Why is polygamy illegal?
-
-
@flabdablet said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
E_NOT_AN_ARGUMENT
Oh, you were serious about that? It seemed like obvious bad faith trolling.
Please provide something to back up your assertion that believers in the Abrahamic God believe that God is real because they believe in him and I'll get back to you.
-
@boomzilla Let's be clear about this: the claim at issue is that smug deists assume that God exists for no better reason than that when they examine their own beliefs, they find a belief in the reality of God among them; and also that this belief is itself supported not by reason, but solely by virtue of its own perceived strength.
To avoid further red herrings: if you thought I was saying that deists possess some general belief in their own ability to create Gods via wishful thinking, then you've got the wrong end of the stick. I'm not saying deists believe that. I'm saying that the deist assumption that God is real has no basis in reason other than believing really really hard that this is so, which I'm sure you'll agree is not an unfair characterization of religious faith.
Now, you're as smug as they come (using
in response to a contentious point is clear evidence of that). And unless I've got you confused with somebody else, I think you count yourself a Christian, which makes you a deist. So: why do you believe that the God of the Bible is real?
-
@flabdablet said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
So: why do you believe that the God of the Bible is real?
I'm not certain that I do.
@flabdablet said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
I'm saying that the deist assumption that God is real has no basis in reason other than believing really really hard that this is so, which I'm sure you'll agree is not an unfair characterization of religious faith.
OK, I can agree with that. It's just not what you had said before.
-
KEQ56811I CLASSIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST
KEQ56811I BZ UNIT: DEIST -> AGNOSTIC
KEQ54312I RECLASSIFICATION COMPLETE
KEQ55372E SMUGNESS LEVEL: UNALTERED
-
@flabdablet said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
@boomzilla Let's be clear about this: the claim at issue is that smug deists assume that God exists for no better reason than that when they examine their own beliefs, they find a belief in the reality of God among them; and also that this belief is itself supported not by reason, but solely by virtue of its own perceived strength.
Now, you're as smug as they come (using
in response to a contentious point is clear evidence of that). And unless I've got you confused with somebody else, I think you count yourself a Christian, which makes you a deist. So: why do you believe that the God of the Bible is real?And to avoid further red herrings: if you thought I was saying that deists possess some general belief in their own ability to create Gods via wishful thinking, then you've got the wrong end of the stick. I'm not saying deists believe that. I'm saying that the deist assumption that God is real has no basis in reason other than believing really really hard that this is so, which I'm sure you'll agree is not an unfair characterization of religious faith.
That absolutely is an unfair characterization. The concept of baseless "blind faith" has long been a favorite strawman, but when you actually talk to people about their faith, a very different picture emerges: confirmed faith. A pattern of events, lifelong in many cases, in which they have not simply mentally believed in their beliefs, but actually tested them and found them to be well supported.
The tricky thing is, this is not scientific evidence, because scientific evidence, by definition, must be generally reproducible, whereas personal evidence cannot be reproduced on demand more often than not. But that doesn't make it any less objectively real, especially to those who have experienced it.
Claiming that knowing what you have experienced and believing the evidence of your own senses makes someone "smug" is... well... how would you feel if thousands of people started telling you that anything (in general) that you have experienced that they haven't never really happened and you're being irrational to believe that what happened to you happened to you?
-
@masonwheeler said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
how would you feel if thousands of people started telling you that anything (in general) that you have experienced that they haven't never really happened and you're being irrational to believe that what happened to you happened to you?
Black.
Or trans.
Or both.
-
-
@masonwheeler said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
actually tested them and found them to be well supported
I have yet to encounter a convincing report of any such test for the existence of the Biblical God. If you are aware of some, please do share.
-
@flabdablet said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
I have yet to encounter a convincing report of any such test for the existence of the Biblical God. If you are aware of some, please do share.
"Convincing" is such a tricky word. In order to head off
issues, please first convince me that you have a reasonable, fair standard of evidence by which to judge such reports.
-
@masonwheeler Obviously I can't do that.
I will happily promise, though, to read any such report in good faith, to the best of my ability avoid using inflammatory point-scoring tactics while commenting on it, and to err on the side of accepting I've erred if anything I say about it does get called out for being an inflammatory point-scoring tactic.
I understand that faith is central to the worldview of many people, and that exposing one's own tests of it to the scrutiny of others is always going to feel risky.
I can't promise to be perceived as fair. I can promise to do my level best to be neither condescending nor unkind.
-
@masonwheeler said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
knowing what you have experienced and believing the evidence of your own senses
is what makes people believe in psychics and other shysters, convince themselves that aliens abducted them and stuck a probe up their arse, or has them decide that homeopathy is real because they took echinacea and their cold cleared up in a week, 2 for the lingering symptoms to completely vanish.
-
@Jaloopa said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
@masonwheeler said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
knowing what you have experienced and believing the evidence of your own senses
is what makes people believe in psychics and other shysters, convince themselves that aliens abducted them and stuck a probe up their arse, or has them decide that homeopathy is real because they took echinacea and their cold cleared up in a week, 2 for the lingering symptoms to completely vanish.
Fair enough. But every once in a while, you get something that can't be so easily explained away.
Consider this point. This is a Google Maps street view of an interchange between two state highways. The picture appears to have been taken in summer, which unfortunately makes it look like a pleasant, verdant hillside. In winter the truth is much more clear: there's just barely enough soil there for stuff to grow, and it's mostly stone. By all appearances, they built the interchange by carving an artificial canyon through a 20-foot-high stone outcropping, and that "watch for falling rocks" sign is there for a reason.
This interchange is part of my daily commute.
Several months ago, a nasty snowstorm came through, but the city got the roads cleared soon enough, and I headed to work. Everything went pretty well, right up until I hit that interchange and discovered, at 40 MPH on a curving road, that that one stretch of road had not been de-iced yet!
I tried to brake, but all I got was the ABS rumbling fruitlessly under my foot. I tried to turn to follow the curve of the road, and my car turned a little bit, but my momentum did not, so now I was skidding broadside towards a 20-foot stone wall at 40 MPH. I honestly thought I was about to die. 40 MPH is pretty fast, objectively speaking, but at the scale at which highways are built it's just slow enough to watch death approach in agonizing slow-motion.
I felt the impact against the left side of my car, just a little bit behind where I was sitting, but there was no crunch. No rolling over, no shattering windows. Instead, all of a sudden I was pointed in exactly the right direction and moving forward. I was in control of the car again.
I was still alive and conscious, the motor was still running, the wheels were responding to the controls, and there was no sudden feel of winter air flowing through the cabin where there shouldn't be, so I figured the most important thing would be to just keep going and worry about the damage later. So I continued on my way to work. When I got out, I anxiously looked at the car, right behind the driver's side door, wondering how much it was gonna cost to fix, and there was not so much as a scratch on the paint.
I know enough science to say that that's flat-out impossible. Newton's Third Law says that anything solid enough to redirect the momentum of a 2-ton vehicle at 40 MPH should have also left a serious dent in a bunch of aluminum sheet-metal. But there was nothing. The only explanation that makes any sense at all is that something unseen was there bending the rules.
TL;DR: I know guardian angels are real, because I hit one with my car. I have no scientific evidence, and I certainly would never want to even attempt to reproduce the conditions under which this occurred, but that doesn't make it any less real.
-
@masonwheeler said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
The only explanation that makes any sense at all is that something unseen was there bending the rules.
If that had happened to me, I'd have pulled over going wtf wtf wtf wtf why am I still alive, and I would have sat there by the side of the road until the adrenalin shakes started and stayed there until they'd had time to stop. Then I would have got out and examined the car. Had I failed to see any impact damage to the part of the car that I assumed had contacted the landscape, I would have inspected the wheels and/or underbody for evidence of having been deflected by a fair-sized fallen rock. And I would have walked back to the point where I'd so nearly come to grief, and tried to find my skid marks, and made a really solid attempt to understand what had ended my slide.
