get any women.
Printable View
Its weird that you’d be for polygamous marriages, even from a utilitarian perspective it’s PLAIN wrong, it leads to social unrest because some men don’t get any women.
"leads to social unrest" LMAOQuote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
that's some neckbeard tier shit right there.
anyways, I'm for people doing whatever they like with other consenting people of age, life is meant to be enjoyed, forcing arbitrary rules and labels upon oneself is restrictive more often than it is helpful or enjoyable.
Is it worse for two people to separate who are unhappy so they can find happiness; or for them to suffer and have a less fulfilling life on principal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
And what if its worse for the child who has to live in a hostile environment vs them separating and having 2 peaceful environments?
How about if you get roofied in Vegas and wake up married? Should you spend the rest of your life with that person on principal although you were drugged and basically never consented to be married?
Regardless why do you believe divorce is wrong at all? Like.. Where does your perceived 'wrongness' come from if two people both want their relationship to end? What makes it wrong at all to you?
Marriage is wrong. Yet have to do it because of a fucked up system that still has places tied down due to past religious reasons.
If there was 0 benefits for getting married in taxes and legal paperwork we would never of done it
Do y’all react just to it being banned/or not by religion cuz if that’s the reason then I get it but I can’t really argue with that stance.
I provided my own reasoning arseholeQuote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
Kinda. I believe actions speak louder than words and the Vatican has an extremely long history of manipulating religion for power and wealth. They are currently the wealthiest organization in the world by a massive margin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
I think it would be more fair to look at them as a for-profit company. Drop any religious pretense and they function like many governments- doing what they feel they can get away with for profit and spinning history to put a good face on their actions. Its not that they are dedicated to doing evil, they just do it as a product of their greed to hold onto power.
I have often wondered if there are branches of the Catholic church who reject the control of the Vatican and do their own thing
Quote:
Originally Posted by deathworlds
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
This is a fair point. I have 3 good friends that are in a 3 way relationship. All of them are girls and they make it work just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by deathworlds
I just think it’s very harmful, and I can totally see why people say divorce is wrong. There are definitely some situations where divorce is preferable, but I’m saying, maybe people screwed up somewhere. I think that if it’s possible to salvage your relationship and you are afraid of getting a divorce, you should definitely fight for it and see if it’s possible and desirable for the relationship to continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helz
Its a complicated issue. It’s not wholly wrong, but it has an ugly tinge to it. You shouldn’t spend the rest of your life with someone you don’t like. My point is, you should try to minimize the number of divorces you have to go through. They’re not pretty. And they can be pretty damaging. They shouldn’t be viewed as a get-out-if-jail-free card if things go south.
With regards to your last post: of course if both parties agree that a marriage should end, then divorce ain’t bad, although, again, there’s the situation where maybe divorce wasn’t the right thing to do. Many people experience regret after getting a divorce (over 22%). It’s really not an easy decision to make. More power to you if you decide to leave a relationship that’s not good for you. But there’s a fine line between doing that and just going through many failed marriages.
Lol its just that, I was expecting people to agree with me about it and I’m confused that that is controversial.Quote:
Originally Posted by deathworlds
The only objective wrong I have seen with Divorce was in the antiquated practice of hereditary transfer of wealth. Back then it was extremely important to know exactly who's kid someone was and Divorces were a huge problem because wealth was transferred through family lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
I just dont think some people are cut out for long term relationships. If you consider that every 7 years pretty much every atom in your body did not exist there 7 years ago and 100% of the biological cells that were alive 7 years ago you are a totally different person. So along those lines isnt it fair to say that the person who entered the marriage no longer exists unless you believe in the soul?
You conflated immorality with wrong. When you say something could be immoral you followed it up by saying how it's wrong therefore affirming the immorality of it, then agreed personally that it's wrong. Yes you did say after this divorce is not immoral, but do you see why I'm pretty skeptical of your response? I still stand by that your post where you said it isn't immoral is disgusting and exactly why I question if you truly do think divorce isn't immoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
I'm not an atheist. Pretty easy to make the mistake of assuming eh. A religious motto within a secular state. I don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that this isn't going against what a secular state actually means. Blows my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helz
If so that’s my mistake. It’s not immoral; I think religious people are wrong to ascribe that trait to it. But I think they have some legitimate grievances to be heard.
Also @Helz don't mistake my dislike of the motto for an all out attack on religion. I find it very interesting and do find it useful, but also recognize many of its flaws.
