Same Sex Marriage - UK takes a step forward...

[_Res Ipsa]

Answer me this:

1. Is (or by now was) there a law in Libya that placed restrictions on a man marrying more than one wife, namely, he had to get permission from the existing wife and had to appear before a judge and give reasons why he should be permitted to take an additional wife?

2. Did the interim leader propose that those restrictions be removed?

3. Did the leader cite conflict with Sharia law as the reason for doing away with the restrictions?

4. Wouldn't that be a move toward religion as opposed to a move away from religion?

5. Wasn't that Ludwig's point?

You've dismissed the entire article because the author used the word "unrestricted." Maybe it was a poor choice of words. But Ludwig's point doesn't depend on the writer's use of that word. The point is based on what the leader proposed and the justification he gave for it. Shame on Ludwig for relying on what the leader proposed and the reasons he gave for proposing it.

Actually, shame on you for appointing yourself the arbiter of who is and is not qualified to post here.

[_ludwigm]

Shame on Ludwig for ...

Yes, I am ashamed.
I whispered to Abdel-Jalil ears that talk, and I blackmailed the reporter to use incorrect words.

I will never, never do the same. I swore. or ?

[_Res Ipsa]

Shame on Ludwig for ...

Yes, I am ashamed.
I whispered to Abdel-Jalil ears that talk, and I blackmailed the reporter to use incorrect words.

I will never, never do the same. I swore. or ?

LOL! Both, I think.

[_Bhodi]

Answer me this:

I really can't, the response is based on a considerable amount of study which neither you nor Ludwigm have done, so the answer would not necessarily be understood. For example...

1. Is (or by now was) there a law in Libya that placed restrictions on a man marrying more than one wife, namely, he had to get permission from the existing wife and had to appear before a judge and give reasons why he should be permitted to take an additional wife?

You make a number of assumptions about Libyan law. Some populations of Libya are nomadic, which could not care less what national laws are, and therefore such an issue would not matter. Additionally you fail to differentiate between legal marriages per the state and religiously sanctioned marriages. In the UK and the US there are polygamous marriages that are not legally considered polygamous, because there is only one state sanctioned marriage, and one religiously sanctioned marriage. Your question is not asked in the full understanding of the issues involved, so in reality it cannot be answered, since it is too simplistic to encompass the possibilities.

2. Did the interim leader propose that those restrictions be removed?

3. Did the leader cite conflict with Sharia law as the reason for doing away with the restrictions?

4. Wouldn't that be a move toward religion as opposed to a move away from religion?

5. Wasn't that Ludwig's point?

And Shariah limits wives to 4, and advocates monogamy, simultaneously. So no, what Ludwigm said was just wrong, and a little silly, but that was really the point. The issue was not to discuss the intellectual issues involved, but insult religion, which was a complex issue he did not understand.

You've dismissed the entire article because the author used the word "unrestricted." Maybe it was a poor choice of words. But Ludwig's point doesn't depend on the writer's use of that word. The point is based on what the leader proposed and the justification he gave for it. Shame on Ludwig for relying on what the leader proposed and the reasons he gave for proposing it.

And this is a wider issue under considerable debate within the Muslim world, so is Ludwigm actually expressing the nuances, or even aware of them, that are involved? Of course not. He wanted to quickly make fun of people and move on, but he made some mistakes.

Actually, shame on you for appointing yourself the arbiter of who is and is not qualified to post here.

Where did I say who could post? I said it is silly to post on issues you do not understand, someone usually knows more and will point it out.

I get it, this board is about insulting Mormons, and other opinions are not necessary. Additionally, there are group dynamics involved. I am not part of the group here, and I pointed out that a member of the group was wrong, so there is a natural tendency to protect the member, despite the errors.

[_Bhodi]

Shame on Ludwig for ...

Yes, I am ashamed.
I whispered to Abdel-Jalil ears that talk, and I blackmailed the reporter to use incorrect words.

I will never, never do the same. I swore. or ?

And sarcasm is a natural reaction of self-protection, but like the article, it is sort of silly. Consider, if it was Daniel Peterson (or some other figure that is disliked) who made the mistake would anyone just brush it off? If not, why accept it from others?

[_Res Ipsa]

Tappety tappety tap, Bhodi. Quit trying to mystify straightforward questions with silly red herrings. I didn't make any assumptions about Lybian law. I asked you whether a specific law was on the books. That's an easy yes or no question. That Nomads may not obey the law is completely irrelevant. That there is a difference between religious and civil marriages is irrelevant. It's yes or no -- is/was there such a law on the books?


All you've done here is the typical mopologetic shuffle -- dismiss people in a superior tone, throw out a bunch of red herrings, attempt to shut down the conversation by challenging people's qualifications to "gasp" post an opinion on a message board, etc. And then, when someone calls you on your nonsense, you cry persecution.

And you still haven't made a decent argument that Ludwig was "wrong." If you want to do that, argue that repealing the law would not be a step toward religion.

[_Res Ipsa]

And sarcasm is a natural reaction of self-protection, but like the article, it is sort of silly. Consider, if it was Daniel Peterson (or some other figure that is disliked) who made the mistake would anyone just brush it off? If not, why accept it from others?

Ah, so add mind reader to your list of talents?

Please quote Ludwig's mistake.

[_ludwigm]

Please quote Ludwig's mistake.

My wife does that without demand 24/7. I am settled in.

[_Bhodi]

Tappety tappety tap, Bhodi. Quit trying to mystify straightforward questions with silly red herrings. I didn't make any assumptions about Lybian law. I asked you whether a specific law was on the books. That's an easy yes or no question. That Nomads may not obey the law is completely irrelevant. That there is a difference between religious and civil marriages is irrelevant. It's yes or no -- is/was there such a law on the books?


All you've done here is the typical mopologetic shuffle -- dismiss people in a superior tone, throw out a bunch of red herrings, attempt to shut down the conversation by challenging people's qualifications to "gasp" post an opinion on a message board, etc. And then, when someone calls you on your nonsense, you cry persecution.

And you still haven't made a decent argument that Ludwig was "wrong." If you want to do that, argue that repealing the law would not be a step toward religion.

Are you really upset because an issue is complex and cannot be simplified? Most of things get complex once you really get into the weeds, certainly you know this? Ludwigm has no understanding of any of the issues, his arguments are wrong. This is not difficult. You can certainly get angry about this, but I would advise against it.

[_Res Ipsa]

Tappety tappety tap.

Was the law described in the article on the books or not? Why is that question too complex for you to answer?

Answer: it isn't. You're just obfuscating.

Oh, and in the list of tactics, I left out the part about derailing the discussion by trying to make the discussion about the individual rather than the subject at hand.