User Tag List

First 91011121321 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 237

  1. #101
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    People don't know what's best for themselves. We did not evolve to exist in a technological society like this, so we've created all these products and concepts in a futile attempt to bring some sort of fulfillment. More fanciful ideas and more stuff is not the solution. We need to better understand ourselves, as a species. Looking at our evolution is a better way to do that than running up credit card bills, looking for the "perfect partner", finding religion, or reading self-help books.


    1. I don't think it's incompatible with fulfillment, but it might be incompatible with the modern idea of happiness where all of our desires must be met instantly...and then we quickly grow bored with whatever we got because it took so little effort to acquire.
    Let's talk about evolution, then. For most of human history, we haven't done the life-long monogamy thing - and when we have, it's been for a dramatically shorter time period due to lack of medicine and highly dangerous environments (mainly for the men). Families are far more isolated now than they used to be, and there's not as much support from the community. You could even argue that single parents now are more similar to humans in the distant past, where the women would raise all the kids while the men were away (hunting). You can sometimes see the same kind of community arising between single moms in modern times.

    That is to say, I don't think that a man-woman team has much evolutionary support. Certainly 2 people are better than one, and there are many problems and stresses associated with single parenting but that support can also be found elsewhere. It's also an extremely different scenario when both parents are very much in the kids' lives after the divorce vs. just fucking off.

    You're right that there is a very "now now" culture these days (I can't comment on the good old days before this since I wasn't around, but I believe it is more like this in the last few years/decades), which is problematic in many ways, and I'm sure that does influence attitudes about marriage. I'm not so sure that punishing that attitude in this specific area is going to be all that helpful, though. It seems more like something that would need to be addressed at a more broad level, since it really permeates everything in our lives.

    2. Part of me would oppose a law restricting marriage to those 25 years or older, but the other part of me thinks it could be a great idea because I agree with you. Too many young people have no clue what they need in a partner. Neither do their parents. It's the blind leading the blind, assuming the parents are even in the picture.
    3. I would not be against amending the commitment from "life-long" to "years of child-dependency" before being eligible for a no-fault divorce.
    4. I agree that young humans don't have the necessary experience to choose to a proper mate. Some older (wiser) humans do, though. Arranged marriages, despite how ghastly they may sound to us "enlightened" 21st century people, actually worked pretty well compared to our system for choosing mates, which is a giant clusterfuck.
    If you ignore the aspect of women being bartered as property I suppose it works in some cases. There are an awful lot of unhappy arranged marriages out there though, and a lot of the studies that show they "work well" define "working well" as "not divorced" - even though in general, a culture that arranges marriage probably doesn't encourage divorce and it probably doesn't care too much about the happiness of the women in particular. Exceptions exist, I'm sure, but that is still a clear trend.

    I don't know if love marriages are really that much "better", but in cases where it's not clear, I'd tend to err on the side of individual freedoms.

    This is true, there's no good way to isolate this phenomenon completely. If you have any better data, I'd love to see it. Until then, I don't find your argument convincing enough to dismiss it.
    It's very difficult to get clear data showing a causative effect on society since real experiments are generally out of the question. It's far easier to see the effect on an individual level. If you're proposing to make changes that demonstrably affect individuals in a negative way and you're not able to show convincingly that society will benefit at all, who would agree to such a thing?

    Who said anything about their entire life? I'm not asking for old-style catholic church marriage where you could never get divorced under any circumstances. You act as though my suggestion is incredibly onerous. It's not. But I guess when you're used to instant gratification, not getting everything you want the instant you want it does seem like torture. So maybe you're right.
    Well, you said you would need either a clear reason (again, not sure how severe a reason we're talking here) or mutual consent. If we were proposing that marriages had to last a certain number of years before allowing no-fault divorce, I'd be ok with that if the number was low enough (maybe 5 years, or 1 year). If only to reduce paperwork, or irritate celebrities! Or better yet, mandate an engagement period to force people to think about it a little. I thought we were discussing universal banning vs. allowing no-fault divorce. Instant gratification isn't really the point if we're talking about something that won't change, even with effort. Like say, sexual compatibility (to a degree).

