(no subject)

[waterspyder]

I just had a metaphorical argument with my philosophy prof about polyamory.
He equated it to quantity over quality and so the argument is that the polyamorous lover would rather eat 12 hot dogs for dinner rather than a well cooked steak dinner.

I think this was the first time he's had a student ask "But you're still goign to get tired of eating steak dinner every night. What if you could have steak dinner some nights, chicken cordon bleu on other nights and a good glazed ham on others. You would appreciate the other meals more when you had them wouldn't you?"

To which he replied "That's not what the author is saying"

I'm really sick of him using that answer rather than arguing a line of logic.

Comments

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Was he discussing something in particular that an author said, or was it just a debate about polyamoury?

[waterspyder.livejournal.com]

the author stated that polygamy was a mark of an unappreciative individual and the professor was adding his $0.02 with his food analogy and then a little extra that the author had nothing to say on the subject.

I think that when a professor adds his personal opinion as matter of lecture, he is leaving himself open to be argued with.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

You would be correct there.

I'm really not liking this prof.

[feli-valkyria.livejournal.com]

"polygamy was a mark of an unappreciative individual"

Can we say racist here? I mean there are some cultures who are polygamous by nature and it has worked out well for them...

[waterspyder.livejournal.com]

My mom said she wouldn't have minded my dad having another wife to watch me and my brother.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> Can we say racist here?

No, I really don't think so. It's a huge leap to go from "multiple concurrent sexual relationships indicate an individual who doesn't appreciate what they have" to "I am passing a value judgement that says certain races (which are distinct from culture, dammit) tend to not apprecaite what they have".