I was asking what you think actually should have happened, my man. No dancing around with weird morality arguments, because nothing gets done that way. What, concretely, do you think the Union should have done when the Confederacy seceded? What should they have done differently?Quote:
Originally Posted by Helz
EDIT: Forgot to address the first part of your post. From my understanding, only unilateral secession was found to be illegal by the Supreme Court. I'll argue with that in mind.
Your two arguments against any other territory (like CHAZ) seceding were the legality issue, as well as the issue of debt. The debt issue applied to the Confederacy because it wasn't like debt was invented after the Civil War, the Confederacy still had debt that they, by your logic, should have repaid to the Union. That leaves legality as your only stated reason for why secession of a territory like CHAZ is different from the Confederacy in terms of the federal government being an aggressor when it comes to recognizing them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
The mormon eternal doctrine of celestial marriage is that a man can be "sealed to" multiple wives (mormon temple weddings, aka "sealings" say you are "sealed" to that person for all eternity), but a woman can only be "sealed to" one man. If she wants to marry another, even after he dies, she can marry him for this life only. Unless she decides to break the sealing with the husband that died. Then she can seal with the 2nd husband. But in the afterlife she can only be with 1 of them, whoever she is sealed to. So yeah, mormon polygamy is strictly 1 man, multiple wives.Quote:
Originally Posted by deathworlds
The only reason we are discussing divorce again is because it was in one of my quotes that I was responding to mallow with lol, in which I also argued with secondpassing that divorce is neither a moral nor immoral act. This seems to happen a lot my dude, you'll see something that I say like:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
And your response is to argue against that. By not arguing that divorce is immoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
Oh I was referring to the application of polygamy within any singular culture or religion. I was simply referring to polygamy as a consensual romantic/sexual relationship involving more than 2 people.
Yeh, I get you. I was just providing additional context to the specific religion in question, which is what Galeon was bringing up.Quote:
Originally Posted by deathworlds
I have no problem with polygamy between consensual adults. I do have a problem with religious leaders using a position of power to coerce multiple women into marrying them though. So it's a tricky subject because polygamy in the past has been abused in that way quite a lot.
That is a very valid point. I was under the impression that the national debt was created after the civil war but it appears the nation owed roughly 65 million dollars. Granted that breaks down to roughly 2 dollars and some change per citizen but in today's numbers thats around 6k per person. If slaves are included the confederacy essentially skipped on a tab of 48 billion dollars in today's money.Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
I get what you are asking but the entire issue is the morality. So concrete- Issue the Emancipation Proclamation while declaring war and have a war over human rights instead of greed.
I think the civil war should have been prevented by the north but they would have had to make very different actions long before the south seceded. At that point it was just too late. They forced the south into a corner leveraging taxes favorably for the industrial sector. Combine that with some republicans pushing to end slavery and of course the south wanted to leave.
I think thats a common line of pretty much all cults though. If you think about it its a pretty nice job..Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
People call you God or at least gods voice on earth or something
You get to bang everyone you want because you say thats somehow gods will
And the people that join give you all their money
Yeah.. Who wants to join my cult?
Yet you argued that the Union not recognizing the Confederacy was an aggressive act and that the Union not "letting go" cost hundreds of thousands of lives, right here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Helz
Had they issued the Emancipation Proclamation right when the war had started, how would that have changed your initial insinuation that the Union should have let the Confederacy go? Would they not be the aggressors regardless, for not letting the Confederacy leave legally and peacefully? Would it have shifted the blame of the hundreds of thousands of deaths back to the Confederacy?Quote:
I kind of look at it as the south lost 2 wars. The first was the political power struggle. When it became apparent they had lost, that they would be subjected to northern industrial control, and their voice no longer mattered they chose to separate. The north chose to make a war out of it instead of letting go at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
I looked more into your claim of economic reasons for the Confederacy leaving (which, as I found, most historians actually discount as being a significant factor), and I was curious about the compromises and failed negotiations that the Union and the soon-to-be Confederacy did. Specifically, the Crittenden Compromise, the Corwin Amendment, and the Peace Conference of 1861, which were the most major conferences and proposed policies for maintaining the Union. In all three of these negotiations and propositions, economic negotiations were at no point discussed. All three dealt specifically with maintaining slavery. Surely, if your idea of the Confederacy breaking off because of the economic impact of slaves is correct, and that the South only kept slaves as an economic necessity, they would have negotiated economics prior to secession, rather than slavery? Could it not be that the direction of causality led instead from the Confederacy considering slavery as a moral right, and the economic benefits being a result, rather than the other way around as you're trying to imply?
Was waiting for when the appeasement from the north to keep the union together was going to be mentioned lol.
