CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[Andylusion]

Maybe women should keep their legs crossed, or stop getting divorced.

I can assure you that getting divorced isn't the problem. The problems are things that did (or didn't) happen prior to the wedding. For example:

Failing to be sufficiently circumspect prior to wedding is one problem. This may come as a shock to you, but anyone who's gone through the process of becoming a partner in a large firm -- accounting, consulting or law, at least -- is in most, if not all, cases better known and understood -- personality, interests, dislikes, strengths, weaknesses, etc. -- by the firm than was the person's spouse on the day they wed, yet one's relationship in a firm is generally thought of -- when the relationship begins -- as more temporary than is the relationship that officially commences with a marriage.

Failing to be flexible as the nature of the relationship and the parties to it change is another problem. The fact of the matter is that one's "core" being doesn't really ever change, at least not according to the very old people with whom I've chatted about how they've changed. What they tell me is that the way(s) one's core beliefs and values are expressed is what changes over time. If one were a bit more validly circumspect in considering the nature of the person to whom one may want to become betrothed, one might notice early that the core of that person isn't a good fit with oneself, even though there's nothing wrong with that person in the abstract.

Failing to know oneself well and failing to know what one wants in a partner are yet other major problems. Everyone wants someone who's kind, thoughtful, responsible, etc. Lots of folks have those qualities. Not so many have them expressed in just the right way for oneself. But one can't know what modes of expression are ideal for oneself until one knows oneself very, very well, core personality strengths and core personality weaknesses. This is a tough thing to figure out for our culture doesn't exactly encourage one to be the "you" one just. Instead, it welcomes the "you" that fits what we (society) consider "normal."
​

Lastly, perhaps your remark has something to do with another member's comments...I don't know. I just want to say that whatever problems exist are not necessarily due to the woman involved. Were that not so, gay male relationships would nearly never need to end, and gay female ones would probably nearly never last.

Failing to be sufficiently circumspect prior to wedding is one problem.

I don't think that's an issue. For thousands of years of human history, people didn't know tons about the other person until their wedding. Even today, in many cultures, you see a girl, you ask your parents to talk to their parents. You meet with the girl. You talk with the girl one day, and in one day determine if you are going to marry, and then you marry. They often know nothing, except what the parents of the potential spouse tell you, and what neighbors and relatives say.

And the divorce rate in arranged marriages like that, are a tiny fraction of what they are here.

Failing to be flexible, sounds more like failing to not be selfish. One's core? Depends on what you are talking about. If you mean if one is Christian, and the other is Muslim... ok yeah, great point. But neither should be marrying the other to begin with, regardless of anything else.

But if you mean, she's a left-wing Democrat, and he's a right-wing Republican.... no that's not a problem. That's being selfish. Don't talk about it. Let it go. Keep your mouth shut, and have a good marriage.

Failing to know oneself well and failing to know what one wants in a partner. Again, true. But like I said, that's just selfishness. Stop being so self centered. Most spouses know what makes their partner happy. They just want what makes themselves happy. Stop being such narcissistic pigs.

As for it being the man's fault... of course. If he's hooked on drugs, an alcoholic, or is violent. Clearly that's on him.

If he's sleeping with other women, and the wife is willing to have regular sex... then that's on him.

So obviously there are examples where it's the man that is at fault. No one suggested otherwise.

But the statistical fact is, most divorces are not due to those things, and most are initiated by the women.

 

[320 Years of History]

For thousands of years of human history, people didn't know tons about the other person until their wedding. Even today, in many cultures, you see a girl, you ask your parents to talk to their parents. You meet with the girl. You talk with the girl one day, and in one day determine if you are going to marry, and then you marry. They often know nothing, except what the parents of the potential spouse tell you, and what neighbors and relatives say.

And the divorce rate in arranged marriages like that, are a tiny fraction of what they are here.

Yes, and divorce wasn't an acceptable option for many of those folks. I'm not saying in all cases that one couldn't get divorced, I'm saying one became social pariahs were one to do so. You see, divorce is no good solution if nobody whom you'd want to associate will deign to deal with you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Welfare

Welfare:
The state creating a condition of involuntary servitude, where people are forced to provide goods and services to others without compensation, based on a set of moral principles.

If welfare didn't buy votes, liberals would oppose it w/ every fiber of their being.

 

[Andylusion]

For thousands of years of human history, people didn't know tons about the other person until their wedding. Even today, in many cultures, you see a girl, you ask your parents to talk to their parents. You meet with the girl. You talk with the girl one day, and in one day determine if you are going to marry, and then you marry. They often know nothing, except what the parents of the potential spouse tell you, and what neighbors and relatives say.

