Bigamy

tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Bigamy

I saw in the BBC news about a man getting busted for bigamy on facebook.  I realized that I hadn't really given the subject much thought. When I was a christian I just accepted that it was wrong because the bible told me so. But now as an atheist should my views be any different? I know damn well that if I was a married woman, I wouldn't go for that shit. And why is it geared just for men to have multiple mates? And is it just what we have been taught to believe? Or do you think monogamy could have any role in our evolution? Bigamy is well practiced in the animal kingdom, and I'm positive it is necessary for the survival of species.  Why is it so different for us, and would you think differently about bigamy if it seemed vital to our survival. It seems kind of trivial just to say that there are plenty of humans and we don't need bigamy. Isn't adultery just a religious belief like any other? Why does the law have any say in this? I'm sure if you are married that your opinion will be affected by it, but try to think outside of that box.

Outside of religion and any legal ramifications, why would one believe in monogamy?

If it had never been against the law, would you have practiced it?

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Are you talking about polygamy?  You referred to "multiple mates" in your post so I'll give my opinion on that.  It's okay if all the people consent.  The monogamy laws are probably still left over from Christianity, but there might be an evolutionary reason for people to prefer monogamy.  For instance, sexual jealousy is pretty strong.  And, it's important that there's pair bonding between romantic partners so the man sticks around to help raise the child. 

But, men produce millions of sperm per ejaculation, compared to one ovum per month from the woman.  There's more of a cost involved with a woman having sex, and the man is free to stray.  He can just dump his sperm without having to have a fetus grow inside him for nine months.  So us men naturally like to have a main woman and then to stray occasionally for sex.  It's a neurophysiological urge.  In my opinion as long as the woman consents to having the man stray, it's okay.  But, I'm not so ridiculous as to expect my woman to be okay with an open relationship!  Sexual jealously is strong.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4477
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I have absolutely no

 I have absolutely no problem with bigamy or polygamy as long as the relationship is entered into voluntarily by all of the parties. I think the societal bias towards monogamy is almost solely due to christianity's dominance in the developed world. Several societies throughout history have accepted bigamy and polygamy. The reason such relationships tend to have one male and multiple females is probably due to most cultures being strongly patriarchal. 

 

I have no interest in being in a polygamous marriage but I also have no interest in being in another marriage again. Maybe time will change my mind. There is no reason why bigamy, polygamy or any other marriage structure should be illegal as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. One thing I learned in my marriage is that I really enjoy living alone and having a place to retreat to where no one bothers me, so I don't want to have one wife let alone two or three wives and a husband or two. But if someone else wants to have a variety of spouses, who am I to tell them no?

 

I think the person who is honest with their lover(s) about their feelings and attraction for others is a better person than the one who is in a monogamous relationship and lies.

 

If you are interested more on the subject you might want to check out a book written by one of our regulars. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29404

 

   

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Edit- soory

Sorry, I edited it while talking to someone. I started with the title cuz of the name of the headline i was reading. I guess both polygamy and bigomy. oops   not too many animals gettin' married. lol

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Well, bigamy is wrong

Well, bigamy is wrong because it's dishonest. If polygyny or polyandry is being done by consenting adults then it shouldn't really matter to anyone else.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hey Phil

Philosophicus wrote:

Are you talking about polygamy?  You referred to "multiple mates" in your post so I'll give my opinion on that.  It's okay if all the people consent.  The monogamy laws are probably still left over from Christianity, but there might be an evolutionary reason for people to prefer monogamy.  For instance, sexual jealousy is pretty strong.  And, it's important that there's pair bonding between romantic partners so the man sticks around to help raise the child. 

But, men produce millions of sperm per ejaculation, compared to one ovum per month from the woman.  There's more of a cost involved with a woman having sex, and the man is free to stray.  He can just dump his sperm without having to have a fetus grow inside him for nine months.  So us men naturally like to have a main woman and then to stray occasionally for sex.  It's a neurophysiological urge.  In my opinion as long as the woman consents to having the man stray, it's okay.  But, I'm not so ridiculous as to expect my woman to be okay with an open relationship!  Sexual jealously is strong.

(See my correction above)   That all makes sense, except wouldn't that mean that sexual jealousy from the woman would be nothing more than envy and fear of abandonment from her emotional attachment. Without the parental factor, i see nothing evolutionary or neurophsysiological on the female side.

