Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by nald
Radovan Karadzic "proved" that Serbs own the 99% of Bosnia through private ownership, he proved it through his researches and studies of property ownerships. This was the overture for war in Bosnia.
Later on, it was shown that people can manipulate the date to look the way they want it. Clear look into the statistics and historical reviews have shown that people regularly manipulate statistics in their favor when they want to make some claim.
In short, topic related - the data which shows how women generally get a raw deal from marriage is usually done by social workers and women's organizations, including NOW. These studies regularly conclude that women get a raw deal and the general conclusion is that the bigger property redistribution is necessary to "even it out". You know what this means, but you pretend that you don't.
You're claiming that multiple, unaffiated researchers, in many different countries, like Pew, are all being manipulated by the same groups. Sure. All these professors and economists and sociologists are in the pockets of the big evil feminist groups. Sure....
Quote:
Originally Posted by nald
The data regularly forgets the outrageous number of over 50,000 men being in prison at any point throughout a calendar year - because they didn't or couldn't pay child support or alimony. To make things worse, interest rates are absurd regardless of the reason. This is how some men literally owe dozens of millions in child support through the absurd way these interest rates are applied, as if he borrowed money from loan sharks. The data also forgets to mention suicide rates of ex husbands during the period of first three years after divorce, not to mention that they claim these suicide rates are unaffected - despite the fact that there are far less men suffering limb amputations or war/combat exposure, groups that were formerly considered to be high-risk groups. The data regularly forgets to mention how even children who were raised by nannies are regularly awarded to mothers who then toss the children to their own parents while collecting the child support from the "father" whose parental role gets either diminished or non-existent after divorce. The data they apply doesn't even care for the fact that national statistics tend to calculate alimony into woman's income - they usually exclude it from woman's income in these "studies" and thus additionally skew the outcome.s
They aren't paying the money they owe and supporting their children? And I should have pity for them? These women often are forced to go on public assistance, so I have to pay for these dude's kids because they are deadbeats. F em.
And alimony? Really? It is so uncommon why even bring it up?? Maybe 3-4% of marriages will ever have it be an issue.
And yes, I mentioned how men do psychologically worse after divorce. It is the one area men suffer more than women after divorce, the studies you dismiss because they don't agree with your men's rights crap show this time and time again.
[quote=nald;40231664]If studies "show" that women are so much screwed in divorce, then women must stop getting married. Outlawing marriage should be the way to go, to protect women. Right....[quote=nald;40231664]
Outlawing? No, but sociologically, that is what is happening. Dudes still want to get married, and they want to marry more than women. Women are saying no because they get a raw deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nald
I also want to mention it again - "nuclear families" are getting less and less stable and your claim hinted that they aren't. Divorce rates are becoming irrelevant these days - for the sole fact that increasing number of people are cohabiting. Marriage rates are declining and divorce rates drop because of it. This is especially the case among the older ones, not just the young ones as HuffPost tries to hint all the time. Look into the fact that just about HALF of all first-time divorcees will ever get re-married after their first divorce. about 75% of never-married people in their 20s are projected to get married at some point. Why do older folks forgo marriage even more? Because they have even more assets and look the world in a more realistic light. If they live in their own home, they don't want to risk losing it and gambling away their children's inheritance through potential divorce or something else. This fear is stronger than fear from Hell and Satan, this is why older folks are less likely to remarry than the younger folks are likely to be never-married. 50 years from now, generations will be literally free to forgo marriage completely - since they'll be the generation with mainstream acceptance of out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation. They'll just choose to take another step and forgo marriage completely. This is how mainstream population will finally stop marrying. This isn't too much of a stretch, given the projected 25% share in today's generation, expecting that 50% or more folks born in i.e. 2030s will never get married throughout their lifetime in the future is very realistic and I may say it's an underestimated projection.
I never mentioned nuclear families once. And I, personally, believe marriage is a once in a lifetime thing. That's it. You have one shot.
Last edited by timberline742; 06-30-2015 at 05:03 PM..
What does some bizarre lunatic conspiracy theory assertion that the Huffington Post is spearheading a mass effort to force the unwilling to enter into marriage contracts disqualify you from?
Pulling things out of context and constructing your own questions doesn't contribute to discussion, but it clearly shows one's intentions. I hope my response answered your post that "ended" with question mark.
There's a saying in Bosnia, the end of it is usually left unfinished for the listener for a more profound effect and it starts like this: Snow doesn't fall to cover the hill...
I suggest the Op form what he believes is a business cotract with a woman or male then decide to end it. Then walk up to judge and tell him you and business partner have decided to end it by dividing things accumulated and leave your two children out of it.
By stepping out and telling this aloud, I help other men to realize that their conclusion about outrageous and criminal institution that we call marriage is not mere coincidence. Millions of other men have figured it out, yet they still can't say that aloud because of "Jesus", "Allah", "Budha", "Disney", "National Marriage Project", "Obama", "HuffingtonPost" or simply their parents. You are joining the voices of these a-holes and you try to ridicule me or to shun other young men from voicing their stance on this whole deal.
Oh, I don't think anybody NEEDS to ridicule you.
You're doing a bang-up job embarrassing yourself with this sort of bizarre raving.
But, hey, if you really do feel like Disney, Buddha, Obama, and Jesus are forcing you into criminal enterprise...
Quote:
I also want to mention it again - "nuclear families" are getting less and less stable and your claim hinted that they aren't. Divorce rates are becoming irrelevant these days - for the sole fact that increasing number of people are cohabiting. Marriage rates are declining and divorce rates drop because of it. This is especially the case among the older ones, not just the young ones as HuffPost tries to hint all the time. Look into the fact that just about HALF of all first-time divorcees will ever get re-married after their first divorce. about 75% of never-married people in their 20s are projected to get married at some point. Why do older folks forgo marriage even more? Because they have even more assets and look the world in a more realistic light. If they live in their own home, they don't want to risk losing it and gambling away their children's inheritance through potential divorce or something else. This fear is stronger than fear from Hell and Satan, this is why older folks are less likely to remarry than the younger folks are likely to be never-married. 50 years from now, generations will be literally free to forgo marriage completely - since they'll be the generation with mainstream acceptance of out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation. They'll just choose to take another step and forgo marriage completely. This is how mainstream population will finally stop marrying. This isn't too much of a stretch, given the projected 25% share in today's generation, expecting that 50% or more folks born in i.e. 2030s will never get married throughout their lifetime in the future is very realistic and I may say it's an underestimated projection.
So, this being the case, it seems like you don't really need to worry your pretty little head about all those bad things Allah and Allah's widely known favorite media conglomerate, the Huffington Post, and parents at large are teaming up to force people to do, now do you? The criminal institution is going away, right?
Pulling things out of context and constructing your own questions doesn't contribute to discussion, but it clearly shows one's intentions. I hope my response answered your post that "ended" with question mark.
There's a saying in Bosnia, the end of it is usually left unfinished for the listener for a more profound effect and it starts like this: Snow doesn't fall to cover the hill...
Please, by all means, feel free to clarify your "context."
Also, perhaps not standard in Bosnia, couldn't really say, but in the U.S., turns out, asking questions actually IS part of discourse. Wacky, right?
Returning to the theme of this thread's start, about marriage potentially being a "business"....
"Business" doesn't necessarily mean "money", profit or loss, net-worth and income and so forth. "Business" means diligence and responsibility, not dollars and rupees. "Business" means that the two marital-partners unite their lives from a sense of duty, decorum, community-citizenship, division of labor and symbiosis. They're neither conniving speculators nor star-crossed lovers. They are partners in the sense that two shipwreck-survivors on a deserted-island are partners. They find themselves thrust together, and pool resources to survive against the elements.
Like most others in this thread, I too would be disgusted by a "business" marriage, where a wealthy man marries a young/hot woman, exchanging his money for her body. Instead, I very much support a "business" marriage, where the husband and wife are co-householders, not because they love each other but because they've made a commitment to stand as a couple against the exterior world.
I think that what's so conducive to keeping a marriage going, is this feeling of "us vs. them". If regardless of the strife between the two partners, they as a couple continue feeling that it's the couple vs. everyone else, then they'll tolerate substantial acrimony or dysfunction without splitting. If however one or both of them begins to feel that the exterior world is actually a fairly friendly place, and it's the other spouse who's the source of grief and disaffection, then the partnership will likely fail.
It also seems to me that the difference between first-world and third-world perspective about marriage, is that the third-world is a harsher and more unstable place. People form partnerships just to survive, and stick together because survival depends on that. In the first-world, we have more guarantees and privileges. Life is freer, more generous, better-established. Partnerships are only formed from an intense feeling of mutual attraction, rather than from concessions to necessity. But I'm not entirely enthused about the first-world way of doing things, because in a society that's itself more stable, the resulting partnerships are (paradoxically) less stable. Simply put, if you need your wife/husband to survive in a harsh environment, you're less likely to divorce.
You're doing a bang-up job embarrassing yourself with this sort of bizarre raving.
But, hey, if you really do feel like Disney, Buddha, Obama, and Jesus are forcing you into criminal enterprise...
So, this being the case, it seems like you don't really need to worry your pretty little head about all those bad things Allah and Allah's widely known favorite media conglomerate, the Huffington Post, and parents at large are teaming up to force people to do, now do you? The criminal institution is going away, right?
Sarcasm has the syntax that doesn't involve aggression, bullying and intolerance. You're doing all three in your post, and many more. Your attempt was to ridicule me in person after I blocked off your attempt to pull things out of context and steer the discussion.
I don't know what's the connection with Allah and Huffingtonpost, you tell me. I'm an atheist and I want to tell you this - if you're the one ignoring the immense pressure on young men to marry, pressure done by literally everyone - then I don't know what to say. It's somehow worth of ridiculing the fact that men are also forced to marry by i.e. religious blabbering or via Disney? Only women are affected? Men don't matter? You tell me. I do tell you that these things are very real for virtually every man and I elaborated why.
Once again, I'm an atheist, but I had such pressure for the mere reason that "people feel it should be a natural step". I felt and still feel that pressure after I deliberately said that I don't want marriage or wife in my life, said it three years ago to my parents and they kept pressuring me. I know a large number of men who feel the same for various reason and lots of other men who feel awful that they think marriage is a terrible deal yet that everyone, including people around them and women they're with - expects them to "propose". If you don't want to believe in this or you want to laugh it off, you just show what you think of men in general.
Oh and back to the "criminal institution". Marriage is a criminal institution for the mere fact that it disrespects one's basic property ownership rights. I could throw many other things but I'll focus on this single one to prove my point and how easy it is to show how criminal the whole legal framework is. Some arbitrary court is free to re-distribute one's assets based on supposedly "mutual contribution", which is completely arbitrary and generally non-existent. Just to tell you an example - I bought an apartment, yet if a woman happens to live in that apartment with me, her mere "living within this apartment" contribution is enough to claim HALF of it once she files divorce papers. Not to mention that the city-data audience will claim she "earned it" via some household chores - as if they even know she did all those chores and by herself in first place and as if one's doing of simple chores earns him/her an expensive asset that they would never be able to afford. These practice stem from a different time and system. These practices should be deemed criminal and should be banned from the legal system of a capitalist, modern legislation.
Please, by all means, feel free to clarify your "context."
Also, perhaps not standard in Bosnia, couldn't really say, but in the U.S., turns out, asking questions actually IS part of discourse. Wacky, right?
Please delete this post or I'm pressing the report button. I'm tired of one's feeling of superiority for "being American" and looking at "incompetent immigrants", especially the attitude that the common Africans live in huts, Arabs have sex with goats and so on. I've already said it before, there's one stereotype about Americans as well and please notice that I never mentioned it in this post.
[quote=timberline742;40231815]You're claiming that multiple, unaffiated researchers, in many different countries, like Pew, are all being manipulated by the same groups. Sure. All these professors and economists and sociologists are in the pockets of the big evil feminist groups. Sure....
They aren't paying the money they owe and supporting their children? And I should have pity for them? These women often are forced to go on public assistance, so I have to pay for these dude's kids because they are deadbeats. F em.
And alimony? Really? It is so uncommon why even bring it up?? Maybe 3-4% of marriages will ever have it be an issue.
And yes, I mentioned how men do psychologically worse after divorce. It is the one area men suffer more than women after divorce, the studies you dismiss because they don't agree with your men's rights crap show this time and time again.
[quote=nald;40231664]If studies "show" that women are so much screwed in divorce, then women must stop getting married. Outlawing marriage should be the way to go, to protect women. Right....
Quote:
Originally Posted by nald
Outlawing? No, but sociologically, that is what is happening. Dudes still want to get married, and they want to marry more than women. Women are saying no because they get a raw deal.
I never mentioned nuclear families once. And I, personally, believe marriage is a once in a lifetime thing. That's it. You have one shot.
