[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Just because you might be insecure and afraid to step into a relationship right now doesn't mean everyone is like that.

So tell me. Let's say you met this lovely girl and you're heart starts doing a dance. You both love each other, you marrry, you spend a few years together, and so on. Then you both notice the love is fading, the friendship, matters of the heart, and not just damn labels of commitment that you both signed away when you got married.

Now, let's say you find out she isn't actually who you thought she was, she's an ex-mental patient who cut up her ex-boyfriend, murdered her cat, and had a dozen abortions due to being a lady of the night prio to meeting you. Now, this all comes out in the open just as you feel your feelings for her fading, you can't stop that slide of emotions.

So, you gonna hang around and stay true to your ideals that once married, it's together forever? Wil you stay there and try to work it out? Wil you actually trust her again?

Thing is, you can't possible ever understand, or even remotely say what drives a person to leaving their partner in every given stuation.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Just because you might be insecure and afraid to step into a relationship right now doesn't mean everyone is like that.
In fact, he deserves credit for marrying the person he loves without worrying about the other opportunities that living in a bigger city, for example, might offer. Also, that is only going to help his relationship as they will grow and mature together without worrying about stupid superficial **** like "ohh let's wait until I get my degree, and until you get your degree and then we can both boast about it together". That's the superficiality that you were and still are leaning towards, which is why I said that's not where true happiness lies.

For a rare occasion, I have to agree with Captain Obvious. To say those things are superficial is totally ridiculous. You've got little idea where life will lead you before you've completed an education, started a career, etc. If one partner eventually decides they need to do something with their life that would require the other partner to sacrifice many of their goals, that would lead to quite a lot of conflict in the relationship. Though emotional commitment is at the root, there are a lot of practical considerations that go along with marriage. For example, the worst thing a couple can do, IMO, is to not have a discussion before they get married about whether or not they plan to have children. I'd agree with Capt Obvious that people who don't consider these practicalities, and instead operate with a purely idealistic view of marriage, are not heading down the right road.

[mfdynusore]

Originally posted by george68:

PS: Why the **** did you think proclaiming your an athiest would help your arguement? Have I mentioned god?! AS a god damn athiest, you should respect REASON, LOGIC, and rational arguments, and look: He made a ****ing commitment, and he didn't stick to it. According to reason/logic, you should NOT say that's okay, and you should NOT respect him. Period.

Actually you got me there! Atheism had nothing to do with anything other than the fact that although I was going to warn of "bad kharma" who cares since that concept is bogus also. My point is that while there is great merit to the "LOGIC" of your statements there is no realization that in any situation in which two people are involved such as a mutual commitment neither one of the two has absolute and complete control. Your fantastically high level of commitment can change as can the partners. Times, tides and people do change over time, as perhaps some day you will find out. But believe me actually I hope you dont have any experiences that will shake your trust in the power of this commitment.

[wolfen]

This thread is a freakin' rodeo. Cash is the clown.

Ok, Cash, I have a question. Take this scenario.

You are married to a woman who develops a drug habit. A bad one. She spends all your money (remember you're liable for her debts, as well). She screws guys for drugs. She shares needles. Her body is falling apart and the medical bills are just getting started. She doesn't want to quit the drugs, and makes no effort to try.

Now, do you divorce her?

How long do you endure this relationship before you decide?

After you answer this, I would enjoy the opportunity to hear the criteria by which you would choose divorce in your marriage.

(Don't BS away that this isn't typical. I have family members and friends who are or were drug addicts, or even had children with such people. It's typical enough for me, and I obviously am in need of your sage guidance.)

[Saul Goode]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
you're incapable of understanding the principle that cash is standing up for.

What principle? All he keeps saying is that a promise is a promise and laziness is the reason we are breaking it. It sounds nice but when two people make a promise to each other, then decide to let each other out of the deal, that's NOT OK?

I got news for you, life doesn't care.

He's doing his typical spiel: "My is THE way and everyone else is a ****ing stupid **** moron!"

His is HIS opinion. Thus he is not right or wrong.

It does irk me that anyone, especially some punk on the internet, would call me lazy when he has no idea what we've gone through, what I've done and what I continue to do.