I had 2 long-time friends that i introduced to each other and they ended up getting married. They decided to try an open marriage and invited me in. I declined, but after they persisted I said what the  fuck. I was a little wild back then. It went on for a while and she started coming over on her own, but didn't hide it from him. He ended up gettin jealous, but she told him to go play wherever he wanted. That wasn't good enough for him. So, his jealousy was really envy and fear of abandonment. They finally ended up wondering why the hell they were married in the first place and got divorced. Funny enough, others saw me as the bad guy and labeled me as a home-wrecker.

She had already had children from a previous marriage, so there was no parental factor. And neither were religious.

But i still can't deny that sexual jealousy is inherent. I imagine ancient man didn't see things all that differently, even without religion. So marriage is a little more than just a legal contract.

 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
As a species, we aren't

As a species, we aren't meant to stay with one person or even fuck just one person; it's not in our biological make-up.  There's a reason people cheat on their spouse and it isn't because they don't have feelings for them or anything; it's because we're curious by nature and want to satisfy our primal hunger.  Some of us can keep that in check because we lead lives that make up for the nagging others feel (i.e. well off, traveling a lot, good distractions, etc.)  Some of us are just unhappy enough and stressed to hell and throw caution to the wind.  I mean, even with a cornucopia of shit to even out the will to fool around, that doesn't mean it's one-hundred percent guaranteed to keep us in check all the time.  Even the best marriages and relationships end in tears and sometimes the circumstances behind his/her actions are not fully understood by anyone especially the one that did it in the first place.  The usual response is "it just happened" and the reason for that is because we can't help our attraction to people; we feel the need to act on it.  Sometimes it's harder to resist and other times, nature takes it's course.  Others understand this better when their significant other tells them of their unfaithful activities because they aren't naive to the reality of the world while others choose to live in denial, get jealous, not even bother to hear their side and maybe work to strengthen the bond they had granted there is still one before the "cheating" started. 

 

Of course, those with a bad relationship and a marriage that was never going to work in the first place or "falling apart" can never benefit from anything said previously since no amount of talking or "working it out" would make a bit of difference given the circumstances.  Most people are content with living under the guise of outdated partnerships that revolve around religious beliefs when we should be evolving to see that love can be experienced and given to more than one person intimately if the feelings are there.  Jealousy is possession and possession is jealousy, but if you're a caring guy that has two women who you share equal emotions with, then all that shit tends to dissolve because there's no reason to fight or get angry.  I know it's not as simple as that because feelings change, but it's just a basic psychological example.   

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Well, bigamy is

Gauche wrote:

Well, bigamy is wrong because it's dishonest.

 

Prove it...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Gauche

Kapkao wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Well, bigamy is wrong because it's dishonest.

 

Prove it...

Why? An appeal to subjectivity isn't even an ethos. It's just a safe position from which you don't have to address the substance of opposing claims or argue for the truth of your own beliefs. I guess it is a real time saver though.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Kapkao

Gauche wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Well, bigamy is wrong because it's dishonest.

 

Prove it...

Why? An appeal to subjectivity isn't even an ethos. It's just a safe position from which you don't have to address the substance of opposing claims or argue for the truth of your own beliefs. I guess it is a real time saver though.

Except your claim is written as an absolute... Sticking out tongue

edit; it's kinda erroneous and whatnot to expect an absolute to be subjective in nature. I suppose you could chalk this one up to a weak grasp of 'rhetoric'.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Maybe bigamy is okay if

Maybe bigamy is okay if you're doing it to prevent fascists from discovering a Jewish girl hiding in your attic, but I don't argue with religious people or moral skeptics anymore.

I don't argue with religious people because for all I know when someone is emotionally invested in the position they've taken up, not only are they immune to arguments and facts but assailing them with such only serves to strengthen and intensify their beliefs. I wish I'd never done it. Not because it was a waste of time but because it probably caused harm.

I don't argue with moral skeptics because with that one takes such an incredibly strong position on the epistemic status of all moral beliefs without providing reasons as it is only a great position when the burden is on the other person.

In my mind it's not enough to push the burden of proof back at me when you're making a universal claim that seems to defy common sense and don't see the need to justify it with some positive argument. It has nothing to do with you. It's the nature of such discussions and that I do consider to be a complete waste of time.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Bigamy is obviously the

Bigamy is obviously the opposite of smallamy which is where you don't enter into any legal marriage, but you have sex with married people.

