Narcissistic Personality Disorder at RISK in Polygamous Families

#51
No I respect their cultures, and from that respect I have the knowledge they did not live in the manner you describe. Do you think their lives was free of struggle?? Hah!! You haven't talked to any Inuit, I take it.



That's a laughable counterargument.

You're arguing how easy it was to hunt bison by posting a video about the decimation of the bison after the introduction of firearms and horses. ;)

Hunting bison is by no means easy or simple, which is why Amerindians had to get clever to hunt the creatures. You might want to read From the Heart of the Crow Country. The Crow Indians' Own Stories by Joseph Medicine Crow which notes the many hunting methods.

Walrus

you know what I mean, and you know you're completely diluting the whole premise and point of what you disagree with. You insist polygamy was absolutely necessary in more primitive tribal times and sure yeah I concede its entirely plausible that when groups of men go out on hunting and fishing expeditions they have certain life insurance agreements within their band of brotherhood with cammaraderie and loyalty to the tribe. The conversation might go like this between rotations of fishing/hunting expeditions where 1 captain of a fishing boat or hunting party says to another whose on standby "Hey Sven the North seas are kind of rough and this fishing expedition could kill us, if my old lady becomes a widow and won't bear my child after all the sex I had with her last night, could you do the honors and mate with her if I should go? I anoint you to that taks. There's trust and understanding for group survival. " YEAH I GET THAT, . . . . Yeah that's understandable, but the whole original point of the discussion was the kind of psychopathy of elitism and the dirty tricks of eliminating competition that most polygamous societies practice and have been practicing for a very long time.






homosexual coercion.



Do you not find any of these videos disturbing or wrong? Do you not feel a need for that to end? What kind of Bahai person or spiritual person are you if you don't?
 
Last edited:
Sep 2010
4,437
Normanton Far North Queensland
#52
Do you not find any of these videos disturbing or wrong? Do you not feel a need for that to end? What kind of Bahai person or spiritual person are you if you don't?
By watching them, or posting them, one has already participated.

To keep the mind pure, mind must have no part in it.

Regards Tony
 
Jun 2014
1,044
Wisconsin
#53

Walrus

you know what I mean, and you know you're completely diluting the whole premise and point of what you disagree with. You insist polygamy was absolutely necessary in more primitive tribal times and sure yeah I concede its entirely plausible that when groups of men go out on hunting and fishing expeditions they have certain life insurance agreements within their band of brotherhood with cammaraderie and loyalty to the tribe. The conversation might go like this between rotations of fishing/hunting expeditions where 1 captain of a fishing boat or hunting party says to another whose on standby "Hey Sven the North seas are kind of rough and this fishing expedition could kill us, if my old lady becomes a widow and won't bear my child after all the sex I had with her last night, could you do the honors and mate with her if I should go? I anoint you to that taks. There's trust and understanding for group survival. " YEAH I GET THAT, . . . . Yeah that's understandable, but the whole original point of the discussion was the kind of psychopathy of elitism and the dirty tricks of eliminating competition that most polygamous societies practice and have been practicing for a very long time.







Do you not find any of these videos disturbing or wrong? Do you not feel a need for that to end? What kind of Bahai person or spiritual person are you if you don't?
Your sense of time is off.

My argument is polygamy is necessary for a certain time period in the past. You post videos about the problems of polygamy in modern times.

Just like you tried to prove Amerindian life was easy in the precolonial era by posting a video about how easy it was to hunt bison post-colonial.

Stick to the relevant times being discussed, if you are intellectually capable of such a thing. Stop using the future as evidence of the past.

You began this thread discussing Baha'i polygamy, which is a thing of the past. Then you post things about polygamy in the present and say things like "Do you not feel a need for that to end?"

Make up your mind. Are we discussing polygamy in the past, in which case your videos about the present are irrelevant, or are we discussing polygamy now, in which case your original post mentioning polygamy in the early Baha'i community is irrelevant??


Walrus

you know what I mean, and you know you're completely diluting the whole premise and point of what you disagree with. You insist polygamy was absolutely necessary in more primitive tribal times and sure yeah I concede its entirely plausible that when groups of men go out on hunting and fishing expeditions they have certain life insurance agreements within their band of brotherhood with cammaraderie and loyalty to the tribe.
Lol, if you concede the point, why did you spend so much time trying to argue how easy ancient lifestyles were or could have been?? :p
 
Last edited:
#54
By watching them, or posting them, one has already participated.