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by itai195:
For a rare occasion, I have to agree with Captain Obvious. To say those things are superficial is totally ridiculous. You've got little idea where life will lead you before you've completed an education, started a career, etc. If one partner eventually decides they need to do something with their life that would require the other partner to sacrifice many of their goals, that would lead to quite a lot of conflict in the relationship. Though emotional commitment is at the root, there are a lot of practical considerations that go along with marriage. For example, the worst thing a couple can do, IMO, is to not have a discussion before they get married about whether or not they plan to have children. I'd agree with Capt Obvious that people who don't consider these practicalities, and instead operate with a purely idealistic view of marriage, are not heading down the right road.

What I said was specifically in context of what Captain Retard said for Cash's relationship.

In this very thread, I said before that you base your commitment on emotion (love) and reason (practicality, if you may). So yes, it is important that you both agree to make sacrifices and compromises based on what you want individually AND together in a relationship. But Captain Moron thinks that you have to experience as much life has to offer before you can decide to commit to someone and to make sure that they're falling in love with your degree and other such things-due to some stupid insecurities- rather than the person that you are.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by mfdynusore:
Actually you got me there! Atheism had nothing to do with anything other than the fact that although I was going to warn of "bad kharma" who cares since that concept is bogus also. My point is that while there is great merit to the "LOGIC" of your statements there is no realization that in any situation in which two people are involved such as a mutual commitment neither one of the two has absolute and complete control. Your fantastically high level of commitment can change as can the partners. Times, tides and people do change over time, as perhaps some day you will find out. But believe me actually I hope you dont have any experiences that will shake your trust in the power of this commitment.

Yup, I agree.

For ca�h:
Thing is ca$h, YOU hold all these ideals, but can you say so for your partner? forever? I hope you both don't ever go through crap in your relationship, but sometimes issues arise in which love, like, your heartfelt commitments, words to each other, and what you both feel, can totally destroy every one of those emotions. Then what? You think that both parties will stay to work it out? Some might, not everyone.

What some here are expressing is THERE stance on what they deem to be the rules on marriage. That says nothing, absolutely nothing for their partners. You might think you will never stray, never fall out of love, never change, but what about your partner?

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by Saul Goode:
What principle? All he keeps saying is that a promise is a promise and laziness is the reason we are breaking it. It sounds nice but when two people make a promise to each other, then decide to let each other out of the deal, that's NOT OK?
*snip*

Sorry, but he is right. Keeping your promise IS a matter of principle.
Someone pointed out that people tend to drift apart in a relationship, and THAT is why it takes time and effort not only to get the relationship going... but also to MAINTAIN the same. It really isn't impossible provided both parties have good intentions, which is one of the reasons why the two commit to one another to begin with.

Like I said before, there isn't much left to be said. This thread has digressed enough.

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by wolfen:
This thread is a freakin' rodeo. Cash is the clown.

Ok, Cash, I have a question. Take this scenario.

You are married to a woman who develops a drug habit. A bad one. She spends all your money (remember you're liable for her debts, as well). She screws guys for drugs. She shares needles. Her body is falling apart and the medical bills are just getting started. She doesn't want to quit the drugs, and makes no effort to try.

Now, do you divorce her?

How long do you endure this relationship before you decide?

After you answer this, I would enjoy the opportunity to hear the criteria by which you would choose divorce in your marriage.

(Don't BS away that this isn't typical. I have family members and friends who are or were drug addicts, or even had children with such people. It's typical enough for me, and I obviously am in need of your sage guidance.)

And people say our society hasn't degenerated? Way to go

[brachiator]

Originally posted by george68:
You know what you can't say about me? I go back on my promises because I'm a lazy f*ck like you are.

"By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."

[george68]

Originally posted by brachiator:
"By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."

EXACTLY. I knew someone would bring that up and I was WAITING for you to do so. THANK YOU. You've proved my point. You say that I agreed to something (behaving well) and since I didn't, you lose respect for me and you can pick on me for this reason.

Now look at Saul here.... he made one of life's BIGGEST most IMPORTANT promises, and broke it.... by your own logic, what should you think of him????!?!?!

OWN3D!

- Rob

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by scaught:
that was a completely useless response.

i already am married. for 5+ years.

try again. and maybe this time respond to the things i typed.

Finding the shift key wouldn't hurt. This *is* a response to what you typed. It's not a response to the content or message you conveyed in what you typed, but it is a response that is directly related to what you typed.

