This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Partisan's Profile

Partisan's Avatar Joined about 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Partisan

More Discussions by Partisan

Latest Comments by Partisan

Go to: Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Partisan's Avatar Jump to comment 128 by Partisan


I'm happy to leave it there after your reply, we both managed to say what we needed. Apologies to Layla for taking up so much board space, although I suppose polygamy wasn't entirely off topic it's certainly run its course here.

As for your comment Bonzai, my hamster's atheism would explain why he started fighting with his brother out of nowhere yesterday morning after a year of being cagemates. Clearly another case of Atheists lacking "objective" morality and thus behaving like ethical cretins - time to pull out the Lane Craig?

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 05:47:00 UTC | #400080

Go to: Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Partisan's Avatar Jump to comment 111 by Partisan

To make this very clear -

Polygamous countries have higher crime rates than non-polygamous. Yes, they do, if you disagree with this we have nothing more to discuss. Even if this fact is only a correlation it is still a fact. Iran, Iraq and Somalia vs. Sweden, France and the USA is a simple contest.

Another fact I shall put forward, is that the vast majority of men (and women of course) wish to have a family and continue their lineage. Contraceptive sex or sexual substitutes are well and good but, as I'm sure you've noticed, there are an awful lot of families out there with an awful lot of children. Having children is the biological objective for most...I also want say we wish to have relationships, but it is less important for this discussion.

I have suggested polygamy leads to the formation of a substantial pool of men who will never reproduce. Yes, in a non-Islamic country the situations I listed above would not be an issue if they were polygamous, but this was in response to your now thankfully discarded claim that a non-polygamous society would result in forced marriages and other such nonsense. We live in a non-polygamous society, and it hasn't turned into an Orwellian nightmare yet. Monogamy may well be favoured towards men in that it benefits them in that they are far more likely to reproduce than they would in a polygamous society.

So, what do we have?

Men want children. Polygamous societies do not allow a portion of men to have children (or even sex, in the case of Islam). In this situation, conflict is the outcome. Therefore, polygamy is a bad idea.

Now, you have all evening to write your reply and I'd like it to be clear as to where you disagree. I have a proposal to write and unless you happen to be an expert in Chekhov or late 19th Century Russian Literature whatever you say isn't going to be much use to me.

Thanks for your closing pep talk on how to present an argument as well, perhaps you could utilise it by presenting your case for the advantages of polygamy.

Edit: I noticed you've sent another post. Clearly the prospect of never having sex is more bleak than never having a child and would as such create more problems. However, in your quote I reference Islam (and polygamy underneath it). In this post I address polygamy. As for your Orthodox Jews, their track record isn't terrific either, but no, in my discussion I reference people who will NEVER reproduce. The people you mention are waiting on marriage.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:07:00 UTC | #399976

Go to: Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Partisan's Avatar Jump to comment 108 by Partisan


This is ridiculous.

Countries where polygamy is legal - all Islamic countries. So we have the Middle East, a portion of Africa etc., and a few others dotted around the world.

Countries where polygamy is illegal - "The West",China, Japan, etc.

If you wish to believe that violence is less pandemic in the former than the latter then that's your prerogative. Obviously I couldn't claim polygamy is the only cause of these attitudes but I wouldn't say it is so far-fetched that in the right conditions one could lead to the other.

However,I don't want to continue this as so far your rebuttals have followed only a "reduction ad absurdum" format, akin to me saying "so if you legalised polygamy ALL the women would HAVE to marry either the smartest man, or the fastest runner, or the greatest sportsman: it would be eugenics". Sounds about as ridiculous to me as:

"And even if it turns out to be true (that polygamy leads to undersexed men, which then leads to rampant violence), you failed to address my question as to the alternatives. Is it desirable to coerce women to marry less desirable men or remain single? You are basically saying that dangerous behavior by men is inevitable, so let's forcefully eliminate choices in order to dole out women."


"And you are the one with the apocalyptic claims - 'if men don't get laid they will be destructive...'"

and even

"I would add that your position could also be used against women who choose to remain single or marry other women. Those things also decrease the number of men who will not have an heir. "

Total insanity. There are men out there who don't want to get married. There are equally women who don't want to get married. There are people with no sexual drive whatsoever. As for other paths; there's sex out of wedlock. There's BDSM. There's furry handcuffs, hentai pornography and inflatable dolls; in short there's a host of other options not available in Islamic cultures.

As I've come this far, I may as well add your "hypothesis" which I said lacked supporting evidence was your first post, "If you have a man of means, and two women willing to abide by this arrangement in return for access to and control over his means, then I don't actually see a problem. " I've no problem with that, but it doesn't do well to be throwing around that my opinion is based conjecture when really I have at least offered a pathway from one cause to one effect, while you have even less. As such I could, I suppose, dismiss you as coming out your ass as well and leave it at that, but I wouldn't say that's necessary.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:43:00 UTC | #399958

Go to: Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Partisan's Avatar Jump to comment 100 by Partisan

"The society I live in is also a world leader in violent crime, which should be unexpected in your world since we have outlawed polygamy."

That is all I needed to hear - beam me up.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:47:00 UTC | #399892

Go to: Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Partisan's Avatar Jump to comment 98 by Partisan

I didn't see any research behind your hypothesis either, Blitz. The article was a while back so I'm not going to trawl the archives looking for it, however if you look past your own cultural sensibilities that men are constantly on their best behaviour and into the real world, you'd quickly notice it isn't so facetious an idea. Polygamy and polyandry have made sense in history where, for instance in Tibet, poor farming conditions meant it was advantageous overall if several men co-operated to raise a family with one woman as without their combined efforts it would be impossible to raise any children. Additionally in the past a similar logic may have been applicable to the Middle East.

However, in Islam polygamy is canonised, and where society has advanced Islam hasn't. The result is a large body of men who will never get laid with little to do and, yes, you can argue if they were anything like the the men you know they'd sit around and play cards until they die, but I tend to think that most would be disheartened by the prospect of never, at the least, leaving an heir. I'm not terribly happy with it either, but as I'm sure you know finding an argument upsetting isn't grounds for its dismissal.

Also, the scenario you described in (3) is absurd - we live in a society that isn't polygamous and isn't as apocalyptic as you described. (4) is simply flippant.

Anymore on this and we'd be hijacking the thread, so PM me if you want to take it further.

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:56:00 UTC | #399874

More Comments by Partisan