Page 175 of 179 FirstFirst ... 75125165173174175176177 ... LastLast
Results 1,741 to 1,750 of 1781

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #1741
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    Just so we're clear... do you actually know what you've gotten yourself into? Like, you know what relationship anarchy is, other than a term to resist against with me? Because it becomes increasingly difficult to tell if you know which end of the pool you are in.

    relationship anarchy as i mean you to understand it is relationship chaos.

    poly/swinger/enm is not, in its nature, relationship chaos. ive known some who practice that way, i don't.


    So, first off... I did not say swinging was relationship anarchy. Nor even non-monogamy. BUT I get now that you do not see difference in those terms. So, I'll confess to saying "I don't know what the f* you're talking about, then." Based on your terms, you lump a whole lot of people together that don't tend to want to be lumped together. It seems like you're trying to say that you don't want to see any difference between the spectrum of relationship models that fall under non-monogamy. Perhaps this is typical for your cohort, but it is atypical for the presentation of non-monogamous groups online. In fact, I think the swingers and the poly people online might take you to task over the way you blend their colors.

    im not lumping anyone to together, im saying you are trying to draw lines through groups of people by nonsensical definitions. especially when you consider that poly, and swingers are often times THE EXACT SAME GROUP OF MOLECULES

    Second, you have previously said in the thread that there should not be rules, nor necessarily norms, in your relationship. This is a term associated with relationship anarchy. I don't know what you think relationship anarchy is, but what it really is matches the type of stuff you spout. Again, if this is a terms issue and that term just bothers you, insert whatever other term you want for rules-free non-monogamous relationship. Yet you self-describe yourself as "poly". When you say poly, are you using that as shorthand for some other terms, such as non-monogamy or relationship anarchy? When I read you say poly, I'm presuming you are in a primary model that follows polyamory. My argument is that practicing poly where you are rule-free is actually practicing relationship anarchy. Your response is, "Hey, don't define me, man." Very beat generation.

    not having rules with which to control another persons actions is not anarchy, or chaos. not using the threat of leaving in order to gain compliance with expectations is not anarchy or chaos either. my relationships are based on mutual consent, the desire to be together in some way, not a set of rules or expectations that if not complied with, will end the relationship.

    when i say poly, or ENM, it just means that i am NOT monogamous. like atheism, its a statement of a negative, ie, i am not monogamous. it is not a statement of any other single set of relationships. i have and actively practice several different types of relationships besides that. this is why your trying to draw a line through this doesn't make sense.


    Third, you go on for a couple of paragraphs that talk about the increased opportunity for harm in non-poly environments or due to increased access. This is really irrelevant, and does not change that there are studies, and those studies show that non-biological persons in a family home increase the likelihood of child abuse. I know you don't want that to exist, because it is problematic for a concept that your peg works for every hole. It may very well be that the causal underpinning of this study is exactly as you say - more access leads to more harm. However, it is determined statistically significant that non-biological "parental-like" units are a higher risk than biological parents. Think of it this way: poly people are only just as likely to cause harm as step parents and not statistically found to be any worse. There, you're normalized! Congrats.

    lets get into those studies and see if they actually say poly child rearing is worse or not ....
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    Here is the link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...038?via%3Dihub

    this study examines how step parents are less likely to be investing in there step children than biological parents.

    k, so not a study on poly relationships.

    secondly, its a statement not on step parenting, the core mechanism here is parental involvement. there are plenty of step parents (as the study notes) that ARE committed to there children in the same way as biological parents and thus have similar outcomes. so the mechanism that creates the issue isn't step-parenthood ... its not being committed to your kids.

    so, as that applies to poly relationships .... you already have biological parents, who are committed at whatever rate they decide to be, and you are adding in more people who are or are not committed at whatever level they decide to be.

    ergo, the actual structure of a poly relationship isn't the issue .... its the commitment level from the parents.

    so this does not point to a fundamental problem in a poly relationship with co-parenting. it points to parents not giving a shit about there childre being the problem.


    Your previous complaint was that a step-parent or aunt or uncle was not the same thing as a loving member of a poly circle, and therefore the study did not apply to poly people. Feel free to run with that objection again as a starting point.


    EDIT: Sorry, I pulled from a higher link up the chain - updated to get the particular study I was referencing. Here are a few more:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/351225?...n_tab_contents

    abstract and link is short on any details, in fact the best statistics is has is how shitty traditional relationships are to kids, citing something like 45% of children suffer. jesus, what a low bar to jump.
    https://books.google.com/books?hl=en...page&q&f=false

    1. this isn't a white paper or study
    2. it doesn't cite any studies that i could find in my reading of it

    http://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrvv/19/1/75

    this is a paper on rates of murdering your own children.

    i have no idea how you think this could possibly apply
    answers in bold.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-06-2019 at 04:08 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #1742
    reading more of that final paper ... its not even on if biological or step parents murder there children at the same rate .... its about what methods they use to murder them.

    yikes dude. yikes.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  3. #1743
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,844
    Republicans ripped into the House Democrats* electoral reform bill, H.R. 1, at a press conference Wednesday, arguing that the legislation was merely a tactic to tilt elections in favor of Democrats. McConnell, who has dubbed the bill the *Democrat Politician Protection Act,* said that the bill is *offensive to average voters* and will not get any floor time in the Senate.

    When asked at a press conference why he wasn*t bringing the House electoral reform bill to the Senate floor, McConnell responded, with a grin: "Because I get to decide what we vote on.*

    ....

