In other news... (humorous news items)

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Thesh » Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:12 pm UTC

I just threw up in my mouth a little:

https://www.conservativereview.com/Comm ... Rosa-Parks
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:25 pm UTC

Haha, I just read the title, and yknow...that's enough. I don't think the article can surpass that for raw comedy.

speising
Posts: 2365
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby speising » Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:53 pm UTC

Is this the "tolerate my intolerance" argument again?

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3998
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Dauric » Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:04 pm UTC

The sidebar article "Is the wrong woman running for president" over a picture of Kim Davis certainly has it's humor value.

That said I find it less "Ha Ha" funny as "Do the leftovers smell funny?"
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:10 pm UTC

speising wrote:Is this the "tolerate my intolerance" argument again?


I dunno. I think it's a big confusion between individual rights and government responsibilities.


Is....is this humor or satire? I can't tell anymore. But it can't be real, can it? http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/sep/03/judge-declines-divorce-case-citing-gay-marria/323201/

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Whizbang » Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:41 pm UTC

Someone explain to me why any reason is needed to divorce besides "One or both of us decided to divorce".

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1810
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Quercus » Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:57 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:Someone explain to me why any reason is needed to divorce besides "One or both of us decided to divorce".

I can't think of anything. I can see why the reasons for a divorce would affect the outcome in terms of money, property, custody of children etc., but declining the divorce in and of itself? Hell, I can't think of a reason why people shouldn't be able to get divorced even if they want to remain partners.

User avatar
Diemo
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Diemo » Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:44 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:Someone explain to me why any reason is needed to divorce besides "One or both of us decided to divorce".


God.

Which is a shitty reason, but is basically what a lot of these things come down to.
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
--Douglas Adams

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby DSenette » Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:52 pm UTC

Diemo wrote:
Whizbang wrote:Someone explain to me why any reason is needed to divorce besides "One or both of us decided to divorce".


God.

Which is a shitty reason, but is basically what a lot of these things come down to.

how is "one or more parties in a legal contract no longer wish to be in a legal contract anymore" a shitty reason?
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby PeteP » Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:53 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:
Diemo wrote:
Whizbang wrote:Someone explain to me why any reason is needed to divorce besides "One or both of us decided to divorce".


God.

Which is a shitty reason, but is basically what a lot of these things come down to.

how is "one or more parties in a legal contract no longer wish to be in a legal contract anymore" a shitty reason?

They are saying God is a shitty reason.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby DSenette » Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:57 pm UTC

AH reading fail
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Thesh » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:08 am UTC

Apparently I missed this: Salmon jizzes on Obama:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salmon-spaw ... ska-visit/
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

jewish_scientist
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby jewish_scientist » Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:17 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:Someone explain to me why any reason is needed to divorce besides "One or both of us decided to divorce".


From a jurisprudence point of view:
Imagine a world where a divorce can be granted without any reason being given. Jane is the sole heiress to a multimillion dollar company. Jane marries John Doe. Jane's father dies, leaving the company and possessions to her. A week later, John files for divorce. When asked what did Jane do to upset him, he said, "She did not do anything." Jane, and several others, say that John Doe only wants the divorce because he wants her money. The Judge says that his motivation does not matter; neither does the fact that Jane did not do anything wrong. The couples possessions are divided in half and given to each person after the divorce. John is now several million dollars richer than he was before he married Jane. Jane is emotionally scared and requires years of deep therapy before she could every trust another man again. Clearly, a wrong has been committed. If government can prevent or reduce the rate this wrong, they should (assuming that the rights of people and states are not violated).


From a ethical point of view:
Marriage is not some fickle thing that you throwaway once you get bored. It is suppose to be a everlasting connection between two people. By making divorce a difficult process, people will only get married when they 'found the one.' Imagine if instead of having multiple boyfriends or girlfriends before getting married, you had multiple husbands or wives (each with a prenuptial agreement) before 'settling down.' How far is that from a Brave New World style dystopia where long lasting connections between partners are rare and discouraged? It is very far, but can you see how it makes us more like this dystopia than not. I can just imagine a character in Brave New World reading a history book that says, "One of the greatest advances in the early 21st century was the weakening of an institution called marriage. Marriage was a agreement between two people to forever deny themselves sex with other people. The slow process of chipping away at marriage in the 2010s and 2020s lead to the Second Sexual Revolution in the 2050s, which is where many of societies modern views on sex originate.*" To be clear, I am NOT saying that if we allow people to get divorced without reason, then we are doomed to become a dystopia. I am saying that Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World because he disapproved of concepts like this.

