Would You Accept Polyandry?

[Guest]

15 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Alpha males and beta males?  Are these like commonly understood and accepted terms now?  I've mainly encountered them in sarcastic memes making fun of dudes like this:

How dare Elizabeth Plank assume he's a man.  What if he's a transgendered woman?

[Guest]

Just now, Grunt said:

Blasphemer

If Bruce Wayne and Tony stark got into a lightsaber duel, who would win?

Harry Potter because the Emperor used a horcrux.

[Guest]

What?  You don't believe I attacked a shark with a lightsaber?  Pbfft!  Skeptics.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Guest

[askandanswer]

My thoughts on polyandry.....? I can fully understand why other men would like to marry my wife, she's that kind of woman. Lucky me  But understanding is different from agreement.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What?  You don't believe I attacked a shark with a lightsaber?  Pbfft!  Skeptics.

Why wouldn't Batman just use his Bat-phaser? Or torpedo the shark with his cufflink-controlled Aston Martin submarine?

[Guest]

Just now, Vort said:

Why wouldn't Batman just use his Bat-phaser? Or torpedo the shark with his cufflink-controlled Aston Martin submarine?

Because it wouldn't look as awesome, duh.

Oh!  Wait.  Got a better one...

BECAUSE HE'S BATMAN!!!

[Vort]

Light saber physics confuse me. For example, does the light saber (the cutting blade itself, not the hilt) have a moment of inertia?

• If so, where does that come from? Is it adjustable? If it is adjustable, how is it related to the light saber's cutting ability? Why wouldn't a Jedi just dial down the moment of inertial to zero?
• If not, why do light saber battles seem always to involve grand, sweeping motions utilizing large muscle groups instead of smaller, quicker and more precise thrusts or jabs?

Quigon Jin used his light saber to melt some sort of huge door made of a metal composite or alloy, so the blade appears to be very hot. But the Jedi using it don't wear any sort of eye protection and never seem to get radiation burns, so it seems not to emit normal blackbody radiation you would associate with a very high-temperature plasma torch sort of thing that cuts through steel like butter. Area of contact seems to be important, more of a slashing weapon than a poking weapon. Dark Black-and-Red-Face had a two-ended light saber, more like a pole, which would be of minimal use to poke with. All in all, a physical enigma. Yeah, what's up with that thing, anyway?

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Light saber physics confuse me. For example, does the light saber (the cutting blade itself, not the hilt) have a moment of inertia?

• If so, where does that come from? Is it adjustable? If it is adjustable, how is it related to the light saber's cutting ability? Why wouldn't a Jedi just dial down the moment of inertial to zero?
• If not, why do light saber battles seem always to involve grand, sweeping motions utilizing large muscle groups instead of smaller, quicker and more precise thrusts or jabs?

Quigon Jin used his light saber to melt some sort of huge door made of a metal composite or alloy, so the blade appears to be very hot. But the Jedi using it don't wear any sort of eye protection and never seem to get radiation burns, so it seems not to emit normal blackbody radiation you would associate with a very high-temperature plasma torch sort of thing that cuts through steel like butter. Area of contact seems to be important, more of a slashing weapon than a poking weapon. Dark Black-and-Red-Face had a two-ended light saber, more like a pole, which would be of minimal use to poke with. All in all, a physical enigma. Yeah, what's up with that thing, anyway?

Clearly someone doesn't understand why the common term for the genre got changed from Science Fiction to Sci Fi.  (They may have shortened "Fiction" in hopes it would keep you from noticing how much was lacking from the "Science" portion.)

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

Light saber physics confuse me. For example, does the light saber (the cutting blade itself, not the hilt) have a moment of inertia?

• If so, where does that come from? Is it adjustable? If it is adjustable, how is it related to the light saber's cutting ability? Why wouldn't a Jedi just dial down the moment of inertial to zero?
• If not, why do light saber battles seem always to involve grand, sweeping motions utilizing large muscle groups instead of smaller, quicker and more precise thrusts or jabs?

Quigon Jin used his light saber to melt some sort of huge door made of a metal composite or alloy, so the blade appears to be very hot. But the Jedi using it don't wear any sort of eye protection and never seem to get radiation burns, so it seems not to emit normal blackbody radiation you would associate with a very high-temperature plasma torch sort of thing that cuts through steel like butter. Area of contact seems to be important, more of a slashing weapon than a poking weapon. Dark Black-and-Red-Face had a two-ended light saber, more like a pole, which would be of minimal use to poke with. All in all, a physical enigma. Yeah, what's up with that thing, anyway?

