Pirate Party Gets Second Seat in European Parliament

[__hollywood|meow]

People can think what they want of polygamous/polyamorous people but if it's done right they certainly have more "power" (in pretty much any way you want to define "power") over monogamous people all other things being equal. That isn't an argument people who are against such things want to enter though because they cannot win it, instead they'll turn to more subjective things of which there are no definitive answers.

i would gladly enter it, except i care exactly zero percent. your statements up to now have been generally rational, but this assertion is just a rationalization, not some irrefutable iron-clad point. and it sure isnt related to politics or pirating..

 

[MarshMellow]

On off topic monogamy:
It makes sense from a purely biological point of view.
In large populations (as the ones we live in) close unstructurized contact to multiple partners (excluding "fixed" polygamous relationships) increases the chance of distribution of diseases. Creating a potential health treat for the whole group.

You can have polyamorous relationships with people that are faithful too you know. Doesn't have to be centered around a male controlling women. In every relationship there is a risk of disease from sex, as the stats show most men/women cheat in normal monogamous relationships putting their main partner at risk. There is very little "strict monogamy" anymore, it's mostly what I call serial monogamy, you're with someone at this very moment but it's probably someone else tomorrow.

 

[dawp]

You can have polyamorous relationships with people that are faithful too you know. Doesn't have to be centered around a male controlling women. In every relationship there is a risk of disease from sex, as the stats show most men/women cheat in normal monogamous relationships putting their main partner at risk. There is very little "strict monogamy" anymore, it's mostly what I call serial monogamy, you're with someone at this very moment but it's probably someone else tomorrow.

I've been kind of interested in the concept of a group marriage, multiple men and women that don't necessarily stick to one pair but may change partners within the group.

as far as the Pirate Party is concerned, I would love something like that here in the states.

 

[Azhar]

sear must be a fat chick IRL or something.

 

[bezant]

Not a bad lookin girl either http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-gets-second-seat-in-european-parliament-091104/

Dude, she looks kind of hairy! _I_ am not into that...

 

[Memitim]

That's gotta be weird, actually having representation in government. Being an American who hasn't purchased my own Congressman, I wouldn't know.

 

[Katalysis]

Thread delivers. Would read again.

 

[sfsuphysics]

2 seats out of 736...

While it certainly beats the 2-party system we have here, I can't help but think that they'll end up effectively being a member of one of the bigger parties and have very little real influence.

/obvious

I dunno, the concept of more than 2 parties is great don't get me wrong... however being able to win with only 7% of the vote strikes me as being majorly borked

 

[HOCP4ME]

I'm probably in a longer relationship than 90% of people on this forum (11 years), so yes, I know what love is. And no I don't read many fiction books, why do you ask? Does it have some character in it which reminds you of me , the me you think you know from 5 paragraphs?

There are certain subjects upon which a lot of people react very emotionally over when reading others thoughts on them, I believe this is one of them. It's like religion or other taboo subjects. Too many people rooted in their own reality with closed minds. The fact that something may be more logical only further annoys/upsets these people I have found.

You've been in a relationship with someone for 11 years? I'm happy for you, but I have to ask: what would that person think upon reading the comments you have made in this thread?

And no, Brave New World does not remind me of you, but it presents an example of what you seem to think would be an ideal society. Everyone has free love with everyone else, long-term relationships between two people are discouraged, and the classic nuclear family structure is completely nonexistent. As a result, everyone is exceedingly happy, never worrying about the the emotional rollercoaster of classic monogamous relationships. But the book then goes on to reveal just how shallow and superficial such a society is.

The book protests other issues as well (such as an overreaching government and overreliance on technology), but love and relationships are certainly a central theme.

In your posts so far, I think you're looking at love a little too pragmatically. You seem focused on what would be the most practical family structure, from a business point-of-view, as well as what would keep everyone sexually satisfied. And while I'll admit I don't know much about love (yet), I'm pretty certain its not supposed to be that logical.

 

[HOCP4ME]

That's gotta be weird, actually having representation in government. Being an American who hasn't purchased my own Congressman, I wouldn't know.

Are you sure you would rather have someone who devotes 100% of his resources toward the reform of copyright law to one of our Republican or Democrat candidates?

I would hesitate to elect anyone who runs on a single platform dealing with a single issue that is - let's face it - relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Sure, this guy might be an expert on copyright law, but how is he going to handle other things like the economy, the environment, foreign affairs...etc - things more important that free music.

 

[Bamboo]

Holy shit, what the fuck is the matter with you? Is the first thing you think of when you see a female a judgment upon the way she looks? How is her appearance even relevant to this story to begin with?

Yeah. She's not that hot! Stop acting like a man!

 

[[Tripod]MajorPayne]

Are you sure you would rather have someone who devotes 100% of his resources toward the reform of copyright law to one of our Republican or Democrat candidates?

I would hesitate to elect anyone who runs on a single platform dealing with a single issue that is - let's face it - relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Sure, this guy might be an expert on copyright law, but how is he going to handle other things like the economy, the environment, foreign affairs...etc - things more important that free music.

I would rather have a dead Commodore 64 than one of our Republican or Democratic candidates (with a very few notable exceptions of Representatives with personal integrity and a knowledge of the Constitution).