Ugh, i just deleted 30 minutes of blah blah blah i had typed out. I just can't afford to get into. Having these back and forth type discussions just ramp up my anxiety I knew it was a bad idea to leave a comment. My bad. (and this is why i can't have nice things)

Still don't think the description holds water regarding that prop 47 is the implied cause for the situation.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Who dares wake Dag from his Sift slumber?! You have been unhobbled. Hobbling should only be used in an emergency when someone with some power is running rampant on the Sift. Anyone using the hobble power outside of that situation will find themselves the hobblee… or worse.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Who dares wake Dag from his Sift slumber?! You have been unhobbled. Hobbling should only be used in an emergency when someone with some power is running rampant on the Sift. Anyone using the hobble power outside of that situation will find themselves the hobblee… or worse.

I was looking forward to contacting you upon finishing my foray.

imagine my happy surprise at your rather wonderful and welcome intercedence on behalf of all things light and transcendental in nature.

Thank you old friend.

I applaud and thank you further for the enlightened and inspired suggestion to resolution of the situation though I infer there to be a lag in implementation at best.

As I was unaware of the possible agitation my efforts evidently caused, I somewhat bristled at the unjustified, that is to my mind, action taken at no infraction of which I am aware.

Is instahobbling not regarded as inappropriate thusly invoked?

In any case, my reaction to such was averted by your intervention and I, again, thank you.

You can't kill a living human being...

Death Penalty exists...

Abortion will always be a touchy subject, but if you have money to travel, you can get that abortion in places that support them. So what these abortion laws do is punish poor people who can't make that trip. Then those same people are forced to either put the child up for adoption (because we don't have a ton of children that can't be adopted already) or they can raise that child, most likely in the same situation that led to them being poor and not having a proper family unit.

Storytime, and god help me if my wife ever finds out I talked about this.

I was raised in a poor home, with an abusive family. My wife was raised in a poor home with a good family. When we started dating after High School back in 1992, you had two choices for safe sex, condoms or birth control (doctor visit with no insurance and it was Texas in 1992, they weren't just tossing it out like free candy). We had to use condoms because we couldn't afford birth control and because she was scared of using it. If you have ever read the side effects, you might be too, seeing as death can be one of them in rare instances.

So condoms were the watchword. But accidents happen; maybe one just didn't work right, maybe it was the one that broke one time, but we ended up getting pregnant. I told her that I would do whatever she wanted. We planned to marry soon anyway, so I said we could shotgun it if need be. She said she didn't think she wanted a child. So I said that it was HER decision, but I would be there through it.

It isn't easy. Unless you have been in that exact situation, you will never know the fear and uncertainty involved. We were 18 and 20, just starting out with shit jobs, living with parents, and with a 1968 Catalina as our only vehicle. Her parents would have forced her to have it if they knew, because they thought the same way as @bobknight33. We would have been stuck living with them, they already didn't like me because I wasn't deeply religious and not into ranch life. My parents wouldn't have taken us in because my mom didn't like my wife until years later. The stress and anger would have probably split us up, and both of us would have likely remained poor to this day.

Instead, my wife chose to not have the child and got an abortion in the first trimester. We kept it to ourselves, married later, and are still together today. We both fought our way out of being poor people to being on the upper spectrum of middle class. We decided we just didn't want kids and now we spoil our niece. I will swear right now that we would never have made it to where we are today if we had been forced to raise a child because of someone else's deranged idea that every child must be born regardless of the future in store for it.

So, yes, I can speak to what an actual poor person goes through in that situation. We were lucky, because there weren't laws rammed through by religious people who have no clue of the consequences, just a strong delusion that God wants all children born. Funny how those religious people wash their hands of the aftermath of their crusade. Even funnier are the ones that quietly send Mary Lou to California to 'visit an aunt' for a couple of months when they find out their spawn got knocked up.

TL;DR

If you fight against easy abortions, except those where the child has reached the capability to survive if it had to be medically removed from the mother, you and the rest of your ilk can go fuck yourselves.

Remember that time you said if climate change and sea level rise were real, insurance in places like Florida would skyrocket or disappear. Guess what.

Not only has it skyrocketed like I told you was happening back then, but many companies have now just left places like Florida altogether because it costs them far too much to payout over flooding and extreme weather events that are now regular occurrences.

My guess....you'll ignore what you claimed, ignore what the companies say, and ignore the data that's undeniable and blame liberals for faking the insurance fiasco and faking constant repeated flooding and extreme weather decimating many areas, especially coastal and low lying areas....or you'll just deny things are demonstrably worsening.

What I know for certain, you won't admit you were/are wrong, and won't accept any responsibility for dragging your feet and obstructing vital progress with unending stubborn denial of reality and making the situation exponentially worse and the time to mitigate it exponentially shorter.

Neither supports racial supremacy like your ilk, so the leading question is a red herring non sequitur.
I am not an anarchist, not since I turned 16, so I don't support Antifa, but I enjoy watching them make your head spin immensely.
I have always supported equality under the law, so yes, I absolutely support BLM....I would if they murdered a cop every time an unarmed black person was killed by police.

You are delusional.
Do, at some time, most cops act appropriately? Yes. Are you so brain damaged you take much accusations and hear "all cops are all bad all the time"? I've never said that. Pablo Escobar, by all reports, was a quite generous man who helped the poor on many occasions....he was not a good person.
Same for cops.
If you murder one person but do your job well otherwise, you are a murderous thug. If you allow fellow officers to get away with murder but don't participate, you are a murderous thug. If you spend every waking hour tending to the invalid and elderly on your own dime and you only kidnap and rape one child, you are a disgusting child rapist. If you cover for another motherfucker who's a kiddie fucker, you're no fucking better than the motherfucking rapist. That's the norm for American police, cover for the bad ones under any circumstances.

Cops can do good at times, usually when they know they're on multiple cameras, it doesn't ever erase their crimes.

Most, I would say statistically all cops are at best accomplices if not the bad actors. Good policing includes stopping other cops from committing crimes....until BLM pushed the issue, that was absolutely not the case...It might have happen once a decade nation wide, always ending with the whistleblower fired and under threat from police. Now, thanks 100% to BLM, that's slowly changing. Maybe up to .01% of the time...and that's an improvement.

Trump said to hit them harder and more often, cops listened and cheered.

Cops wear cameras. If they followed the law, they could put out ten thousand videos of themselves doing the right thing every day, not one a month, deescalation, not shooting until threatened, stopping other cops from beating handcuffed suspects to death and arresting them, defending the accused shoplifters from the racist store owner's false accusations instead of what we do see, smashing their window and pulling them through it because a racist said they think they stole something, they just don't know what or when. Have you EVER seen one of those? No, but you can see 10 disgusting abuses recorded daily with never another cop intervening, always the entire department forming a blue wall, destroying evidence, publicly pushing lies, testifying to lies, etc. They're a gang, they only protect and serve themselves when the chips are down. This is not a media perception, it's cold hard fact buddy.

Cops went to the supreme court to guarantee their right to lie. They are all professional liars. Liars cannot be trusted. I know, you can't grasp that concept because it would mean questioning daddy Trump, but it's true. When you give people authority, the power of life and death, and the legal right to lie at all times you set up a disastrous situation....it's what we have. Racist liars who kill. No good deed erases that.

Yes, Bob. Cops admit they shoot three citizens to death daily on average, already an abject failure, but hide likely > 95% of the deaths they cause by blaming the victim, claiming suicide by somehow beating themselves to death or claiming they died in a minor wreck that caused no injury after beating them to death. Claiming a cell phone clearly visible that they are talking to 911 on looks like a gun and shooting 47 times, running them over intentionally then stopping 10 ft away but claiming they had to because they feared for their lives, kneeling on their neck for 9 minutes and later saying the people telling them they just killed the man distracted them from knowing they killed the man. Strangling boys for 17 minutes straight while beating their heads with a giant maglight.......Daily. Multiple times daily.

You are such a delusional idiot.

That cop's alternative being what, letting the rampaging mob have their way with the legislators he was duty-bound to protect? It's not like the officer was just wandering around and randomly shot her - she was at the front of a violent mob that had just broken through a barrier. By shooting her, he kept the mob at bay for a bit longer, which may very well have saved lives. When people on this site decry police violence, it tends to be in a context where that violence was unnecessary and excessive for the situation. The fact that more of the insurrectionists weren't shot actually illustrates incredible restraint and professionalism, on the part of the Capitol police.

I'd like to add: fucking stop with the "unarmed" bullshit. They were a RAMPAGING MOB. They were chanting their wish to kill the Vice President, who they believed to be in the building. Do you really believe a group of people with only bludgeoning weapons are incapable of causing massive amounts of harm? They had violently broken into one of the core seats of power in the US, in a direct effort to stop the democratic process and what has in *every other instance* been a peaceful transition of power.

Seriously - if you support the 1/6/2021 insurrection, you support an attempted fascistic overthrow of the US government. It isn't up for debate, that's what happened on that day. It wasn't a fucking protest, they weren't a goddamned tourist group. They smashed their way into the Capitol, at the behest of a man seemingly incapable of admitting defeat (gracefully or otherwise), with the goal of keeping him in power against the will of the voters of this country. That shit is not at all acceptable, and I hope the lot of them serve sufficient time in prison to act as a warning to all other fascists.

The EU has open borders and free travel amongst the various nations if you are a citizen of a member nation. I will agree our per capita death rate is higher, but still (based on the well researched Lancet study) you cannot lay more than about 40% of the deaths at Trump's feet. I don't deny he could have handled the pandemic much better, but it has been some time since we have had a pandemic on this level. Multiple leaders have handled it differently and time will eventually label them for the history aspect of it.

I go by the facts. Not conjecture, and not opinion. I also don't consider Birx to be even remotely a good source since she rode down the trail willy nilly with the same person you are blaming all the deaths on. I will never trust or vote for Trump again, but you cannot lay the percentage you are proposing on him solely. Just like we cannot move Biden to almighty status for his handling of the situation when he is currently running a similar death rate on par with the same time last year, WHILE having massive vaccination.

Has he made steps that have helped? Certainly and I would say he is definitely doing a better job than Trump, but by your own admission almost anyone could. The fact of the matter is, as I said last year, you cannot fight a pandemic like this without having the martial law like power China had or being in a situation to isolate yourself from outside contact.

"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

What on earth are you talking about?
Do you believe the government dictates your vows? What "rules"? You just cannot grasp the concept of no fault divorce or prenuptial, can you?

I guess you never planned on kids or shared assets. If you do, 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, and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first. Uncle Sam is in your relationship, married or not....without a marriage contract, he makes ALL the rules and you have no say.

My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas that in my state would have cost under $10K and you congratulate him? You are one strange person.

Again, your perception, not based in fact since the 60's. You assume women take off time to raise the kids and take care of parents and assume fathers don't take paternity leave or have obligations outside work. How 50's. You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. It certainly hasn't been my experience, I've seen women in the workplace working harder and longer for less pay, sacrificing just like their male counterparts if not more, putting off having families until it's too late while men can have kids long after normal retirement age, putting themselves in dangerous situations where those with power over them have opportunities to abuse that power and abuse those women in ways that rarely happen to men. These aren't exceptions, they're the norm.

Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that, meaning soon women in most catagories will out earn men and have more to lose, you admit you're wrong in your position now, right? Of course not, I expect you will still start from a point that hasn't been correct since the era and sexual revolution, early 70's at latest.

No, many of the studies I've seen compared people in the same exact positions in the same industries, even same companies, and women consistently get paid less for the exact same job and hours, and women rarely work less today, and just as often out work their male counterparts knowing they are often token hires not valued by the bosses so have less job security. If I recall correctly, 80% of job losses due to Covid were women, and the men are getting rehired faster. I think you are thinking of some studies from the 80's that made those assumptions and accusations. Comparing apples to apples, women still get shortchanged and as often as not overworked.

Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk"

And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are? Specify what you expect and agree, and you walk with exactly what you agreed to, no government rules or split involved. Geez. You speak as if you had never heard of them.

Most divorces may be initiated by the woman (if that's true, I expect it's just another assumption) because their husbands are more likely to break their vows first, but are not willing to pay to end the marriage, including penalties for breaking the marriage contract, and we're too dumb to get a prenuptial (or got one that spells out harsh penalties for cheating). Yes, I am assuming men cheat on their spouses more often than the reverse, because men are wired that way.

You are not more likely than not to face a divorce, because it's unlikely any woman meeting your criteria would give you a second thought, and you need to get married to get divorced.

I bet if you show your significant other this thread your 20 year relationship will be in big trouble, or at best enter a long dry dark spell. Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches that take more than they deserve or even could give back and destroy you whenever they think it serves them. It's probably a good thing you aren't married.

Laws and family court aren't as you describe. Maybe when you enter the 21st century you'll recognize that. The rules of your marriage can be whatever you agree to, including the specifics of the split if it ends.

It's a sad thing you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks.....almost always unless one or both of you are total douchebags.

You are projecting.

Marriage takes the honesty away from a relationship.
It's no longer me and you.
It's me and you and uncle sam.
I want *consensual* relations where me and my partner set our rules, not some 3rd party, and not when the rules are stacked against me.

Congratulations to your brother. Lucky him.

I never said women don't work.

I said that men make more personal sacrifices for their work - a true statement about men as a group. Exceptions don't alter the rule.

Yes, women under 35 out earn men now. And as legacy earners retire, we will be facing a situation where women out earn men at any age. Preferential admittance and hiring tend to have that effect. It's by design.

And women don't get paid less for the same work - the studies saying that don't account for hours worked and don't provide any breakdown of job title. E.g. Women doctors get paid less - because the type of doctor they choose to be is more likely to be a pediatrician than a heart surgeon or anesthesiologist. But within each category of doctor, per hour worked, and per year experience, their income is essentially identical.

And you don't need to be a home maker to get paid in a divorce. Just make less than your partner.
Historically the divorce rewards scale higher for women given mirror situations.

Why would I want to deal with a 50/50 split when I brought 90% of the assets into the marriage? A 50/50 split would set me back decades. I just want to keep my stuff, I did pay for it after all, which cost me money, which cost me time, which cost me life.

And why should /anyone/ have their life supported by anyone else?
(*context=spouses. Not interested in some bad faith out of context argument bringing up children or retirees supported by taxes, etc)
Are you able bodied? Then get working.
Is it tough? Too bad.
It's harder for both people supporting themselves alone, you aren't special. You were in this situation before you got married, you can go back to it.

In any case, the homemaker job argument is senseless. There are benefits (time with kids), and there are pitfalls (hole in your resume). You make your choice, and you deal with the consequences.
You are paid by the home over your head and the money you're given while you are a home maker. What other job do you get to leave and still be paid. People act as if the working partner was just chilling this whole time. Where are the working partner's continuing post divorce benefits?


I have no mindset about women. More projection.
I couldn't care less if I marry a stripper with 2 kids - so long as in the event of a divorce we go our separate ways with ZERO obligations to one another.

I have a mindset about the dangers of divorce, and the fact that most marriages end in divorce, and most divorces are initiated by the female partner.
I am on average more likely than not to face a divorce.
Hence the risk reduction by being more 'picky'.


I am in a nearly 20 year happy relationship - unmarried.
She's the boss of the relationship. And I'm fine with that because I *consent* to it. I can always walk away if I decide otherwise.

So long as laws and family court are how they are, I won't even consider marriage.

-scheherazade

Harry Reid nuked the filibuster to approve Federal level justices. McConnell just exploited what the former Majority Leader did.

When under pressure from Republicans and Trump in the first two years of Trump's term to do away with the filibuster and allow the all-Republican government to do what the all Democratic one is hoping to do now, McConnell wisely chose not to.

Whether you care for McConnell or not, or if you care for the minority party or not, doing away with the filibuster to allow the party currently in charge to ram legislation through is only going to set precedent for the same thing to happen when the situation changes.

Democrats may think that forcing through HR1 will mean that the Republicans will never control the government again, but that is not going to happen. Americans are fickle and turn on the government in power at the drop of a hat. Case in point, Trump should have never won a term as President in a normal world. People hated Hillary so much that he did.

Turning the Senate into a smaller House of Representatives relying simply on a majority vote for everything would create situations where either side will ram through sweeping changes (or erase those of the previous side) every 4 years or so. What will we do in 2024 if somehow Trump or his lackeys get elected and he has access to a fully Republican senate, congress, and scotus, with no filibuster unlike 2016-2018?

met·tle
/ˈmedl/

noun
a person's ability to cope well with difficulties or to face a demanding situation in a spirited and resilient way.
"the team showed their true mettle in the second half"

YOU ARE CORRECT !!

Tell him what he's won Jay!

There was a lot of discussion about that in the YouTube comments. What made sense was one commenter who said when he had run into similar situations out kayaking he had plenty of warning because of the motor noise and it was simple to pull over until the jet boat passed. He wasn’t so sure about how electric boats would announce themselves.