Name something good religion has caused

[Litmus]

So much for the 'inevitability' of the destruction of the nuclear family.


http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.html

 

[Cancel7]

That's mid upper. Upper Upper wives still don't work. Get real.

You don't know what you are talking about you poor child.

Nowhere did I use the phrase "mid upper" or "upper upper". I spoke of highly educated women, and honey, you ain't never had a real life conversation with one.

Highly educated women work. And there are a significant number of them who are the sole-breadwinners, and whose husbands stay home and raise the children and take care of things "roudn the house". you know, house boys, we used to call them. But often, these men will be highly creative and artistic. Very talented in other words, but without the earning power of their wives. So I don't see it as a gig you're going to get.

Most of them of course, are married to male high-earners and/or high achievers, if they marry at all. A number of them will cohabitate but not marry. Many of these women, will divorce much later in life and we see the numbers trending that way, with most divorces over the age of 50 being initiated by the woman, but they have not yet significantly affected the divorce rates. These are educated, dual-career couples, and they do not conform to your dream family and never will. With more women now graduating college than men, this trend will only grow. There is no going back. Get used to it.

 

[Litmus]

You don't know what you are talking about you poor child.

Nowhere did I use the phrase "mid upper" or "upper upper". I spoke of highly educated women, and honey, you ain't never had a real life conversation with one.

Highly educated women work. And there are a significant number of them who are the sole-breadwinners, and whose husbands stay home and raise the children and take care of things "roudn the house". you know, house boys, we used to call them. But often, these men will be highly creative and artistic. Very talented in other words, but without the earning power of their wives. So I don't see it as a gig you're going to get.

Most of them of course, are married to male high-earners and/or high achievers, if they marry at all. A number of them will cohabitate but not marry. Many of these women, will divorce much later in life and we see the numbers trending that way, with most divorces over the age of 50 being initiated by the woman, but they have not yet significantly affected the divorce rates. These are educated, dual-career couples, and they do not conform to your dream family and never will. With more women now graduating college than men, this trend will only grow. There is no going back. Get used to it.

The numbers show otherwise.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Hence the word "almost" that you seem to have just 'missed'. However I believe your separation of right and freedom to be too distinct. I believe that rights and freedoms are even closer to the same thing than responsibility and rights which are interconnected in such a way that conversing on the one cannot be done without speaking of the other.

However your "natural state freedom" denies recognition of the rights of another, which creates the need for the "responsibility" portion. This gives rise to society itself, the fact that we recognize the rights of others. And as I said you still have the right to simply ignore the law, but there is an understanding that it may negatively impact your freedom, or even your life in some areas. You choose to frustrate your own rights/freedoms because of either negative action that may be taken against you or because of the recognition of the aspects of freedom/rights I have given earlier.

Rights, without the corresponding duties, are empty. In the natural state, you could claim that a human has the right to life but this is essentially the same as saying he has life. Without a social contract, the human has no more right to life than a wild rabbit, he simply has life. There are no rights involved. It is only when the the individual enters a social grouping, where he exchanges certain freedoms for other freedoms, he takes on duties and thus corresponding rights.

I'm still not sure that freedom and rights can be described as being interchangeable. The absolute of freedom is to do as one's will dictates, according to ability. If one's will dictates that the individual should execute most of his neighbours, could it be said that he has a right to do so?

 

[Litmus]

Hence the word "almost" that you seem to have just 'missed'. However I believe your separation of right and freedom to be too distinct. I believe that rights and freedoms are even closer to the same thing than responsibility and rights which are interconnected in such a way that conversing on the one cannot be done without speaking of the other.

However your "natural state freedom" denies recognition of the rights of another, which creates the need for the "responsibility" portion. This gives rise to society itself, the fact that we recognize the rights of others. And as I said you still have the right to simply ignore the law, but there is an understanding that it may negatively impact your freedom, or even your life in some areas. You choose to frustrate your own rights/freedoms because of either negative action that may be taken against you or because of the recognition of the aspects of freedom/rights I have given earlier.

Rights, without the corresponding duties, are empty. In the natural state, you could claim that a human has the right to life but this is essentially the same as saying he has life. Without a social contract, the human has no more right to life than a wild rabbit, he simply has life. There are no rights involved. It is only when the the individual enters a social grouping, where he exchanges certain freedoms for other freedoms, he takes on duties and thus corresponding rights.

