Page 5 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

29 Mar 2015, 5:57 pm

Iamaparakeet that is a quandary you are in. It is true people are presumed innocent until guilty. I can't possibly know what has happened. It is easy to speculate based of obviously a very serious subject.

It is something you have to make your own judgment on.

Obviously where a crime is taking place relationship status, is rather secondary the priority is safety of the public.

What I would say that an adult biting a child as a reflexive action is quite unusual. Small children do this, but it is rare in adults, and not particular reflexive. It is more likely in defense situation, if no limbs are available to make defensive action.

There is a differnce from reflex, and acting soon after for whatever reason, i.e. anger.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

29 Mar 2015, 6:05 pm

What I have always found strange is there is some families or a partner, where the relation has been found guilty of a crime unanimously, even with indisputable evidence in some case they still cannot accept it. I guess love or biological dependence runs deeper, they don't want it to be true.

It seem to me that you don't know and naturally you have to presume innocence legal speaking. However it does sound more like you are "stuck" in a relationship where there are problems, like trust.

I don't like the "no smoke without fire" idea especially in singular cases, however where there is a pattern of behaviour involving unrelated people that is a red flag.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,530
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

30 Mar 2015, 9:53 pm

This might sound demented but if male unemployment really starts climbing past female unemployment - it might be for the benefit of two or three women splitting the difference on a decent and attractive guy who can't get a job. In exchange they'd share a discount daddy daycare, a handyman, and hopefully a top-chef.

Not meaning to start a debate on whether white male privilege isn't still alive, kicking, and still far and away easier than anyone else but the thought of polygamy happening far more for matriarchal than patriarchal reasons has some humorous irony.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


princessarachne
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2015
Age: 24
Posts: 86
Location: Minnesota

31 Mar 2015, 10:07 pm

Lintar wrote:
Polygamy is the practice of one man having many wives. If we legalise it, we will then have to legalise the practice of one woman having many husbands, which I think is called 'polyandry'. After all, it would only be fair, would it not?


False. Polygamy is the practice of having multiple spouses. If Polygamy was allowed, it would go both ways.

Lintar wrote:
Marriage is, or at least was Shouldn't we be pushing for the abolition of marriage as a (rather outdated) concept

YES! I couldn't agree more! But right now anyone who tries to marry 2+ people can be thrown in prison (Polygamy is a felony).

Lintar wrote:
Good reasons for allowing it are completely non-existent. Societies that do allow it (ex. the Mormons) are not the kind of societies we should be attempting to emulate. Cults often encourage this practice precisely because it allows the founder of the cult to indulge himself with the daughters of his membership. Such societies are almost always grossly unequal.

It's not only religious people that practice polygamy. Polyamory is a romantic orientation (or philosophy) in which one person feels romantic feelings towards more than one person at a time. Also Mormons no longer practice polygamy. They abandoned this practice long ago. Only offshoot groups still do this.

Lintar wrote:
One needs to seriously question the mindset of a man who actually thinks it would be a dandy idea to have access to more than one wife. Such people usually turn out to be complete sleazebags (and misogynistic douchbags as well).


This is a really hurtful thing to say. I happen to be a polyamorous person, and I am not a sleaze bag. I am not a misogynist either; I am gay and so I would be in a poly relationship with two men. No women involved and thus, no misogyny. xD. Speaking of which, what have you done to lower your slavery footprint? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TPFLHvn024
The government's job is to protect people from harm and oppression. The single act of marrying two people is not either of those. How about instead of trying to limit people's freedom of choice, we go after the REAL wars against women: Slavery, unconsentual marriage, abortion, trafficking, domestic violence. THESE are REAL wars against women. Polygamy is not.