    As I said before, I'm less concerned with any individual's happiness than I am society's, as a whole. If making it a little more difficult to get divorced helps, I'm all for it, even if people are a little less "happy", temporarily.
    I'm not opposed to the bolded in theory. I think there are some cases where it makes sense (arguably, universal health care, but let's please choke off that tangent right there). But I think you really have to be able to show convincingly that society benefits from the sacrifices of the individuals and so far, I'm not convinced.
    -end of thread-

  2. #102
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Let's talk about evolution, then. For most of human history, we haven't done the life-long monogamy thing - and when we have, it's been for a dramatically shorter time period due to lack of medicine and highly dangerous environments (mainly for the men). Families are far more isolated now than they used to be, and there's not as much support from the community. You could even argue that single parents now are more similar to humans in the distant past, where the women would raise all the kids while the men were away (hunting). You can sometimes see the same kind of community arising between single moms in modern times.

    That is to say, I don't think that a man-woman team has much evolutionary support. Certainly 2 people are better than one, and there are many problems and stresses associated with single parenting but that support can also be found elsewhere. It's also an extremely different scenario when both parents are very much in the kids' lives after the divorce vs. just fucking off.

    You're right that there is a very "now now" culture these days (I can't comment on the good old days before this since I wasn't around, but I believe it is more like this in the last few years/decades), which is problematic in many ways, and I'm sure that does influence attitudes about marriage. I'm not so sure that punishing that attitude in this specific area is going to be all that helpful, though. It seems more like something that would need to be addressed at a more broad level, since it really permeates everything in our lives.
    I disagree that it doesn't have much evolutionary support. It had been the dominant family structure for most of the old world (outside of sub-Saharan Africa and Australia) for centuries, perhaps millennia, and that wasn't an accident. Civilizations that had that family structure out-competed those without it. While there have been some variations of that family unit, such as extended families (like your hunter-gatherers), no successful group that we're aware of has ever had the massive numbers of single-parents like we have today. There is only one known primate that has this family structure, the orangutan, an Asian primate.

    Of course the issue of instant gratification needs to be addressed in other areas, as well. But if we take your approach, nothing would ever be done.

    If you ignore the aspect of women being bartered as property I suppose it works in some cases. There are an awful lot of unhappy arranged marriages out there though, and a lot of the studies that show they "work well" define "working well" as "not divorced" - even though in general, a culture that arranges marriage probably doesn't encourage divorce and it probably doesn't care too much about the happiness of the women in particular. Exceptions exist, I'm sure, but that is still a clear trend.

    I don't know if love marriages are really that much "better", but in cases where it's not clear, I'd tend to err on the side of individual freedoms.
    This is a very female-centric way to look at it, but I suppose I can't blame you for that. People are programmed to not look at how these things affect males, or to just assume males are always better off.

    It's very difficult to get clear data showing a causative effect on society since real experiments are generally out of the question. It's far easier to see the effect on an individual level. If you're proposing to make changes that demonstrably affect individuals in a negative way and you're not able to show convincingly that society will benefit at all, who would agree to such a thing?
    LOL, I'm not talking about reinstituting an ancient custom that hasn't been around for 1000 years. It's only been around for around 30-40 years since people couldn't get divorced on a whim, where they had to get mutual consent or show fault (like evidence of infidelity).

    Well, you said you would need either a clear reason (again, not sure how severe a reason we're talking here) or mutual consent. If we were proposing that marriages had to last a certain number of years before allowing no-fault divorce, I'd be ok with that if the number was low enough (maybe 5 years, or 1 year). If only to reduce paperwork, or irritate celebrities! Or better yet, mandate an engagement period to force people to think about it a little. I thought we were discussing universal banning vs. allowing no-fault divorce. Instant gratification isn't really the point if we're talking about something that won't change, even with effort. Like say, sexual compatibility (to a degree).
    You keep talking about how horrible it would be to be stuck in marriage you couldn't end that I'm curious about how many people were actually stuck in marriages they couldn't get out of before no-fault divorce become law.