And the divorce rate in arranged marriages like that, are a tiny fraction of what they are here.

Yes, and divorce wasn't an acceptable option for many of those folks. I'm not saying in all cases that one couldn't get divorced, I'm saying one became social pariahs were one to do so. You see, divorce is no good solution if nobody whom you'd want to associate will deign to deal with you.

And that's what, if it could be done, I would want to bring back.

The only time someone should get divorced, is in a serious situation. Not because "he never picks up his socks", or "our pets didn't get along".

Both of these are real examples by the way. "irreconcilable differences"

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Welfare

Welfare:
The state creating a condition of involuntary servitude, where people are forced to provide goods and services to others without compensation, based on a set of moral principles.

If welfare didn't buy votes, liberals would oppose it w/ every fiber of their being.

Welfare - the community works together to ensure that the needy do not starve and have the basic essentials of life. A afety net for those who fall on hard times.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Welfare

Welfare:
The state creating a condition of involuntary servitude, where people are forced to provide goods and services to others without compensation, based on a set of moral principles.
If welfare didn't buy votes, liberals would oppose it w/ every fiber of their being.

Welfare - the community works together to ensure that the needy do not starve and have the basic essentials of life. A afety net for those who fall on hard times.

Noting here changes or mitigates anything I said.

The state FORCES the community to "work together".
The state FORCES the community to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation
The state FORCES the community to do this because someone believes it is morally necessary.

If welfare didn't buy votes, liberals would oppose it w/ every fiber of their being.

 

[GaryDog]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

We have DNA now. The deadbeat dads should be tracked down and given a choice pay for their children's need or go to jail.

Cool, more reasons to fill up our already packed jails. Nevermind it costs FAR more to jail the father than it does to just pay for the child's upbringing. But hey, helping kids isn't as satisfying as vengeance-by-incarceration, right?

 

[320 Years of History]

For thousands of years of human history, people didn't know tons about the other person until their wedding. Even today, in many cultures, you see a girl, you ask your parents to talk to their parents. You meet with the girl. You talk with the girl one day, and in one day determine if you are going to marry, and then you marry. They often know nothing, except what the parents of the potential spouse tell you, and what neighbors and relatives say.

And the divorce rate in arranged marriages like that, are a tiny fraction of what they are here.

Yes, and divorce wasn't an acceptable option for many of those folks. I'm not saying in all cases that one couldn't get divorced, I'm saying one became social pariahs were one to do so. You see, divorce is no good solution if nobody whom you'd want to associate will deign to deal with you.

And that's what, if it could be done, I would want to bring back.

The only time someone should get divorced, is in a serious situation. Not because "he never picks up his socks", or "our pets didn't get along".

Both of these are real examples by the way. "irreconcilable differences"

I'm not going to engage in a discussion about why folks get divorced. I'm also not going to condone the idea that divorce itself is "the problem." At best, divorce is a symptom of a problem, but it's not the problem itself.

 

[GaryDog]

For thousands of years of human history, people didn't know tons about the other person until their wedding. Even today, in many cultures, you see a girl, you ask your parents to talk to their parents. You meet with the girl. You talk with the girl one day, and in one day determine if you are going to marry, and then you marry. They often know nothing, except what the parents of the potential spouse tell you, and what neighbors and relatives say.

And the divorce rate in arranged marriages like that, are a tiny fraction of what they are here.

Yes, and divorce wasn't an acceptable option for many of those folks. I'm not saying in all cases that one couldn't get divorced, I'm saying one became social pariahs were one to do so. You see, divorce is no good solution if nobody whom you'd want to associate will deign to deal with you.

And that's what, if it could be done, I would want to bring back.

The only time someone should get divorced, is in a serious situation. Not because "he never picks up his socks", or "our pets didn't get along".

Both of these are real examples by the way. "irreconcilable differences"

Are you for real???

 

[Andylusion]

For thousands of years of human history, people didn't know tons about the other person until their wedding. Even today, in many cultures, you see a girl, you ask your parents to talk to their parents. You meet with the girl. You talk with the girl one day, and in one day determine if you are going to marry, and then you marry. They often know nothing, except what the parents of the potential spouse tell you, and what neighbors and relatives say.

And the divorce rate in arranged marriages like that, are a tiny fraction of what they are here.