The lightsaber has a protective invisible barrier that both holds the blade and it's length in place, and also keeps the heat from the blade from emanating beyond it. I'd explain what that barrier is made of, but you wouldn't understand anyhow.

or....something else....

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Vort said:

Light saber physics confuse me.

Unfortunately, part 1 of this episode is unavailable.  But parts 2 and 3 seem to be working.  This is the closest thing we can currently envision a light saber to be using now cutting edge technology and knowledge that we now possess.

 

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Unfortunately, part 1 of this episode is unavailable.  But parts 2 and 3 seem to be working.  This is the closest thing we can currently envision a light saber to be using now cutting edge technology and knowledge that we now possess.

 

I'm not a fan of pop physicists, but I like this guy about a hundred times better than the insufferable Neil deGrasse Tyson.

[Guest]

Just now, Vort said:

I'm not a fan of pop physicists, but I like this guy about a hundred times better than the insufferable Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Interesting that you mentioned NDT.  When you spoke of the rising and setting of the sun and how only the most pedantic person would point out that the sun does not really rise and set, but the earth orbit...

Well, the next day I saw a video of Tyson going over a list of top 10 science myths that were all of that same character.  And I thought, Vort would hate this guy.

[omegaseamaster75]

22 hours ago, clbent04 said:

What if the Lord revealed the practice of Polyandry to Joseph Smith rather than Polygamy?

Joseph married women who already had husbands, so he did it. Polyandry that is.......IMO we do not practice polygamy as a matter of policy, not doctrine so it could come back.

22 hours ago, clbent04 said:

To the men, would you embrace sharing one wife with your brother husbands?

No I would not.

 

22 hours ago, clbent04 said:

Even if you and your wife didn't openly practice polyandry, would you stand behind a church that accepted the concept as an eternally true doctrine for those worthy and willing?

I would, not so sure about my wife.

[Guest]

I would stand behind the Church in the extremely unlikely scenario that polyandry somehow was revealed.

Would I personally do straight polyandry?  Probably not.  During polygamy, women weren't forced into these types of marriages.  They could say no, and the man's wife could also veto, if I remember correctly.  Brigham Young was also quick to grant divorces to women who couldn't stand polygamy for themselves anymore.  Point being - the whole thing was voluntary.  I would simply veto in a straight polyandry setting. 

That said, if I was in a situation where my current wife died, and I remarried, and the second wife wanted to be sealed to another guy after this life (and my current wife was sealed to me), I would be OK with it.  This is my understanding of Joseph's few semi-polyandrous relationships alluded to by @omegaseamaster75.  This also apparently happens today sometimes - one spouse dies, and the other spouse is sealed to the first spouse for eternity, but to a second spouse for time only (so the second marriage is for this life only).  This is also semi-polyandry (sort of), but I don't think anyone has a problem with it.

Edited August 24, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Joseph married women who already had husbands, so he did it. Polyandry that is.......

This is one of those scenarios where stating a fact strongly implies a conclusion that is incorrect--in this case, the conclusion that these women were being encouraged to "step out" on their husbands to have sexual relationships with Joseph Smith.

Smith's "polyandry" can be broadly classified into two categories:  1) non-sexual "eternity-only" sealings to currently-married women who continued to cohabit only with their legal husbands; and 2) conventional marriages (and cohabitation, insofar as such was possible given Joseph's circumstances) with women who had either legally or de facto ended earlier relationships to other men.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Blueskye2]

23 hours ago, chasingthewind said:

I just thought I'd point out polyandry is a form of polygamy...

Also, it is my understanding that God commanded the practice of plural marriage primarily to 'raise up seed'.  This explains why He commanded the practice of polygyny instead of polyandry since you can't have more children with a plurality of husbands.  So polyandry just seems like a non-issue.  That being said, I would still do it if God commanded it.

Pulling out the numbers here... a woman has the same probability of having the same number of children (given fertility variables are equal in this equation). In other words, 10 couples (one man and one woman) might have 6 children each for a total of 60 children. Or, one man with 10 wives might have 6 children with each wife, for a total of 60 children. The man has more children in a polygamous relationship, the women do not, and numerically speaking toward population again, birth rates for a group of people is not changed by being a polygamous or monogamous society.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Pulling out the numbers here... a woman has the same probability of having the same number of children (given fertility variables are equal in this equation). In other words, 10 couples (one man and one woman) might have 6 children each for a total of 60 children. Or, one man with 10 wives might have 6 children with each wife, for a total of 60 children.