    I'm not opposed to the bolded in theory. I think there are some cases where it makes sense (arguably, universal health care, but let's please choke off that tangent right there). But I think you really have to be able to show convincingly that society benefits from the sacrifices of the individuals and so far, I'm not convinced.
    I'm not surprised that you're not convinced.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #103
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    @Lateralus, let's revisit the original question: do the benefits to society and to the individual outweigh downsides to society and to the individual?

    Facts:
    1) marriages would last longer, and there would be fewer divorces - good to neutral
    2) a greater proportion of marriages would be unhappy, because the unhappy ones aren't allowed to divorce - bad
    3) more children (born in wedlock) would live with 2 parents (presumably unmarried couples would stay together at similar rates as now) - good to neutral
    4) people would (in an ideal world) think more carefully before deciding to marry - good

    Likely, but debatable:
    1) marriage would decrease - good to neutral to bad, depending on your perspective
    2) number of children born out of wedlock would either increase, due to the reduction in marriages, or might not be affected, if most people see marriage as necessary for children - good to neutral to bad, again, but leaning closer to bad, especially if it increases the odds of one of the parents taking off for good, which I'm guessing it would
    3) more children (born in wedlock) would grow up with unhealthy relationship dynamics (again, hard to predict the effects, if any, on children born to unmarried couples) - fairly obviously bad
    4) the number of affairs would increase - bad, arguably
    5) long term, people from divorced homes (children and adults) would face increased social stigma as divorce becomes less normal - neutral to bad, although I don't think this is really a great argument
    6) number of separated couples would greatly increase, since the exit to divorce is blocked - this alone might negate a lot of the positive effects, since the effects on children would be nearly identical to divorce - unless you'd also outlaw separation?
    6) ehhh there are countless more possible implications, but I'm bored of brainstorming. feel free to point out any obvious ones I missed.

    Based on this, I would say that eliminating no-fault divorce would be likely to have some effects that would generally be considered good, and some that would generally be considered bad, with a whole lot of either neutral or contested effects as well.

    Am I missing anything important? It seems like the main issue is that we disagree on whether some of these are actually good or bad, and their relative importance? I think the decrease in marriage would be a neutral-to-good thing that would counteract a lot of the downsides, although I still don't like the idea of locking people into unhealthy relationship situations for both individual and societal reasons. Divorced doesn't mean single parent, either - the majority of people I know who have divorced parents see both of them regularly, and have for their whole lifetime. And of course not all single parents were ever married, or were ever divorced.

    I've tried to avoid anecdotes, but as a child of parents who weren't "allowed" to get divorced (due to religion) and finally separated and eventually divorced (as in, 15-20 years after their relationship got really bad), the unhealthy relationship dynamic absolutely affects you. It's hard to say what it would have been like to grow up living with divorced parents, but I know it was a massive relief when they finally separated and the endless fights stopped. I'm not arguing from a place of emotion since it isn't something I dwell on, but I think my experience is fairly common and therefore relevant.
    -end of thread-

  4. #104
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Rape is sexual intercourse that violates the will of another, whether that person is male or female, whether the perpetrator is male of female. Feminists put their socio-political spin on things to make all men look like the villains and all women look like the victims.

    Is this news? Or were some of you born yesterday.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  5. #105
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    Rape is sexual intercourse that violates the will of another, whether that person is male or female, whether the perpetrator is male of female. Feminists put their socio-political spin on things to make all men look like the villains and all women look like the victims.

    Is this news? Or were some of you born yesterday.