    The legislation contains a series of voting reforms Democrats have long pushed for, including automatic voter registration, expansion of early voting, an endorsement of D.C. statehood and a requirement that independent commissions oversee House redistricting. In addition, the bill requires *dark money* groups to disclose donors.
    Wouldn't want to let the browns and the poors vote.
    Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted
    I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

  4. #1744
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,844
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna980181

    You have to wonder who the first republican will be to imply she's a liar or that "boys will be boys".
    Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted
    I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

  5. #1745
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    756
    From the first line of the last link abstract:

    Stepparents commit filicide at higher rates than do genetic parents
    After reading your bolded responses, I candidly think it would be a waste of both of our time to discuss further. Relationship Anarchy does not mean "relationship chaos". It's a legit form of open relationship and apparently you're unfamiliar with it.

  6. #1746
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna980181

    You have to wonder who the first republican will be to imply she's a liar or that "boys will be boys".
    I suspect they will do what Fox news often does when problematic information comes up - pretend the incident didn't happen and as much as possible, the senator doesn't exist.

  7. #1747
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna980181

    You have to wonder who the first republican will be to imply she's a liar or that "boys will be boys".
    and she still voted for brett kavanaugh.

    i have feels about this. i do not want to blame someone or imply shes wrong or something for her own rape. however, her voting in brett kavanaugh, when we were just a couple of votes shy of maybe getting a probably not a rapist supreme court justice, really fucking makes me hate her. the lack of self awareness is just staggering.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  8. #1748
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    From the first line of the last link abstract:



    After reading your bolded responses, I candidly think it would be a waste of both of our time to discuss further. Relationship Anarchy does not mean "relationship chaos". It's a legit form of open relationship and apparently you're unfamiliar with it.
    agreed if you think that parents murdering there own children and how they do it, has literally any bearing at all in any sense of the imagination, on the viability of child rearing in a poly structure.


    at its core level there are really two big issues with this kind of analysis:

    1. as detailed, until the stigma of a social situation is removed, the data is skewed and unreliable. we see this with homosexuality, and we are seeing it now as more and more studies come in about transsexual humans. really, the data tests the stigma, not the phenomena being declared unsuccessful. similar with studies on pot usage as well. so right off the bat, your just not getting good data, period. its not an objective analysis, it includes the bias of the social structure the study is based in.

    2. like your attempt to take a slight statistical link between step parents being slightly less involved in there step children's lives than biological parents, the implication is that step parents CAN'T be as involved ... however the data does not support this. in fact it supports and teaches the lesson that if you are going to be a step parent you might have to take extra energy in order to stay involved and be a more successful parent, not at all implying you cannot be. the data clearly shows that huge numbers of step parents are very successful at it. the statistics show trends in what large bodies of humans do, but on the individual scale, its basically meaningless. because the individual controls so much of his or her situation, studying what other people do most of the time, is by no means a predictor of what that person will do, especially if they are will informed, emotionally mature, and competent human. and further, like the paper points out, there are significant numbers of step parents who are MORE involved than biological parents, and a person can choose there level of involvement, and take steps to do whatever they fucking want to in regards to there small humans.

    ie, attempting to draw some fundamental and all encompassing conclusion from data like this is a bad plan. the data clearly shows a wide range of outcomes regardless of structure, and on the individual level, that means just make smart decisions and dont be an asshole. ie your study does not mean being a step parent is going to be unsuccessful. it doesn't point to some fundamental truth of the universe or some inherent moral value.

    example, less than 1% of the country are road racers. this makes it exceedingly rare, and uncommon. it must be hard, expensive, unsafe and take a lot of time. so i should probably not do it right? chances i do it well are really low right? the statistical significance of this massive, and on a much larger scale than the slight statistical difference between commitment from step and bio parents, id expect P <<<<< .05 ... and yet, hundreds of people do it every weekend, without issue, and have a great fucking time doing it. the statistics, as interpreted by you, should mean this is impossible. and yet, it exists.

    this isn't how the universe works. if you want to do something, you figure out how to do it, even if the odds are that lots of people don't do it. even if it takes extra effort, resources, if you want to do it, you just do it.



    conclusion: a study showing that on the whole, there is a statistical difference in commitment level between bio and step parents does not in any way show some inherent truth to the universe that a 2 adult sexually monogamous relationship is the best way to bring up children for every single man, woman, and child on the earth. its just not, end of story.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-07-2019 at 08:01 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #1749
    because often we don't have stories to understand something we have not experienced, id point to a couple of really well done IMO stories recently on the subject of ENM. the first one is a British show called "wanderlust" that i've really been enjoying. the other is one of the story-lines in the show "Easy" both can be found on netflix. stories give us context for others experiences, and both have just some delightful moments in them that are really true. both stories follow married couples who've lost the spark, which IMO is annoying, but we have to start somewhere. i can't wait to see stories about ENM that don't involve trying to "fix" a marriage, but we arnt there yet. they decide to open up there relationship to additional partners and they portray the emotions and process so well. as well as the awkwardness, but also the delight, and the fire. neither are perfect, but they do give some context to how it feels and what it looks like, to those that have not experienced it.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  10. #1750
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,151
    Supports Inception Designs
    I see Gordon's coming around to the the conservative school of thought that responsibility ultimately rests with individual agency, with the intersectional group identity as a secondary consideration.

    Welcome to the team, buddy
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •