Conservatives and nazis on this thread always talk about how the LGBT+ community's sexual habits, and how, if permitted, will lead to polygamy. Disregarding the fact that this is a meme argument which is completely based on a slippery slope argument, how is polygamy/polyamory a bad thing? I ask this question as a hetero man who has no desire to live a polyamorous lifestyle.
They call themselves "progressives", and then deny the slippery slope. Go figure.
>>55561264
>Everyone belongs to everyone else
You didn't read Brave New World did you?
>>55561390
OK, I'll let that one slide for now because that's not what this thread is about. Even IF polyamory were accepted and given legal status, what's the issue?
>>55561431
Polyamory as I've always understood it and had it explained to me has nothing to do with possession, in the same way that regular relationships aren't. Obviously I'm only talking about free, consensual and honest relationships that happen to be polyamorous.
>>55561442
No, we don't want to sext with you. Maybe some other board will fancy that, but /pol/ does not endorse such degeneracy.
>>55561535
As I've stated, I am not polyamorous. Can you explain precisely "why" it's degeneracy?
>>55561623
The family unit is the building block of society.
If you would like to learn more about polyamory, look at blacks.
>>55561491
Still my point stands.
Slippery slope isn't an argument, it's a fact.
It take considerably less energy to go from one progressive point to another.
A thief is more prone to murder than someone who has never committed a crime.
And as to why polyamory is a bad thing, well look at what happened with the Anabaptists.
You rationalize polyamory then child rape is only a stone's throw away.
>>55561623
>Can you explain precisely "why" it's degeneracy?
Breaks down the traditional family unit which is the cornerstone of any healthy society.
>>55561689
>>55561869
Technically child rearing is a different thing from romantic relationships. What would be wrong with a polyamorous relationship where two of the members are parents to a child and the rest take on more of an aunt/uncle role?
>>55561762
Except polyamory can be, and usually is, consensual. Child rape is not, and is actually damaging.
>>55561973
You can't just say "no it's not like this it's different".
When I say that it does lead to it with a prime example of historical degeneracy.
Or do you not think we can learn from history.
Better yet, show me one example of a culture which has/had polyamory and doesn't have an epidemic of child rape.
>>55561973
Polyamory does not take into account humans natural tendency to be jealous. Sure it would be great to live in a society where we all love each other but the fact stands that humans are greedy, selfish and ultimately hateful. This is not to say this is the only thing we are, the same person who can execute a rebel in cold blood in the morning can go home to a loving wife and children at night time and be one of the most decent people you ever meet.
Human psychology usually does not allow us to handle having our partner to have multiple partners, this is not due to societal standards but rather to the fact that throughout history the majority of societies that have polyamory generally end up having some of the most decadent practices (The middle east is a prime example, muslim men are allowed to have four wives and yet women are treated as practically worthless.) and generally tend to have little to no value on human life (It is almost as if having so much polyamory makes you give up your humanity).
While the idea of polyamory seems good in practice in reality it is something that is not practical if you want a society that advances.
>>55562053
>literally saying that i can't point out differences between things when saying why they're morally different
also, the burden of proof on things like child rape is on you. Prove that a person in a polyamorous relationship is more likely to rape children, compared to the average person in the same country and socio-economic situation.
>>55562234
Muslim culture.
Anabaptist example.
Jungle tribes.
Pretty much any tribal culture.
All practicing polyamory.
All marrying off/raping at 13 or younger.
>>55561762
>a thief I'd prone to murder then someone who's never committed a crime
Wow that I'd not true look how many people without criminal histories are in prison for murder, 2nd degree murder, crime of passion murder, manslaughter without prior burglary offenses
I mean I know you think you can just say things like that, but youre not wise
>>55562234
Also your statement does not take into account what sort of society we are living in, if you are talking about modern society then I sincerely hope that you are either rich or powerful or both.
As someone who has studied humanity closely I can safely say that people are attracted to either wealth or someone powerful because it will ultimately mean protection for those who attract the attention of the rich or wealthy.
This means if you are a old rich man you are going to have the greatest chance of having multiple partners because they know the best way of getting to your money is by simply waiting for you to die which means they get their own form of power.
>>55562332
You misunderstand me. In jungle tribes, if EVERYBODY is polyamorous then you literally can't say that their polyamory causes child rape. What I'm asking for is comparisons of people who lead otherwise similar lives. Plenty of insular cultures have higher child rape statistics, not all of them practise polyamory.
>>55561264
I´m pretty sure T+ is one hundred times worse than polygamy
>>55562460
>anecdote and opinion is evidence
It's common knowledge that people who commit murder have priors.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/most-murder-victims-in-big-cities-have-criminal-record/
>>55562513
So I give you an example of a culture which practices polyamory that leads to basically statutory rape and you say it's invalid because everyone does it?
Case in point. You just said that the slippery slope is real.
>>55562716
Never admitted that polyamory CAUSES child rape. Only that some polyamorous cultures do commit child rape at a higher rate. Correlation =/= causation.
>>55561264
OP is a nigger
>>55562772
>Correlation =/= causation.
Nice meme.
It's still correlation, better than any evidence you've shown so far.
>>55562810
Not a "nigger". White as many generations as I care to count.
>>55562813
Not my job to prove shit. Show me either the stats I've asked for, or an example of an entire culture that embraced polyamory and THEN started raping kids, without any other possible factors.
>>55562962
>Not my job to prove shit.
Okay well that was productive.
>Show me either the stats I've asked for, or an example of an entire culture that embraced polyamory THEN started raping kids
Just shows you haven't any idea what I'm talking about when I mentioned the Anabaptist example.
The problem is when one of the couple is polyamoric and other - monoamoric.
>>55563054
So the Anabaptists didn't undergo any changes other than polyamory, and started fucking little tackers immediately? If not, GTFO.
humping for importance
hump
hump
First off
Pic obligatory
Second
I've seen first hand what such a relationship does to friends who commit to believing its "love" first comes certain people being left out, therefore cukkolded, you wouldn't want your girl coming back after fucking someone else and acting like it's all good. second is jealosy, works hand in hand with being cukked, you're soon expected of much more and you're constantly upset that they're going to someone else now, doesn't sound like love to me. Third is selfishness, someone else WILL want to take someone you care about for themselves if they really "love" that person that much. Fourth is the slippery slope itself,you've already gone after certain people or maybe islts already failed, what's stopping your degenerate mind from making you lust after your own family? You can talk about morals but if you're polyamorous then you have none. After all the bullshit,secrets,lust,gluttony,vanity,jealousy, hatred, and eventually the falling out, you're left with less friends, less people that loved you,and you're still mocked by everyone for your shitty decision. A decision you have to live with for the rest of your life. Feels good only having one spouse.
>>55567748
nah fuck ya cunt
that's just one experience and not representative of all polyamorous people.
>>55568130
Yeah sure it isn't buddy, I've seen more than one big relationshit end the same way, you butthurt Aussies defend your delusions to the very end don't you. You know it's an unhealthy relationship to be in, I feel sorry for anyone who's fooled into it. If you like being an emotional wreck all day then its for you
>>55568325
look here mate, i'll eat my own banger if you can prove polyamorous stuff is bad and put it on 4chan
>>55568424
I don't have to. It's already obvious to everyone, just keep your sickening ideas to yourself and if you want good reasons for not doing it just look up the dangers of it , if has negative effects on partners and children alike.
>>55561264
>how is polygamy/polyamory a bad thing?
We evolved to better suit in monogamous relationship.
But things are more complicated than that, men are after a womb and a mother, just one women is necessary for that, but many can be impregnated tho. A women needs sperm, resources and protection and all these can be given by different men. The problem is that a man won't give protection or resources(or in better words should not) to an offspring that is not his, doing that is called in pol cücking and men have evolved to feel repulsion to that. Thus a man will try to keep a women sexually faithful and therefore all the children his. The women on the other hand needs to keep the man emotionally faithful to grant the flow of resources and protection to their children.
If you break that a la polyamory you break the incentive for the men to invest resources on children, some cücks will keep doing it, but most will just fuck and then kick the women out of their lives of go MGTOW if they are too beta. If you break the incentive to invest in children you basically broke the family institution. Of course the leftists will say that the purpose of the government is to substitute the role of the provider, but just look how single moms on welfare are. Imagine a society made entirely of that. It's certain doom. Just take notice that sexual liberation is already a form of polyamory, we are not fucked because there still are people living as it should be.
>>55561973
>Child rape is not, and is actually damaging.
NAMBLA don't call child rape rape. They call it "love" and say children can consent.
>>55569265
Well NAMBLA are fucking wrong aren't they? I don't see what your point is.
>>55569671
Yes, but if you see pedophile starting to be accepted it will have a lot of buzzwords, euphemisms, shaming language just like the gay pride movement. We certainly won't accept these ideas but who knows about our sons and grandsons with all the propaganda they might be exposed to. Just think, gay marriage became a thing is a bit more then ten years, the slippery slope is real.
>>55561264
>Polyamory (from Greek πολύ poly, "many, several", and Latin amor, "love")
faggots can't even into linguistics
>>55570877
He knows what polyamory is, syrup nigger.
>>55561762
>Slippery slope isn't an argument, it's a fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
here's an introductory reading on why the slippery slope argument is a fallacy and should be avoided in arguments
>>55571130
huefag pay attention, i'm saying it's not even a proper word, like homosexual itself..
>>55561264
There is no non-purely subjecive argument you can make that a relationship benefits from being monogamous.
>>55571286
>"In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect."
>without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question
Gib mechanism and you stop this fallacy fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy) the leftists love to use in the slippery slope of sexual liberation. The mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question is that the leftists call themselves "progressives", they are voluptuous and will accept any new trend so as to status signal how progressive they are and there are already evidences for the preparations of accepting pedophile, gender fluidity and other sexual perversions.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/09/non-monogamy-options/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11119062/Incest-a-fundamental-right-German-committee-says.html
http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/06/that-was-fast-yesterday-it-was-gay-marriage-now-look-who-wants-equal-rights/
http://www.charismanews.com/us/41571-pedophilia-officially-classified-as-sexual-orientation-by-american-psychology-association
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/12/22/is_pedophilia_a_sexual_orientation.html
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/
http://jezebel.com/5987888/if-you-want-a-more-thoughtful-boyfriend-try-pegging-him
"For the Left, tolerance does not mean tolerance. It means first, acceptance. And second, celebration. That is totalitarianism: You not only have to live with what you may differ with, dear citizen, you have to celebrate it or pay a steep price."Dennis Prager