I'm still not sure that freedom and rights can be described as being interchangeable. The absolute of freedom is to do as one's will dictates, according to ability. If one's will dictates that the individual should execute most of his neighbours, could it be said that he has a right to do so?

Does your will dictate to you? Do you hear voices in your head? Get thee to a psychiatric professional.

 

[Cancel7]

So much for the 'inevitability' of the destruction of the nuclear family.


http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.html

You are so stupid. What is the graph for? No one has disputed that the divorce rate has dropped.

Guess what? So has the marriage rate, during the same period. Dropped by over 25% I believe was included in the latest report on the lower divorce rate. Less marriages, less divorces. Gosh, that seems surprising. And the number of couples living together instead of marrying? Ten times as many in that period.

Further, the drop has taken place mainly among college-educated couples, there is an education and class divide here. And college educated couples are of course, marrying later than their less educated counterparts. They may divorce later too. The more educated women become, the less afraid they are to initiate the divorce later in life, when traditionally, the less-educated woman would hang onto the marriage, no matter how unsatisfying and even actively unhappy, because she could not at that point, support herself.

 

[Cancel7]

The numbers show otherwise.

No, they do not. You see otherwise when you look at the numbers. However, the people reporting these numbers, acknowledge every point made. We call what you are doing "magical thinking"

 

[Litmus]

You are so stupid. What is the graph for? No one has disputed that the divorce rate has dropped.

Guess what? So has the marriage rate, during the same period. Dropped by over 25% I believe was included in the latest report on the lower divorce rate. Less marriages, less divorces. Gosh, that seems surprising. And the number of couples living together instead of marrying? Ten times as many in that period.

Further, the drop has taken place mainly among college-educated couples, there is an education and class divide here. And college educated couples are of course, marrying later than their less educated counterparts. They may divorce later too. The more educated women become, the less afraid they are to initiate the divorce later in life, when traditionally, the less-educated woman would hang onto the marriage, no matter how unsatisfying and even actively unhappy, because she could not at that point, support herself.

I doubt it.

your vision of the day when old women rule the world is amusing to me.

 

[Cancel7]

You can doubt it all you want to. The majority of divorces which take place between long-time married couples over the age of 50, are initiated by women.

You find that threatening, but that doesn't change the facts. Sorry.

 

[Litmus]

You can doubt it all you want to. The majority of divorces which take place between long-time married couples over the age of 50, are initiated by women.

You find that threatening, but that doesn't change the facts. Sorry.

Ok. But the nuclear family will around for a while, though the elitist statists wish to destroy it. That's really the point here.

You sticking up for your weaker half is touching though.

 

[Cancel7]

Ok. But the nuclear family will around for a while, though the elitist statists wish to destroy it. That's really the point here.

You sticking up for your weaker half is touching though.

Nobody wishes to destroy it. Like every thing and every being, in order to survive, it must change, be adaptable. It is doing so.

It must scare a guy like you, more women than men in colleges across the country. Without economic fear, how are you going to get a woman? Well, as I said, there's always Utah, so take heart.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Reason created ethics/morality as much as responsibility. That recognition of freedom and the unique ability to understand the position of others. Do unto others wasn't solely a religious "morality" reason will bring you to this conclusion without need of a religious authority. Exercise of the freedom of morality or religion is just another of the reasons I say that responsibility too can be sometimes interchangeable with freedom.... by exercising one of the rights/freedoms we necessarily practice this aspect of human life.

'Do unto others' is known in ethical philosophy as the 'golden rule'. It has, however, one major flaw.

I might like to be strangled whilst jacking off.... lol ;-)

 

[Litmus]

Nobody wishes to destroy it. Like every thing and every being, in order to survive, it must change, be adaptable. It is doing so.

No it mustn't. Sharks have remained the same for billions of years. The concept of Nuclear family is not necessarily opposed to working women.

It must scare a guy like you, more women than men in colleges across the country. Without economic fear, how are you going to get a woman? Well, as I said, there's always Utah, so take heart.

I'm not scared at all. On what evidence do you base that faulty conclusion?

 

[Damocles]

Rights, without the corresponding duties, are empty. In the natural state, you could claim that a human has the right to life but this is essentially the same as saying he has life. Without a social contract, the human has no more right to life than a wild rabbit, he simply has life. There are no rights involved. It is only when the the individual enters a social grouping, where he exchanges certain freedoms for other freedoms, he takes on duties and thus corresponding rights.

I'm still not sure that freedom and rights can be described as being interchangeable. The absolute of freedom is to do as one's will dictates, according to ability. If one's will dictates that the individual should execute most of his neighbours, could it be said that he has a right to do so?

I have already said that he does much earlier in this conversation, you have a right to break the laws and edicts of society, society has a right to enforce those laws and edicts with punishment. However society has the right to create consequences. Rights/Freedoms of others and society as a whole overlap. In this case most people would use reason to not partake in such activity, but others would not and thus reason would bring them to the consequences of their action. This is, of course, one of the reasons why I said also 'almost' entirely interchangeable as well.

Prudence teaches us to regulate our lives and actions agreeable to the dictates of reason. One must exercise their right to do as they will alongside prudence.

 

[Litmus]

Reason created ethics/morality as much as responsibility. That recognition of freedom and the unique ability to understand the position of others. Do unto others wasn't solely a religious "morality" reason will bring you to this conclusion without need of a religious authority. Exercise of the freedom of morality or religion is just another of the reasons I say that responsibility too can be sometimes interchangeable with freedom.... by exercising one of the rights/freedoms we necessarily practice this aspect of human life.

'Do unto others' is known in ethical philosophy as the 'golden rule'. It has, however, one major flaw.

I might like to be strangled whilst jacking off.... lol ;-)

Morality is not necessarily based on religous authority. It can be based on reason.

 

[Cancel7]

No it mustn't. Sharks have remained the same for billions of years. The concept of Nuclear family is not necessarily opposed to working women.



I'm not scared at all. On what evidence do you base that faulty conclusion?

Sharks move forward constantly, or they die.

It's "not necessarily opposed"? Who cares? That's the whole point. You'd love to live in a world where a pimply faced virgin was the master of his betters, but you don't. Nobody needs your permission, or anyone's permission. Nobody cares what your ground rules for a false construct are.

We do what we want to do, when we want to do it, no matter how many pimply faced virgins line up in "opposition".

 

[Damocles]

'Do unto others' is known in ethical philosophy as the 'golden rule'. It has, however, one major flaw.

I might like to be strangled whilst jacking off.... lol ;-)

Funny.

 

[Litmus]

Sharks move forward constantly, or they die.

LOL. you're switching meanings again. How sad. You're speaking of the physical movements of sharks. Because they're physically moving doesn't mean they're "evolving". That is laughably sad. They've had to continually move forward for billions of years. That hasn't changed.

It's "not necessarily opposed"? Who cares? That's the whole point. You'd love to live in a world where a pimply faced virgin was the master of his betters, but you don't. Nobody needs your permission, or anyone's permission. Nobody cares what your ground rules for a false construct are.

We do what we want to do, when we want to do it, no matter how many pimply faced virgins line up in "opposition".

WTF are you ranting about you deranged ho?

 

[Cancel7]

LOL. you're switching meanings again. How sad. You're speaking of the physical movements of sharks. Because they're physically moving doesn't mean they're "evolving". That is laughably sad. They've had to continually move forward for billions of years. That hasn't changed.


WTF are you ranting about you deranged ho?

Ok, try and keep up.

Nobody cares whether you approve of women working or not. Nobody asked your permission, nobody wants it.

Your original claim that divorce rates are dropping was one of the most simplistic claims I've ever seen made. You can't argue with a more in-depth analysis of the data within, and so you go on some rant about sharks.

Your definition of a nuclear family is sadly out of date. And there is nothing more pathetic than a young child holding ideas already well past their original expiration date.

 

[Damocles]

Sharks move forward constantly, or they die.

It's "not necessarily opposed"? Who cares? That's the whole point. You'd love to live in a world where a pimply faced virgin was the master of his betters, but you don't. Nobody needs your permission, or anyone's permission. Nobody cares what your ground rules for a false construct are.

We do what we want to do, when we want to do it, no matter how many pimply faced virgins line up in "opposition".

Hmmmm... Darla, how do you explain a 15% increase in the number of stay at home mothers while saying that the leave it to beaver model is 'dying'?

I understand your meaning, it is stay at home mother thing that is 'dying', those people who stay married are usually both working outside the home. Of course this doesn't take into account how many of them work at home...

Anyway, I digress. The last study I read had a 15% increase in stay at home mothers.

Here, a story on it...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/08/60minutes/main648240.shtml

I know, it is from See B.S., but sometimes even the Devil uses the Bible when talking to Christians...