  6. #106
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Maybe it's time to drop the term feminism and replace it with something more accurate or precise?
    Agreed. Both genders are affected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    The title was the author's, not mine and I'm not "arguing" anything.
    I frankly confess, that's new, strange, and unusual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I've seen this happen in the media, but I've never experienced this in person. I can imagine this happening when interacting with women I don't know well, but not with any who know me well.
    It's a mystery to me too.

    As I mentioned, I've only had trouble with my ENFJ sister getting carried away to a point where I'll let her win.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I think that this could explain the tendency of the female viewpoint to be espoused by culture generally, while the male viewpoint is often viewed as irrelevant or hostile.
    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I would say both situations aren't mutually exclusive, and that both are pressing problems.

    That being said, in the media and current culture, I would say the feminine perspective has more traction than does the male perspective.

    Pretty much since the birth of the "every kid is special" train of thought in education, which came about while I was in elementary school I've felt this way.
    Is someone in your life abusing you? I've never heard you talk like this.

    Regarding your reply to me:

    I asked, "what do you think" about my ideas. I was trying to help. I value your opinion. (Emotional thinking isn't required.)

    P.S., pleased to meet you, non-emotional thinker, I am an intuitive thinker.

    Quote Originally Posted by iwakar View Post
    I'm on board with this.

    I'm pregnant with my first and I have no plans to send out invites and throw parties for the kindergarten graduation, the elementary graduation, and the junior high graduation as my kid moves along the educational ladder. I don't much care what people think. My FB newsfeed is littered with every Mom in my family trying to make a monumental event out of every trivial milestone in their children's lives. (They completed summer swimming lessons! They finished pre-K! They got City's Cutest Baby picture in the local paper! Let's have a barbecue etc. etc.) I'm cool with noting said events and spreading the good word. But I'm not cool with needing to make a special occasion out of every frickin thing.

    Do they really expect me to buy gifts and take off work for this stuff? I have over 20+ FIRST younger cousins! Seriously?
    What in the world?

    I can hardly wait to make those kind of memories. Gah. And any excuse for a BBQ is a good excuse.

  7. #107
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Strawman argument? I stated a fact, not an argument.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  8. #108
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    Strawman argument? I stated a fact, not an argument.
    You are a hoot.

  9. #109
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,019

    Default

    1971: Rape: An Act of Terror, by Barbara Mehrhof and Pamela Kearon

    "To see rape within the system of female repression is to understand its non-accidental and non-arbitrary nature and to gain insight into its special purpose for the class of men."

    [Rape has a special purpose for the class of men?]

    "There is no group other than slaves that has been singled out for such systematic and total exploitation and suppression as the class of women."

    [Class of women. (Marxist class-conflict.)]

    "The condition of women exceeds the bounds of the definition of oppression and in the modern Western world her situation is unique."

    [Really? What about the modern Middle Eastern world?]

    Modern feminism simply makes a strawman argument in favor of Marxist class warfare.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  10. #110
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    @Lateralus, let's revisit the original question: do the benefits to society and to the individual outweigh downsides to society and to the individual?

    Facts:
    1) marriages would last longer, and there would be fewer divorces - good to neutral
    2) a greater proportion of marriages would be unhappy, because the unhappy ones aren't allowed to divorce - bad
    3) more children (born in wedlock) would live with 2 parents (presumably unmarried couples would stay together at similar rates as now) - good to neutral
    4) people would (in an ideal world) think more carefully before deciding to marry - good

    Likely, but debatable:
    1) marriage would decrease - good to neutral to bad, depending on your perspective
    2) number of children born out of wedlock would either increase, due to the reduction in marriages, or might not be affected, if most people see marriage as necessary for children - good to neutral to bad, again, but leaning closer to bad, especially if it increases the odds of one of the parents taking off for good, which I'm guessing it would
    3) more children (born in wedlock) would grow up with unhealthy relationship dynamics (again, hard to predict the effects, if any, on children born to unmarried couples) - fairly obviously bad
    4) the number of affairs would increase - bad, arguably
    5) long term, people from divorced homes (children and adults) would face increased social stigma as divorce becomes less normal - neutral to bad, although I don't think this is really a great argument
    6) number of separated couples would greatly increase, since the exit to divorce is blocked - this alone might negate a lot of the positive effects, since the effects on children would be nearly identical to divorce - unless you'd also outlaw separation?
    6) ehhh there are countless more possible implications, but I'm bored of brainstorming. feel free to point out any obvious ones I missed.