Yes, and divorce wasn't an acceptable option for many of those folks. I'm not saying in all cases that one couldn't get divorced, I'm saying one became social pariahs were one to do so. You see, divorce is no good solution if nobody whom you'd want to associate will deign to deal with you.

And that's what, if it could be done, I would want to bring back.

The only time someone should get divorced, is in a serious situation. Not because "he never picks up his socks", or "our pets didn't get along".

Both of these are real examples by the way. "irreconcilable differences"

Are you for real???

Yes?

 

[Andylusion]

Welfare

Welfare:
The state creating a condition of involuntary servitude, where people are forced to provide goods and services to others without compensation, based on a set of moral principles.

If welfare didn't buy votes, liberals would oppose it w/ every fiber of their being.

Welfare - the community works together to ensure that the needy do not starve and have the basic essentials of life. A afety net for those who fall on hard times.

Which is great until your family is forced into poverty, paying for welfare for the needy. Soviet Union anyone?

 

[GaryDog]

For thousands of years of human history, people didn't know tons about the other person until their wedding. Even today, in many cultures, you see a girl, you ask your parents to talk to their parents. You meet with the girl. You talk with the girl one day, and in one day determine if you are going to marry, and then you marry. They often know nothing, except what the parents of the potential spouse tell you, and what neighbors and relatives say.

And the divorce rate in arranged marriages like that, are a tiny fraction of what they are here.

Yes, and divorce wasn't an acceptable option for many of those folks. I'm not saying in all cases that one couldn't get divorced, I'm saying one became social pariahs were one to do so. You see, divorce is no good solution if nobody whom you'd want to associate will deign to deal with you.

And that's what, if it could be done, I would want to bring back.

The only time someone should get divorced, is in a serious situation. Not because "he never picks up his socks", or "our pets didn't get along".

Both of these are real examples by the way. "irreconcilable differences"

Are you for real???

Yes?

You've clearly never been married if you think divorce shouldn't be freely available.

 

[320 Years of History]

For thousands of years of human history, people didn't know tons about the other person until their wedding. Even today, in many cultures, you see a girl, you ask your parents to talk to their parents. You meet with the girl. You talk with the girl one day, and in one day determine if you are going to marry, and then you marry. They often know nothing, except what the parents of the potential spouse tell you, and what neighbors and relatives say.

And the divorce rate in arranged marriages like that, are a tiny fraction of what they are here.

Yes, and divorce wasn't an acceptable option for many of those folks. I'm not saying in all cases that one couldn't get divorced, I'm saying one became social pariahs were one to do so. You see, divorce is no good solution if nobody whom you'd want to associate will deign to deal with you.

And that's what, if it could be done, I would want to bring back.

The only time someone should get divorced, is in a serious situation. Not because "he never picks up his socks", or "our pets didn't get along".

Both of these are real examples by the way. "irreconcilable differences"

Are you for real???

Yes?

You've clearly never been married if you think divorce shouldn't be freely available.

I got divorced. I wish I hadn't, but I didn't know then what I know now. We could have worked out our differences and stayed married, but at the time, I wasn't having that. So we got divorced. She remarried. I didn't.

I don't mind not having remarried; I mind having been impulsive enough to insist on getting divorced, but make no mistake, she wanted to get divorced too. We got divorced and had three kids; it's not as though we could just stop interacting closely and collaboratively. Raising our kids actually got harder not easier. After a lustrum or so, she and I managed to overcome our differences, but by then, she'd remarried. Could that have happened were we to have remained wed? I don't know....She is happy with her new spouse and I'm happy being single again, and yet were she to lose her husband and I to still be single, we'd probably remarry as soon as it is "optically" reasonable for her to do so.

Should divorce be freely available? Yes. "Freely" in the sense that it shouldn't be as though one can't get one. But there should be something -- I can't say what exactly -- that motivates one's thoughts away from doing so more strongly than it facilitates one thinking divorce is the solution to the partnership's problem(s). An unfortunate reality about very close interpersonal relationships is that the parties to them are literally incapable of seeing beyond the present, so to speak, as goes their relationship and one another's character. I truly think the ease -- the transaction itself as well as the emotional and social approbation that accompanies being divorced -- with which one can get one, especially an amicable divorce, is too great. It is for that reason I've long said, "The biggest threat to marriage is divorce."

 

[regent]

I don't know how many died of starvation during the Great Depression but many were dying of something. TB was a big hit in our building,

 

[320 Years of History]

Two links:

• CDZ - Are We on the Path to National Ruin?
  
