And all it took was actually reading the available information. If you’d bothered in the first place, we could have avoided two pages and many days worth of this:
Yeah, I’ll be you wish you had actually read what it said before you tossed it in as proof of how the AUB is an coerced religous fanantic abusive culture.
You know, coercion can take a lot of different forms.
How often on the dope have we seen people like** Aanamika** being asked countless times by aunties, her mother, her grandmothers, any random women in the appropriate community about 'When are you going to get married and start popping out children" and “you aren’t a real woman until you are married and have children” and “you need a husband, I know the perfect man” and even going ahead and setting up ‘accidental casual meetings’ with men …
Unless you are female, you may not notice the pervasiveness of getting women to get married [single or plural] in a culture. Any time you go to a gathering - So when are you getting married/having a baby/having anther baby, s/he will grow up lonely without a little sprogling to keep it company, you need to give your <whomever> a grand/child/neice/nephew/whatever sprogling. It can be seriously harassing to be on the recieving end of all this crap.
How many threads have we had where the advice to the nosy old bats is to tell them NEVER or <sob> I cant have kids why are you asking me this…
All of that is pressure to conform to the community norm. Get married, have sprogs, toe the line. It starts when we give the poor kid her first doll at chrismas, what do you think dolls and doll houses are? little tea sets, miniature kitchens … wife training. All the little brainwashing little games about what kind of husband you are going to have [doctor, lawyer, indian chief] little play irons and vacuum cleaners …
So of course when some man comes a-courting, thoughts are going to turn to marriage, not just random fucking, all the cultural programming is marriage, bed, kids. In non-mormon society, married men don’t court women for marriage [they do for fucking but adultery is not what we are discussing here] so if the prospective wifeling was in non-mormon society, in say Newark NJ it would be a single guy courting her as his only wife. In mormon land, some random guy is courting her for wife #<whatever>. She is looking for that wedding ring, and culturally is pressured into getting married. Since the guy courting her is into plural marriage, she is getting ring #4 or 5 or 10 …
Why are you afraid to answer the question?
I was just wondering if you were getting the implications of what you are talking about, as it applies to the polygamists.
Until the age of majority, parents have the legal right to restrict who their children see, up to and including filing restraining orders on their behalf in some cases. I’m less than certain that the age is always 18, however (it may actually be higher in places).
Actually, I had read about the AUB but like I said- there’s little info about it, and you found few new facts about it, just a lot of statements and press releases by the AUB.
The AUB is still a coerced religous fanantic abusive culture. However, they don’t live in a compound like the FLDS, and they claim they don’t allow child-wives. They openly admit they violate the bigamy laws, and are reported to practice widespread welfare fraud.
So, to go over your quotes from my posts:
100% of the heritic mormon cult poly families are like that, even tho they carefully picked one that looks good on the surface. Still true.
2.* As has been pointed out to you several times, every wife in the family comes from a “mormon-cult-poly” background. Here what I said a couple pages ago-"No, actually all the Brown wives were raised in that repressive religious fanatic culture …* still true.
3.*We have not been "blaming plural marriage itself ", we have been blaming this particular coerced religous fanantic abusive culture. * still true.
4.5, 6, 7, etc- all still true.
*The Browns group is related to the worst of the worst- the FLDS. We have provided you with tons of solid cites which show that the FLDS is an undoubted abusive fanatic religious cult. * Still true, The AUC has recently distanced itself from the FLDS, however. The AUC is “related to” the FLDS.
*Except that the wives were brought up in a poly religous cult environment, * Still true.
10- *No, actually all the Brown wives were raised in that repressive religious fanatic culture *. Still true.
11.* But the Browns are NOT part of the Mormon Church, aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and they ARE repressive religious fanatics. * Still true.
All that is new is that the AUC has denounced the practice of child-wives, and there are no allegations they practice otherwise. Do note that the AUC statements about child-wives makes it pretty clear that said pracitce is thus fairly common in the other “fundy-mormon-cults”. AND, also that even though the two Churchs are related, the AUC has publicaly separated themselves from the FLDS leadership. Kudos for that.
Come on, Stoid, just becuase they don’t practice “child-wives” and they don;t live in a walled compound- does that then clear them of being a abusive fanatic religious cult? They raise their families in small closed communities. The leader makes the decisions. He sends the “wives” out to apply for fraudulent welfare, then makes them bring the illgeal gains back to him. He openly condones the felony of bigamy. He makes the decisions are to who will do what, who will marry whom, and etc.