Congrats on being married 5 years (changing the subject... maybe?)

Matt Fahrenbacher

[Ghoser777]

I made a promise to my ex-gf that I would always love her... then we broke up. Should everyone lose respect for me/her? Things changed (even after I bought her a promise ring and she accepted it). A good question is this:

Is a promise more important than the negative outcomes of keeping the promise?

Like, if I promised to be at the train station at 5, and I see an accident that I can save someone's life at, should I keep the promise instead of trying to save the life? Or what if two promises conflict? That's the problem with absolutes - they can conflict.

What if your wife started hating you and refused to talk to you for no reason? There's no abuse, no cheating, etc - she just refuses to have a relationship with you. Should you be forced to stay with her? Is that laziness when the other party decides to be a b*tch?

I agree with Ca$h on one level - there's a lot of marriages that end for the wrong reason. But I think generalizing this to all marriages is where I think he runs into trouble.

Or maybe I'm just a wussie centrist. :shrugs:

Matt Fahrenbacher

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
And people say our society hasn't degenerated? Way to go

You're right - drugs and alcohol were never a problem before.

How old are you, exactly?

[brachiator]

Originally posted by george68:
You say that I agreed to something (behaving well) and since I didn't, you lose respect for me and you can pick on me for this reason.

I didn't lose any respect for you on this account. By this point, I had no respect left for you. You'd squandered the right to that by your bizarre ranting and lack of basic courtesy toward both me and others who'd caused you no harm.

Regardless, I pointed out your promise to behave merely to contrast with your vehement and merciless philosophical position. Your breach of this promise compromises your personal integrity and the value we should ascribe to your statements -- by your own terms. (Granted, that's a tautology, but how about simply "Hoist with your own petard..."?) This is not applying my logic, but yours.

I'll give you half-points for the part of your post that attempted to spin your diatribes in here as ironic ("EXACTLY. I knew someone would bring that up and I was WAITING for you to do so. THANK YOU. You've proved my point."). Best laugh of the thread, and worthy of Ari Fleischer.

Originally posted by george68:
Now look at Saul here.... he made one of life's BIGGEST most IMPORTANT promises, and broke it.... by your own logic, what should you think of him????!?!?!

I know very little about Saul or his promises, only what he's posted here. I don't know that he broke whatever promise he made, moreover, because it seems that his wife was not interested in continuing the agreed-upon relationship, either. (Saul, I apologize for sriting of you, your wife and your troubles as if they were mere hypotheticals. I hope that you will understand that I am using these facts to illustrate a point and that I recognize the anguish of the real circumstances.)

More to the point, your harsh philosophy on the sanctity of promises is unworkable in certain situations, and if followed absolutely would produce on occasion results that are immoral, illegal or conflict with other equally- or more-important ethical requirements.

What does "OWN3D" mean?

[wataru]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
And people say our society hasn't degenerated?

Bullsh�t. Like I said before, society has been "degenerating" since the beginning of time. Just because society today is different from "your" society doesn't make it worse.

Wise words from Granpa Simpson:
"I used to be 'with it.' Then they changed what 'it' was. Now what I'm 'with' isn't 'it,' and what's 'it' seems weird and scary to me."

[brachiator]

Originally posted by wataru:
"I used to be 'with it.' Then they changed what 'it' was. Now what I'm 'with' isn't 'it,' and what's 'it' seems weird and scary to me."

Truly a modern-day Heraclitus!

[itai195]

Originally posted by george68:
Now look at Saul here.... he made one of life's BIGGEST most IMPORTANT promises, and broke it.... by your own logic, what should you think of him????!?!?!

OWN3D!

- Rob

What promise is being broken when both people agree to end their marriage and neither one has done anything wrong?

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by brachiator:
What does "OWN3D" mean?

Hacker speak for being "told," essentially. I don't remember how long it took me to figure out that HAND meant have a nice day instead of some cryptic "hacker" speak

Matt Fahrenbacher

[itai195]

Originally posted by zigzag:
You're right - drugs and alcohol were never a problem before.

How old are you, exactly?

If one thing seems to be a constant, it's that in every generation there will be a contingent of people who believe that society has degenerated. This point of view seems to hinge on thinking that drug and alcohol abuse are new problems and that labor, civil rights, and other advances apparently never happened. The divorce rate is an easy target for these folks, but they don't seem to understand that divorces aren't necessarily a bad thing, at least in terms of empowering individuals, especially women.