Sorry. I’m going through some rough shit right now and I lose the ability to discriminate between attacks and arguments. I (mis)interpreted your posts as an attack on religion itself, something which greatly concerns me not because I am religious but because it is so ubiquitous nowadays and I just can’t help and push against it. I am more on the religious side of things than not so that’s where I stand; I think religion is very interesting and nice so I’m quite sympathetic to it (partly because it is, in my view, a bit too vilified, especially amongst younger people)
I think I have contributed a lot to polarization through threads like these and consequently as a gesture of goodwill this will be my last post about religion on this thread.
About divorce: divorce isn’t wrong. It’s fine. I do think it’s something that should generally be carefully considered, but it’s not wrong (or immoral).
I maintain that the symbol of the US doesn’t concern me at all. Some actions from the religious conservatives in the US do, however; like gay marriage/abortion for instance. But this motto has been around for so long that I don’t think it’s really got any significant religious meaning behind it. I think it can be and is being pushed in some cases by more religious members of the government and I can see why; Mississippi is the most religious state in America.
Anyways good luck y’all and if you’d like to continue the discussion we can talk in PMs or on Discord.
With regards to the civil war: what I find most distressing on the part of the Union are the tactics union generals employed in subduing the south. You don’t generally wage total war against regions in your country. I believe they should’ve done something else.
Also what does everyone think about the plan to resettle blacks in Africa
I think it was dumb and actually quite racist. Imagine deporting thousands of your citizens to a land they had literally never seen before.
Liberia would’ve been nice if it had worked out because then the US would today have a major American ally in Africa, but this wasn’t the case.
I did and I dont think that has changed any. I did screw up the math earlier. Its actually 3,000% increase which is.. 30$ and not 3,000 so 480 million dollars instead of 48 billion. It does not change my opinion that the Union decided to make it a war and that their motivation was greed. Im still glad you brought it up though, I totally overlooked that as a factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
It would not have changed that they were the aggressors but it would have changed the reason those lives were lost. Saying hundreds of thousands of people died for greed is very different from saying hundreds of thousands of people died for human rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
I don't see your initial point. If slaves were necessary for their economy to function discussing slavery is itself an economic negotiation. That would be like telling a farmer today we will take his tractors but buy his corn at a higher price. If there wont be any corn without the tractor why would they discuss the selling price of the corn which won't exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
It does make sense that the Confederacy saw owning slaves as a moral right. In their minds they thought they owned them and they were discussing property. I have a bit of trouble picturing taking that position on a human being but if the government came up and talked to me about taking my work truck I would probably tell them to eat shit on principal.Quote:
Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead
Regardless what your saying has sound reasoning and could totally be possible. It would make more sense given the lack of economic discussion. It would make the souths motivations even less moral / more bigoted but it does not change anything for the norths. At the end of the day there is the massive glaring question of why the north did not free slaves if their war was about ending slavery.
That is a valid point. I remember there was one specific union officer who went on a rampage burning as many homes and farms as he could. Some of the unions objectives seemed to be not just to win the war but decimate the souths ability to recover after the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
Ugh more civil war talk
One other thing that in my view constitutes a very glaring issue is the fact that the north allowed Jim Crow laws to be passed in the south. If all men are created equal, why allow people to disenfranchise a substantial minority of them based on skin colour?
It's okay Ganelon, we are strangers on the internet after all. Literally messages going through a SeRiEs Of TuBeS. Discussing stuff like this can be mentally straining because it's a challenge of a very personal part of yourself that isn't often challenged.
The Union was by no means morally superior. If you read the actual appeasements they tried to make you will see how cooked everyone in the USA was. Some of it can be argued as time wasting but the Corwin Amendment... lol
I actually do have another question that I think rarely gets brought up. The Northern states had abolished slavery quite a while before the South did. Why? And speaking of which, how many blacks were there in the north to begin with?
