First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
Polygamy
56909 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / Right behind you.
Offline
Posted 7/22/11

DomFortress wrote:


Population study isn't just about what if's, you need to come up with logical explanation about what's happening in real life.



I'm not "making excuses for what i cant prove" first of all my model was meant to illustrate how polygamy would not lead to higher population numbers intrinsically . Second of all, simply because you found a competing theory online doesn't really mean that mine has been disproven by any means. There are anthropologists that theorize people became sedentary due to their desire to produce wheat for fermentation to create beer. Not a very widely accepted theory, but a theory non the less. The fact that theory exists does not disprove the more widely accepted theories about the change from nomadic life to sedentary life.

I never said anything about anthropology stating polygamy or monogamy were the natural state of humanity, my statement about anthropology, if you bothered to actually read it stated that large families came from necessity in the past. Monogamous relationships can also yield to large families. Historically, the groups of people that have had large families have been groups of sedentary people relying heavily on agriculture for their survival. Whether the family was monogamous or polygamous is irrelevant to my statement.
Also, people are not as different from other animals as they like to believe they are. If most animals around earth are not exclusively monogamous but atleast mildly polygamous, there is no reason to believe humans would be any different.

Things like true love, compassion and altruism are completely subjective and most likely based on a person's previous experiences. Emotions like true love are also ephemeral. For example the question of "What percentage of the day and night do you think about this person?" to the same couple, assuming they have been married for 3 years and are still in a happy marriage, in a stable lifestyle. and i assure you the answer will be different.

Also you criticize my lack of evidence for my statements when the article you quoted suffers from the same problem. Just because the same parts of the brain light up doesn't necessarily mean its the same drive or experience. What determines responses is the sequence and response of neurons, which so far are impossible to see in-situ. It would be similar to studying two groups of people and deciding they behave the same because they both go to bed after the sun goes down. Its a large over generalization based on a lack of understanding of how the brain works. Also as stated on the article, Many other regions of the brain light up, little is knows about the brain, but what is known is that it works through interaction of the different regions. It is impossible to tell how the multiple regions interacting affect a person. Bottom line is that scientists simply dont know enough about emotion and the brain in general to be able to translate a specific pattern to a specific emotion. doing so is conjecture, it might be an educated guess, but its still a guess at best.

Finally as a little side note, science never proves anything, it just disproves a theory of fails to disprove it, it never proves. If you asked that anthropologist, i assure you he would never say he proved monogamy was biological.
Posted 7/24/11

quikbeam wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Population study isn't just about what if's, you need to come up with logical explanation about what's happening in real life.



I'm not "making excuses for what i cant prove" first of all my model was meant to illustrate how polygamy would not lead to higher population numbers intrinsically . Second of all, simply because you found a competing theory online doesn't really mean that mine has been disproven by any means. There are anthropologists that theorize people became sedentary due to their desire to produce wheat for fermentation to create beer. Not a very widely accepted theory, but a theory non the less. The fact that theory exists does not disprove the more widely accepted theories about the change from nomadic life to sedentary life.

I never said anything about anthropology stating polygamy or monogamy were the natural state of humanity, my statement about anthropology, if you bothered to actually read it stated that large families came from necessity in the past. Monogamous relationships can also yield to large families. Historically, the groups of people that have had large families have been groups of sedentary people relying heavily on agriculture for their survival. Whether the family was monogamous or polygamous is irrelevant to my statement.
Also, people are not as different from other animals as they like to believe they are. If most animals around earth are not exclusively monogamous but atleast mildly polygamous, there is no reason to believe humans would be any different.

Things like true love, compassion and altruism are completely subjective and most likely based on a person's previous experiences. Emotions like true love are also ephemeral. For example the question of "What percentage of the day and night do you think about this person?" to the same couple, assuming they have been married for 3 years and are still in a happy marriage, in a stable lifestyle. and i assure you the answer will be different.

