10-23-2017, 05:18 PM
|
#61
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
OMG!WTF!
Do you think that polygamy would have the same effects in Canada that it does in the places where it's practiced? Women here, generally, have far greater economic power.
As for the "unmarried men" argument, there are plenty of policies that create winners and "losers". Not pushing women to marry less-desirable men by limiting the ability of a desirable man to marry them is a case where I think creating "losers" is acceptable. Again though, this would be less of a factor in Canada or a similar society where less-desirable men are less likely to find partners anyways - as there are many women who would rather be single than settle.
Polygamy is a problem where the liberty of the married is in question. Likewise, the niqab is a problem where the liberty of the wearer is in question. And if I had to take my chances with one of them being consensual and not the result of oppressive circumstances, I'd go with polygamy.
|
No. I mean nothing you're saying is correct. I won't waste your time with my opinion. Here's reality. Our courts have on record the evidence from a 2011 research paper written by UBC prof Joseph Henrich. It was used to prosecute the Blackmore...that hottie that the women of Bountiful can't go without being married to. So at this point it's proof polygamy is harmful to our society as it has been in other societies throughout history.
From the abstract of that report....
Quote:
Here, we develop and explore the hypothesis that the norms and institutions that compose the modern package of monogamous marriage have been favoured by cultural evolution because of their group-beneficial effects—promoting success in inter-group competition. In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide.
|
Is coercion more or less when it comes to polygamy vs burqa's? I don't know or care as both would be illegal under our existing statutes. What I do know for a fact is one has provable detrimental outcomes for participants and societies in general. Wearing a burqa is no skin off anyone's nose. And there is no harm to the wearer unless we bring it to them by not hiring them, not letting them ride the bus, and not accommodating them under our existing charter.
|
|
|
10-23-2017, 05:30 PM
|
#62
|
Franchise Player
|
Didn't a chunk of the polygamy laws get overturned in the bountiful cases?
Edit never mind they reaffirmed them in 2011.
Though I think the practices are similar in nature to the forced wearing of the burqa banning polygamy doesn't cause harm whereas banning the burqa likely further isolates women.
Last edited by GGG; 10-23-2017 at 05:34 PM.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-23-2017, 05:47 PM
|
#63
|
Ate 100 Treadmills
|
To play devil's advocate what's going on in Bountiful isn't just polygamy. It's a very strongly controlled and centralized society that has elements of underaged rape, forced expulsions, sexual coercion, sexual abuse, prostitution, etc...Even if polygamy were legal, there would be a plethora of laws that should theoretically stop a Bountiful type situation.
For the record I am against Polygamy, but more for the reasons that it enforces economic stratification.
|
|
|
10-23-2017, 11:56 PM
|
#64
|
tromboner
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
Blackmore...that hottie that the women of Bountiful can't go without being married to.
|
I won't argue that Blackmore's wives are benefiting from polygamy. I will, however, argue that what is representative under criminalization would likely not be representative under decriminilization. It would be hard to know what mainstream Canada with polygamy would look like. To my knowlege, no example exists.
|
|
|
10-24-2017, 10:35 AM
|
#65
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
|
Clarification from the minister today. States this affects only direct interactions between public employees and customers.
Example, face must be exposed to driver entering bus but otherwise can be worn while passenger.
|
|
|
10-24-2017, 10:47 AM
|
#66
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce
Clarification from the minister today. States this affects only direct interactions between public employees and customers.
Example, face must be exposed to driver entering bus but otherwise can be worn while passenger.
|
So the last line of defense against terrorism is bus drivers? GTFO. This is awful.
__________________
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
|
|
10-24-2017, 12:09 PM
|
#67
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary - Centre West
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Yes, and pointing out the genesis and rationale underlying this practice and its ties to purity culture, and thereby hopefully convincing people not to wear it if they don't want to display a symbol of those wrongs, is the correct response. Not banning it because the moral majority knows what's best for people. I mean, we don't arrest people for wearing the confederate flag, and look what that's associated with.
|
Where posters on this site are concerned, I respect you. You're smart, articulate, and often present well thought-out arguments -- a great many of which I agree with -- which is why it pains me to see you use such a weak example. Are people being subjected to abuse for *not* wearing a confederate flag? Are people being forced to wear the confederate flag as a means of keeping them subordinate? This hypothetical you've created doesn't even begin to make sense as a parallel situation to the one we're discussing.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
|
|
|
10-24-2017, 12:26 PM
|
#68
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay
So the last line of defense against terrorism is bus drivers? GTFO. This is awful.
|
If you mean that, as an ancillary benefit of ending the subjugation of women worldwide, then yes.
|
|
|
10-24-2017, 12:33 PM
|
#69
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Hmmmmmmm
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
Where posters on this site are concerned, I respect you. You're smart, articulate, and often present well thought-out arguments -- a great many of which I agree with -- which is why it pains me to see you use such a weak example. Are people being subjected to abuse for *not* wearing a confederate flag? Are people being forced to wear the confederate flag as a means of keeping them subordinate? This hypothetical you've created doesn't even begin to make sense as a parallel situation to the one we're discussing.
|
Do you have proof they're wearing it for these reasons? Maybe they're just stupid and want to wear a burqa all on their own? Where are these women being abused for not wearing a burqa?
Who says they are being forced? It is offensive reading these posts saying these women must be forced to wear them.
|
|
|
10-24-2017, 12:51 PM
|
#70
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
Where posters on this site are concerned, I respect you. You're smart, articulate, and often present well thought-out arguments -- a great many of which I agree with -- which is why it pains me to see you use such a weak example. Are people being subjected to abuse for *not* wearing a confederate flag? Are people being forced to wear the confederate flag as a means of keeping them subordinate? This hypothetical you've created doesn't even begin to make sense as a parallel situation to the one we're discussing.
|
Of course it does - the fact that an analogy isn't exactly identical doesn't make it unuseful.
There are certainly people out there who would like us to ban the wearing of a confederate flag t-shirt based on its symbolic associations. We do not do so, because we value freedom of expression, even for ideas we find distasteful, except in very narrow circumstances. For the same reasons, it would be wrong to try to ban the hijab and other face coverings for their symbolic associations. You have to be consistent: if it's acceptable to ban one supposed symbol of immoral practices and history, then all of them must go. Assuming that result is unacceptable to you, the argument based on symbolism falls. Reductio ad absurdum.
Turning the discussion to women who are being forced, either through subtle coercion or more direct means, to wear face coverings or even more severe dress is a separate argument in favour of the ban, different from the one I was refuting before. However, I think it's just as easily rebutted: this is a sort of heckler's veto. The behaviour that's worthy of censure isn't the wearing of the hijab (or similar), it's the coercion itself. That problem isn't going away on its own, and trying to take away vulnerable people's rights in an effort to protect them from other bad actors never ends well.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:34 PM.
|
|