"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists

[posh-goofiness]

Trick question. College culture has been a cultural poison for at least century.

 

[Captain X]

It isn't about muh tradition. it is about the negative outcomes caused by fucking the institution of marriage. If I look at things from a perspective that only cares about outcomes this is such a massive negative externality for everyone. taking away allimony and child support isn't addressing the issue. that destroying a family ruins peoples lives. making it so that there is not a monetary incentive to do it is an improvement sure. it doesn't change that you will still have a bunch of ruined lives causing shit tons of issues that propagate throughout society.

Families are ruined whether or not divorce is possible if the spouses end up hating each other. Keeping people who are miserable together married doesn't magically keep the family from being ruined. So, yes, it pretty much does come down to "muh tradition" or "wE LiVE iN a SoCIeTY!" if you prefer.

and you're still not getting it.

the fact that it's so easy to divorce means that young folks aren't properly vetting their partners. that leads to a cycle where they get married before they're ready, pump out kids their not ready for, run away at the drop of a hat, and leave the pieces for everyone else to pick up.
getting rid of no fault divorces puts up a barrier to them getting married in the first place.

All that you talk about there happened before no fault divorce was a thing.

And once again Soli doesn't give a single solitary fuck about the children and the colossal damage it does to them.

What if there are no children? Do you have something besides this Helen Lovejoy argument?

 

[Scottty]

That is a non-statement. Their mistakes are basically that they make revolutionary changes that destabilise and destroy society. Which is basically what you want to do, except (just like leftists), you think it'll just... work out. Because you want it to.


Seriously, you guys are just Bolsheviks.

Look, if the Left sets something on fire, and the Right then wants to soak it in water....

 

[DarthOne]

Trick question. College culture has been a cultural poison for at least century.

True. But there’s degrees of lethality.

 

[Marduk]

That is a non-statement. Their mistakes are basically that they make revolutionary changes that destabilise and destroy society.

Leftists do not destroy our society by mistake, the leftists want to destroy western societies intentionally as they despise them immensely. And then with such statements you wonder why people suspect you of being a leftist.
All the damage to western societies is part of the plan, often merely a taste of what the leftists want to do in the end, not a mere mistake.
The truly zealous leftists would want a BLM riot blowout every week.

Which is basically what you want to do, except (just like leftists), you think it'll just... work out. Because you want it to.

I do want to destroy leftist sacred cows in society.
If we conquer China or North Korea, we should utterly destroy the communist institutions and their operatives.

Seriously, you guys are just Bolsheviks.

Yeah, sure, if you want to destroy the Bolshevik's institutions, you are just like the Bolsheviks.
Are you perhaps related to the Canadian "If you kill your enemies, they win" guy?

 

[King Arts]

The left's mistake wasn't that they changed the system.
The left's mistake was that they made it leftist, the nature of the change is what we have a real gripe with.
Conservatives are supposed to be skeptical to changes and oppose bad ones, not mindlessly oppose all change, ever, in everything.
Conservatives can't be expected to be retarded and now defend the leftist system just because that's what the status quo is now. That would just make them the rearguard to the leftist revolution, allied to the vanguard that made those changes.

God damn Marduk you are being absolutely based right now.


I have to ask are you really Marduk or did you replace him?

 

[Cherico]

God damn Marduk you are being absolutely based right now.


I have to ask are you really Marduk or did you replace him?

Nothing makes some one more based then pain and we have all been through some very painful fucking years.

 

[King Arts]

Families are ruined whether or not divorce is possible if the spouses end up hating each other. Keeping people who are miserable together married doesn't magically keep the family from being ruined. So, yes, it pretty much does come down to "muh tradition" or "wE LiVE iN a SoCIeTY!" if you prefer.


All that you talk about there happened before no fault divorce was a thing.


What if there are no children? Do you have something besides this Helen Lovejoy argument?

Captain isn't it kinda hypocritical of you to ask someone to answer your question about the Helen Lovejoy thing when I already answered it?

Also it's a red herring for you to do it, since it just distracts from the main argument to go down this side argument. What if we say ok "marriages that don't have kids won't be thought of as real marriages and you can dissolve them using no fault." Would that change anything for you? Would you now be ok to ban no fault divorce for marriages with kids?

 

[Marduk]

God damn Marduk you are being absolutely based right now.


I have to ask are you really Marduk or did you replace him?

Where did you get the idea that i don't hate leftism? Me hating leftist foreign policy? Me hating leftist economics? Of course i hate leftist cultural revolution too. Politics are more than the culture war obviously.

 

[Blasterbot]

Families are ruined whether or not divorce is possible if the spouses end up hating each other. Keeping people who are miserable together married doesn't magically keep the family from being ruined. So, yes, it pretty much does come down to "muh tradition" or "wE LiVE iN a SoCIeTY!" if you prefer.

Except there are differences in outcomes for the kids of those relationships. so we know that the parents staying together is in fact better for society in the long run because you will end up with less criminality, better academic performance, and less mental health issues in the next generation. so no. it isn't about tradition beyond that other people figured this shit out long ago and we as a society decided to ignore that because we are so much smarter than them. well now we see the results of it.

 

[Cherico]

Except there are differences in outcomes for the kids of those relationships. so we know that the parents staying together is in fact better for society in the long run because you will end up with less criminality, better academic performance, and less mental health issues in the next generation. so no. it isn't about tradition beyond that other people figured this shit out long ago and we as a society decided to ignore that because we are so much smarter than them. well now we see the results of it.

Tradition is trial and error by millions of people over generations of time.

