Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:45 pm

I'm pretty sure polygyny is the term for multiple wives, polyandry is the term for multiple husbands, and polygamy is the term for multiple marriage. So they're not singling out multiple wives, but actually using the catch-all term for multiple spouses.

I can see a solution to all divorce problems. If a couple divorces, or a trio, or a however-many-people-plus-a-dog-cat-and-goat divorce, then the simplest solution would be eminent domain. All contested assets become property of the state to be auctioned off to the highest bidder with the proceeds going to a worthy charity. If you really really REALLY want that throw blanket that grandma knitted for you ten years ago on Christmas? Put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, act like a reasonable adult and figure out a relatively amicable way of deciding who gets what. Then the number of spouses wouldn't matter a whit, and there would be equal treatment under the law for everybody.

But that's too draconian.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:37 am

SO you think the solution to divorces is to not make tham happen and have people sray in unhappy or abusive relationships because they would loose everything if they needed to divorce?

I could see the argument being made (still tood raconian) if divorce was actually somethin the state was hurt by, but as far as I'm awre, everyone could be divorced and it would hurt the state not one iota (there may be consequences due to differeing tax codes for spouses and divorced, but thats a tax issue, not a divorce issue).
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:23 am

Divorces cost the state a LOT of money if you consider the man hours they spend tracking down people who fail to pay child support or (p)alimony alone, or the jail time people get for it once they've been tracked down. It gets worse when you consider the number of judges in civil court who have to preside over divorce proceedings.

I'm not saying that people have to stay in unhappy or abusive relationships because they would lose everything. I'm saying that adults should be able to work their shit out in an adult fashion. Risking the loss of anything you contest in a divorce, or having to put your money where your mouth is, would be draconian, yes - but possibly not unreasonable or unworkable as a solution. Public auction doesn't mean you can't go to the auction and bid on your belongings (and let's face it - most of the shit with sentimental value that gets contested in a divorce isn't objectively worth all that much to begin with), it just means that you have to be willing to risk losing them and paying to keep them.

Abusive relationships are a different matter entirely. If abuse can be proven, then the abuser should be sentenced as a criminal defendant, and the person leaving the abuser shouldn't have to risk anything. In cases like that? Fuck 'em. Let the shitsack abuser rot in prison and watch the person they abused for n (days/weeks/months/years - circle one) and prevent them from contesting anything in the divorce.

Needless to say, it's probably pretty clear that I'm against divorce. I could care less what you marry, or how, but if you give your solemn oath to make a lifelong commitment, then keep your damn word. Not to mention that divorce rates are stupid high and climbing. I also fully expect people to be able to act like adults and handle their problems in an adult fashion - but I'm constantly disappointed on that count.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:32 am

How do you divide up finances in that scenario, though? To be able to auction off belongings, you need to have already settled the matter of who gets what money.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4791
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:24 am

That's an absurd abuse of eminent domain, and spousal abuse isn't always crime.

Basically you're trying to create a system where people aren't allowed to be wrong...
It is hopelessly flawed.

Edit: That's not even eminent domain, that's just government seizure of property, which opens all kinds of problems. For eminent domain the government has to pay for it, which would defeat the purpose.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Passionario » Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:51 pm

...
Last edited by Passionario on Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:13 pm

If they contest it, the proceeds of the auction go toward paying court costs and the remainder gets donated to a charity or something. Nobody profits.

Spousal abuse should always be a crime. Period. Whether it's man on woman, woman on man, or whatever, it's still abuse and should be treated no differently than child abuse.

How would people not be allowed to be wrong, Fridmarr? You mean as far as "I picked the wrong spouse"? If that's so, then there should be repercussions for that decision. If I'm driving down the road and take a wrong turn, I'm out the cost of gas plus time and wear & tear on my car to get back to where I'm supposed to be. If I pick the wrong answers on a test, I get a lower score on the test and could fail it. If I make the wrong investments, I could end up going bankrupt. Why should people get a free pass on the most important decisions in their life, when there are penalties in everything else for making the "wrong" choice?

Divorce as it currently stands is far easier than just sacking up and fixing your relationship. To me it shows a lack of maturity, a lack of problem-solving skills, and a lack of ability to compromise. Not to mention a lack of ability to keep one's given word. Why should there be no repercussions for that?
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:18 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Passionario » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:24 pm

Fiveslives, have you ever been divorced yourself?

I'm curious as to how you arrived at the conclusion that it's an easy and painless choice free of any repercussions (as opposed to being a highly traumatic event that will leave its mark on you forever).
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:25 pm

Fivelives wrote:Spousal abuse should always be a crime. Period. Whether it's man on woman, woman on man, or whatever, it's still abuse and should be treated no differently than child abuse.

There are different types of abuse, you can be abusive to anyone and it's not a crime. In fact, you are free to be abusive, it's protected by the first amendment. That's pretty obvious.

Fivelives wrote:How would people not be allowed to be wrong, Fridmarr? You mean as far as "I picked the wrong spouse"? If that's so, then there should be repercussions for that decision. If I'm driving down the road and take a wrong turn, I'm out the cost of gas plus time and wear & tear on my car to get back to where I'm supposed to be. If I pick the wrong answers on a test, I get a lower score on the test and could fail it. If I make the wrong investments, I could end up going bankrupt. Why should people get a free pass on the most important decisions in their life, when there are penalties in everything else for making the "wrong" choice?


...are you even hearing yourself? You just suggested that the cost of gas, plus time and wear on your freaking tires after making a wrong turn while driving, is more of a consequence than what someone endures in picking the wrong spouse and having their marriage fail. Exactly how do you think failed marriages manifest themselves? They aren't happy times, they aren't without significant amounts of stress and consequence. They sure as heck are a lot more painful than a mile of extra gas and worn tread on a tire... I don't know how you got the idea that people getting divorced have managed to bypass all the consequences of picking the wrong spouse and having their marriage fail, but that notion is rather poorly thought out.

Wrong choices have consequences and a failed marriage tends to have some of the biggest that people will encounter in their lives. We do not punish people most of the wrong decisions that they make, beyond the natural consequences of those decisions. I don't see any particular logic in adding a punishment to divorce, particularly something so over the top like taking away everything that they earned. I mean we don't do that to the worst criminals among us.

Fivelives wrote:Divorce as it currently stands is far easier than just sacking up and fixing your relationship. To me it shows a lack of maturity, a lack of problem-solving skills, and a lack of ability to compromise. Not to mention a lack of ability to keep one's given word. Why should there be no repercussions for that?
Well no kidding. I mean, if they thought that they could reasonably fix the relationship, they probably wouldn't be getting divorced. As I pointed out, there are plenty of repercussions to having a marriage fail. This whole train of thought is just entirely illogical.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:11 am

I'm a widower.

Fridmarr, I'm not saying to take away everything they earned, but that if they can't make an amicable division of goods then there should be a repercussion - and I suggested that any contested items are the ones vulnerable. I also mentioned bad investments and bankruptcy, which is pretty much on a par with divorce (at least in terms of impact on your life).

As far as abuse, it has to be proven and should be a matter for criminal courts, not civil ones. There have been thousands of proven cases of spousal abuse - verbal, emotional, and physical - and if someone is convicted of spousal abuse, then they should go to jail and their spouse should get all the joint assets.

Bankruptcy actually has far more effects on your life than divorce does: you can't get a loan for a home, business, or car (at least not at anything other than rates that would make a usurer vomit. When I started rebuilding my credit after the military, I took out a car loan at 29.99% APR for 14 months). You can't get any sort of line of credit at all. You get turned down for a LOT of jobs outside low-paying low-skilled jobs (try working at a bank with a bankruptcy on your credit. They'll laugh at you and toss you out on your ear). You can't open credit union accounts, etc. A bankruptcy pretty much puts a 7 year hold on your life, not to mention the seizing of assets in the process itself. I mentioned making wrong turns and getting test answers wrong as part of the "every mistake we make has consequences".

Failed marriages have none of those consequences, barring the division of jointly held debt in the divorce proceeding itself, which may lead to bankruptcy. There isn't even any kind of real social stigma attached to it at all anymore, and people who have had 3, 4, or even as many as 6 spouses are actually celebrated in some circles.

So what repercussions are you talking about?
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:24 am

Everything can be contested in a divorce, a person's entire livelihood, from all their current assets to even their future assets, not to mention their relationship with their children.

No, all abuse is not a crime. Only very specific kinds are criminal, it's not illegal to be a dick.

Please don't take one example and make it the rule. I know several people who have declared bankruptcy that for whom it had minimal impact aside from clearing their debts. I know people who have been divorced for whom the entire process was brutal, from the effects of the failed marriage itself, to their children, to the financial fallout, (divorce can be quite expensive for all involved) to their post divorce relationships. Either situation can be very traumatic, of course the repercussions aren't identical between divorce and bankruptcy because they are two totally different things, but its crazy to suggest that divorce is less significant.

This idea that a failed marriage has no repercussions is lunacy.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:32 pm

Bankruptcy still wrecks your credit until it drops off your credit report. That takes 7 years.

All abuse should be a crime. There's a difference between just being a dick and being abusive.

If everything is contested in a divorce, then that would be the nuclear option, no? If Mr. Smith can contest everything, then so can Mrs. Smith. Then nobody wins, so it wouldn't be too likely and it would've achieved the purpose of having a more amicable split which takes less time and resources.

Either way, I admit the idea wouldn't work. It would be nice though, if people were penalized for divorce - might make them think twice about trying alternate solutions (like maybe, compromise and problem solving), and it also might make people think long and hard about whether or not they really want to spend the rest of their life with a person.

If people can't grow the hell up and act like adults, someone should smack them on the wrist and remind them that they should act their age.

Edit to add: Scratch the previous edit. I missed a paragraph there, my bad. Nyrgh. Fivelives requires sleep.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:35 pm

Why do I have the feeling that if divorce is really hard to get, people would just kill their spouses...
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:56 pm

Fivelives wrote:Bankruptcy still wrecks your credit until it drops off your credit report. That takes 7 years.
Yes, but how much that affects someone depends on how much they need it. Really though, this line of logic is dumb. I'm not comparing bankruptcy and divorce, but merely acknowledging the incredibly obvious fact that a failed marriage has consequences that can be quite traumatic and troublesome.

Fivelives wrote:All abuse should be a crime. There's a difference between just being a dick and being abusive.
Look this isn't debatable. You can't make all abuse illegal, because people are allowed to say what they want, and that shouldn't change. A judge will acknowledge it in a divorce proceeding and deal with it accordingly, but no one will be charged with a crime. To that end though, what a person should be able to do is remove themselves from an abusive relationship without fear of a ridiculous punishment.

Fivelives wrote:If everything is contested in a divorce, then that would be the nuclear option, no? If Mr. Smith can contest everything, then so can Mrs. Smith. Then nobody wins, so it wouldn't be too likely and it would've achieved the purpose of having a more amicable split which takes less time and resources.

Either way, I admit the idea wouldn't work. It would be nice though, if people were penalized for divorce - might make them think twice about trying alternate solutions (like maybe, compromise and problem solving), and it also might make people think long and hard about whether or not they really want to spend the rest of their life with a person.
lol right, so one side can intimidate the other into not contesting anything by holding a nuclear option over their head...that's terrific.

I don't know what your perspective on marriage is, but pretty much everyone I know who is married or divorced thought about all those decisions pretty hard. Divorce is a penalty, it's one of the many potential consequences of a failed marriage.

I've had my say, I think my stance here is pretty obvious, so I'm done with this debate.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:09 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Amirya » Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:12 pm

I'd actually be interested in hearing the compromise solution to some of the more common reasons for divorce.

I'm divorced, I got rid of my ex because he lied and cheated on me (then, afterwards, had the balls to cry to me because his mistress lied to him about being pregnant, but that's a whole different bitterness). What sort of compromise should I have accepted?
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2951
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:27 am

Klaudandus wrote:http://www.boston.com/ae/radio/blog/2013/04/why_are_so_many_bostonians_telling_arkansas_state_senator_nate_bell_hes_an_idiot.html


I am planning to donate to his opponent. I don't live in Boston. I don't know anyone from Boston.

But I am a liberal leaning Gun Enthusiast in favor of rational gun control, who thinks that the best way to even remotely get these people to understand what we mean is to speak their language. Money.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:32 am

Amirya wrote:I'd actually be interested in hearing the compromise solution to some of the more common reasons for divorce.

I'm divorced, I got rid of my ex because he lied and cheated on me (then, afterwards, had the balls to cry to me because his mistress lied to him about being pregnant, but that's a whole different bitterness). What sort of compromise should I have accepted?


In the interest of not reigniting the debate on the board, PM'd.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:35 am

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Apr 23, 2013 12:46 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Jabari » Tue Apr 23, 2013 1:39 pm

Fivelives wrote:If everything is contested in a divorce, then that would be the nuclear option, no? If Mr. Smith can contest everything, then so can Mrs. Smith. Then nobody wins, so it wouldn't be too likely and it would've achieved the purpose of having a more amicable split which takes less time and resources.


And if the options are:

1) STBX claims EVERYTHING, including the change under the couch cushions.
2) The state gets everything because I don't agree with #1.

...even though I'm certainly open to being reasonable about division of property.

Then what? Am I doomed to starting over from a LITERAL ZERO because STBX won't budge and I have to either give her everything or give the state everything?
Most people want the wealth produced by a society with limited government distributed to them more generously by bigger government.
Jabari
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:46 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:04 am

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:16 am

Klaudandus wrote:http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/house-amendment-would-cut-pay-for-justice-involved-in-iowa/article_23bc7c16-ac34-11e2-8384-001a4bcf887a.html


Yes, this is amazing. Man, I can't even begin to understand the rationalization they would try to use in the OBVIOUS lawsuit that would come from this.

BUT juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudge (whiney voice)! They Ruled against my beliefs!

Seriously. The Republican party needs an enema.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:19 am

No. they hate enemas, they might make them gay if they like things shoved up their asses! (nevermind they have their heads stuck up there already)

that reminds me, i never understood the marriage as a procreation thing and gay marriage being banned cuz of it... i mean, they make it sound like people would stop shagging altogether if gay marriage was to pass...
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9349
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest