View Single Post
Old 11-17-2008, 05:57 PM   #14
Lance Monance
Rookie
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
I think the biggest thing I'm having trouble with is why more opinions = conflict.
I'm not claiming more opinions = more conflict. I've stated several times that I'm only talking about potential for conflict, chances for conflict etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
however since these people are getting married to one another, I would tend to assume that they're done so because they get along to some degree.
I've never been married myself so I can't really comment on that, but I guess there would still be lots of heated "disagreements"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
If we were picking people at random and then forcing them to live in a house 24/7 with one another, it would be easier for me to come around to where I think you're going with this, but we're discussing polygamy, not next season's line up of reality television programing.
That's true. I'm not even trying to relate it to polygamy anymore though. All I wanted to do was defend this statement "I think it's not unreasonable to assert that families consisting of more than 2 people are more prone to conflict."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
And I addressed this in my last post. If more voices = more conflict and familial conflict is to be avoided, then we should have similar restrictions on large families regardless of the number of parents.
Yes, absolutely. What makes you think I'd want to be inconsistent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
I'm still not understanding the basis for all the assumptions. Not saying that we shouldn't have them, only that until you can provide me with a convincing argument why we should apply them to one scenario and not the other, I can't bring myself to share them.
I wasn't very clear. "it wouldn't be a convincing argument." refers to my own argument which is the following: even if it were true that: More people in polyg. families = more conflict, more people in monog. families != more conflict. Even if that were the case, it wouldn't be a convincing argument against polygamous families. That's what I meant to say.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
And maybe at some point I'll feel compelled to do so. Right now though, you've made the assumption that there isn't any research on this. I'm still trying to figure out if such an assumption is a good idea.
I can't prove that there is no research on it, can I? It's not like I firmly believe that there is no evidence. I was just making a random guess. I probably shouldn't do that in debate. :/

Anyway, I'm not arguing against polygamous families anymore...in post 6, I stated what I believe on that matter. I wanted to defend my initial assertion about the "potential for conflict".
Lance Monance is offline   you may: quote & reply,