The poet Edward Estlin Cummings (1894-1962), a shy man, early in his career used the lowercase i for the first-person singular pronoun. (This habit, now commonplace in Internet exchanges, was highly unusual.) Cummings's critics then began referring to him sarcastically in print as e.e. cummings. The practice stuck, and that was how his name appeared on book covers. Does this mean we should all use lower-case letters in spelling his name? Those most familiar with the man think not, and they use ordinary capitalization. Norman Friedman, the founder and then president of the E.E. Cummings Society, summed up the poet's "philosophy of typography" this way: "that he could use caps and lowercase as he wished, but that when others referred to him by name they ought to use caps." [....] Nor is it true that Cummings legally changed his name to lowercase letters. After that story appeared in the preface to a biography about Cummings, his widow angrily denied it.
(copied, by typing, from Garner's Modern English Usage—any errors probably introduced by me, the typist)
The majority of people are heterosexual, every other orientation is in the minority. The natural state is 50% male, 50% female. Roughly meaning most people will find a match. We are not at some enlightened stage where genders are truly equal, this scenario at this stage would just lead to a situation where we just regress to multiple wives to one husband. 25% of the male population have two wives that's 25% of the population with no prospect of funding a partner, stretch that to three wives and that means half of men have no prospect of finding a partner.
This stuff is well studied in countries that allow polygamy, men become angry sex offenders and jealous spouses take it out on other partners children. It's not good stuff, were not there as a society, we'd need to be at a stage where we all just date other humans and I don't see anyone doing that anytime soon.
>A comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. Almost all of the few polyandrous societies practice what anthropologists call fraternal polyandry, where a group of brothers shares a wife. Nonfraternal polyandry, where a group of unrelated men shares a wife, is virtually nonexistent in human society. Why is nonfraternal polyandry so rare? [0]
While human nature can change, something as fundamental as human sexual family unit preferences radically change from favoring polygny over an order of magnitude more than polyandry seems unlikely to be overthrown simply because of changes in democratic opinion on legitimacy of polyamory. Using history as an imperfect precedent, one could make an educated assumption the balance will tip towards leaving lots of unmarried men on the sidelines rather than unmarried women. Evolutionary constraints may also push against having women on the sidelines, since the sexual reproduction throughput is rate-limited by females. There is little evidence to suggest polyandry is as common as polygny.
We're only now discovering that a significant chunk of society is not cis, because we've been forcing them to hide this fact over the past centuries because of religious anachronisms. Why assume it's different with polyandry?
I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it seems fairy reasonable to assume if a strong pattern emerges across a variety of different disjoint and poorly connected traditional societies with unique religious systems, that the pattern isn't likely to be explained away by simply pointing to recent (past few centuries) religious anachronisms.
Of course if a pattern were to emerge in the vast majority of religions across time and cultures I may be tempted to speculate it's a display of common human traits and rather than something to be assigned to a particular religion. In that same vein one draws the conclusion favoring non-cis behavior is probably a minority (but common) human trait (all humans may enjoy some non-cis behavior but most seem to favor cis behavior) and polyandry is unlikely to counterbalance polygny.
"over the past centuries because of religious anachronisms" is your words. Were you lying? YOU were the one that attributed this persecution as 'anachronisms' of 'past centuries.'
>Religiously motivated persecution of sexual minorities
When did anyone say minorities haven't been persecuted? Total straw man out of left field.
I guess I was foolish enough to think you would have said "millenia" or better if you were referring to more than a few (roughly 1-9 IMO, but that's semantics) centuries. Mea culpa.
In my parts people rarely use the word 'centuries' to refer to periods larger than 1000 years, and numbers less than 10 are generally ok to think of as a 'few.'
With your follow-up clarification, I amend my statement:
>I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it seems fairy reasonable to assume if a strong pattern emerges across a variety of different disjoint and poorly connected traditional societies with unique religious systems, that the pattern isn't likely to be explained away by simply pointing to recent (past few centuries) religious anachronisms.
TO
I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it seems fairy reasonable to assume if a strong pattern emerges across a variety of different disjoint and poorly connected traditional societies with unique religious systems, that the pattern isn't likely to be explained away by simply pointing to "past centuries" religious anachronisms.
Sharing a household with a genetically unrelated adult is one of the biggest risk factors for experiencing child abuse. This is well known and well supported by evolutionary psychology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect
Therefore, introducing additional genetically unrelated adults into a family would likely increase the risk of child abuse.
The fallacy is to say that we can't have legalized polyamory because it's negative for the children, while we allow sistemic issues to have a much greater negative effect on said children.
> and nobody is abolishing your civil rights
Hello Texas? What are we even talking about?
> Civil rights don't mean you can do whatever you want.
I never said this, but if you needed to remind yourself of it go ahead.
While I don't necessarily agree with your stance about systemic issues, I would like to point out that solving them would take a lot more work than simply not legalising polygamy, and I don't see why we should neglect taking measures we are actually capable of implementing in favour of a pipe dream that might never be implemented.
I agree. You do both. If revolution is not immediately possibile, you fight for reform instead, hoping that it will sow the seeds of the revolution in those who fought with you. Any small victory for social movements generates a strong taste for solidarity and the expectation that the victory can be repeated.
> We really don't have any direct, past precedent for this type of situation.
Unfortunately we do have precedent. Through all of history almost no one owed their own home. It was by extraordinary government intervention in the 20th century through loan programs, incentives and building, and impediments to speculation, that made it uniquely happen in our era.
As the government steps back from continuous intervention favoring individual home ownership and low to nonprofit housing, the more profitable rental economy will re assert itself: it is always more profitable to own a property to rent out then to live in it and the market will reflect that if left to itself.
Price fluctuations (eg 2008) do not change the fact that land price increases have far outpaced wages for decades. So yes, it is rational to be very concerned.
And note that Zillow is not selling these 7k properties to would be homeowners but to investors.
They may lobby and campaign finance their way to some very inconvenient legislation but to consistently hurt EV they would need to turn it into a political shibboleth in the way the oil industry did with climate change.
Naturally I hope this does not happen but it may not be much harder than gaining the sympathies of a few pundits with strong Nielsen ratings.
Rent seeking kills innovation. Patents as currently legislated, issued and resold are overwhelmingly just tools for rent seeking.
There probably is a theoretical way to do it that encourages innovation but it’s hard to see a society ruled by self serving individuals not wrecking it pretty fast.
This means that raising housing costs, interest rates and debt, taxes, and medical costs reduce his figure for foreign imports as a percentage of spending. That increasing the amount spent on those things is “good news” regarding trade deficits.
Unless he is using these numbers to suggest we need to prioritize driving down land prices and rentier practices etc more than worrying about trade imbalance. But this certainly does not seem like his intent.
At any rate, the numbers 11% and 3% are as fictional as the Taylor Lorenz quote but the amount of skepticism differs greatly. This hints more of ideology based beliefs than fact based.
On the contrary, it does indeed and has been known to do so for many decades [0,1]
Indeed, in Citizens United, SCOTUS in the concurring opinion claimed the founders intent in the 1st amendment was to allow monied interests to own and influence media for political purposes.
The question is not whether distortion exists but how prevalent it is.