*I worded it this way because books in Brave New World are filled with propaganda.
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:24 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:From a ethical point of view:
Marriage is not some fickle thing that you throwaway once you get bored. It is suppose to be a everlasting connection between two people.


Right. A marriage ain't a success unless it results in one of you crying over the corpse of the other.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1109
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Coyne » Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:29 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:From a jurisprudence point of view: Imagine a world where a divorce can be granted without any reason being given. [...] Jane, and several others, say that John Doe only wants the divorce because he wants her money.


Apparently Jane never heard of a prenuptial agreement, and none of them ever heard of no-fault divorce.

Spoiler:
A prenuptial agreement could have been used by Jane to limit the property John would be eligible to receive after a divorce. These are frequently used to protect the marrieds from gold-digging. If Jane had required John to sign a "prenup", John would only be eligible for the portion of Jane's money defined in advance by the agreement, which could sharply limit the loss to Jane if John asks for divorce.

No-fault divorce is a no-explanation, no blame, uncontested form of divorce available in many states. The marrieds need not explain why they want a divorce or give any good reason. It is sufficient for them both to agree to divorce, which will be granted even without a specific reason being given.
Last edited by Coyne on Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:39 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
In all fairness...

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Whizbang » Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:32 pm UTC

Issues of who gets what and why are separate from whether or not the divorce should be allowed/denied. I agree that a blanket "each gets half" can cause issues. A request for a divorce should get an automatic rubber stamp of approval, which then starts off a process of determining who gets what which might or might not involve further legal action, depending on the people and agreements involved.

Personally, I feel government should completely remove itself from any sort of marriage. If people want to enter into an agreement of shared resources and avowed monogomy, then have at it. The state should not be involved. Perhaps there should still be a form of joint filing, where it is difficult to determine who should get tax credit for certain activities (especially for children), but there should be no tax credit/bonus for the union itself.

Marriage, as a tradition and an institution, is all fucked up, as far as I am concerned, and I would gladly welcome it being dissolved.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Whizbang » Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:53 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Apparently I missed this: Salmon jizzes on Obama:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salmon-spaw ... ska-visit/



Later, he appealed to some of his Secret Service agents for a knife so he could help filet the fish that had been caught.


Remind me not to jizz on his shoes next time I see him.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1810
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Quercus » Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:59 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:From a jurisprudence point of view:
Imagine a world where a divorce can be granted without any reason being given. Jane is the sole heiress to a multimillion dollar company. Jane marries John Doe. Jane's father dies, leaving the company and possessions to her. A week later, John files for divorce. When asked what did Jane do to upset him, he said, "She did not do anything." Jane, and several others, say that John Doe only wants the divorce because he wants her money. The Judge says that his motivation does not matter; neither does the fact that Jane did not do anything wrong. The couples possessions are divided in half and given to each person after the divorce. John is now several million dollars richer than he was before he married Jane. Jane is emotionally scared and requires years of deep therapy before she could every trust another man again. Clearly, a wrong has been committed. If government can prevent or reduce the rate this wrong, they should (assuming that the rights of people and states are not violated).

That's why a divorce court should, in such circumstances, grant John precisely none of the money Jane inherits from her father, because there is no possible legitimate claim he could have on that money under these circumstances. That eliminates the wrong, without forcing someone to stay in a legal relationship they have no way of getting out of (which I would argue is also a serious wrong)


Marriage is not some fickle thing that you throwaway once you get bored. It is suppose to be a everlasting connection between two people. By making divorce a difficult process, people will only get married when they 'found the one.'

I have not come across a single couple, ever, who has stayed together because divorce is a difficult process. If people want to separate, they either divorce if they can, or they separate and remain married (with the attendant legal minefield that goes with that). Therefore I'm not sure how effective difficult divorces are at preserving the idea of the seriousness of marriage. I would also argue that what a marriage is supposed to be should be determined by the people in the marriage, and no-one else at all.

Also, the notion of 'finding the one', let alone knowing you have found 'the one', and that they will remain 'the one' throughout your life, appears to be, as far as I can tell, an entirely fictional concept, and quite a damaging one at that. This is both because it puts unrealistic pressure on relationships and because it obscures the fact that a relationship is a process, not an event. Any relationship needs continuous work and communication in order to remain healthy, however much the people in it love each other, or are well matched for each other. Those that are lucky enough to find someone that they can be happy with, for the most part, thoroughout their lives, may talk about "knowing from the start", but I have yet to be convinced this is anything other than a form of survivorship bias.