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
And the opposite of

And the opposite of monogamous is non-monogamous.- not polygamy which applies to marriage.  I completely misused the words bigamy and polygamy and tried to correct it but i thought everyone would figure out what i meant. lol

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3048
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Well, bigamy is

Gauche wrote:

Well, bigamy is wrong because it's dishonest. If polygyny or polyandry is being done by consenting adults then it shouldn't really matter to anyone else.

not entirely true.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3048
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:I saw in

tonyjeffers wrote:

I saw in the BBC news about a man getting busted for bigamy on facebook.  I realized that I hadn't really given the subject much thought. When I was a christian I just accepted that it was wrong because the bible told me so. But now as an atheist should my views be any different? I know damn well that if I was a married woman, I wouldn't go for that shit. And why is it geared just for men to have multiple mates? And is it just what we have been taught to believe? Or do you think monogamy could have any role in our evolution? Bigamy is well practiced in the animal kingdom, and I'm positive it is necessary for the survival of species.  Why is it so different for us, and would you think differently about bigamy if it seemed vital to our survival. It seems kind of trivial just to say that there are plenty of humans and we don't need bigamy. Isn't adultery just a religious belief like any other? Why does the law have any say in this? I'm sure if you are married that your opinion will be affected by it, but try to think outside of that box.

Outside of religion and any legal ramifications, why would one believe in monogamy?

If it had never been against the law, would you have practiced it?

Polygamy, Bigamy and Polyandry should all be legal, just like monogamy.

Monogamy is an opinion. It should not be forced on others.

Many people see polygamy has been a horrible thing because of the "Jeffery's" case of abuse, rape and many other crimes. I think this is no different than any monogamist relationship where the father or the mother commit crimes; or as being in a monogamist relationship doesn't mean you are better parents than a homosexual relationship.

This country is ready for a change, a revolution of mammoth proportions. People are starting to see the extremists who have infiltrated our government and they are getting tired of the hyperbole. The church is losing its power to influence and soon, I believe, you will see gay marriage legal in many states. Even England is getting ready to put legal gay marriages up for a vote.

 

 

 

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3048
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I found this entry on

I found this entry on Wikipedia. I thought it would be a good addition to this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_%28conflict%29

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override wrote:Bigamy

Sage_Override wrote:

Bigamy is obviously the opposite of smallamy which is where you don't enter into any legal marriage, but you have sex with married people.

 

Again, I fail to see the problem...

"So very sorry... but I had a few hours of fun with your wife on your wedding night. And yes... I asked; she remembers it very fondly! Crazy damn nympho... any kids come out of that mess, by chance?"

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:And the

tonyjeffers wrote:

And the opposite of monogamous is non-monogamous.- not polygamy which applies to marriage.  I completely misused the words bigamy and polygamy and tried to correct it but i thought everyone would figure out what i meant. lol

...srsly? I'm the only one who got the concept of "two" or "many" partners? Damn. You people live some absolutely boring, mundane lives!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Maybe bigamy is

Gauche wrote:

Maybe bigamy is okay if you're doing it to prevent fascists from discovering a Jewish girl hiding in your attic, but I don't argue with religious people or moral skeptics anymore.

I don't argue with religious people because for all I know when someone is emotionally invested in the position they've taken up, not only are they immune to arguments and facts but assailing them with such only serves to strengthen and intensify their beliefs. I wish I'd never done it. Not because it was a waste of time but because it probably caused harm.

I don't argue with moral skeptics because with that one takes such an incredibly strong position on the epistemic status of all moral beliefs without providing reasons as it is only a great position when the burden is on the other person.

In my mind it's not enough to push the burden of proof back at me when you're making a universal claim that seems to defy common sense and don't see the need to justify it with some positive argument. It has nothing to do with you. It's the nature of such discussions and that I do consider to be a complete waste of time.

kk

I'm of the opinion "Two wives" and "two husbands" are always better than one (it's kind of a perfect love triangle) +

I see moral skepticism as a 'cure' for moral authority, in the sense of maximizing some tool's frustration while reducing their rationality to nearly zero. Lulz galore, and whatnot.

It happens whenever someone breaks a "taboo" or some such. Smiling

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
 Having one partner is

 Having one partner is generally more efficient, unless of course the partner requires more attention than is worthwhile or becomes inefficient, in which case you have the option to trade up for another.