 

[Captain X]

Except there are differences in outcomes for the kids of those relationships. so we know that the parents staying together is in fact better for society in the long run because you will end up with less criminality, better academic performance, and less mental health issues in the next generation. so no. it isn't about tradition beyond that other people figured this shit out long ago and we as a society decided to ignore that because we are so much smarter than them. well now we see the results of it.

It's better for children to endure parents who can't stand each other than for their parents to be able to divorce and maybe marry someone who is more compatible with them? I've heard plenty of stories of children finding a better mother or father in a step-mother or step-father. And again, what if there are no children?

 

[King Arts]

It's better for children to endure parents who can't stand each other than for their parents to be able to divorce and maybe marry someone who is more compatible with them?

Yes. Studies have shown that it is better for kids to have two parents in a loveless marriage instead of their parents being divorced.

And again, what if there are no children?

Already answered got any more red herrings?

 

[Captain X]

Yes. Studies have shown that it is better for kids to have two parents in a loveless marriage instead of their parents being divorced.

"Studies."

Already answered got any more red herrings?

Yes, YOU did. Not the other people I a asking, who keep bringing children up. Not everything is about you.

 

[King Arts]

"Studies."

Are you literally asking for us to give you a peer review source?

I’m asking because people here will want to know what you will consider legitimate and not end up with you going “That’s not a trustworthy source.”

Yes, YOU did. Not the other people I an asking, who keep bringing children up. Not everything is about you.

Well I think I’m the center of the universe.

But seriously no one on my side objected when I said yes to your hypothetical about the divorce of a marriage with no children. I’d assume they would agree that in that case there is much less damage and is less bad.

 

[Captain X]

Are you literally asking for us to give you a peer review source?

I’m asking because people here will want to know what you will consider legitimate and not end up with you going “That’s not a trustworthy source.”

No, I'm dismissing them out of hand the same way I dismiss "studies" that prove whatever Leftists believe in, too. Partly because it didn't even address the idea of parents getting remarried to someone more compatible for them.

Well I think I’m the center of the universe.

But seriously no one on my side objected when I said yes to your hypothetical about the divorce of a marriage with no children. I’d assume they would agree that in that case there is much less damage and is less bad.

Except they keep repeating the talking point, so either they missed your answer, or they're ignoring you.

 

[mrttao]

I think it would be wrong to trap people in marriages that just aren't working. But on the flipside you have to take some responsibility for doing such a thing in the first place, actions have consequences.
Two parents who hate one another is just as bad as a kid having two separated parents.

nobody forced them to take an Oath to God to forever cleave to each other even in sickness, sorrow, and poverty.
Maybe they should have used a lighter vow... like "I vow to be faithful so long as we are legally married, until the day we die or divorce"

 

[mrttao]

In reality, feminists have repeatedly sued for equal inclusion in the military and draft. Got shut down by the courts ruling that civil rights do not apply to the military because it’s a direct exercise of sovereign authority so the government’s decisions regarding military service are axiomatically correct and cannot be challenged, period.

They sue for inclusion when it means getting pay for doing nothing because there is no war and they are part of the most powerful country in the world.

But we have repeatedly seen that the moment they are actually deployed there is a wave of pregnancies to get out of being deployed.

The left's mistake wasn't that they changed the system.
The left's mistake was that they made it leftist, the nature of the change is what we have a real gripe with.
Conservatives are supposed to be skeptical to changes and oppose bad ones, not mindlessly oppose all change, ever, in everything.
Conservatives can't be expected to be retarded and now defend the leftist system just because that's what the status quo is now. That would just make them the rearguard to the leftist revolution, allied to the vanguard that made those changes.

Yea...
unfortunately all too many "conservatives" are defending the leftist status quo

 

[King Arts]

No, I'm dismissing them out of hand the same way I dismiss "studies" that prove whatever Leftists believe in, too. Partly because it didn't even address the idea of parents getting remarried to someone more compatible for them.

That's a vey illogical stance to take. So you are basically saying that nothing anyone says can convince you otherwise.
If leftists are right about something I would accept it.

As to you last point that probably wouldn't do what you think it does. See if there is a divorce(and it's no fault) then there is time sharing between the parents. So the kids have to constantly move back and forth. Even if the divorced couple marries other people and the kid now has 4 parents, they still have to move back and forth between different houses.

As to more parents. Polyamory is relatively new and niche(well technically it's old as polygamy but you know what I mean) so I don't know if there is any studies on if a child would do better with more than two parents. Probably not as they'd be bullied, because it's socially frowned upon. The only large scale groups that do/did it are Muslims and Mormons and they have other reasons that bring them down and cause them to be shitty.

Except they keep repeating the talking point, so either they missed your answer, or they're ignoring you.

@DarthOne @Marduk @Blasterbot @Cherico @stephen the barbarian @The Immortal Watch Dog @mrttao

Would you guys(if you had power as a president, king, senator, etc.) be willing to compromise and allow no fault divorce for couples without children, if you were able to ban it for those with children? Can you say yes or no, and your reasons for doing so please.

@Captain X There ya happy?

 

[Captain X]

That's a vey illogical stance to take. So you are basically saying that nothing anyone says can convince you otherwise.
If leftists are right about something I would accept it.

It's logical considering I've heard plenty of horror stories from before no fault divorce as well as examples of people finding any marrying someone more compatible with themselves who is a good step-parent for their children. I'd put up the Dadvocate's family as an example of this, with neither of them hating their exes.

@Captain X There ya happy?

No, I don't need you as a middle-man. I've already told you I'm basically done with you because of your constant anti-liberty stance on basically everything. Go found some theocracy on some isolated Pacific island somewhere where you and other weirdos like yourself will be happy.