Whizbang wrote:Personally, I feel government should completely remove itself from any sort of marriage. If people want to enter into an agreement of shared resources and avowed monogomy, then have at it. The state should not be involved. Perhaps there should still be a form of joint filing, where it is difficult to determine who should get tax credit for certain activities (especially for children), but there should be no tax credit/bonus for the union itself.

I can't say I disagree with that.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:27 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:I have not come across a single couple, ever, who has stayed together because divorce is a difficult process. If people want to separate, they either divorce if they can, or they separate and remain married (with the attendant legal minefield that goes with that).


Precisely. I live in the nanny-state of MD, which requires a one year separation before a no-fault divorce. This is obnoxious. I know of precisely zero people who did this without sleeping around and so forth because...you dislike each other enough to file for divorce and move out. The relationship is dead, regardless of if the legal arrangement matches.

Chen
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Chen » Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:53 pm UTC

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2350856

So seems the Westboro Baptist Church has chimed in on this whole Kim Davis thing. Suprisingly, their position is to condemn her for being an adulterer rather than supporting her for not allowing same sex marriage. Can't say I saw that coming.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Whizbang » Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:58 pm UTC

The Westboro Baptist Church has a policy of (loosely paraphrased), "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy. He's my enemy! She's my enemy. You're my enemy! Everyone's my enemy! {maniacal laughter}".

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:22 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:From a ethical point of view:
Marriage is not some fickle thing that you throwaway once you get bored. It is suppose to be a everlasting connection between two people. By making divorce a difficult process, people will only get married when they 'found the one.' Imagine if instead of having multiple boyfriends or girlfriends before getting married, you had multiple husbands or wives (each with a prenuptial agreement) before 'settling down.' How far is that from a Brave New World style dystopia where long lasting connections between partners are rare and discouraged? It is very far, but can you see how it makes us more like this dystopia than not. I can just imagine a character in Brave New World reading a history book that says, "One of the greatest advances in the early 21st century was the weakening of an institution called marriage. Marriage was a agreement between two people to forever deny themselves sex with other people. The slow process of chipping away at marriage in the 2010s and 2020s lead to the Second Sexual Revolution in the 2050s, which is where many of societies modern views on sex originate.*" To be clear, I am NOT saying that if we allow people to get divorced without reason, then we are doomed to become a dystopia. I am saying that Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World because he disapproved of concepts like this.

*I worded it this way because books in Brave New World are filled with propaganda.

Why are you saying it's not far from a dystopia if you're claiming that it won't lead to a dystopia? What is the point in bringing up BNW at all if not to make woo-woo noises?

Also, it's funny that you bring up that marriage is "supposed to be" a long-lasting connection between one man and one woman, when you find "the one", where they refuse to have sex with anyone else, because that's wildly un-representative of its historical form. Much of the time, the prenup, or an equivalent primarily legal contract, was the point of the marriage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage# ... f_marriage

Heck, the idea that divorce should be easy goes way back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#History
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:28 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:The Westboro Baptist Church has a policy of (loosely paraphrased), "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy. He's my enemy! She's my enemy. You're my enemy! Everyone's my enemy! {maniacal laughter}".

That is the most Scottish thing I have ever read.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26528
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Sep 10, 2015 1:05 pm UTC

You got Scotland confused with Qo'noS again.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

jewish_scientist
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby jewish_scientist » Thu Sep 10, 2015 1:43 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:From a ethical point of view:
Marriage is not some fickle thing that you throwaway once you get bored. It is suppose to be a everlasting connection between two people.


Right. A marriage ain't a success unless it results in one of you crying over the corpse of the other.


I did not say that. I did not even hint at that. Saying that something is should not be trivia is very different than saying something must be indissoluble. For example, if I sign a contract to provide you with 100 tons of lumber every year in exchange for $1,500,000, then any attempt to negate the contract would require many lawyers working over the course of several months; even though it is difficult, it is possible.


Coyne wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:From a jurisprudence point of view: Imagine a world where a divorce can be granted without any reason being given. [...] Jane, and several others, say that John Doe only wants the divorce because he wants her money.


Apparently Jane never heard of a prenuptial agreement, and none of them ever heard of no-fault divorce.