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by wataru:
Bullsh�t. Like I said before, society has been "degenerating" since the beginning of time. Just because society today is different from "your" society doesn't make it worse.

Wise words from Granpa Simpson:
"I used to be 'with it.' Then they changed what 'it' was. Now what I'm 'with' isn't 'it,' and what's 'it' seems weird and scary to me."

Excellent sophistry. The first step is to throw the idiot box out of the house. You won't ever realize you were swimming in a puddle of crap until you get out of it. And since when did society become "mine" or "yours" or "theirs"? Aren't we all human beings living in society? Or do national/international/religious/ethnic/etc boundaries change the essence of being human? Besides, what you say doesn't justify any immoral or degenerative behaviour. Just because things are bad, doesn't mean we don't strive to improve.

[brachiator]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Besides, what you say doesn't justify any immoral or degenerative behaviour. Just because things are bad, doesn't mean we don't strive to improve.

I believe that the point of the Simpson quote was that the very meaning of "immoral" and "degenerative" are in dispute, as are just which behaviors should be considered immoral or degenerative.

For example, interracial dating, women working (or speaking!) and integration were once all considered immoral, degenerative and "against the natural order." Few believe (or at least dare to say) these anymore. Now, the definitions of marriage and natural sexual behavior/orientation are in dispute, for example.

One thing that seems apparent from this thread is that no one is going to get away with judgmental or normative terms without clearly explaining what they mean or why. IF you call something "immoral" or "degerative," you are going to have to explain exactly what is immoral about the topic at issue, and why it is degenerative.

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by brachiator:
I believe that the point of the Simpson quote was that the very meaning of "immoral" and "degenerative" are in dispute, as are just which behaviors should be considered immoral or degenerative.

For example, interracial dating, women working (or speaking!) and integration were once all considered immoral, degenerative and "against the natural order." Few believe (or at least dare to say) these anymore. Now, the definitions of marriage and natural sexual behavior/orientation are in dispute, for example.

That's exactly what sophistry is about. Just like saying, 'you cannot step into the same river twice'

One thing that seems apparent from this thread is that no one is going to get away with judgmental or normative terms without clearly explaining what they mean or why. IF you call something "immoral" or "degerative," you are going to have to explain exactly what is immoral about the topic at issue, and why it is degenerative.

I'd be very willing to do that, in another thread. This thread has digressed enough already.

[KrazyEvilGoat]

Hm, so whats this thread about now?

[brachiator]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
That's exactly what sophistry is about. Just like saying, 'you cannot step into the same river twice'

Touche'... However, I guess it also points up a big problem with this thread and the larger debate. Some of us are looking to the idea(L)s of "A Promise" and "A Committment" as if there is a certain and indisputable meaning to them. Others of us take the position that these terms are negotiable and in essence mutable because invented by humans and their language.

It may be an unbridgeable philosophical gulf. But we've got to try to keep you Platonists on your toes and down to specifics!

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by brachiator:
Touche'... However, I guess it also points up a big problem with this thread and the larger debate. Some of us are looking to the idea(L)s of "A Promise" and "A Committment" as if there is a certain and indisputable meaning to them. Others of us take the position that these terms are negotiable and in essence mutable because invented by humans and their language.

Don't succumb to existentialism! Essense precedes existence!

It may be an unbridgeable philosophical gulf. But we've got to try to keep you Platonists on your toes and down to specifics!

So I should've guessed you're quite into philosophy, and you surely don't sound like an existentialist which automatically deserves a

[brachiator]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
So I should've guessed you're quite into philosophy, and you surely don't sound like an existentialist which automatically deserves a

The philosophies I find illuminating are more Buddhist than existentialist. I think the Noble Truth that applies here is that "All threads are off-topic."

[storer]

I believe exactly the opposite of that. Staying in a bad marriage "for the kids" only causes more pain and suffering for everyone. If it is hopeless and both parents are miserable, the kids pick up on that and are miserable too.

I dont remember who said that, but it was dumb. It's been proven wrong before. The majority of kids dont realise anything. And in my parents case, my father was the only one who thought there was any reason to leave. But hey, he was a highly respected community member before, and what can I say, he has already lost a lot of that respect.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by KrazyEvilGoat:
Hm, so whats this thread about now?

[galarneau]

I'm still waiting for Ca$h to reply to those hypothetical scenarios posted above.

My take is that he lives in a black/white world (or binary for you geeks). You are good or bad, right or wrong.

Life has to many variables to control for. Who can really judge Saul Goode before we've walked a mile in his shoes?

If I ever get married, I will aspire to the commitment that Ca$h so enthusiastically proselytizes, but in the real world, I may just have to roll with the punches.

P.S. If it were ME, and the wife became a drug addict/sex-for-crack-whore, I think I'd be visiting a divorce lawyer. I'd try to help her first, of course.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by george68:
Ding ding ding. We have someone who believes in keeping their word and not copping out! I would trust you in hard situations, whereas I know people like "saul goode" would probably just wet their pants and run away.

Dude,

YOU come back in twenty years, and THEN we'll all talk.

****in' moron.

-s*

[wataru]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Excellent sophistry. The first step is to throw the idiot box out of the house. You won't ever realize you were swimming in a puddle of crap until you get out of it. And since when did society become "mine" or "yours" or "theirs"? Aren't we all human beings living in society? Or do national/international/religious/ethnic/etc boundaries change the essence of being human? Besides, what you say doesn't justify any immoral or degenerative behaviour. Just because things are bad, doesn't mean we don't strive to improve.

You have yet to show that "immoral" or "degenerative" behavior are happening, and that they're happening at a higher rate today than they were before.

By "your society" I meant society that conforms to the norms that you're professing. Clearly you don't feel that today's society does so.

And TV has what to do with any of this now?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Just because you might be insecure and afraid to step into a relationship right now doesn't mean everyone is like that.
In fact, he deserves credit for marrying the person he loves without worrying about the other opportunities that living in a bigger city, for example, might offer. Also, that is only going to help his relationship as they will grow and mature together without worrying about stupid superficial **** like "ohh let's wait until I get my degree, and until you get your degree and then we can both boast about it together". That's the superficiality that you were and still are leaning towards, which is why I said that's not where true happiness lies.
OBVIOUSLY this is beyond your comprehension since you're so quick at name calling and the irony of it all is that despite what you claim about moving from one city to another, and gaining a "wider perspective", you're incapable of understanding the principle that cash is standing up for. So again, obviously, you haven't learned **** even though you THINK you might have a better perspective than he does. Moron.

Actually, I find that people who actively go out and look for relationships are the most insecure. I guess you don't go out or date enough to meet girls to realize that. But that necessity to be in a relationship tends to signal someone who fears being alone. That is pathetic. I don't have much of a need to cling to someone to be OK with myself. If I happen to meet someone I want to date then that's wonderful. But I will leave that up to chance not necessity. I agree commitment isn't a joke which is why I don't enter it lightly otherwise I am perfectly fine with recreational dating.

Also, "falling in love with your degree" where did I say that? Why don't you go back and quote the part of my posts where that was mentioned and tell me how that was the intent of my post rather then your backwardass interpretation of it.

You seem to read a lot into my comments and miss what I am actually saying. I am not sure if that is because you are not very bright or because you have poor reading skills but I think you need to take a look at what I actually said instead of what you think I did.
I have no quarrel with the value on fidelity Cash puts into relationships. I didn't even miss the point. In fact I didn't address it at all. I talked about the fact that he is only now becoming an adult. That he entered into marriage as a boy with no real direction or stability. He had never been in a long term adult relationship until he met his wife. He has no experience with commitment AND responsibility at the same time. And that he has not yet run into real problems that come with marriage. Consequently, he has no idea what it takes to make a marriage work. Hell, do a search and see what a run in with reality he had a while back when he had to deal with health insurance. That kind of thing is the little details that you need to consider before you ask someone to be with you for life.
Its hard to grow old together if you can't afford to pay for the bills. Waiting until you are stable and on your way with your career is not superficial its responsible. God forbid a baby comes along before the two of you have an idea of what you are going to do with your lives. A person's life is not only composed of their husband or wife. They have to have their own personal business in place before they take on the commitment of another person. Not having your own sh!t settled leads to just as many divorces as cheating.

