Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Court Jester, Jun 27, 2015.
no one can read the bible, as it was not written in this language.
You're like the Jaden Smith of the stacking community.
LORD : have you read the bible?
alor : no LORD, I don't read GREEK nor HEBREW
alor : I know Greece is in crisis and they have to brew their beer
LORD : so what bible have you read??
alor : my LORD, read some nasty translated version that people call bible, It is in some form of English, not sure it is american or others, some people call YOU ALLAH some I saw ALAH, some even banned this name all together.
LORD : you have not read my writings.
Source: What is a weekend?
Sorry for the lateness. I see the thread has gone pretty much off the rails by now.
Well, I'm yet to see any proof of this. I may be providing anecdotes, but you, and the author it seems, are making unbacked assertions.
And I'm sorry but the phrase "So if you are denied the opportunity to marry, you may be denied the opportunity to be wealthy." just seems to me to be completely ridiculous. I would expect to seem some solid evidence and reasoning backing this up before even considering it.
Now, I'm not saying that people don't want to get married. I'm not saying that people don't want to get together and have kids, etc, etc... But let's face it. Deciding to have kids is a financial arrangement between 2 people. As such there should be an explicit contract otherwise you are at the mercy of unknown entities to try and sort the whole thing out if and when it goes sour. I agree with those who say marriage is religious. I think it is. I think, although I'm going into speculation territory here (I've been watching too many MGTOW videos), that it came about from a need to keep on procreating to keep the tribe's population up. "Populate or perish" as it was known. That's why the authorities of the time, the church defined how it would work. And set themselves up as the arbiters of something that was fundamentally ill-defined. I'm rambling a bit here because there is a lot to this, but my belief is that marriage is not what it is made out to be. Nor are male-female relations for that matter.
But if it makes you happy to think of your son/daughter getting married and being the proud parent looking on, then don't think about it any further and certainly don't engage further with me on the subject. Because you'll end up as jaded as I am. Truth is ugly. :lol:
Why would any rational thinking person want to marry? I'm thinking more of the male gender, I know why it works for the females, but then female rationality works different to male rationality in my experience.
Because getting married has little to do with being "rational"?
So it's madness?
I guess it depends on what type of partner you've chosen. :lol:
For many it may be madness. To me it is somewhat like an enterprise, working as a partnership to enhance your physical, economic and biological presence - they being the core features of human existence (I suppose you could include spiritual if you wish). They are expressions of the past, the now and the future, and like any enterprise in a market, the enterprise can fail or it can succeed. Measuring the value of any human ceremony against your own experience (anecdotal) is always fraught with danger, and I don't mean to point any fingers when I say so.
Two people commit to form a partnership that is beneficial to both ie the union provides a greater return than that which any individual can expect to profit on their own. The way I put it sounds socialist, but if you view it from the same perspective as you do a "vendor/customer" relationship, then it makes perfect sense. Now of course if you are a socialist, or worse a feminist, then the concept of a "vendor/customer" relationship in reference to marriage is hideous because you assume from the start that the vendor operates from a position of power over the customer. But if you adopt the Austrian view which is that the market provides the means by which all can meet their needs and wants and that all trade originates at an interpersonal level, then a "vendor/customer" paradigm is not that unpalatable, especially when both roles are established voluntarily and are continually assessed against the satisfaction of needs. The vendor and the customer are paramount to each other - and as an aside, it's here I diverge from Ayn Rand's view of relationships.
Here ends an economic dissertation of love and marriage.
OK, so now you are saying it is rational. ie. the partners do it because it is "beneficial to both". Not sure how you get the vendor/customer out of it. Who is the vendor and who is the customer? And what are the goods/services? Is it not more of a business partnership? Or is the fact that it is often referred to as a partnership just more misdirection?
Oh, I see, the man is paying the woman for sex and the woman is using the money for herself and her progeny? Too cynical? Pretty expensive sex compared to general market value and considering that humans tend to get bored of the same thing over and over again, probably not a great deal overall. Are you going to tell me about how true love conquers all now?
Thing is, Shiney, I'm assuming you've been married for awhile now so you understand very well that the idealistic picture generally painted is not the reality of the situation, right? Is that fair to say at least?
You and I both know that humans do not always act rationally, but we act nonetheless, based upon what ever knowledge is available to us at the time. This is a fundamental truth of all economic activity, and it is only the market signals that indicate our levels of success or failure.
You don't? I must admit to being a bit disappointed, what I was trying to explain is that all humans are economic creatures, that we all make decisions based upon the scant amount of information we have at hand in order to further ourselves. As we do not possess all the knowledge in the world our decisions are "best guesses" - which may be described by Utopians as "irrational", "unattainable" etc, despite this we still engage with each other to enhance our own experience (vendor), and in attempting to do so it is essential in the main that we enhance the experience of our chosen partner (customer) first and foremost, for without their consent, our needs will remain fulfilled. The roles of course are easily reversed, and in the true Austrian way, both vendor and customer are reliant on each other, with neither in a position of dominance (if at all) for long.
It's much deeper than the sex, sex is only one aspect of the "vendor/customer" metaphor. As far as the "bolded" bit goes, that's the feminist reaction to an economic explanation of marriage. And like I said originally, marriage is not rational, but neither are most of our daily interactions.
I've been married for about half my life. I've never understood anyone's idealistic picture of marriage but at the same time I have a pretty intense personal experience with one that works.
No, I get the economic transaction side to it. That's what makes the analysis of marriage so interesting to me (and ultimately makes it a non-starter for me, although that ship sailed a long time ago now).
But I don't think that was how marriage was initially conceived. Or maybe it was in a way. After all, historically marriages have usually been arranged and it has often been about keeping property in the family. But it's very curious the way marriage was initially set up, and even more curious what the consequences of women's liberation has had on marriage. If we look it at marriage as an economic transaction is it really fair to both parties as things currently stand? In the past, the deal always was that the father was the head of the family and respected. That was a major part of his side of the deal. Not to say I was particularly fond of that either, I wasn't for the record. But the true power has always been with the woman and even more so today. I mean, there's a reason why guys joke about "she who must be obeyed" and that they are slaves and all that. ie. they aren't joking and that's the reality. So what does the man get out of it really? I'm honestly confused. Virtually every married man I look at seems to be getting a raw deal. Beyond that, there seems to be a lot of rhetoric in society about how men need to be responsible and do the right thing, which to me, basically just sounds like the typical person trying to convince you to take a raw deal.
So from the economic standpoint, where is the benefit for the man?
From a personal standpoint? Well, it's hardly like fathers are respected in today's society. I mean, really, who wants to put up with that shit? Less and less men all the time it seems...
So it seems like there are serious fundamental problems with marriage to me. So much so that I wonder if the entire institution has any value at all. Whether we shouldn't just toss it and start something else. And far beyond that it didn't allow same-sexes. They have basically set themselves up for many of the same problems that we have faced for a long time. OK, so they've got some kind of societal recognition for it, that's true. Well, boys and girls, hope it was worth it. We'll find out in time.
Love: A type of temporary insanity curable by marriage.
I've also seen reports that millionaires are more likely to be married as well.
From personal experience, I think there really is a productivity/efficiency benefit. As the major shareholder in our partnership my wife is far worse than a typical board of directors in driving personal improvement and motivating beneficial career changes/career development. I think that being responsible for supporting a household rather than just an individual also makes me more aware of my cash flows and longer term investment strategy. Clearly many relationships do not result in such a "financial partnership" but I think they are more successful when they do. Yes there is also a lot of time invested into a marriage and emotionally they can fail and even result in a negative overall outcome, but having that devil/angel on your back is a very good motivational tool IMO.
Also, I would note that "home economics" has been a noticeable part of marriages for a very long time.
Multiple times, until they are no longer millionaires
People seem eager to defend marriages on these millionaire claims but nothing that addresses the fact it's a complete monopoly and the inherent problems that brings. A business agreement with no terms and conditions either, etc, etc Where did the free market advocates go?
You know, when the government manages the economy many millionaires are created. I guess that means it's a good thing.
You get the axe out ready to slaughter a sacred cow and everybody runs for the hills.
Hang on, YOU are the one who asked for the economic reason why a marriage is beneficial for a man and I simply supplied one.
But in terms of "the business agreement" side of things then get a pre-nup. There's nothing stopping you. Indeed I think it is a shame that our culture doesn't encourage a basic contract/understanding of the terms in the event of various likely outcomes prior to entering a De facto or marriage relationship.
Separate names with a comma.