Pre-nups are unlikely to be signed because they can be seen as an insult. Even when they are, they could have conditional statements in them, such as, 'if Mr.XXX has an extramarital affair, then he forfeits his right to...' Although pre-nups can prevent cases like this, they are more effective in a legal system where a reason must be given for a divorce. A no-fault divorce is fundamentally different than a reasonless divorce. No-fault means that neither spouse did a wrong; reasonless means that the divorce is groundless.

http://family-law.lawyers.com/divorce/do-i-need-a-reason-to-get-divorced.html wrote:In a no-fault divorce, you’ll need to tell the court there’s been a breakdown of your marriage. However, you won’t need to prove your spouse was to blame for the failure of your marriage.



Quercus wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:From a jurisprudence point of view:
Imagine a world where a divorce can be granted without any reason being given. Jane is the sole heiress to a multimillion dollar company. Jane marries John Doe. Jane's father dies, leaving the company and possessions to her. A week later, John files for divorce. When asked what did Jane do to upset him, he said, "She did not do anything." Jane, and several others, say that John Doe only wants the divorce because he wants her money. The Judge says that his motivation does not matter; neither does the fact that Jane did not do anything wrong. The couples possessions are divided in half and given to each person after the divorce. John is now several million dollars richer than he was before he married Jane. Jane is emotionally scared and requires years of deep therapy before she could every trust another man again. Clearly, a wrong has been committed. If government can prevent or reduce the rate this wrong, they should (assuming that the rights of people and states are not violated).

That's why a divorce court should, in such circumstances, grant John precisely none of the money Jane inherits from her father, because there is no possible legitimate claim he could have on that money under these circumstances. That eliminates the wrong, without forcing someone to stay in a legal relationship they have no way of getting out of (which I would argue is also a serious wrong)
(underline added by me)

I agree, but in this hypothetical world a reason does not need to be provided for a divorce to be granted. I suppose you could have a system that is like a compromise where a divorce can be granted without reason, but the initiating party receives less of the couples possessions.

Quercus wrote:Also, the notion of 'finding the one', let alone knowing you have found 'the one', and that they will remain 'the one' throughout your life, appears to be, as far as I can tell, an entirely fictional concept, and quite a damaging one at that. This is both because it puts unrealistic pressure on relationships and because it obscures the fact that a relationship is a process, not an event. Any relationship needs continuous work and communication in order to remain healthy, however much the people in it love each other, or are well matched for each other. Those that are lucky enough to find someone that they can be happy with, for the most part, thoroughout their lives, may talk about "knowing from the start", but I have yet to be convinced this is anything other than a form of survivorship bias.


I think that you misunderstood me, because I agree with everything in this paragraph. The idea of 'love at first sight' that has been advanced by romance novels and fairy tales is detrimental because people who view relationships this way are not prepared for the work and effort needed for the relationship to grow and strengthen. When I said 'the one', I meant that there is a single individual for each person who can form the best relationship with; any other relationship would not become as strong if the same effort was put into each one. That last sentence came out weird. Sorry if you are confused by it.


KrytenKoro wrote:
Spoiler:
jewish_scientist wrote:From a ethical point of view:
Marriage is not some fickle thing that you throwaway once you get bored. It is suppose to be a everlasting connection between two people. By making divorce a difficult process, people will only get married when they 'found the one.' Imagine if instead of having multiple boyfriends or girlfriends before getting married, you had multiple husbands or wives (each with a prenuptial agreement) before 'settling down.' How far is that from a Brave New World style dystopia where long lasting connections between partners are rare and discouraged? It is very far, but can you see how it makes us more like this dystopia than not. I can just imagine a character in Brave New World reading a history book that says, "One of the greatest advances in the early 21st century was the weakening of an institution called marriage. Marriage was a agreement between two people to forever deny themselves sex with other people. The slow process of chipping away at marriage in the 2010s and 2020s lead to the Second Sexual Revolution in the 2050s, which is where many of societies modern views on sex originate.*" To be clear, I am NOT saying that if we allow people to get divorced without reason, then we are doomed to become a dystopia. I am saying that Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World because he disapproved of concepts like this.

*I worded it this way because books in Brave New World are filled with propaganda.

Why are you saying it's not far from a dystopia if you're claiming that it won't lead to a dystopia? What is the point in bringing up BNW at all if not to make woo-woo noises?

Also, it's funny that you bring up that marriage is "supposed to be" a long-lasting connection between one man and one woman, when you find "the one", where they refuse to have sex with anyone else, because that's wildly un-representative of its historical form. Much of the time, the prenup, or an equivalent primarily legal contract, was the point of the marriage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage# ... f_marriage

Heck, the idea that divorce should be easy goes way back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#History


I have 3 simple things to say to you.
1: It is possible to bring Brave New World, 1984 etc. into a conversation without being an alarmist.
2: I do not see how your first source is related to the point you are trying to make.
3: Just because something was common in history does not mean that it is the right thing to do. For example, the idea that P.O.W. should be tortured goes way back.


Chen wrote:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/westboro-baptist-church-weighs-kim-davis-article-1.2350856

So seems the Westboro Baptist Church has chimed in on this whole Kim Davis thing. Suprisingly, their position is to condemn her for being an adulterer rather than supporting her for not allowing same sex marriage. Can't say I saw that coming.

This reminds me of a political cartoon (I cannot find it right now) that shows a member of the KKK next to a list labeled goals. The goals would be mutually exclusive and sometimes exact opposites. The one example that stands out the most in my mind is the goal to, 'remove power from the Church' and 'improve authority of the Church', or something like that.
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1810
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Quercus » Thu Sep 10, 2015 2:09 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:When I said 'the one', I meant that there is a single individual for each person who can form the best relationship with; any other relationship would not become as strong if the same effort was put into each one.

Yeah, that's a different concept to what I thought you meant, but it's still seriously problematic, purely from a statistical viewpoint. The upshot is that even given conservative criteria, such that you are both alive at the same time and at compatible ages, one would only expect 1 in 10,000 people to find their soul-mate, unless there's a deity somewhere playing celestial matchmaker. There's also the fact that that viewpoint, if applied to anyone other than oneself (I have no real problem with anyone believing that they, themselves, have a single "soul-mate") totally de-legitimises the perspectives of both aromantic and polyamorous people.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 10, 2015 2:57 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:From a ethical point of view:
Marriage is not some fickle thing that you throwaway once you get bored. It is suppose to be a everlasting connection between two people.


Right. A marriage ain't a success unless it results in one of you crying over the corpse of the other.


I did not say that. I did not even hint at that. Saying that something is should not be trivia is very different than saying something must be indissoluble. For example, if I sign a contract to provide you with 100 tons of lumber every year in exchange for $1,500,000, then any attempt to negate the contract would require many lawyers working over the course of several months; even though it is difficult, it is possible.


Big contracts of that sort generally have pre-defined outs. Breaking them is usually not exceptionally difficult.

I'm mocking the sort of worldview behind your beliefs. That a marriage that lasts until death is a "success", and that one that ends with two people going separate ways is a "failure".

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1109
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Coyne » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:23 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:Pre-nups are unlikely to be signed because they can be seen as an insult. Even when they are, they could have conditional statements in them, such as, 'if Mr.XXX has an extramarital affair, then he forfeits his right to...' Although pre-nups can prevent cases like this, they are more effective in a legal system where a reason must be given for a divorce. A no-fault divorce is fundamentally different than a reasonless divorce. No-fault means that neither spouse did a wrong; reasonless means that the divorce is groundless.


Yet pre-nups often are signed, especially in cases where one party (Jane) has a greater interest to protect. If I were in John's position, I would offer to sign a pre-nup unless I were actually gold-digging. And if I was, and didn't offer, Jane should be nervous as a doe in hunting season.

You're technically correct on no-fault divorce, but it hardly matters: the reasons given are "incompatibility" or "irreconcilable differences", with no further explanation. There is no functional difference between those reasons and a statement that, "I just plain don't want to be married anymore." And no-fault doesn't mean neither party did wrong, it just means they don't have to prove (or admit) wrongdoing. As the final death knell, no-fault divorce can be initiated by either party without permission of the other: Jane can say she and John have "irreconcilable differences" and there's nothing John can do to fight it. Legally.
In all fairness...

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby bigglesworth » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:33 pm UTC

Jane Doe should watch out indeed.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Whizbang » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:47 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:Jane Doe should watch out indeed.


Nailed it.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby doogly » Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:08 pm UTC

Everyone has a prenup. If instead of writing your own you choose the default, and in your jurisdiction it has something you are uncomfy with, then this is unfortunate. But this is a very avoidable tragedy, just carefully read the contracts you sign.