Did you do any of those things?
-
@flabdablet you'd probably have been run over by the next person to skid out on the ice.
-
@masonwheeler said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
Newton's Third Law says that anything solid enough to redirect the momentum of a 2-ton vehicle at 40 MPH should have also left a serious dent in a bunch of aluminum sheet-metal. But there was nothing. The only explanation that makes any sense at all is that something unseen was there bending the rules.
I wasn't there so I don't know what you experienced, but I do feel bound to point out that redirecting the momentum of a 2-ton vehicle at 40 MPH is a feat performed literally billions of times every day by the steering gear designed into the cars, that ice patches have edges, that a sudden resumption of traction could feel like an impact, and that a human being experiencing the stress of an imminent collision is not best placed to be an accurate judge of the exact application point of an external car-deflecting impact.
I'm not sure you've ruled out enough of the possible physics-based causes for regaining control of your car to leave supernatural explanations as the only reasonable candidates.
-
@masonwheeler Something else for your consideration: one of the most frightening experiences I have ever had in a car was being driven around on dirt roads at ridiculously high speeds by a twenty year old car trial enthusiast. This guy had some pretty serious car control skills, and he took those roads at speeds I would never have dreamed feasible.
I remember one particular left turn with startling clarity. We came up on it way, way, way too fast in my judgement, and he did something with the wheel and the brakes and the car got sideways, and there we are just sliding sideways down the road toward this intersection and all of a sudden the tyres just grabbed and we shot down the side road. The sudden change of direction banged my head back onto the headrest and I spent the first hundred metres after the turn going wtf wtf wtf how did that even happen?
This wasn't on ice, but it was on gravel roads.
The lesson I took away from that day was that cars can behave in much more surprising ways than we ordinary commuting drivers give them credit for.
-
@flabdablet said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
I have yet to encounter a convincing report of any such test for the existence of the Biblical God.
The issue is really that true faith is axiomatic in nature. Those who have faith do not need proof of it; it is the standard by which the veracity of theories about observations are measured. On the other hand, those who do not have faith will typically find non-faith interpretations for all observations. These are not points of view that can be easily reconciled.
-
@flabdablet said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
@boomzilla said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
E_NOT_AN_ARGUMENT
-
@flabdablet said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
To avoid further red herrings: if you thought I was saying that deists possess some general belief in their own ability to create Gods via wishful thinking, then you've got the wrong end of the stick. I'm not saying deists believe that. I'm saying that the deist assumption that God is real has no basis in reason other than believing really really hard that this is so, which I'm sure you'll agree is not an unfair characterization of religious faith.
Wait, are we talking about deism? @boomzilla is a theist.
-
@flabdablet said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
If that had happened to me, I'd have pulled over going wtf wtf wtf wtf why am I still alive, and I would have sat there by the side of the road until the adrenalin shakes started and stayed there until they'd had time to stop. Then I would have got out and examined the car. Had I failed to see any impact damage to the part of the car that I assumed had contacted the landscape, I would have inspected the wheels and/or underbody for evidence of having been deflected by a fair-sized fallen rock. And I would have walked back to the point where I'd so nearly come to grief, and tried to find my skid marks, and made a really solid attempt to understand what had ended my slide.
Did you do any of those things?
-
There isn't any "side of the road" to speak of, particularly not where you would want to get out in wintertime, even if it weren't an interchange between two 55-MPH highways. (It's a working Google Maps link. Feel free to examine the surroundings.)
-
I didn't want to get out and examine things, because the first thing that went through my mind was that if there was any damage to the car, I might not be able to get it running again once I stopped it, but there was a good dealership close to where I worked. They've got a good relationship with my employer, and they could have taken care of things while I was at work, if worse came to worse.