• Welfare Statistics

 

[GaryDog]

Yes, and divorce wasn't an acceptable option for many of those folks. I'm not saying in all cases that one couldn't get divorced, I'm saying one became social pariahs were one to do so. You see, divorce is no good solution if nobody whom you'd want to associate will deign to deal with you.

And that's what, if it could be done, I would want to bring back.

The only time someone should get divorced, is in a serious situation. Not because "he never picks up his socks", or "our pets didn't get along".

Both of these are real examples by the way. "irreconcilable differences"

Are you for real???

Yes?

You've clearly never been married if you think divorce shouldn't be freely available.

I got divorced. I wish I hadn't, but I didn't know then what I know now. We could have worked out our differences and stayed married, but at the time, I wasn't having that. So we got divorced. She remarried. I didn't.

I don't mind not having remarried; I mind having been impulsive enough to insist on getting divorced, but make no mistake, she wanted to get divorced too. We got divorced and had three kids; it's not as though we could just stop interacting closely and collaboratively. Raising our kids actually got harder not easier. After a lustrum or so, she and I managed to overcome our differences, but by then, she'd remarried. Could that have happened were we to have remained wed? I don't know....She is happy with her new spouse and I'm happy being single again, and yet were she to lose her husband and I to still be single, we'd probably remarry as soon as it is "optically" reasonable for her to do so.

Should divorce be freely available? Yes. "Freely" in the sense that it shouldn't be as though one can't get one. But there should be something -- I can't say what exactly -- that motivates one's thoughts away from doing so more strongly than it facilitates one thinking divorce is the solution to the partnership's problem(s). An unfortunate reality about very close interpersonal relationships is that the parties to them are literally incapable of seeing beyond the present, so to speak, as goes their relationship and one another's character. I truly think the ease -- the transaction itself as well as the emotional and social approbation that accompanies being divorced -- with which one can get one, especially an amicable divorce, is too great. It is for that reason I've long said, "The biggest threat to marriage is divorce."

I'm in no way an authority on the subject, but your divorce situation sounds unusual. In my divorce, we both wanted out, and the situation with the kids is now far better. We're better parents apart, and we're happier people apart. Well, at least I am.

Sure, we should have hurdles to getting divorced. It's not DESIRABLE that people dissolve their marriages left and right. But frankly, I think that means more hurdles to getting married (for everyone). That's a step people take too impulsively.

The biggest threat to marriage, in my opinion, is marriage.

 

[Andylusion]

For thousands of years of human history, people didn't know tons about the other person until their wedding. Even today, in many cultures, you see a girl, you ask your parents to talk to their parents. You meet with the girl. You talk with the girl one day, and in one day determine if you are going to marry, and then you marry. They often know nothing, except what the parents of the potential spouse tell you, and what neighbors and relatives say.

And the divorce rate in arranged marriages like that, are a tiny fraction of what they are here.

Yes, and divorce wasn't an acceptable option for many of those folks. I'm not saying in all cases that one couldn't get divorced, I'm saying one became social pariahs were one to do so. You see, divorce is no good solution if nobody whom you'd want to associate will deign to deal with you.

And that's what, if it could be done, I would want to bring back.

The only time someone should get divorced, is in a serious situation. Not because "he never picks up his socks", or "our pets didn't get along".

Both of these are real examples by the way. "irreconcilable differences"

Are you for real???

Yes?

You've clearly never been married if you think divorce shouldn't be freely available.

You know what the difference is between happily married couples, and unhappy couples that get divorced?

They have actually done research on this. Happily married couples have just as many fights and arguments, as happy couples. You know what they found the difference between the two? Happy couples don't consider divorce an option.

See, nearly everyone *can* work through differences, if they want to. They simply don't want to.

 

[Andylusion]

And that's what, if it could be done, I would want to bring back.

The only time someone should get divorced, is in a serious situation. Not because "he never picks up his socks", or "our pets didn't get along".

Both of these are real examples by the way. "irreconcilable differences"

Are you for real???

Yes?

You've clearly never been married if you think divorce shouldn't be freely available.

I got divorced. I wish I hadn't, but I didn't know then what I know now. We could have worked out our differences and stayed married, but at the time, I wasn't having that. So we got divorced. She remarried. I didn't.

