Adultery and the Law

I assume you simply have nothing to say, or are you being the passive-aggressive type?

I didn't reply to Joniemack's point regarding alcohol, because it was directed at KirStang.

Regardless, the alcohol issue is a non-issue for me. I mentioned that I don't talk about Adultery and the Law in region-specific terms (which is why I also ignored points regarding the US prison system being overpopulated). There are a good number of mainly Islamic countries that have banned the sale and consumption of alcohol, completely negating Joniemack's point whether society should concern itself with adultery so much when it's unwilling to do anything about more serious issues (such as alcohol).

On a personal level, I am also for banning alcohol. Doesn't do my love for vodka well, but I do fully realize that alcohol harms society much more than it benefits it by enabling me to have that soothing glass of vodka/pint of beer, and would have no qualms stopping the consumption of it when the day comes. Though, while it's still available, I'll always be up for a drink.

Or to make a generalized statement: I am for banning everything that causes more harm than it benefits (ciggarettes belong in that category as well, though I like 'em too). Of course, this should not affect fundamental human rights and basic nourishment mediums.

 

The "understood" was simply responding to your explanation of the point your are making. I understand it. As we both already know, I don't agree with it, but you are very clear on it. Any response from me would have been going around the same argument. No passive-aggressiveness.

On your points about alcohol and tobacco, etc. I can see the logical consistency. Having spent a little time (not a lot) in muslim countries I must admit I was glad to be able to get a cold beer in my hotel at the end of the day. I'm not sure I'd want to follow your logic through in my home society. I guess I prefer life a bit more "messy".

Your argument, however, is clear and logical.

 

Here in Ohio and several other states it is called "no fault" divorce. It means basically that everything is divided 50/50 no matter what happened (There maybe an exception for spousal abuse, but I don't have experience with that). You can claim "irreconcilable differences", "adultery", "spousal indifference", "withdrawal of affection", etc as the cause but in determining the division of property (so long as minor children are not involved), remains a 50/50 split. Unless of course there is a prenup, or neither side is fighting for a division. My 2 divorces neither side fought as there was truly nothing to fight over. My parents divorce, however, was a different story. My dad kept trying to under value his business and everything else 401K, IRA, stocks bonds, etc. in the end he was stupid to do such a thing because after 5 years of devaluing, he ended up paying what he was worth at the time the divorce was filed and the lawyers ate up his half (as he did have to pay for my mother's attorney and his, plus court costs and all the expenses).

So, I don't know if that is what you meant by a "default" divorce, but to me a 50/50 split irregardless of reason for the divorce is a default.

 

No worries.

See, I can't subscribe to that sentiment. I can't agree with keeping something around that harms me/others simply for the sake of keeping it around to avoid making the world we've lived in all our lives become "incomplete". Maybe it stems from my heavy alignment with cost vs profit thinking, based on my immersion in the business world, that has increasingly turned my thinking more and more radical against these things.

The only reason I don't bother nor have any expectations in this regard, is because I am fully aware of how Western society values these, to me, valueless and illogical components of life. Unless society starts becoming a hell of a lot more logical (or a hell of a lot more religious - strict followers of Judaism and Christianity don't drink alcohol, just like their Muslim relatives), I see no possible way that a ban on alcohol or legal consequences for adultery would be implemented.

Then again, I view most of humanity as fickle, immature and irrational. Maybe that's something noodle can derive a partial analysis from?

 

Negatory. I gave up trying to analyze acquaintances on the Internet. It too frustrating Plus, even a partial analysis of the portion of a person that they choose to share on a forum would be invalid.

 

Let's at least agree on me having a superiority-complex, for goodness sake!

They say Freud was the ultimate psychologist. I should keep my subconscious fascination with the toilet in check.

 

You're right. An American could never be the ultimate car manufacturer.

*waves the German flag*

 

ha. There's no such thing as a superiority complex in actual psychology, those are narcissistic personality traits, and secondly, if Freud was the ultimate psychologist, I'm in the wrong field.


Is this thread about criminalizing adultery? You've got to be kidding me. I only showed up because I was tagged. I have to go read this thing because just the thought makes me bristle... I'll be back.

 

Napolean syndrome, then? Gotta attribute one of those huge-ego causes to me.

Good read?