The doctrine was in effect - take from the land enough supplies to sustain the army but do not assault the citizens or enter their homes, unless partisans (like the french resistance in ww2) present themselves then basically torch the whole place. I don't think the intention was to decimate the Souths economy as hard as they did, rather to try and bring an end to the war asap. Sounds fairly standard as far as war time doctrines go but the actual implementation of it leaves a lot to be desired. The south did not recover for a very long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helz
I wonder if this is a reflection of the shit that’s going on in the US atmQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
If your concerns are economic, would you not bring other propositions to the table than what the south did? It's obvious that a non-slave based economy can function, in fact, the north did it as per your own admission. If the root problem was taxation, economic oppression, and technological advancement, and not actually slavery, wouldn't you think that they would actually negotiate in economic terms? Once again, all the south argued for in every single major negotiation and conference they had was maintaining slavery; nothing else. You'd think if an entire country is struggling financially and they're trying to negotiate with a supposed economic oppressor who is taxing the shit out of them and advancing technologically while they're left in the dirt, they'd discuss changing that rather than discussing constitutional amendments guaranteeing that they can keep their tractors, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Helz
You're getting at my point at last, if maybe only by accident!Quote:
It does make sense that the Confederacy saw owning slaves as a moral right. In their minds they thought they owned them and they were discussing property. I have a bit of trouble picturing taking that position on a human being but if the government came up and talked to me about taking my work truck I would probably tell them to eat shit on principal.
If the north's motivations were to oppress the south and not to free slaves, why did they not accept the south's demands to make slavery a constitutional right if it would have maintained the union? By your own admission, the north was already outstripping the south in every economic aspect. You already mentioned that they were advancing at a rapid rate, their population and economy outpacing the south due to industrialization and supposed economic pillaging and taxation. Surely, if all the south was demanding was to maintain slavery, and the north were just greedy fucks that wanted to keep exploiting the south and they truly didn't give a fuck about slaves, they would have taken the south's proposal to amend the constitution to guarantee holding slaves as a right, maintained the union, and continued their exploitation? Why didn't they do that?Quote:
Regardless what your saying has sound reasoning and could totally be possible. It would make more sense given the lack of economic discussion. It would make the souths motivations even less moral / more bigoted but it does not change anything for the norths. At the end of the day there is the massive glaring question of why the north did not free slaves if their war was about ending slavery.
I read an extremely interesting and long comment on a YT video about the South during the civil war. It was a very convincing comment; however, I think it’s extremely strange that the Jim Crow laws are literally never mentioned in any debate over what the south fought for. While there’s a lot to be said about what the South fought for and a lot of things can essentially be said in favour of them not fighting (just) for slavery, the fact remains that the Jim Crow laws are extremely difficult to explain away. You can’t ignore them.
Even here, none of you guys brought up the Jim Crow laws as an argument. Why? Why is this crucial piece of evidence often overlooked by both sides? I can understand why pro-Confederacy people would ignore it, but certainly not those against it lol
I wouldn't say its overlooked, more beside the point.
Why? Isn’t it a very strong argument in favour of the confederates being essentially fundamentally founded on racist principles?
I don't understand what the Jim Crow laws have to do with anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
It would be like adding jet fuel to a bonfire.Quote:
Originally Posted by rumox
Oh I see now. I suppose it does, but at the same time I think the Confederacy's actions outside of Jim Crow provide enough evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
Rofl claim Alexander the Great's legacy tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
Isn't that unrelated to my post, though? Satanists are serving a power they believe to be evil (Satan is evil incarnate by definition), while other religions serve a power they believe to be good. In other words, they don't even try to be moral lol: that is the whole point. Hence why I have a hard time understanding their "code of conduct" @Helz quoted, which just seems to be common sense and pro-science without references to religion. I follow that code of conduct, does that make me a satanist xD?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
Objection, Your Honor. I don't think the defendant meant "polygamy" under the meaning of "a system under which a man can have multiple wives, but a women cannot have multiple husbands"; the point of Mr. Ganelon is therefore irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganelon
You may be interested in reading into William Tecumseh Sherman. He held the strong position that "the negro was inferior" while also running one hell of a terror campaign burning through the south.. literally.. Like.. The homes of civilians and entire citys kinda burning through the south..Quote:
Originally Posted by rumox
That's literally who I'm talking about
Yes it does make you a satanist, and therefore you should have no problem changing the motto to "In God we trust, and Satan too"Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall
The left hand path.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumox
Like I said the actual implementation of this doctrine leaves a lot to be desired. The burning of an entire city (I'm assuming it's Atlanta) cannot fairly be attributed solely to Sherman imo. Sure he is the superior, but there is so much more to what happened to Atlanta then simply Sherman burned it. Examples: confederates took up defensive positions in the city, confederates destroyed buildings before fleeing, subordinates under Sherman taking their own initiative, conflicting stories on the destruction regardless of allegiance.Quote:
... IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, apples, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.
V. To army corps commanders alone is entrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.
VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.
VII. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along, but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one and that his first duty is to see to them who bear arms....
— William T. Sherman, Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864.
Sherman by no means is innocent, he pretty clearly sets himself up to be absolved of any possible perceived immorality while at the same time reaping the rewards if such immorality isn't perceived.