I did answer it. You just don’t like the answer. Oh well.
Even my high school debate team members know what a non answer is. “I DO WHAT I WANT!!!111!!!” is not an answer to a question.
No you didn’t. You’re just running away from it. Why so gutless?
First, you say this:
Then you immediately say this:
You acknowledge there is little info, yet you continue to insist that you know for sure that they are a coerced fanatic abusive culture.
Well, you are certainly entitled to believe whatever you like, including believing in little green men. But if you want to sell me on it, you’ll have to come up with something resembling actual evidence, not just your conviction. Cuz you know, people can be passionately convinced that a lot of things are true without evidence, starting with religion itself.
But here we are at almost 400 posts and no one has brought any evidence at all for the things you assert, it just boils down to “Well, yeah, that’s what it looks like, that’s what they say, that’s all we know…but I don’t believe it, and because I don’t believe it, it must not be true, and anyone who does believe it is a fool.”
So you can have your beliefs. But that’s all they are. Trying to convince me that they are right based on the fact that you believe them is like trying to convince me that Joseph Smith found golden plates in a weird language describing Jesus Christ’s visit to the Americas and I should believe it because you do.
If you ever have actual information to back up your beliefs, I’m more than happy to take it in. Til then, appearances and information are pretty much in agreement about the Browns.
And that wasn’t my answer to the question. That was my answer to Dio saying he didn’t like my answer and he wanted a different one. (Because it gives him a way to divert attention from the fact that I’ve shown that his relentless assertions about the Browns and their church are bullshit.)
I’m not a person with a penis, Dio, that stuff doesn’t work on me.
I answered the question, you don’t like it, now you have something to obsess over. See how nice I am to you?
Let me say to you the exact same thing I say to my little 14 year olds when I’m teaching them how to competitively debate (and I’ve got this shit down pat, since I have to say it all the time):
You know, just as well as I do, that you are intentionally being obtuse. While you’re certainly within your right to do that, such actions don’t bode well for both your position in the debate and your skill as a debater. Responses like the one you just gave are cop outs and an over all sign of shakiness if not flat out weakness in your position-- just like an ad hominem attack would be. Because I know you are a better debater than that, I’d suggest you don’t sink to such poor tactics, particularly if you’d like to come out on top in any argument. A good debater can answer a question without resorting to being intentionally obtuse. You’re a good debater. Prove me right.
First. Thank you for the acknowledgement, very genuinely appreciated.
Second, read post 374. I answered the question, and I did so truthfully.
Third, Dio is not a good debater. He does not argue respectfully or honestly and I can’t remember any time in recent memory when he even tried to bring in a reasonably sourced fact, and he likes to make things personal when he feels like he’s losing ground. That’s what he’s doing with this question.
Fourth, because I don’t respect his behavior, I don’t feel the slightest obligation to respond to his demands, especially since I don’t believe his purpose is to shed light on this discussion, but to make me uncomfortable. I’m not uncomfortable with my answer to that or anything else, so I have no intention of defending it for Dio’s entertainment. He hasn’t earned that.
You did not answer the question. It is flatly dishonest for you to continue to say you did.
Moderator Note:
Skald, you’ve been here long enough to know that it’s against the rules to change another post when you quote it, and that includes bolding on your part without the requisite disclaimer. Don’t do this again.
For the Straight Dope
Spectre of Pithecanthropus
No you didn’t. You (erroneously) said it was legal in Hawaii, which is not an answer to the specific question I asked, which I will repeat: Do you personally believe it is EVER morally acceptable for a 40 year old to fuck a 14 year old, yes or no?
These are simply evasive tactics, ad hominems and bullshit.
I answered your question in post #374. Read it again. Or continue to pretend I didn’t answer you, I don’t really care.
See, there’s that obtuse thing. He didn’t ask you what the law says, he asked you if you think it’s morally right. That you did not answer.
And he is right: like I tell my little students, even if you have zero respect for your opponent and think they are the worst, dumbest person ever in the whole wide world. . . you don’t show that in your debate. You approach all opponents the same way, with the same facts, with the same persuasive techniques. If you don’t, it’s not your opponent who suffers for it.
Yes, I did. Read it again. Don’t scan it. READ it. I answered his question directly and truthfully.