If you have multiple partners, or are constantly in search of new partners, then unless you are practicing illegal servitude, this will expend energy you could be focusing on other tasks. To each their own, but this cat and mouse game grows tiresome in my opinion.

If you have no personal attachment, and each partner is simply like property that you claim stake of, try making this known up front and test the effectiveness. If they consent, you could share your car keys with the third wheel while you're at it.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4477
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ax wrote: Having one

ax wrote:

 Having one partner is generally more efficient, unless of course the partner requires more attention than is worthwhile or becomes inefficient, in which case you have the option to trade up for another.

If you have multiple partners, or are constantly in search of new partners, then unless you are practicing illegal servitude, this will expend energy you could be focusing on other tasks. To each their own, but this cat and mouse game grows tiresome in my opinion.

If you have no personal attachment, and each partner is simply like property that you claim stake of, try making this known up front and test the effectiveness. If they consent, you could share your car keys with the third wheel while you're at it.

Is efficiency a desirable goal in marriage? 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
This is subjective depending

This is subjective depending on culture and historical time period. There are many reasons to choose a partner. If you are combining income to achieve a common goal then efficiency is a tenet of your marriage.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4477
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ax wrote:This is subjective

ax wrote:

This is subjective depending on culture and historical time period. There are many reasons to choose a partner. If you are combining income to achieve a common goal then efficiency is a tenet of your marriage.

 

As far as combining income for a common goal a polygamous marriage would be far more efficient. More people bringing in income means that the goal is reached much more quickly. One person living in a house is very inefficient, two people is a little more efficient, three or four even more efficient as far as income and bills. Assuming of course that the additional partners are in fact providing incomes and not solely dependents. 

 

Of course adding additional people might make determining what goal to earn money for far less efficient if they all have some say in the matter. I don't think you can really say one type of marriage is more efficient than another. It completely depends on what you want to be efficient at. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4477
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Or if you even want to be

 Or if you even want to be efficient at all. I don't see a reason to worry about efficiency in relationships when it is so enjoyable to be remarkably inefficient with your time, money and efforts with them. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
 Beyond Saving wrote:As far

Beyond Saving wrote:
As far as combining income for a common goal a polygamous marriage would be far more efficient. More people bringing in income means that the goal is reached much more quickly. One person living in a house is very inefficient, two people is a little more efficient, three or four even more efficient as far as income and bills. Assuming of course that the additional partners are in fact providing incomes and not solely dependents.  Of course adding additional people might make determining what goal to earn money for far less efficient if they all have some say in the matter. I don't think you can really say one type of marriage is more efficient than another. It completely depends on what you want to be efficient at.
 I could see where polygamous marriage may be efficient if it were stable, but in my opinion this is an unstable scenario. How could you divide your time equally with that many partners? If it were not divided equally, what is to prevent them from finding a situation more beneficial to them? Right now I'm envisioning an office building where everyone swings and occasionally shares paychecks; seems chaotic.  
Beyond Saving wrote:
Or if you even want to be efficient at all. I don't see a reason to worry about efficiency in relationships when it is so enjoyable to be remarkably inefficient with your time, money and efforts with them.
 This I can definitely agree with. I still contend the significance of efficiency, but a little R&R every now and then is good for your health.

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ax wrote: Having one

ax wrote:

 Having one partner is generally more efficient, unless of course the partner requires more attention than is worthwhile or becomes inefficient, in which case you have the option to trade up for another.

If you have multiple partners, or are constantly in search of new partners, then unless you are practicing illegal servitude, this will expend energy you could be focusing on other tasks. To each their own, but this cat and mouse game grows tiresome in my opinion.

If you have no personal attachment, and each partner is simply like property that you claim stake of, try making this known up front and test the effectiveness. If they consent, you could share your car keys with the third wheel while you're at it.

"Sweetheart... you're giving me a hardon!"

"You sure it's me? Not all that talk about whiffing and crawling up asses?

"Watch your fucking mouth!"

"No... you watch it... let me straighten you out."

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"Sweetheart... you're

Quote:

"Sweetheart... you're giving me a hardon!"

"You sure it's me? Not all that talk about whiffing and crawling up asses?

"Watch your fucking mouth!"

"No... you watch it... let me straighten you out."

 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
"Another cunt he heard

"Another cunt he heard from..."

 

Granted, I've never understood the wives/women of organized crime myself.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)