Cynique

@DelI'm not sure what statement you are referring to. My response was to Pioneer's implication equating polygamy with liberating women from the monogamous society which has a history of oppressing them; something i find questionable, because belonging to a harem still casts women in a subordinate role. And that, as far as marriage goes, i really believe that presently women are seeking one spouse who adequately fills all of their needs, rather than a brigade of husbands to keep up with. If they are lesbians, then this still applies. If they are bi-sexual, then marriage is not a viable option.

The foundling fathers of this country did not intend for it to be a theocracy, and kept "God" out of the constitution. All references such as "Under God" and "In God We Trust" were adopted later. God, put in context as a personification of the Big Bang, can be separated from religion, which was created by Man.

@DelWell, i asked you whether you were referring to gay people. That would answer your question about the sex of multiple mates chosen by a woman who practiced polygamy.

@DelAre you referring to gay people? what about the statement below didn't apply to your question.

@DelI find what Mel said more on point. There's a difference between acknowledging the existence of religion and incorporating it into the scientific field of study.

What have we here? A beginning or an ending? A dream or a nightmare? Or the result of taking the red pill.

@Pioneer1Oh, puleeze. How do you think bringing polygamy into the story-line would have advanced the plot? It would be an irrelevant distraction. That's why the writer and director left it out. As usual the info you provide is a non sequitur. And it's debatable whether polygamy would be beneficial in this modern society to anybody but men because it inevitably provides an opportunity for them to oppress and exploit women. Conversely, single women may like playing around with more than one man but very few of them would be interested in having multiple husbands. They are all looking for that one "Mr. Right". Another example of you having knowledge, but not comprehension.

@Pioneer1 That's your version of things. I never considered you an ally in my feud with Sara. Why would I? You had no influence over anything. You were nothing but a spectator. You, Troy and Del were who wanted me to end my smack-down with Sara, but i kept things going because I was fired up. When Troy wanted to ban her, i asked him to let her stay. That quote you printed about zaji was not me trying to pick a fight with her. That's your interpretation. It was a wry observation which i felt free to make because i don't think zaji expects people here to treat her with kid gloves. She can hold her own, which is why she made reference to "bringing the fire". I tend to think that she didn't respond to my gibe because she has enough self-awareness to realize that she had, indeed, written a lengthy post in making her point which you weren't the subject of; Troy was. Or was i the one who originally said zaji was observing us. When i told zaji i was a cynic in another exchange, she assured me that this was no problem because cynicism was needed when it came to keeping people grounded. That's why i like her because she is confident enough to be broadminded, and intuitive enough to understand the person behind the words. i think we get each other. The long argument about the Viola Davis picture on TIME's cover is when the rift between you and me began. As for my cross-examination of Del, who had always been at odds with you, he responded to me and explained why he had done an about-face. I thanked him for his "heart-felt" sentiments because i was impressed with his sincerity. On another occasion, he explained something about which i could take heed. He had figured out that it's a waste of time to argue with you. You blow all this smoke in an attempt to obscure and justify your insult to Troy. The whole gist of you petulance was that his being honest and admitting that he was wrong was not a sign of good character. Your determination that my compliment was just an attempt on my part to suck up to him, really shows your true colors. You couldn't stomach that he was being praised for having the integrity to concede a point, something you don't have the guts to do. No, you didn't make up all those quotes. You simply did what you always do: cherry-pick to make yourself look good.

i concede that my statement about science never espousing religion was an opinion. Conventional wisdom in regard to this question indicates that the lines are blurred; a moot situation. It just depends. Nuclear science doesn't espouse religion. The science of aerodynamics doesn't espouse religion. Mechanical physics doesn't espouse religion. Psychiatry doesn't espouse religion. And nowhere, as Mel explained, is the delineation between BC and AD cited as an example of science espousing religion. Except according to that well-known authority on nothing. And that would be you.

I don't know what it makes me, but it doesn't make you right.

@Pioneer1Everything you said is nothing but a failed attempt to make yourself look good. i never tried to pick fights with Mel or Zaji because i admire and respect both of them and i adore Troy and Del. Plus, everybody on this board spars with each other. And, unlike you, when intelligent reasonable arguments are presented i don't stubbornly cling to opinionated trumped-up theories rather than at least keep an open mind. As far as science espousing religion, the far-fetched statement you were "pretty sure" about, was definitively dismissed by Mel! As far as race is concerned, i settled on the scientific findings and societal circumstances that made the most sense to me. If that offends you, then good! And i don't need to respond to your petty accusation about Troy. He said it all in the below response to your sulking. You declaring that my not agreeing with you is an indication of my having bad character is ludicrous and exposes you as the needy validation freak that you are. It's easy to disagree with somebody who's a wanna-be oracle. And why do you care if i don't agree with all of your spouting? It makes me no difference whether you agree with me. If you had good character you would stop looking upon yourself as infallible. It really wasn't necessary for me to even respond to your transparent self-serving litany, because it stood alone as a reason for my aversion to you. But just in case you didn't read the post below when you were doing all of your selective quoting, these are my sentiments. Nuff said.

@Pioneer1 Your patchwork quilt rant, reeking with your ego-maniacal bull shit, drenched with the foul piss of your irrelevant rebuttals and the putrid pus oozing from the festering wound of your being a sore loser, was yet another indication of your inability to even consider the idea that you are anything but right about everything. Doing this would so deflate your overblown self-esteem that your sanity would be threatened. Have you ever in your life done any soul searching to try and figure out why you are so possessed by a need to aggrandize yourself? Is it a substitute for Viagra? You make it so easy for me to disagree with all of the half-truths and drivel you just drooled in the process of putting your spin on things, especially you giving your interpretation to my conclusion about knowledge, saying it contradicted Mel's, when it didn't! SMH. @Delyou are perfectly right in pointing out that all Pioneer did was unload a barrage of subterfuge, saying everybody but him was wrong. In his skewed mind, saying it, makes it so. He's incorrigible.

Why would an advanced futuristic Utopian society where women have been elevated, devote any attention to polygamy?

I have not heard one person who saw this movie say it was not good. Even its critics concede that it is an excellent representation of its genre. I poke fun at all the hype, but credit should be given where credit is due.

Is Astrology a religion? Aren't the Summer Solstice, the Vernal Equinox, etc, Paganistic in origin, preceding Christianity?

@Pioneer1 the only thing Mel was wrong about was dignifying your half-witted response. I happened to be writing when I saw your bc/ad as being part of science. My head was about to explode because that was the furthest thing from truth. Saying AD/BC is used in science is about as bright as saying English is a scientific language because the universal language is for scientific studies is English. None of it has anything to do with Christianity - it's a damn standard! The only way scientists can keep tract of their discoveries is by using standards. Is the demarcation of the Gregorian calendar determined by the birth of jesus - KINDA -but only the ignorant would stop there. Is science governed by christianity -I guess if you're one of four people who believes the sun revolves around the earth. Right. i just noticed that myself while skimming over the thread. Pioneer's "pretty sure" statement of "fact" was a prime example of having "knowledge" but not "comprehension".

How about that? Someone who admits he was in error. I'm sure Del could parse Troy's reasoning ad infinitum, and Pioneer would have little empathy for him, but "in my opinion" Troy's admission was a sign of good character.

Incidentally, Troy and i did pretty much accept our "mansplaining" debate as a "draw", when he reluctantly accepted the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language's inclusion of this word in its dictionary, as a legitimate alternative to Merriam Webster Dictionary's omission of the word.

Alternative thoughts when everything about the confines of this disgusting country stifles and disgusts, thanks to Trump and his ilk. When the "Black Panther" orgy morphs into a bizarre worship of the ancestors who supplied bodies for the slave trade. Time for the sanctuary of introspection.

@Pioneer1Mel put you in your place. Let you know that your obnoxiousness undermines everything else. Get it, Dummy? LMAO

@Pioneer1Yada, yada, yada. Go think up some more non sequitur metaphors until Mel can put you in your place. Again.

@Pioneer1Are you on drugs?

OK. i don't find it necesssary to elucidate on what are my opinions because we do agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions, providing they don't try to pass them off as facts.

@DelContrary to what you say, you're doing a very thorough job of arguing points here. If facts dispute a person's opinion, then "i don't agree" that people are wrong in disputing a person's opinion. They are doing him a favor by educating him. i don't deny anybody an opinion. What i do find off-putting is the self-glorification that accompanies the expression of an opinion or a fact. Your boy, pioneer, is good at one thing. And that's gloating and patting himself on the back when he "thinks" he's gotten over on somebody. In your effort to make yourself over and become super-tolerant, you have lost all of your flavor. Under the cloak of blandness, you now use the intolerant pioneer as an instrument through which you play out your repressed resentments against others - IMO. LOL Feel perfectly free to correct this opinion.