"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

@newtboy
-Including race as a determining factor in your admission score
as a 'liberal' ideal
This IS happening broadly, link to how and arguments for why it is 'good'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/10/03/harvard-beat-an-effort-end-its-use-race-factor-admissions-what-will-supreme-court-do/
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2019/10/01/471085/5-reasons-support-affirmative-action-college-admissions/

-Enforcement of a race based "day of absence" where based on your race you were to be 'kicked off' campus for the day
Specifically the day of absence was at evergreen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College#2017_protests
Similarly reverse racist attitudes though are common enough, like chasing out a student journalist here for simply covering an event:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kVGtqp7usw

-"deplatforming" people for having dissenting opinions
Jordan Peterson is the biggest example, but my local uni has also banned pro-life student clubs too, so maybe I'm a little Canada biased on this?

-The entire circle-jerk of intersectionalism:
---"whiteness" needs to be defined as something inherently negative
Here's the Standford course on it if you or your parents wanna enrol:
https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?view=catalog&filter-coursestatus-Active=on&page=0&catalog=&q=CSRE+32SI%3A+Whiteness&collapse=

---"Racism" needs to redefined as not simply racial prejudice, but racial prejudice PLUS power(you know, so only white people can be racist under the new definition)
Likewise offered at Stanford, unless this is the lone critical race theory course that doesn't champion the above prejudice+power definition.
https://law.stanford.edu/courses/critical-race-theory/

---"systemic racism" getting defined as anything with unequal outcomes, so if asian students do too well in math it must mean the system is favouring them and we need to step in


And I'm out of time,

but seriously I'm a little baffled this was remotely controversial? Identity politics is a game the left has been playing at HARD for at minimum the decades since Affirmative Action was launched. The notion that the idea would eventually get national level push back should have been easy to see coming.

The gallery has been accused of providing a platform for fascist, neo-Nazi and Islamophobic speakers and individuals who promote white supremacy and eugenics.

In the summer, it held a “Neo-reaction conference” which included a talk by Brett Stevens, a white supremacist who has lauded the “bravery” of Anders Breivik - the Norwegian white supremacist who killed 77 people in 2011.

Mr Stevens' writing was said to be an inspiration to Breivik.

After the attack, Mr Stevens, who edits a far-right website called Amerika, wrote: “I am honoured to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I, no comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream.”

Mr Stevens comments on his blog, Amerika, where he says the “neoreaction conference” was hosted behind a “veil of secrecy", confirming the secret agenda of the gallery because you can't have a beneficial discussion of these issues when the discussion is hidden from one side of the issue. Clearly then this isn't an effort to facilitate “a dialogue between two different and contrasting ideologies” when the event is hidden from all but one ideology, right?

The gallery has leaked the identity of artists who exposed its activities to the far-right neo-Nazi website, Amerika.

The gallery has also hosted, Peter Brimelow, a high profile American anti-immigrant activist. He has been described as the “new David Duke” – the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

Mr Brimelow founded website VDare, which the Southern Poverty Law Centre describe as “a nonprofit that warns against the polluting of America by non-whites, Catholics, and Spanish-speaking immigrants.”


Ms Diego, the owner, described the left as “more like a fascist organisation than the real fascists”“I’m not even sure if I disagree with the Muslim ban. I see it also as a temporary measure in order for America to get sorted while they transition to another form of government,” She said: “Our position has always been that the role of art is to provide a vehicle for the free exploration of ideas, even and perhaps especially where these are challenging, controversial or indeed distasteful for some individuals to contemplate." But her actions, holding far right racist events in secret exposes that statement as pure bullshit.

I can't speak to the student/Jordan Peterson thing without knowing all the facts or I might end up as wrong as the title and description of this video, which is pure lies btw.
I feel it's likely the video she played actually promoted hatred and violence directly, not just that it included one person who had a different political affiliation like you indicate, but I don't know.

After how you erroneously described this event/video, I'm not so sure I can trust your explanations. Sorry.

Again, all this info is in the links provided.

The gallery is accused of repeatedly bringing in white-supremacists. The guy in the video is accused of being a neo-nazi figurehead.

The only evidence I’m seeing though is the gallery bringing in one guy I’d clearly label white supremacist, and then a bunch of people that same to have the wrong opinions on immigration, but it’s hardly clear that there is anymore evidence than that with which to convict.

This matters to me because here in Canada a student assistant was brought in for discipline and became the center of a storm for playing a fee minutes if an interview that included UT prof Jordan Peterson. She was accused of promoting hate and violence(and even committing violence herself) for the act of playing the video. All this because Jordan Peterson is a ‘well known’ alt-right extremist...

The evidence I’ve seen here has the same stink to it and so I’m reluctant to just convict the accused on the mobs say so.

I didn't even know who Mr Beast was until he appeared on Neistat's channel...

I do find it depressing what YT thinks my demographic is interested in though. "30, male, likes gaming, occasionally watches a bit of a Joe Rogan - PUSH JORDAN PETERSON SUGGESTIONS UNTIL HE GIVES IN". Bleugh. Depressing because YT is probably right...

One of Jordan Peterson's claims, that the left has settled into higher ed and wants to shutdown debate in favor of indoctrination, is openly on display in the video. All 3 staff from Wilfrid Laurier state it as contrary to the university environment to present a debate on use of pronouns, or to allow the subject to be debated, save that student's are FIRST taught and thoroughly prepared to know which side of the debate is right before hand.

One of them even dismisses Peterson's claim that you can be convicted for failing to use the pronouns requested by others as baseless and contrary to all evidence. Mean while the Ontario human rights tribunal clearly states that is exactly the case. link below.

If you are find with higher education abandoning reasoned debate in favor of indoctrination then you don't need to care. Of course, here in Canada we aren't facing the same risk you American's are of finding the tables turning and the indoctrination landing in the hands of tea party or trump types.

Still, keeping free speech and reasoned debate a cornerstone of education is extremely important to maintaining a free society in my opinion and the video is a window into dark corners hell bent on shutting that down.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

Missed the Jordan Peterson reference. Being Canadian I've seen a lot of hate thrown his way from the left, but only hyperbole as reasons. Would you have specific things he has done or said to justify this?

Edit: The summary of my familiarity with Peterson is here
https://videosift.com/video/Secret-recording-of-Canadian-Uni-blocking-free-speech

this is gonna piss some people off:
https://videosift.com/video/channel-4-trainwreck-interview-with-jordan-peterson

https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/30/jordan-peterson-doxxes-two-student-activists/

First article i found on it. Sounds like he linked two facebook accounts on twitter, one of them for posting a picture of some sort of super hateful poster that got put up in Peterson's neighbourhood? Blastedly hard to find bare facts in stuff like this.

Jordan Peterson is a good salesman. His products are well known, simple and basic educational rules. Teach the child to help itself, to find own solutions and support it, when it makes mistakes along the way. Help the child to grow up and help it learn from experiences. And he sells them as GROUNDBREAKING NEW DISCOVERIES!

And then comes some right-wing conservative and takes this "product" to rationalize his own lack of empathy and his hatred of whiny liberuls.

@Jinx
the whole jordan peterson thing confuses me as well,though i do not know if for the same reasons.

i understand his argument on language,and it's uses,prefixes etc etc.ok,i get that.what i do not really get is his objection to c-160.

on the surface,his argument seems to suggest that it is about criminalization of pronoun usage,which,if true,i could understand his objection,but how i read c-160 that is not the case at all.

the new addendum appears to only add to already existing laws on the books to protect a subset of people that were in need of at least SOME protection.

his argument seems to be ripped out of the pages of a minority report type abuse,but not anything that is actually in practice.

now this is not necessarily un-warranted.there have been many instances where well intentioned laws were perverted to produce something entirely not expected.
see:14th amendment and the creation of the corporation,an amendment set in place to protect newly freed,land owning slaves.

but to extrapolate an addendum,to already existing law,and make the case of future abuse,with little or no evidence.is a pretty thin argument.

in my opinion,dr petersons only real gripe,and valid argument,is against the university of toronto,and how they handled the situation.

i have watched a number of dr petersons videos on language,and the psychology behind language,and the societal and cultural impacts of language,and even the abuses that can arise with the misuse of language and the inevitable conflicts that can arise.

i have also seen peterson speak to a group of protesters and have watched them settle down and actually have a conversation with him.

so i think peterson has a beef with the university,and not the addendum to an already existing law,although that is not his contention.i simply do not see where he can take it to that extremity,when there is little evidence to support it.

i dunno..seems kind of a waste of time in many aspects to me.

I did find a CBC article which quotes a statement released by a coalition of student groups and faculty opposed to the invitation of Peterson. Quotes are in the bottom paragraphs.
Honestly though I doubt you will get much from them, I really can't think of a rationally justifiable reason for this kind of behavior.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/mcmaster-debate-with-controversial-professor-jordan-peterson-disrupted-by-activists-1.4031843