I do not understand people who think that thoughtfully, collaboratively writing the contract to their marriage is unromantic, but that having one is a romantic plus. I am sympathetic to people who have no desire to involve the government in their relationship, and those who do so deliberately.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Sep 10, 2015 6:13 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:I have 3 simple things to say to you.
1: It is possible to bring Brave New World, 1984 etc. into a conversation without being an alarmist.
2: I do not see how your first source is related to the point you are trying to make.
3: Just because something was common in history does not mean that it is the right thing to do. For example, the idea that P.O.W. should be tortured goes way back.

1) You're being very unsubtle about dodging a pertinent question. Again -- what was your purpose in bringing it into the discussion if not to be alarmist?
2) My point is that your portrait of "how marriage was before being eroded by the sexual revolution" is historically inaccurate. I linked to an article describing the various forms that marriage has taken over history, to give examples. That's how the link is relevant.
3) Your argument relied on claiming that heterosexual, monogamous marriage was the way marriage "should be done", and you painted the tolerance of other types of marriage as an erosion of the historical concept of marriage. It is disingenuous in the extreme to, when notified that your portrait of the "historical concept of marriage" is wildly inaccurate, pretend like that only strengthens your claim. In short: Either the historical concept of marriage should be preserved, and we should have an accurate picture of what it actually is, or there is a meaningful reason for not preserving it, and it is a red herring to be alarmist about the fact of its evolution.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
krogoth
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby krogoth » Fri Sep 11, 2015 4:25 am UTC

Meah, marriage isn't the same in history as people think it was. People are all "Biblical marriage" when Nero married at least one man, and the church rarely married commoners until the last millennium, and things like one of the old Chinese terms for marrying off your daughter directly translates to sell, pretty much what the OT says if read literally. Love only largely came into the picture in the last few centuries. People seem to think the past history of man was always like it has been in the past 100 years or even less. Before america was settled by the white man, Indians used to have binding ceremonies, aka marriage, sometimes it was between men.

Once on happy days a girl was introduced to her blind date named "sticks" because he played the drums, when she met him she complained they were picking on her. He was sort of handsome, good enough for tv anyway. It took a good while though the ep for me to work out what the issue was, it was segregation. Marriage at times has been blocked between interracial couples. You had to go to the dance with one of your own. People need to be better than that.

Spoiler:
biblemarriage.jpg


People can be better than this if we let ourselves grow, and leave some of these old ways behind as just history.
R3sistance - I don't care at all for the ignorance spreading done by many and to the best of my abilities I try to correct this as much as I can, but I know and understand that even I can not be completely honest, truthful and factual all of the time.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:04 am UTC

Given that there was a point in time in human history before marriage even existed, isn't the oldest tradition to NOT get married at all?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Thesh » Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:12 am UTC

I'm pretty sure the first two humans, Adam and Eve were married.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:21 am UTC

But they didn't have a priest nor witnesses, so they couldn't have been. Also since Eve was made from Adams penis bone, she had the same genes and was effectively a clone (maybe Adams X chromosome was doubled?), so it's clearly about masturbation. Oh and their kids fucked each other. Incest? Wincest.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby elasto » Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:31 am UTC

Also, it's vaguely contradictory to both insist upon marriage being permanent and premarital sex being forbidden - again, unless you're assuming there's a cosmic matchmaker pairing everyone off.

At least permit people to have a full trial run at the relationship before making it a forever thing!

But all that is beside the point as mentioned: The modern view of marriage is nothing like either the biblical concept (as that chart demonstrates) nor how it has been practised by ordinary folk and noblemen throughout history.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:38 am UTC

Yeah trial runs are important. I'm not compatible with many women, would be pretty bad if I didn't find out till after marriage.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Diadem » Fri Sep 11, 2015 7:06 am UTC

After all, my erstwhile dear,
My no longer cherished,
Need we say it was not love,
Just because it perished?
~ Edna St. Vincent Millay

That's all I have to say on the topic, and I think all that needs to be said. Sometimes love ends. Dealing with that like adults is important. Divorce is part of that. Making divorce harder just creates unhappy situations for everyone involved.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby SlyReaper » Fri Sep 11, 2015 7:24 am UTC

Creating unhappy situations, I think that is the point. People must be punished for marrying someone who turned out not to be their soul mate. Clearly it can't have been true love, they just wanted to shag, and that's immoral.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests