- Joined
- Nov 20, 2012
- Messages
- 6,551
PN,
Soon, in five years, i believe Chase will get married. But he definitely break off from the monogamy after five or ten years. It depends on his business as well. If it turns out well, he probably have shorter marriage span. If business hits a tumble, he needs support, and most of the time, people look towards marriage and relationships to support them....
but he might be different.
Zac
Soon, in five years, i believe Chase will get married. But he definitely break off from the monogamy after five or ten years. It depends on his business as well. If it turns out well, he probably have shorter marriage span. If business hits a tumble, he needs support, and most of the time, people look towards marriage and relationships to support them....
but he might be different.
Zac
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2012
- Messages
- 6,551
Yea I know it but I expect him to, soon or likely to have children around the next 20 years.
Zac
Zac
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2012
- Messages
- 6,254
I guess this is what it feels like when Brad Pitt opens up some celebrity gossip rag and people are speculating about his relationship with Angelina.
For the record, I've always been a fan of Ian Malcolm's (played by Jeff Goldblum) line about it in Jurassic Park: "I'm always looking for a future ex-Mrs. Malcolm." The real tragedy in my mind is how anti-polygamy Western governments are, because why should you have to boot one wife to take another? Doesn't seem very fair to the women if you ask me. Not sure why the feminists aren't all over this.
Chase
For the record, I've always been a fan of Ian Malcolm's (played by Jeff Goldblum) line about it in Jurassic Park: "I'm always looking for a future ex-Mrs. Malcolm." The real tragedy in my mind is how anti-polygamy Western governments are, because why should you have to boot one wife to take another? Doesn't seem very fair to the women if you ask me. Not sure why the feminists aren't all over this.
Chase
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2013
- Messages
- 473
It was from you Chase that I learned that men used to chase down women for marriage in the west some 30-40 years back and that only lately its changed and shifted the other way to where women now try to pin men down for marriage.
Feminists can be pretty laughably nonsensical… I think like any other dogmatic fundamentalist group they’ll just naturally gravitate towards adopting whatever their mass group claims to so strongly to believe in and follow that because “they're feminist and of course they should be believing in that!!”.
There’s a political theory called the overton window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window which says that a political theory will be limited to a narrow window of a range of ideas which the public will be able to accept (and anything outside of the window won’t be able to be accepted conventionally just yet; the theory also suggests that all political radicals are just trying to push open the overton window further).
To give an example: if we were to say that dolphins have intelligence comparable to humans and all dolphins should get to vote, it would be ridiculous … but then it would shed light on dolphin rights and suddenly yes it still wouldn’t make sense for dolphins to get to vote, but it would be paramount then that dolphins get fair treatment and aren’t abused and get far more rights than the “incredibly limited rights they get right now” and so on…
Feminists wouldn’t really get to complain about polygamy until polygamy gained more potential to become mainstream in western society (mainstream over the current norm of everyone expecting and encouraging others to get married).
Then feminists would be able to say “hey why can’t we be polygamous, they're doing it in the Middle East and it’s going on fine!”, and they’d find all the selective facts they'd need to back it up.
I think it never really ends up being a question of what would be best for the people (with any of those groups) as much as it ends up being promoting what the political agenda would be and strictly adhering to it, continually pushing it further and advancing the fundamentalist group’s interests in that way.
EDIT: I just realized you had said western governments are against it... my guess as to that would be that western governments wouldn't really be up for it till they could hash out what the tangible benefit/advantage of doing it would be for them (what the benefit would be, and again if it would fall into the window or not; example here would be women joining the workforce, which the government eventually backed for the opportunity to massively add to the tax base).
What would be in it be for them though? I'm not sure... maybe you know the answer to that Chase?
Feminists can be pretty laughably nonsensical… I think like any other dogmatic fundamentalist group they’ll just naturally gravitate towards adopting whatever their mass group claims to so strongly to believe in and follow that because “they're feminist and of course they should be believing in that!!”.
There’s a political theory called the overton window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window which says that a political theory will be limited to a narrow window of a range of ideas which the public will be able to accept (and anything outside of the window won’t be able to be accepted conventionally just yet; the theory also suggests that all political radicals are just trying to push open the overton window further).
