Tiger Woods "Transgressions" Thread - Golfin' Ain't Easy

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well that is victim-blaming, isn't it?

I don't consider him a victim.

[return to the red]

It would be interesting to see if child supportment payments are increased in situations where prenups are in place.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by return to the red

It would be interesting to see if child supportment payments are increased in situations where prenups are in place.

I think child support payments are more calculated and fixed. Just a chart really, salary and number of kids.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well that would involve seeing someone who made an informed decision to do something and then suffered the very real and known consequences of that decision a victim.

If someone is delusional about the feelings someone else holds towards them, or the other person is lying, how is the decision well-informed? I'm not going to equate it to rape, but what about people who get ripped off by scammers or con-artists? In many of these cases there are clear signals of a scam, but the person is consciously making a decision to hand over their finances to the scammer.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If someone is delusional about the feelings someone else holds towards them, or the other person is lying, how is the decision well-informed? I'm not going to equate it to rape, but what about people who get ripped off by scammers or con-artists? In many of these cases there are clear signals of a scam, but the person is consciously making a decision to hand over their finances to the scammer.

A scam is a completely different situation ,and courts take that into account when making their awards, if any.

[return to the red]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I think child support payments are more calculated and fixed. Just a chart really, salary and number of kids.

But if you look at the work sheet (http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-...ide/w1-f1.html) it includes such things as stock options, capital gains etc. some of which may lower the value of someones overall income if they had to pay out a divorce settlement.

[Bobblehead]

Nike's new add featuring Tiger is generating a little bit of controversy. A picture of Tiger lining up a putt with the slogan, "Winning takes care of everything"

Coming so soon after his pictures with Vonn, which reminded the public of his "transgressions", will the message be perceived wrong?

Marketing consultant Laura Ries was more positive on the move.

“The reality is what he said is true,” Ries said. “Whether or not they should have said it in an ad is another story.”

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/...of-everything/

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by valo403

A scam is a completely different situation ,and courts take that into account when making their awards, if any.

You're really moving the goalposts. Where did I discuss the legality of it? We were talking about victim-blaming. IMO, if someone has a portion of their property taken from them, either as a result of their own naivity or someone else's deception, they are a victim. There are plenty of "legal" ways to unethically part people from their money.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You're really moving the goalposts. Where did I discuss the legality of it? We were talking about victim-blaming. IMO, if someone has a portion of their property taken from them, either as a result of their own naivity or someone else's deception, they are a victim. There are plenty of "legal" ways to unethically part people from their money.

How am I moving the goalposts? If someone is the victim of a scam courts won't be handing their cash over to a former spouse. So how, besides the emotional impacts, is that person a victim? Hurt feelings are outside of the scope of what we're talking about.

And I'm sorry, nobody forces you into marriage, particularly without a prenup. If you marry someone who is only in it for your money that's your fault. When you marry someone you know that the potential for divorce and the associated financial ramifications exists, you've willingly exposed yourself to the consequences. Having them come to pass does not make you a victim.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by valo403

How am I moving the goalposts? If someone is the victim of a scam courts won't be handing their cash over to a former spouse. So how, besides the emotional impacts, is that person a victim? Hurt feelings are outside of the scope of what we're talking about.

Ah ok, well I wasn't referring to victim in a legal sense.

And I'm sorry, nobody forces you into marriage, particularly without a prenup. If you marry someone who is only in it for your money that's your fault. When you marry someone you know that the potential for divorce and the associated financial ramifications exists, you've willingly exposed yourself to the consequences. Having them come to pass does not make you a victim.

So what you're saying, is willingly engaging in anything where you know the potential risks, and having those risks come to pass removes your status as a victim? I'm not asking this legally, but ethically (in the sense that someone who is cheated on in a relationship is a victim).

[valo403]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So what you're saying, is willingly engaging in anything where you know the potential risks, and having those risks come to pass removes your status as a victim? I'm not asking this legally, but ethically (in the sense that someone who is cheated on in a relationship is a victim).

Pretty much, it's not like divorce is an unexpected result and the consequences of that from a financial standpoint are well known.

From an emotional standpoint I can see the argument that someone being cheated on is a victim, but we're not talking about feelings here, we're talking about people having to shell out cash to former spouses.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by valo403

Pretty much, it's not like divorce is an unexpected result and the consequences of that from a financial standpoint are well known.

From an emotional standpoint I can see the argument that someone being cheated on is a victim, but we're not talking about feelings here, we're talking about people having to shell out cash to former spouses.

I guess from a purely emotional/ethical standpoint that's where I view it as victim-blaming. From a legal standpoint, obviously there's nothing wrong with it.

[return to the red]

Valo, Rube, ever been divorced? Just interested if you have formed these opinions based on personal experience

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by return to the red

Valo, Rube, ever been divorced? Just interested if you have formed these opinions based on personal experience

Nope. My parents are divorced. Valo's just a jaded, big-city lawyer

[valo403]

Originally Posted by return to the red

Valo, Rube, ever been divorced? Just interested if you have formed these opinions based on personal experience

Nope, and the above is true

[Hessen]

Guess Nike's new ad is causing a bit of a storm...

[calumniate]

^^

They're just missing a Charlie Sheen photo bomb in that ad - 'Winnning!!'

[troutman]

Arrested for DUI in Florida . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/29/us/tig...-arrested-dui/

[rubecube]

Holy crap, I can't believe I cared about anything in this thread.

[temple5]

I thought this was going to be a bump about him finally winning some random championship that I didnt know was going on over the weekend.

Sad to see it wasnt yet sort of happy to see what it turned out to be