I don't mind not having remarried; I mind having been impulsive enough to insist on getting divorced, but make no mistake, she wanted to get divorced too. We got divorced and had three kids; it's not as though we could just stop interacting closely and collaboratively. Raising our kids actually got harder not easier. After a lustrum or so, she and I managed to overcome our differences, but by then, she'd remarried. Could that have happened were we to have remained wed? I don't know....She is happy with her new spouse and I'm happy being single again, and yet were she to lose her husband and I to still be single, we'd probably remarry as soon as it is "optically" reasonable for her to do so.

Should divorce be freely available? Yes. "Freely" in the sense that it shouldn't be as though one can't get one. But there should be something -- I can't say what exactly -- that motivates one's thoughts away from doing so more strongly than it facilitates one thinking divorce is the solution to the partnership's problem(s). An unfortunate reality about very close interpersonal relationships is that the parties to them are literally incapable of seeing beyond the present, so to speak, as goes their relationship and one another's character. I truly think the ease -- the transaction itself as well as the emotional and social approbation that accompanies being divorced -- with which one can get one, especially an amicable divorce, is too great. It is for that reason I've long said, "The biggest threat to marriage is divorce."

I'm in no way an authority on the subject, but your divorce situation sounds unusual. In my divorce, we both wanted out, and the situation with the kids is now far better. We're better parents apart, and we're happier people apart. Well, at least I am.

Sure, we should have hurdles to getting divorced. It's not DESIRABLE that people dissolve their marriages left and right. But frankly, I think that means more hurdles to getting married (for everyone). That's a step people take too impulsively.

The biggest threat to marriage, in my opinion, is marriage.

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been flying solo?

Statistically, after a divorce, both people regret it after 5 years.

 

[GaryDog]

Yes, and divorce wasn't an acceptable option for many of those folks. I'm not saying in all cases that one couldn't get divorced, I'm saying one became social pariahs were one to do so. You see, divorce is no good solution if nobody whom you'd want to associate will deign to deal with you.

And that's what, if it could be done, I would want to bring back.

The only time someone should get divorced, is in a serious situation. Not because "he never picks up his socks", or "our pets didn't get along".

Both of these are real examples by the way. "irreconcilable differences"

Are you for real???

Yes?

You've clearly never been married if you think divorce shouldn't be freely available.

You know what the difference is between happily married couples, and unhappy couples that get divorced?

They have actually done research on this. Happily married couples have just as many fights and arguments, as happy couples. You know what they found the difference between the two? Happy couples don't consider divorce an option.

See, nearly everyone *can* work through differences, if they want to. They simply don't want to.

Dammit. I was hoping you'd say "Jesus".

 

[GaryDog]

Are you for real???

Yes?

You've clearly never been married if you think divorce shouldn't be freely available.

I got divorced. I wish I hadn't, but I didn't know then what I know now. We could have worked out our differences and stayed married, but at the time, I wasn't having that. So we got divorced. She remarried. I didn't.

I don't mind not having remarried; I mind having been impulsive enough to insist on getting divorced, but make no mistake, she wanted to get divorced too. We got divorced and had three kids; it's not as though we could just stop interacting closely and collaboratively. Raising our kids actually got harder not easier. After a lustrum or so, she and I managed to overcome our differences, but by then, she'd remarried. Could that have happened were we to have remained wed? I don't know....She is happy with her new spouse and I'm happy being single again, and yet were she to lose her husband and I to still be single, we'd probably remarry as soon as it is "optically" reasonable for her to do so.

Should divorce be freely available? Yes. "Freely" in the sense that it shouldn't be as though one can't get one. But there should be something -- I can't say what exactly -- that motivates one's thoughts away from doing so more strongly than it facilitates one thinking divorce is the solution to the partnership's problem(s). An unfortunate reality about very close interpersonal relationships is that the parties to them are literally incapable of seeing beyond the present, so to speak, as goes their relationship and one another's character. I truly think the ease -- the transaction itself as well as the emotional and social approbation that accompanies being divorced -- with which one can get one, especially an amicable divorce, is too great. It is for that reason I've long said, "The biggest threat to marriage is divorce."

I'm in no way an authority on the subject, but your divorce situation sounds unusual. In my divorce, we both wanted out, and the situation with the kids is now far better. We're better parents apart, and we're happier people apart. Well, at least I am.

Sure, we should have hurdles to getting divorced. It's not DESIRABLE that people dissolve their marriages left and right. But frankly, I think that means more hurdles to getting married (for everyone). That's a step people take too impulsively.

The biggest threat to marriage, in my opinion, is marriage.

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been flying solo?

Statistically, after a divorce, both people regret it after 5 years.

2 1/2 years