Also you criticize my lack of evidence for my statements when the article you quoted suffers from the same problem. Just because the same parts of the brain light up doesn't necessarily mean its the same drive or experience. What determines responses is the sequence and response of neurons, which so far are impossible to see in-situ. It would be similar to studying two groups of people and deciding they behave the same because they both go to bed after the sun goes down. Its a large over generalization based on a lack of understanding of how the brain works. Also as stated on the article, Many other regions of the brain light up, little is knows about the brain, but what is known is that it works through interaction of the different regions. It is impossible to tell how the multiple regions interacting affect a person. Bottom line is that scientists simply dont know enough about emotion and the brain in general to be able to translate a specific pattern to a specific emotion. doing so is conjecture, it might be an educated guess, but its still a guess at best.

Finally as a little side note, science never proves anything, it just disproves a theory of fails to disprove it, it never proves. If you asked that anthropologist, i assure you he would never say he proved monogamy was biological.
Well I can prove to you that you contradicted your own bogus claim with your own statements. When you claimed that "monogamous or polygamous is irrelevant to my statement", you're thereby not even here to discuss about polygamy. Also, while you claimed here that "true love, compassion and altruism are completely subjective and most likely based on a person's previous experiences", you contradicted yourself by your own statement here that "determines responses is the sequence and response of neurons, which so far are impossible to see in-situ". Therefore your pseudo claim is just as faulty as your irrational scientific denial on the mirror neurons that enables empathy.

Now there is another kind of mirror neuron, which is involved in something quite different. And that is, there are mirror neurons, just as there are mirror neurons for action, there are mirror neurons for touch. In other words, if somebody touches me, my hand, neuron in the somatosensory cortex in the sensory region of the brain fires. But the same neuron, in some cases will fire when I simply watch another person being touched. So, it's empathizing the other person being touched.

So, most of them will fire when I'm touched in different locations. Different neurons for different locations. But a subset of them will fire even when I watch somebody else being touched in the same location. So, here again you have neurons which are enrolled in empathy. Now, the question then arises: If I simply watch another person being touched, why do I not get confused and literally feel that touch sensation merely by watching somebody being touched? I mean, I empathize with that person but I don't literally feel the touch. Well, that's because you've got receptors in your skin, touch and pain receptors, going back into your brain and saying "Don't worry, you're not being touched. So, empathize, by all means, with the other person, but do not actually experience the touch otherwise you'll get confused and muddled."

Okay, so there is a feedback signal that vetos the signal of the mirror neuron preventing you from consciously experiencing that touch. But if you remove the arm, you simply anesthetize my arm, so you put an injection into my arm, anesthetize the brachial plexus, so the arm is numb, and there is no sensations coming in, if I now watch you being touched, I literally feel it in my hand. In other words, you have dissolved the barrier between you and other human beings. So, I call them Gandhi neurons, or empathy neurons.

And this is not in some abstract metaphorical sense, all that's separating you from him, from the other person, is your skin. Remove the skin, you experience that person's touch in your mind. You've dissolved the barrier between you and other human beings. And this, of course is the basis of much of Eastern philosophy, And that is there is no real independent self, aloof from other human beings, inspecting the world, inspecting other people. You are in fact, connected not just via Facebook, and Internet, you're actually quite literally connected by your neurons. And there is whole chains of neurons around this room, talking to each other. And there is no real distinctiveness of your consciousness from somebody else's consciousness.

