Does a dictionary vindicate anything? If you read the definiton of the word "hate" in the dictionary, does that vindicate you hating someone? Does it teach you how to hate anyone? Does it confirm that hating is okay, or that everyone hates?
No, but then again, I didn't say it served as a means to vindicate anything. You said that the dictionary doesn't provide "an explanation" or "confirmation" to things. I thought this odd, since you presented it to explain your viewpoint about intimacy, that you would then claim that the definition was meaningless to the discussion. Not only does it contradict why dictionaries exist in the first place, but it contradicts why you'd present it initially to the discussion.
A dictionary is impartial. That definition did not say "intimacy is something that is practised very successfully in polygamous marriages." So it is your application that is faulty.
No, but then again, I didn't say it did. I said that it pointed out that intimacy can be, according to your very definition, delivered singularly and collectively, individually or through a group. I stated that was a good point, that knowing the needs for intimacy can be filled by a group, that this very probably is how polygamists fulfill their needs for intimacy: as a group. It may not be that the individuals need less intimacy and are therefore OK to receive less, it means that they may very well get those needs met by the marriage as a whole, including the husband and other wives (or wife and other husbands as the situation allows).
I'll admit, I was curious, so while I was on the treadmill this afternoon, I watched 5 episodes from season 2. I have to say, seeing their dynamic and hearing how they talk, it does very clearly seem like the intimacy is a group dynamic that is filled, not a singular dynamic. I think there's some merit to it and, as your definition pointed out, intimacy is gleaned through a number of ways, including the group dynamic. It makes perfect sense to me. They certainly operate in a fashion of co-dependency on with the other wives and speak of each other and their collective relationship in a way that makes it seem like the all-encompassing nature of their relationship is intimacy gained through the common marriage.
I have no wish to keep on going backwards and forwards on this. If you choose to use a dictionary as your "bible" that is your concern. I see nothing in the definition of a word that would make me think that it supports polygamous marriage.
You're kidding, right?
I wasn't the one who presented the definition. This was your definition, your dictionary, your presentation. You brought it up. I pointed out your definition and saw that it said that needs for intimacy can be derived from groups, and then suddenly you say that definition means nothing, which makes no sense since it seemed to mean something when you presented it and only it was after, through it's impartiality and encompassing nature, I presented that it clearly states how intimacy needs can be established via a group. I didn't bring it up, I used YOUR definition that YOU submitted to the discussion.
How is that me seeing the dictionary as "the bible" on the topic? Again, this rudeness out of nowhere and for no reason, because I agreed with a point in the definition YOU provided. Considering the whole point of this discussion is trying to understand what's going on with them, I think it's a good point that was brought up to make things a little clearer.