To give an example: if we were to say that dolphins have intelligence comparable to humans and all dolphins should get to vote, it would be ridiculous … but then it would shed light on dolphin rights and suddenly yes it still wouldn’t make sense for dolphins to get to vote, but it would be paramount then that dolphins get fair treatment and aren’t abused and get far more rights than the “incredibly limited rights they get right now” and so on…
Feminists wouldn’t really get to complain about polygamy until polygamy gained more potential to become mainstream in western society (mainstream over the current norm of everyone expecting and encouraging others to get married).
Then feminists would be able to say “hey why can’t we be polygamous, they're doing it in the Middle East and it’s going on fine!”, and they’d find all the selective facts they'd need to back it up.
I think it never really ends up being a question of what would be best for the people (with any of those groups) as much as it ends up being promoting what the political agenda would be and strictly adhering to it, continually pushing it further and advancing the fundamentalist group’s interests in that way.
EDIT: I just realized you had said western governments are against it... my guess as to that would be that western governments wouldn't really be up for it till they could hash out what the tangible benefit/advantage of doing it would be for them (what the benefit would be, and again if it would fall into the window or not; example here would be women joining the workforce, which the government eventually backed for the opportunity to massively add to the tax base).
What would be in it be for them though? I'm not sure... maybe you know the answer to that Chase?
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 747
Haha, great reply, Chase. Love Jeff Goldblum.
I think the problem with the overarching "feminists group" is the same problem that plagues any group.... the more and more people added, the more it eventually gets corrupted and people wanting power emerge.
An example is PETA. I'm actually vegan, but I don't agree with everything PETA does, and you won't see me wasting my time on endless arguments here (because I don't care what other people do; it's their choice). At first, all groups start simple. You think, "Hey, I'd love to get some like-minded individuals.... maybe just a social club to be around people with similar ideas and thoughts." So, at first, you form a small group with some local friends that are all vegan. Eventually, more and more people get added, and without a good foundation and continuing maintenance, it gets corrupted and people begin to emerge within the group that get hungry for power.
I think feminists probably started the same way. A group of women saw some injustices/inequality between the sexes. They formed a small group with like-minded individuals. Eventually, with more and more people, it became necessary to have issues (a Darth Vader to attack) in order for the group to strive (no Darth Vader... don't need Jedi). It becomes its own little sub- government/country. You have to blow up things in order to keep the country alive. Then you have people that want control and power.
I see this over and over with stuff in society. What starts out as a small group with good intentions blows up into a mob. They eventually lose sight of their roots/origins (e.g., equality of all people, peace for all) and become what they hate in a way.
But, there's still a minority in the group that are good people. It's important not to stereotype everyone in it and become bitter by the bad apples. Just distance yourself away from it haha.
I think the problem with the overarching "feminists group" is the same problem that plagues any group.... the more and more people added, the more it eventually gets corrupted and people wanting power emerge.
An example is PETA. I'm actually vegan, but I don't agree with everything PETA does, and you won't see me wasting my time on endless arguments here (because I don't care what other people do; it's their choice). At first, all groups start simple. You think, "Hey, I'd love to get some like-minded individuals.... maybe just a social club to be around people with similar ideas and thoughts." So, at first, you form a small group with some local friends that are all vegan. Eventually, more and more people get added, and without a good foundation and continuing maintenance, it gets corrupted and people begin to emerge within the group that get hungry for power.
I think feminists probably started the same way. A group of women saw some injustices/inequality between the sexes. They formed a small group with like-minded individuals. Eventually, with more and more people, it became necessary to have issues (a Darth Vader to attack) in order for the group to strive (no Darth Vader... don't need Jedi). It becomes its own little sub- government/country. You have to blow up things in order to keep the country alive. Then you have people that want control and power.
I see this over and over with stuff in society. What starts out as a small group with good intentions blows up into a mob. They eventually lose sight of their roots/origins (e.g., equality of all people, peace for all) and become what they hate in a way.
But, there's still a minority in the group that are good people. It's important not to stereotype everyone in it and become bitter by the bad apples. Just distance yourself away from it haha.