And this is not mumbo-jumbo philosophy. It emerges from our understanding of basic neuroscience. So, you have a patient with a phantom limb. If the arm has been removed and you have a phantom, and you watch somebody else being touched, you feel it in your phantom. Now the astonishing thing is, if you have pain in your phantom limb, you squeeze the other person's hand, massage the other person's hand, that relieves the pain in your phantom hand, almost as though the neuron were obtaining relief from merely watching somebody else being massaged.(citation)
1218 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / A Place in America
Offline
Posted 8/23/11
I only have a problem with the way it seem like these polygamist groups only cater to men. If they say that it's okay for a man to have as many wives as he wants but a women can't have as many husbands as she wants, then it's obvious to me that they are just sprouting a bunch of sexist bull, and using this "religion" to break the law.
25302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 8/26/11 , edited 8/26/11
Polygamy groups scare me. I once read that as a result of inbreeding, the children of a polygamist group had a lot of birth defects. Supposedly, they just threw those children out with the trash. That's just inhuman, unless the baby is dead. Even then you should give it a proper burial.

Anyway, it's lawbreaking. I wouldn't understand how you'd want to have more than one spouse. To many of these polygamists, their wives (usually it's only men who have multiple spouses - sexist world ) are purely used as sex toys or baby making machines. Most of the time, it seems like they don't even love these wives of theirs. Yes, they have sex with them, but that's not really love. Again, polygamy results, a majority of the time, in inbreeding. People marry their cousins when there's no one left to marry. Hell, they would marry their sister if there's no one left to marry. They just have to have 2 or more wives. They can't even wait until someone else that's not related to them comes along. And when they make children, most are born healthy - and then comes some child with a birth defect that they disregard and thrown away like a wrapper on a peice of food.

It's just - wrong- in my opinion - polygamy. Inbreeding - having multiple wives - it's just - wrong....

By the way - I'm sorry to be so all over the place with this....
6607 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / at the happiest p...
Offline
Posted 8/28/11
personally i'd want a monogamous relationship...i don't really want to see my husband marrying anyone else
Posted 9/16/11
I do know that there are still people who practice polygamy. I think polygamy is sad in a way and I won't go into deep meaning towards it because I am lazy. However, monogamous relationships is rather a preference that I want.
3396 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 9/21/11
I really, really, REALLY don't see the point in marital polygamy.
I honestly don't...
46104 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Nagoya, Japan
Offline
Posted 10/12/11
I believe in polyamory, which is a little different and more broad but doesn't (usually) involve multiple marriages, and do practice it in my relationships. Most societies have practiced a form of it, until western Christian society became more of a cultural norm. It always depends on the person, so one person's cup of tea may not be for the other. I've met many good friends and most have been long lasting due to it. The majority of people can't handle the jealousy though, which is a good reason to stick to monogamy.
430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Texas, USA
Offline
Posted 10/19/11
Polygamy is not for me and I wouldn't do it or get into one with someone.

But I don't have a problem with it because thats what other poeple want then fine its not my life not my choice if I don't like it I simply wont get into one.
3651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / Sea of Nostalgia
Offline
Posted 10/19/11
Personally i'm against poligamy but my Uncle is an African and he has 7 wives and over 40 children. Sometimes it's not a choice for either women or men, it's just a cutural thing.
188 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/11/11 , edited 11/11/11
Polygamy is just an official license to have sex with other women.

I don't buy the ideology. I won't want my future wife to think she is some 'second-hand' goods.
130615 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / 私自身の不思議の国
Offline
Posted 7/15/12
That's their own choices, however for myself, there's no way I would be in the Polygamous relationships. I'm not a jealous type as much, but I can't bear of the thought of getting less attention then the others.
8753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / North Carolina
Offline
Posted 8/12/12 , edited 8/12/12
Like some pps mentioned I am also against marriage...for myself at least. I can see the appeal for others though. I don't care who marries who as long as their of age and all consenting.
13648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 8/18/12
In terms of human biology and human evolution standpoint, it is completely reasonable...

But socially and morally speaking... I still think we shouldn't engage in polygamy....
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 8/19/12

shuyi000 wrote:

In terms of human biology and human evolution standpoint, it is completely reasonable...

But socially and morally speaking... I still think we shouldn't engage in polygamy....



Why not? There is nothing inherently immoral about the act of polygamy, in and of itself, it has been practised by our ancestors until perverted custom taught them monogamy.
First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.