Plus, more men means more genetic variability, which in most cases is good. Thus, as I've already pointed out, polygamy is not simply about fertility rates -- which is, after all. ultimately limited by the women -- but about the fertility rates of the men who practiced polygamy. The obvious suggested conclusion is that the polygamous men were somehow more desirable (to God, not necessarily to their wives) than those who did not, or would not, practice polygamy. This supposed desirability would presumably consist of these men's devotion to the gospel, allowing them to "raise up seed" unto the Lord.

[Just_A_Guy]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Plus, more men means more genetic variability, which in most cases is good. Thus, as I've already pointed out, polygamy is not simply about fertility rates -- which is, after all. ultimately limited by the women -- but about the fertility rates of the men who practiced polygamy. The obvious suggested conclusion is that the polygamous men were somehow more desirable (to God, not necessarily to their wives) than those who did not, or would not, practice polygamy. This supposed desirability would presumably consist of these men's devotion to the gospel, allowing them to "raise up seed" unto the Lord.

Similarly; it isn't necessarily about the total number of children born to all Mormon women; but about the number of Mormon women bearing any children at all.

Under the rather unique demographics of territorial Utah, polygamy seems to have made mothers of (Mormon) women who wouldn't otherwise have been; while not denying the blessings of fatherhood to those (Mormon) men who sought it and without having a major positive or negative impact on the total number of children born during that period.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[chasingthewind]

4 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Pulling out the numbers here... a woman has the same probability of having the same number of children (given fertility variables are equal in this equation). In other words, 10 couples (one man and one woman) might have 6 children each for a total of 60 children. Or, one man with 10 wives might have 6 children with each wife, for a total of 60 children. The man has more children in a polygamous relationship, the women do not, and numerically speaking toward population again, birth rates for a group of people is not changed by being a polygamous or monogamous society.

I never claimed the probability of having children gets higher in a polygamous family.  What I am saying is polygamy allows you to create just as many children but more efficiently.

Look at the numbers a little more closely.

10 monogamous couples who each have 6 kids -- >  60 kids from 20 total people

A polygamous family of one man and 10 wives -- > 60 kids from 11 total people

11 people instead of 20 is far more efficient.  

Polygamy allows you to create just as many children with far less resources.  So it is clearly preferrable to practice plural marriage if you want to rapidly grow a population.

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by chasingthewind

[Blueskye2]

Just now, chasingthewind said:

Look at the numbers a little more closely.

10 monogamous couples who each have 6 kids -- >  60 kids from 20 total people

A polygamous family of one man and 10 wives -- > 60 kids from 11 total people

11 people instead of 20 is far more efficient.  Polygamy allows you to create just as many children with far less resources. 

 

Resources?

 

[chasingthewind]

Resources?  I am just using the hypothetical example you gave.

[The Folk Prophet]

36 minutes ago, chasingthewind said:

 So it is clearly preferrable to practice plural marriage if you want to rapidly grow a population.

Only if you have more women than men.

[askandanswer]

10 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The lightsaber has a protective invisible barrier that both holds the blade and it's length in place, and also keeps the heat from the blade from emanating beyond it. I'd explain what that barrier is made of, but you wouldn't understand anyhow.

or....something else....

Be careful  @The Folk Prophet you are coming very close to revealing sacred secrets to the uninitiated here. @Vort will come to know of these things if he ever seeks to become an apprentice.

Edited August 25, 2017 by askandanswer

[askandanswer]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

This is the closest thing we can currently envision a light saber to be using now cutting edge technology and knowledge that we now possess.

Was this pun intended? 

[askandanswer]

On 24/08/2017 at 8:30 AM, clbent04 said:

What if the Lord revealed the practice of Polyandry to Joseph Smith rather than Polygamy?

To the men, would you embrace sharing one wife with your brother husbands?

To the women, would you embrace being married to more than one man?

Even if you and your wife didn't openly practice polyandry, would you stand behind a church that accepted the concept as an eternally true doctrine for those worthy and willing?

Just trying to put myself in the shoes of some of the very faithful women in the early days of the restored church.

I'm reminded of Acts 2:44

44  And all that believed were together, and had all things common;