-
What @anotherusername said.
-
I inspected it very carefully and thoroughly once I got to work, because if there was any damage, I wanted to find it so I could get it taken care of! Whatever you may think, this is in no way a case of me simply taking the easy way out and accepting what I wanted to believe.
@flabdablet said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
I wasn't there so I don't know what you experienced, but I do feel bound to point out that redirecting the momentum of a 2-ton vehicle at 40 MPH is a feat performed literally billions of times every day by the steering gear designed into the cars,
Gradually, not sharply, and it's performed internally as per engineering design specs, not by way of an external impact. Two very different things.
that ice patches have edges,
Sure, but considering that the road had been cleared of snow but was still slick, while the surrounding highways had traction, the most reasonable explanation is that, due to high walls casting deep shadows, the sun hadn't burned off the remaining layer of ice there. The rock wall is high enough that that wouldn't have changed when I slid off the road.
that a sudden resumption of traction could feel like an impact,
No. It might feel a bit jarring, but there's a difference between that and an impact. (I know what an impact against the frame of my car at high speeds feels like, after a rabbit decided to commit suicide on the freeway and picked me to jump in front of. There's a distinctive thump to it.)
and that a human being experiencing the stress of an imminent collision is not best placed to be an accurate judge of the exact application point of an external car-deflecting impact.
I understand where you're coming from, but on the other hand, when it's that close to you (impacting on the driver's side) there's not that much margin for error. Even if I got the direction relative to my position wrong by several degrees, I'd have still ended up pointing to pretty much the same point on the frame.
@flabdablet said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
I remember one particular left turn with startling clarity. We came up on it way, way, way too fast in my judgement, and he did something with the wheel and the brakes and the car got sideways, and there we are just sliding sideways down the road toward this intersection and all of a sudden the tyres just grabbed and we shot down the side road.
Yeah, that's known as drifting. It's something that you do when you're in control of the car. I was not in control of the car.
-
-
@error said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
Wait, are we talking about deism? @boomzilla is a theist.
Nah, that was just me fucking up and using the wrong word.
-
@masonwheeler said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
It's something that you do when you're in control of the car. I was not in control of the car.
I understand that; I raised it only to make the point that after having my head snapped back against the headrest by a sudden change of direction, under conditions where my brain was already fully in OH SHIT mode: if we'd been sliding sideways toward a rock wall rather than just a piece of road the driver had decided not to continue driving down, I could easily have misread the point of traction resumption as an impact.
-
@flabdablet said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
I understand that; I raised it only to make the point that after having my head snapped back against the headrest by a sudden change of direction, under conditions where my brain was already fully in OH SHIT mode: if we'd been heading for a rock wall rather than just a piece of road the driver had decided not to continue driving down, I could easily have misread the point of traction resumption as an impact.
Fair enough, but I didn't hit or "snap" my head.
And really, this only reinforces the point I made earlier. It's a personal experience that didn't happen to you, it happened to me. So of course it doesn't mean all that much to you. But your attempts to explain it away feel more like blind faith than anything I've actually experienced among people of faith: you believe a priori that this can not have happened, therefore you reason backwards from this unproven and unproveable axiom to try to fit the facts into your worldview.
How is that any different from what you razz on theists about doing?
-
@flabdablet said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
I can promise to do my level best to be neither condescending nor unkind.
Which, from evidence here, means you'll be more condescending and unkind than anyone else here even so.
...though you seem to be doing a better job of it than I could have ever predicted.
-
@masonwheeler said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
How is that any different from what you razz on theists about doing?
-
@error said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
@flabdablet said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
To avoid further red herrings: if you thought I was saying that deists possess some general belief in their own ability to create Gods via wishful thinking, then you've got the wrong end of the stick. I'm not saying deists believe that. I'm saying that the deist assumption that God is real has no basis in reason other than believing really really hard that this is so, which I'm sure you'll agree is not an unfair characterization of religious faith.
Wait, are we talking about deism?
One of my atheist friends once begrudgingly conceded that "your position is the only theistic position that I can accept."
-
@masonwheeler said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
And really, this only reinforces the point I made earlier. It's a personal experience that didn't happen to you, it happened to me. So of course it doesn't mean all that much to you. But your attempts to explain it away feel more like blind faith than anything I've actually experienced among people of faith: you believe a priori that this can not have happened, therefore you reason backwards from this unproven and unproveable axiom to try to fit the facts into your worldview.
Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all. So-called miracles only seem to happen when no one is looking, recording, or measuring. I like David Hume's take on miracles (quoted earlier, but I'll repeat):
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation....
The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.
In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.
-
@error said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
Anecdotal evidence isn't scientific evidence at all.
FTFY. It's evident enough to the people who actually experience it.
So-called miracles only seem to happen when no one is looking, recording, or measuring.
Why would you expect anything else? The point isn't to be seen and measured, the point is to help people. Other people who aren't relevant to what's happening aren't relevant to what's happening.
[long quote here by some guy who appears to be entirely ignorant of the historical context of a very specific miracle that he keeps dancing around and never quite mentioning by name]
-
@masonwheeler said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
your attempts to explain it away
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I'm trying to "explain it away". I'm simply giving you some honest feedback on how I would have reacted under similar circumstances, based on the best I can do to find parallels to those circumstances in my own experience.
@masonwheeler said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
you believe a priori that this can not have happened, therefore you reason backwards from this unproven and unproveable axiom to try to fit the facts into your worldview.
I have no reason to doubt your account of your car's behavior that day. When you tell me what the car did, I believe you.
However, that says nothing about the doubts I continue to have about the existence of guardian angels, because those doubts are indeed considerable. I can understand and accept that you experienced an event that you think of as a divine intervention. Under similar circumstances, though, I would need to have collected a whole lot more evidence than you did before coming to that conclusion.
Which is quite different from saying that I never could come to such a conclusion. In fact I do not take it as axiomatic that guardian angels could not possibly exist; I just think that adding them to my repertoire of plausible explanations for things wouldn't actually make it any more useful.
There's a hell of a lot of road trauma goes on out there, and there doesn't seem to be much correlation between likelihood of dying in a car crash and being good and decent. If guardian angels do exist, their choices about who to save and who to doom are arbitrary enough to reduce their predictive or explanatory power to non-useful levels. I just can't see what I'd get out of a belief in guardian angels that I wouldn't also get by being content to leave apparently inexplicable events unexplained.
You have two incompatible facts to reconcile. One of them is that your car took a severe blow to the bodywork somewhere just behind your driving position; the other is that though enough to deflect the car, this blow left no visible marks. You invoke a guardian angel to let you keep both these facts and the rules of kinematics and a sense of having reconciled them; I say that the incompatibility between what I understand to be the facts and what I understand to be the rules means that I simply don't understand what happened, leaving open the possibility that I might have understood it if given more evidence to work with.
I don't see that there's anything wrong with fitting facts into a worldview. That activity seems basic to the operation of consciousness, to me. I do see that there are things wrong with mistaking assumptions for facts, and with believing that mistaking an assumption for a fact is something I would never do. I've spent enough time debugging code to have had my nose firmly rubbed in the observation that I mistake assumptions for facts at least as often as anybody else.
-
@masonwheeler said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
some guy who appears to be entirely ignorant
Just some guy.
-
-
@masonwheeler Do you read the things you post?
More recently, logic textbooks have shifted to a less blanket approach to these arguments, now often referring to the fallacy as the "Argument from Unqualified Authority"[9] or the "Argument from Unreliable Authority".
He certainly does not appear to be unqualified.
-
@error said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
He certainly does not appear to be unqualified.
