Assuming Britain actually is a secular country- can it remain so?

[danot]

This argument only makes sense if women outnumber men, and they don't.

 

So the real limit on population growth isn't how many wives a man can have, but how many women can have children.

Consider an example to help me make this clear.

 

In a very small population of 4 men and 4 women (monogamous this one).

They pair up and 2 children per pair, then die off. The population remains the same.

 

In an alternative universe one lucky (or unlucky) man actually gets 4 wives, and the other 3 are single.

He has 2 children per wife. 8 children.

 

The first generation die off.

 

The population of both examples is the same, polygamy didn't alter anything, except one man had to provide for 8 children and 3 men had strong wrists and comparatively large disposable incomes.

But your examples are deeply flawed and in reality couldn't exist within most modern societies as not everyone, in our society at least, is accounted for as they are in your examples.

[danot]

His answer was more than sufficient as it better represented my view than I could have articulated it.

But he didn't answer it, he conveniently brushed over it.

 

 

Here, take another look.

 

 

 

Originally posted by danot

By the way BF. Can I just ask if you'd be just as accepting of a mumbo-jumbo Christian ritual that allowed any man of Christian faith to enslave and exploit their female fellow Christians? Providing it wasn't recognized as slavery obviously, you know, because Christians were calling it something else.

To which John X kindly responded on your behalf.

 

I don't think he is accepting of any mumbo-jumbo rituals of any denomination. He is simply pointing out that your use of it to back up your claims of potential population growth is flawed.

 

John X

You see!! He never answered it. I was already aware that you thought my argument was flawed, so why he presumed my question required him to remind me is anyone's guess, especially as the question I asked is completely unrelated to what you consider flawed in previous views that I've posted.

 

Anyhow, I think the question is fairly straight forward so it shouldn't be to difficult for you to answer, that's assuming John X doesn't beat you to it.

[danot]

:hihi:

 

Oh darn it the "persecution complex" card trumps the race one!

 

It's not my style to wave either BF, you of all people should know that by now.

[danot]

..and evidently nor is Islam.

According to who's perception?

[John X]

So how do bigamists manage it, if it's impossible?

 

They don't manage it because it is ..... impossible.

 

People are convicted of having a 'marriage ceremony' with more than spouse, not being married to more than one spouse as the marriage to the second spouse has no standing in law.

 

John X

[hathechewed]

Not only will it remain so but it is expanding, Fundamentalists are probably more afraid of the secular idea than anything, the hardline fundamentalists areas of power are rapidly decreasing, not just Muslim but also all other faiths, Muslims come to the Uk because it is secular, not to spread the word, in 50yrs time Mosques will be just as empty as the Churches, as a new paraphrase rings out, "up with God down with Religion" .......

[Mecky]

Not only will it remain so but it is expanding, Fundamentalists are probably more afraid of the secular idea than anything, the hardline fundamentalists areas of power are rapidly decreasing, not just Muslim but also all other faiths, Muslims come to the Uk because it is secular, not to spread the word, in 50yrs time Mosques will be just as empty as the Churches, as a new paraphrase rings out, "up with God down with Religion" .......

 

Is China secular? How about Russia, Nigeria, Malaysia, Sudan, Somalia, Australia, USA and every other country in the world, because muslims are expanding in those countries too?

[John X]

Is China secular? How about Russia, Nigeria, Malaysia, Sudan, Somalia, Australia, USA and every other country in the world, because muslims are expanding in those countries too?

 

As are Xtians and Scientologists.

 

Your point is caller?

 

John X

[danot]

Actually, I'm going to have a go at addressing this properly.

 

I used an example earlier of someone making a sensational claim that all Wednesdayites were paedophiles. Obviously we know that isn't true, but because of the sensational nature of the accusation the person making it would be (rightly) ridiculed if they did so without "hard evidence" to support it.

 

Personally I don't like the term "racist" to describe someone even if they're using racist language, because it's too easy and of course the reply is often the kind that you've raised above-and it kills the debate stone dead.

 

If someone's an (unrepentant) racist, that's their business, provided they don't try to interfere with me, my family or how we choose to live our lives-and that applies to black racists as well as white ones, there are plenty of the former and they're all united under one common flag in my opinion-they're all arseholes without reservation.

But this brings us straight back to what you and I are arguing, as your perception of racist behavior or racist terminology may not be what I consider racist, so accusing someone of being a racist simply because you believe their views fit the criteria of what you consider "racist" is no different to someone slagging off Muslims, Christians, Gypsies, Chavs or whoever if the perception they have about their lifestyle, behavior, or attitude fits the criteria of what they consider undesirable.

[hathechewed]

Is China secular? How about Russia, Nigeria, Malaysia, Sudan, Somalia, Australia, USA and every other country in the world, because muslims are expanding in those countries too?

 

yes China is secular, yes USA is secular, yes Australia is secular, yes Russia is secular, yes blah blah blah blah.....