To keep the mind pure, mind must have no part in it.

Regards Tony
So you put on rose colored glasses play bliss bunny naive and ignore child sexual abuse? I mean what are you really trying to say? Do you even realize how you sound by saying that?
 
Last edited:
#55
Your sense of time is off.

My argument is polygamy is necessary for a certain time period in the past. You post videos about the problems of polygamy in modern times.

Just like you tried to prove Amerindian life was easy in the precolonial era by posting a video about how easy it was to hunt bison post-colonial.

Stick to the relevant times being discussed, if you are intellectually capable of such a thing. Stop using the future as evidence of the past.
----------------
You began this thread discussing Baha'i polygamy, which is a thing of the past. Then you post things about polygamy in the present and say things like "Do you not feel a need for that to end?"
-
Make up your mind. Are we discussing polygamy in the past, in which case your videos about the present are irrelevant, or are we discussing polygamy now, in which case your original post mentioning polygamy in the early Baha'i community is irrelevant??
-


Lol, if you concede the point, why did you spend so much time trying to argue how easy ancient lifestyles were or could have been?? :p
All the problems with polygamy I've discussed are valid problems with polygamy in the past present and future and you clearly disagree. And that there's that problem. You insist polygamy was absolutely necessary in the past and I still stick to my premise that you're still making speculative hypothetical cases that those times were always rife with extreme emergency cases where male population is reduced, surmising about those scenerios were like. An emergency is not suppose to be the normality or the ideal or the optimal. An emergency is not the goal.

You like your greatest latest manifestation as the Great savior of the World and pretend his polygamous lifestyle was acceptable? , where his 2nd wife, 3rd wife wasn't a convenient Eltist arrangement for greedy filthy f-ing rich psychopathic Elitist Persian Aristocracy who arranged a scarcity of heterosexual males?

so he could shag his Cousin and gave birth to "The Stirrer of Sediton"? And you pretend that didn't produce stressors, jealousy and envy? As though maybe Baha'u'llah didn't have to compromise some principles? And you pretend While in the meantime they're were not pushing like this: . in the time of Baha'u'llah?

This is translated by the Universal House of Justice as:

"We shrink, for very shame, from treating the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desire." Verse 107 of the Book of Aqdas

The Arabic term "Ghelmaan" is the plural form of the term "Ghulaam" which according to the Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic is defined as: boy; youth, lad; slave; servant; waiter. "Ghulaamiya" and "Ghuluma": youth, youthfulness.

The Haim Persian English Dictionary defines the Persian implications of the Arabic term "Ghulaam" as: Slave, Page; lad, Servant, while defining the term "Ghelmaan" as Handsome lads dwelling in Paradise. This particular meaning associated with the term Ghelmaan comes from the following verse of the Qur'an wherein this term is used:

"They shall there exchange one with another a (loving) cup free of frivolity free of all taint of ill. Round about them will serve (devoted) to them youths (handsome) [The Arabic term similar to the Book of Aqdas is used: "Ghelmaan". KH] as Pearls well-guarded." Qur'an 52:23-24
, https://bahai-library.com/hakim_notes_aqdas_homosexuality

If thaty's youre naive attitude you're a deluded moron like the rest of the blisslbunny yuppy bahais ruining the American Bahai community during the 1980's where I grew up.

https://bahai-library.com/hakim_notes_aqdas_homosexuality


https://bahai-library.com/hakim_notes_aqdas_homosexuality
 
Last edited:
#56
Just like you tried to prove Amerindian life was easy in the precolonial era by posting a video about how easy it was to hunt bison post-colonial.
No. You know damn well what I meant. The genocide of American Indians via slaughtering and reducing Buffalo for no reason except bloody godless cruelty was the problem. Take your context splice and dice and stick it where the sun don't shine. I don't know why I even bother. Its reduced to a game of insult flinging.
 
Last edited:
Similiar Baha'i Discussions Forum Date
Baha'i Discussions

Similar threads