I don't know why you have such a personal stake in Cash's marriage but its too bad you weren't one of their parents. Maybe if someone took that much interest in them before they got hitched they would have seen that they needed to grow up and be adults before they entered into marriage. With a little more life experience they may have had enough perspective to have made the choices that would have benefited them over time rather than just in the moment.

I should also add you are one stupid f***

[gorickey]

Wow, this thread has turned in so many directions...even I'm shocked!

[Spheric Harlot]

CO:

LOL!

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:

*Irrelevant junk snipped*

You seem to read a lot into my comments and miss what I am actually saying. I am not sure if that is because you are not very bright or because you have poor reading skills but I think you need to take a look at what I actually said instead of what you think I did.
I have no quarrel with the value on fidelity Cash puts into relationships. I didn't even miss the point. In fact I didn't address it at all. I talked about the fact that he is only now becoming an adult. That he entered into marriage as a boy with no real direction or stability. He had never been in a long term adult relationship until he met his wife. He has no experience with commitment AND responsibility at the same time. And that he has not yet run into real problems that come with marriage. Consequently, he has no idea what it takes to make a marriage work. Hell, do a search and see what a run in with reality he had a while back when he had to deal with health insurance. That kind of thing is the little details that you need to consider before you ask someone to be with you for life.
Its hard to grow old together if you can't afford to pay for the bills. Waiting until you are stable and on your way with your career is not superficial its responsible. God forbid a baby comes along before the two of you have an idea of what you are going to do with your lives. A person's life is not only composed of their husband or wife. They have to have their own personal business in place before they take on the commitment of another person. Not having your own sh!t settled leads to just as many divorces as cheating.

I don't know why you have such a personal stake in Cash's marriage but its too bad you weren't one of their parents. Maybe if someone took that much interest in them before they got hitched they would have seen that they needed to grow up and be adults before they entered into marriage. With a little more life experience they may have had enough perspective to have made the choices that would have benefited them over time rather than just in the moment.

I should also add you are one stupid f***

Ok Captain Retard, I'll sum it up for you in some very basic and simple terms since you seem to be really knowledgable and educated.
You don't need to rely on empircism (read life experiences) when you have strong ideals and a personality that will help you stand by your principles. Obviously it's also not a matter of blind dogmatism either. Like I said before, reason plays a big part where you discuss your situation with your partner before you commit.
It's not a matter of personal stake in his relationship, it's a matter of agreeing with his commitment to principles.
Get it? Now go away.

[Spliffdaddy]

I want to be young and ignorant again.

pretty please.

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Ok Captain Retard, I'll sum it up for you in some very basic and simple terms since you seem to be really knowledgable and educated.
You don't need to rely on empircism (read life experiences) when you have strong ideals and a personality that will help you stand by your principles.
It's not a matter of personal stake in his relationship, it's a matter of agreeing with his commitment to principles. Obviously it's also not a matter of blind dogmatism. Like I said before, reason plays a big part where you discuss your situation with your partner before you commit.
Get it? Now go away.

I think Captain Kangaroo would have been a better insult. Any time you have to blatantly insult someone, the effect is kind of lost. Subtle shots are better.

Anyway, I think this boils down to whether you stand by your principles no matter what, or are their times where it is okay to compromise.

If I believe on principle that we should be able to break our principles, does that include this principle as well?

Matt Fahrenbacher

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I want to be young and ignorant again.

pretty please.

Don't worry, in a few years, there'll be some other whippersnapper on here who sees everything in black and white, and Ca$h will be the one trying to point out that things aren't always so simple. However, rather than giving advice as you have tried to do, Ca$h will just call him a f*cking idiot.

[amsalpemkcus]

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=363986

Data from divorcepeers.com:

Age at marriage for those who divorce in the United States

--------------------------------------------------
Age--------------Women-----------------Men
--------------------------------------------------
Under 20 years old---------27.6%---------11.7%
20 to 24 years old 36.6% 38.8%
25 to 29 years old 16.4% 22.3%
30 to 34 years old 8.5% 11.6%
35 to 39 years old 5.1% 6.5%

--------------------------------------------------

http://www.divorcepeers.com/statistics.htm

41 percent of first marriages end in divorce.
60 percent of second marriages end in divorce.
73 percent of third marriages end in divorce.
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/2000..._too_large.cfm

�95 percent of all divorced people eventually remarry . . . 76 per
cent of second marriages fail within five years . . . .87 per cent of
third marriages fail and 93 per cent of fourth marriages end in
divorce within five years.�

http://www.allaboutfamilies.org/00aaf14.html



Table 1: Divorces and Annulments and Rates, Texas and the United State, 1970-1999
Rates per 1,000 population
Texas* United States**
Year Number Rate Number Rate
1970 51,530 4.6 708,000 3.5
1971 55,568 4.8 773,000 3.7
1972 60,343 5.1 845,000 4.0
1973 64,152 5.3 915,000 4.3
1974 69,762 5.6 977,000 4.6
1975 76,685 6.0 1,036,000 4.8
1976 79,905 6.1 1,083,000 5.0
1977 82,265 6.2 1,091,000 5.0
1978 85,784 6.3 1,130,000 5.1
1979 92,399 6.6 1,181,000 5.3
1980 96,809 6.8 1,189,000 5.2
1981 101,856 6.9 1,213,000 5.3
1982 98,244 6.4 1,170,000 5.1
1983 97,061 6.2 1,158,000 5.0
1984 98,958 6.1 1,169,000 5.0
1985 100,394 6.1 1,190,000 5.0
1986 98,403 5.9 1,178,000 4.9
1987 95,098 5.6 1,166,000 4.8
1988 94,409 5.5 1,167,000 4.8
1989 93,434 5.3 1,157,000 4.7
1990 93,850 5.5 1,182,000 4.7
1991 96,878 5.6 1,187,000 4.7
1992 96,629 5.5 1,215,000 4.8
1993 96,898 5.4 1,187,000 4.6
1994 97,571 5.3 1,191,000 4.6
1995 97,183 5.2 1,169,000 4.4
1996 95,185 5.0 1,150,000 4.3
1997 93,088 4.8 1,163,000 4.3
1998 86,625 4.4 1,135,000 4.2
1999 76,689 3.8 *** 4.1
http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/bvs/repor...ce/divorce.htm

[el chupacabra]

Keep talking of promises...

If someone promises they are going to give me some property next week and when that week comes I decide I don't want that property, should they still (force) give it to me?

[Malt Magics]

I've been taking a few notes from this 'debate', and here are some points I've noted...


CA$H and Macfreak7 sound like religious fundamentalists.

inflexible things break.

this society is degenerating, but it's simply a cycle.

the good ol'days were not good...unless you were white and male.

most people who are arrogant with their supposed knowledge only bring more misery to others. good luck!

when you constantly repeat what you say without any real reasoning, they cease to compel any thought except-ignore...and you seem vastly ignorant.

emotionally charged responses with pompous and ignorant tones generally garner the same thought-ignore.

Macfreak7 may have an equally infexible worldview as CA$H, but he says it so much sweeter.

CA$H is young and stupid.

saying or typing OWN3D makes you seem really young and stupid-ie. societal degeneration.

Captain Obvious made me laugh pretty hard.

Most of the posters here seem like reasonable folk.

if CA$H has any co-workers, they obviously dislike him.

CA$H & Macfreak7 sound like republicans. remember the key word here is sound like, not are.

in 30 years CA$H will be middle-aged and stupid.

I am a jerk.

and in closing,

Saul Goode, good luck

Spliffdaddy, may life bring you great fortune

Captain Obvious, keep up the good work

and to all the other reasonable folk here, cheers!

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
Keep talking of promises...

If someone promises they are going to give me some property next week and when that week comes I decide I don't want that property, should they still (force) give it to me?

wow, nice little thread here.

as a divorced person myself (who felt EXACTLY like cash at the time he got married), i can only add that marriage is something which needs to be worked on continuously. women just "tick" completely different than men, and living together is almost an impossible task. a nice romantic, picture-book ideal (especially these days, where everything is split down the middle as far as decision-making etc. goes.).

it is hard to go against human nature in such an incredibly idealistic way, but it can be done. yet, if something just ain't working anymore, there's really no reason to beat a dead horse. here too, it is clearly shown that personal responsibility and determination can only take you so far...

i don't think i'm going to get married again (anytime soon). enjoying life too much the way it is...

anyway, props to the person who i'm responding to here. nice summary.

and a big for spliffdaddy's post

/hell freezes over

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by wataru:
Rob, what does your beloved wife think of all the time you spend bickering on the internet?

zing. short but INCREDIBLY insightful post.