He certainly appears unqualified to me.
Laying aside the specifics of the subject matter for the moment, just speaking in general, would you consider anyone "reliable" or "qualified" to speak authoritatively on any subject with which they freely admit they have no personal experience?
-
@masonwheeler said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
Laying aside the specifics of the subject matter for the moment, just speaking in general, would you consider anyone "reliable" or "qualified" to speak authoritatively on any subject with which they freely admit they have no personal experience?
If we're going to go that route, we'll probably have to declare most of the guacamole thread null and void*.
*not that it already wasn't...
-
@masonwheeler said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
How is that any different from what you razz on theists about doing?
I won't speak for @flabdablet but I will explain what I see that you are doing differently. If my tone is taken as condescending I am sorry as that is not my intent. Also I don't mean to tell you that your experience is incorrect. Experience is personal even if we disagree on conclusions that can be drawn from the experience.
You are faced with an experience where you have limited information, as it is with most experiences. You only have one vantage point, inside the vehicle, and were unable to directly view exactly what occurred outside the vehicle. You were placed in a stressful situation that evolved quickly, suddenly and without warning. In such situations personal observation is well known to be not very reliable.
In the face of such uncertainty about what happened, I see your explanation that invokes guardian angels as a version of using the god of the gaps argument to fill in the unknowns. You appear to have decided that because there are unknowns about the situation that you will go to supernatural explanations without exhausting, to my satisfaction at least, the possible natural explanations.
I would myself, given the complete absence of reliable evidence of guardian angels, apply Occam's Razor. Under this principle I do not invoke guardian angels, I instead decide that since any of the many unknowns would be a sufficient natural explanation if they were known instead of unknown, that one or a combination of those unknowns is the most likely explanation. I can posit many explanations, as @flabdablet has, that I don't think you have sufficient information to exclude as possibilities, indeed as likelihoods.
-
@another_sam tl;dr; It's different because we're right.
-
@antiquarian said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
tl;dr; It's different because we're right.
We are and it is but I hope I did a decent job of explaining in detail exactly why I think that supernatural explanations are deeply unsatisfactory.
-
@masonwheeler said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
Considering all of the "impossible" things we've done in the last century alone, such a position seems like pure hubris IMO.
Missed this on my first reading, but: Name one. Not "go faster than the speed of sound" which was never considered impossible except perhaps by those who didn't know anything about aerodynamics. Likewise space flight, moon, etc.
-
Also I got a downvote but they're anonymous so I don't know from who, and no reply so I don't know why. Not my first, won't be my last, but I'd like to know why. I'd actually prefer downvotes to go away or become less anonymous.
-
@another_sam wasn't me. This time...
-
@another_sam said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
become less anonymous.
Fun fact: a user's downvote history is actually publicly viewable through their profile.. It's just not shown in the individual post counter, because (I guess) having two tooltips would be bad or something.
-
-
@another_sam downvoted this one for attention whoring.
-
@Magus Upvoted this one for calling out the attention whoring.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
Fun fact: a user's downvote history is actually publicly viewable through their profile..
Beg pardon? Not that I can see, it's not.
-
@anotherusername said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
Beg pardon? Not that I can see, it's not.
That's weird, I could have sworn I saw someone else's... Maybe I was being dumb and thinking of your own profile?
Yeah, that's probably it.
-
@Tsaukpaetra yes, that. Trying to access someone else's results in Access Denied.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
That's weird, I could have sworn I saw someone else's
Was it mine? Maybe you just filled in the blanks with a lot of downvoting of @Fox?
-
@Polygeekery said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Why is polygamy illegal?:
That's weird, I could have sworn I saw someone else's
Was it mine? Maybe you just filled in the blanks with a lot of downvoting of @Fox?
I don't remember, my memory indexes say it happened (probably), but the reference leads to... a sandwich?
Apparently I ate at Jimmy Johns today.
LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You
David Hume - Wikipedia
