[flagged]

I think the moral question is unrelated to the legal matter (which is why he's stepping down), but I'll take the bait on the moral question.

Polygamy is not concubinage is not having extramarital affairs

Making a promise to someone of exclusive sexual intimacy and then breaking that promise is recognized near universally as a moral failing. He knew such an affair would hurt not just shareholders financially but people emotionally.

Maybe the guy isn't totally morally fiberless, but I think most people would agree that such behavior is a (non-trivial) moral failing.

▲

monideas 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Historically speaking marriage did not mean a man agreed to be sexually exclusive with a particular woman.

It meant a woman agreed to be sexually exclusive with a particular man + various legal entitlements. The particular legal entitlements were what distinguished it from concubinage (which was also a woman agreeing to be sexually exclusive with a particular man).

Now that is not what it means in a modern context, but also in a modern context nearly every developed country has below replacement birth rates, meaning that these countries are dying so any particular claims of moral superiority or fitness of the marital/family structure norms of modern societies can basically be entirely disregarded.

▲

Moomoomoo309 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Stop ignoring the part of the argument in which there was a promise made that was later broken. That is why it is immoral. Respond to that part.

	▲	monideas 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I did elsewhere

▲

himaraya 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So your excuse for cheating in marriage is declining birth rates? Absolutely hilarious.

	▲	monideas 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The idea that a man can even “cheat” on his wife is a modern idea. It doesn’t need to be “excused”. I don’t think you’re intelligent enough to really follow the discussion.

▲

TrackerFF 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What you’re saying is that (some) men have lacked morals for a long, long time.

▲

esikich 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, you're saying they lacked your morals.

▲

monideas 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No I’m saying that your conception of morality is wrong, but to understand this you have to have humility/not be narcissistic.

Particular notions or feelings of right and wrong that you may have because of prevailing norms in the particular era and location which you live or grew up in don’t necessarily have any bearing on what is moral or not.

▲

Capricorn2481 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> No I’m saying that your conception of morality is wrong, but to understand this you have to have humility/not be narcissistic.

"I'm actually really humble and high IQ when I imply men have an ancient responsibility to cheat on their wives."

Good God man get over yourself

	▲	monideas 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There was no responsibility in antiquity to have more than one wife.

▲

ex-aws-dude 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Someone please frame this comment for the HN hall of fame

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

justwalt 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is your claim that cheating on your wife is a moral thing to do?

▲

monideas 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The concept that a man can even “cheat” on his wife is a modern idea.

▲

1231232131231 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It violates the agreement he had with his wife. Modern expectations are that you do not commit infidelity.

▲

monideas 5 hours ago | parent [-]

He created a stable environment to have and raise his children and to provide for them and to contribute to his society. It’s not his fault he happens to live in a particular era where it’s otherwise not possible to do that unless you enter into some contrived modern notion of marriage where otherwise in previous eras there would be no issue.

Just to be clear, fertility rates in the developed world are nearly universally below replacement so there are various norms in place that are clearly not compatible with life.

▲

cityofdelusion 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Fertility is very well studied and the causes of low/high fertility are well known throughout the modern era. Sub-replacement is a very modern concept, coming with the normalization of contraception and dual income households, not with moving from polygamy to monogamy.

Likewise you keep stating elsewhere some "modern notion" of infidelity. There is nothing modern about it. Men came under the same classification with the spread of Christianity through Europe and those societies didn't all crumble and wither away. Even among the elite, the bastard children had very significant challenges in their rights and were not seen as coequals to their peers borne from the monogamous unions.

I don't know if you are an LLM or a bot, but even a cursory look at history would really help, instead of your flat-earther like approach throughout these threads.

	▲	monideas 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, the cause of low fertility is not “well known”. Furthermore, brothels and prostitution were extremely prevalent and accepted in the US and Europe up until the progressive era i.e the 1920s. Your conception of historical marital and sexual norms is simply wrong. You can tell when someone is an NPC when they’re quick to call someone a bot when confronted with heterodox ideas. The issue is this is beyond your intellectual abilities to contend with, or really your humility.

▲

lossolo 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You know what else is a "modern idea"? That you can't sleep with a 12 year old and that you can't own slaves. Both were considered normal for most of human history. So I guess they're ok too, by your logic?

	▲	binarymax 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		`monideas` is a bot. You're wasting your time and mental energy even paying attention to this.

▲

7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]