[george68]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
Just because you might be insecure and afraid to step into a relationship right now doesn't mean everyone is like that.
In fact, he deserves credit for marrying the person he loves without worrying about the other opportunities that living in a bigger city, for example, might offer. Also, that is only going to help his relationship as they will grow and mature together without worrying about stupid superficial **** like "ohh let's wait until I get my degree, and until you get your degree and then we can both boast about it together". That's the superficiality that you were and still are leaning towards, which is why I said that's not where true happiness lies.
OBVIOUSLY this is beyond your comprehension since you're so quick at name calling and the irony of it all is that despite what you claim about moving from one city to another, and gaining a "wider perspective", you're incapable of understanding the principle that cash is standing up for. So again, obviously, you haven't learned **** even though you THINK you might have a better perspective than he does. Moron.

Exactly. Not that it's relevant to this topic, but Kristin and I discussed all that superficial crap Captain Egotist brought up, and we decided that we have too much fun being together, being in love, to go our seperate ways until we establish a career path. Speaking of which, I honestly don't really give a **** about careers. Jobs are okay, but I think Captain Egotist needs to watch Fight Club a few times in a row: You are not your degree, you are not your career, and you are not your ****ing khakis. It's what you do OUTSIDE of your job that makes you a complete/interesting person.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
So tell me. Let's say you met this lovely girl and you're heart starts doing a dance. You both love each other, you marrry, you spend a few years together, and so on. Then you both notice the love is fading, the friendship, matters of the heart, and not just damn labels of commitment that you both signed away when you got married.

Now, let's say you find out she isn't actually who you thought she was, she's an ex-mental patient who cut up her ex-boyfriend, mbla bla bla

So you're dating someone and you don't find this stuff out for years? ********.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by wolfen:
This thread is a freakin' rodeo. Cash is the clown.

Ok, Cash, I have a question. Take this scenario.

You are married to a woman who develops a drug habit. A bad one. She spends all your money (remember you're liable for her debts, as well). She screws guys for drugs. She shares needles. Her body is falling apart and the medical bills are just getting started. She doesn't want to quit the drugs, and makes no effort to try.

Now, do you divorce her?

How long do you endure this relationship before you decide?

After you answer this, I would enjoy the opportunity to hear the criteria by which you would choose divorce in your marriage.

(Don't BS away that this isn't typical. I have family members and friends who are or were drug addicts, or even had children with such people. It's typical enough for me, and I obviously am in need of your sage guidance.)

See, the flaw in this scenario is that I wouldn't have married someone like that in the first place. The second flaw is that I've never said that ALL divorces are bad; my mom's 2nd marriage involved a verbally abusive asshole, so I'm down with it. What I am in fact bitching about is a divorce out of laziness. They were too lazy to maintain a healthy relationship, too lazy to fix it, and now they're too lazy to give a ****. They agreed to a lifelong commitment, but now they're just to lazy to fulfill it.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
What some here are expressing is THERE stance on what they deem to be the rules on marriage. That says nothing, absolutely nothing for their partners. You might think you will never stray, never fall out of love, never change, but what about your partner?

I believe you meant THEIR. Anyway, I can only be sure of myself. Like I said, I can understand divorce if there's adultery, or abuse. But because you 'don't feel the same', that's ********. I'm going to try not to keep repeating myself, so please just read my other responses.

- Rob

[george68]

Originally posted by itai195:
What promise is being broken when both people agree to end their marriage and neither one has done anything wrong?

The promise that goes something about 'good times and bad times, richer poorer, health/sickness, FOR LIFE'.

That promise. Which is called MARRIAGE.

IF you think marriage is 'only as long as you feel good about the other person' please don't get married.

- Rob

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by george68:
See, the flaw in this scenario is that I wouldn't have married someone like that in the first place. The second flaw is that I've never said that ALL divorces are bad; my mom's 2nd marriage involved a verbally abusive asshole, so I'm down with it. What I am in fact bitching about is a divorce out of laziness. They were too lazy to maintain a healthy relationship, too lazy to fix it, and now they're too lazy to give a ****. They agreed to a lifelong commitment, but now they're just to lazy to fulfill it.

- Rob

Combining points two and one together - why did your mom marray someone who was a "verball abusive asshole?" Wouldn't she have figured that out while dating all those years before?

Matt Fahrenbacher