First quote deserved a mile-long post. Skipped
Second post - I believe a guy doesn't become a father because mother has chosen to give birth to a child. It is an insult to all men, especially the fathers, that the state, women and men like you think otherwise. I for one think that it's a bigger disgrace for any guy to know that legislation and a mother thinks that a father is a wallet. This is what the father role seems to be in case when a woman gets pregnant and wants to chase the father. She may abort the unborn child, toss it anonymously in the nearby fire station, or keep the pregnancy without notifying the original guy. She can legally act in a way to either reduce or remove the father role of a guy willing to be parent. Yet she's perfectly entitled for child support if she demands it. I think that pro-choice stance MUST include option for a man to opt out of unwanted fatherhood. Child is not wanted. After all, plenty of women can and DO burden the taxpayers with lots of stuff. Notice that the practice of chasing "fathers" produced even more single mothers. If you insist so much on burdening taxpayers, you'd wish to scrap the 100+ billion of direct handouts to these "mommies" and 600+ billions through indirect handouts? It's woman's choice, if someone should be jailed or chased by society, it should be the mother who can't support the child she deliberately gave birth to and kept it, right? Youre asking for responsibility, you may start knocking the right door. If this happens to be the right way to deal with it, the number of such children will drop like a rock.... so maybe the legislation should reverse the trend and see if this practice will work better. After all, women can and still do send children to foster homes? I mean, F**'Em attitude can still apply? Or not? So many questions, please try to be consistent.
Quote:
Outlawing? No, but sociologically, that is what is happening. Dudes still want to get married, and they want to marry more than women. Women are saying no because they get a raw deal.
Good, women are doing the right thing, I can only give them thumbs up. Why should they do everything and a guy should do any less. People should be independent and capable to take care of themselves. Legislation should force nobody to be obliged over another person and nobody should have the right to claim share in another person's income or assets through some arbitrary claims. People should always know who owns what and who's responsible for what.
Quote:
I never mentioned nuclear families once. And I, personally, believe marriage is a once in a lifetime thing. That's it. You have one shot.
You hinted it in numerous topics and even in this one through several posts, in regards to "lower divorce rates" and "more people staying together" and "divorce being rare".
To sum it up - marriage IS a business contract. A criminally bad business contract.
Returning to the theme of this thread's start, about marriage potentially being a "business"....
"Business" doesn't necessarily mean "money", profit or loss, net-worth and income and so forth. "Business" means diligence and responsibility, not dollars and rupees. "Business" means that the two marital-partners unite their lives from a sense of duty, decorum, community-citizenship, division of labor and symbiosis. They're neither conniving speculators nor star-crossed lovers. They are partners in the sense that two shipwreck-survivors on a deserted-island are partners. They find themselves thrust together, and pool resources to survive against the elements.
Like most others in this thread, I too would be disgusted by a "business" marriage, where a wealthy man marries a young/hot woman, exchanging his money for her body. Instead, I very much support a "business" marriage, where the husband and wife are co-householders, not because they love each other but because they've made a commitment to stand as a couple against the exterior world.
I think that what's so conducive to keeping a marriage going, is this feeling of "us vs. them". If regardless of the strife between the two partners, they as a couple continue feeling that it's the couple vs. everyone else, then they'll tolerate substantial acrimony or dysfunction without splitting. If however one or both of them begins to feel that the exterior world is actually a fairly friendly place, and it's the other spouse who's the source of grief and disaffection, then the partnership will likely fail.
It also seems to me that the difference between first-world and third-world perspective about marriage, is that the third-world is a harsher and more unstable place. People form partnerships just to survive, and stick together because survival depends on that. In the first-world, we have more guarantees and privileges. Life is freer, more generous, better-established. Partnerships are only formed from an intense feeling of mutual attraction, rather than from concessions to necessity. But I'm not entirely enthused about the first-world way of doing things, because in a society that's itself more stable, the resulting partnerships are (paradoxically) less stable. Simply put, if you need your wife/husband to survive in a harsh environment, you're less likely to divorce.
I agree with a lot of what you said - but I don't agree that the marriage works not because they love each other but because they've made a commitment. I think that most successful marriages work because they've made a commitment that they want to keep because they love each other. If I didn't love my husband, I wouldn't want to sleep next to him every night. I wouldn't want to cry on his shoulder. I wouldn't want to be there for him through thick and through thin. I wouldn't want to make love to him. I wouldn't want to have children with him. I wouldn't want to spend everyday with him. It's because I love him that I'm willing to go through hell or high water with him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