    Based on this, I would say that eliminating no-fault divorce would be likely to have some effects that would generally be considered good, and some that would generally be considered bad, with a whole lot of either neutral or contested effects as well.

    Am I missing anything important? It seems like the main issue is that we disagree on whether some of these are actually good or bad, and their relative importance? I think the decrease in marriage would be a neutral-to-good thing that would counteract a lot of the downsides, although I still don't like the idea of locking people into unhealthy relationship situations for both individual and societal reasons. Divorced doesn't mean single parent, either - the majority of people I know who have divorced parents see both of them regularly, and have for their whole lifetime. And of course not all single parents were ever married, or were ever divorced.
    That's a pretty good synopsis, and yes we do disagree on whether some of those are actually good or bad, and to what degree. I'm getting tired of debating this, so I'm not going to go through each of your points (sorry). One of the fundamental premises of social liberalism (and I consider myself to be socially liberal, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, etc) is that more choice is intrinsically good. Giving people more options to choose their own fate is a good thing. But there are some serious flaws that premise. I don't want to get into a debate on the issue of 'choice', either, because it's really a topic of its own. I'll just say that I believe we, as a society, seriously underestimate the significance of the animal/instinctual part of our brains. Everyone likes to think of themselves as rational, but we're all only partially rational.

    There is only one reality show that I've ever watched that hasn't made change the channel in disgust, and that's the Dog Whisperer. If you haven't ever watched the show, it's about this guy (Cesar Milan) who goes around helping people who dogs with behavioral issues. He has two mottos. The first is "I rehabilitate dogs, I train humans". The second is "exercise, discipline, affection". Each case is obviously different, but the vast majority of cases are due to the humans putting too few limitations on the dogs, which paradoxically makes the dogs unhappy/stressed/etc. Most humans (mostly Americans on this show) tend to think that more choice is good and that discipline is "mean". But Cesar shows that the opposite is true. The dogs almost always need more discipline (especially the small ones that women tend to treat like baby humans), and this leads to them being able relax. Now I know human psychology is far more complex than dog psychology so I wouldn't go as far as saying you could apply this directly to humans, but as I said before, I think we tend to underestimate the significance of the animal part of our brains. You can probably see where I'm going with this. Unfortunately, I don't have any idea how we could implement a similar strategy into our society in any comprehensive fashion. But I do believe that eliminating no-fault divorce would have an effect on society that seems counter-intuitive to you.

    I've tried to avoid anecdotes, but as a child of parents who weren't "allowed" to get divorced (due to religion) and finally separated and eventually divorced (as in, 15-20 years after their relationship got really bad), the unhealthy relationship dynamic absolutely affects you. It's hard to say what it would have been like to grow up living with divorced parents, but I know it was a massive relief when they finally separated and the endless fights stopped. I'm not arguing from a place of emotion since it isn't something I dwell on, but I think my experience is fairly common and therefore relevant.
    Did your parents both want divorce? If so, then there's really nothing to talk about here. I'm for divorces by mutual consent. I'm NOT for divorce being restricted by religion (I'm an atheist), so your parents would have been able to get a divorce under my proposal.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. Raped at 8 and left for dead, a victim raises her voice
    By Nonsensical in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 01:30 PM
  2. BroRape Awareness: Don't be a Victim!
    By Nonsensical in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-23-2009, 10:14 PM
  3. 911 operator scolds victim; victim dies
    By digesthisickness in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-25-2009, 11:25 PM
  4. Ultimate hoax victim qualities?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-12-2008, 10:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO