Fine Points of Law

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Looger

nice leap there, but no.

we should as individuals, in my opinion, try and solve problems on our own and NOT phone our lawyers for everything.

Anarchy...where each person takes control of their own problems. The law is there for a reason.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Looger

mediation is good but i see a lot of unnecessary litigation in marriages i've witnessed implode.

i disagree with your second statement, i think that the tantalizing idea of divorce makes it an easy option for women, they know it's slanted in their favour so excuses come easy.

television / music tells us to lead interesting lives, up in north BC you can tell who's on night shift by going to the bar and seeing whose wives are out looking at their options. we're all on melrose place now! all right! temptation island, here we come!

don't forget, you're a victim! you're a victim! you're a victim!

personally i think that a 5-year marriage contract, requiring re-affirmation (say until kids are involved), is a good idea, what everyone forgets aboot the marriages of old is that women died in childbirth and men on the battlefield and marriages rarely lasted 20 years.

prenuptual agreements folks. it's a good idea. especially when your ex becomes a man, and you're paying them alimony - yikes!

So you're advocating prenups and marriage contracts but you believe that the legal system should not solve marital problems?????? I think if you tried you probably couldn't be more contradictory. Who drafts, interperets, and in cases of disupte makes decions on this type of things????

I know what you'll say, you don't need lawyers to make up and agree upon a prenup, and you're right, and in a perfect world everyone would agree about what their entitle to in the prenup when the marriage ends, and we could keep lawyers and the legal system out of it. So if you could give me directions to this perfect world where everone will agree to this then that's awesome, if you can't then your arguement that the legal system should stay out of it is at best moot, and at worst completely out to lunch.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Azure

Anarchy...where each person takes control of their own problems. The law is there for a reason.

wow, the second reference to anarchy!

nice try.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Looger

but come on, do you really believe that a 4 year marriage not involving kids should reward the wife with support for the rest of her life?

Under some circumstances yes, under others no. What other circumstances are there? Did she give up a job to stay home and take care of the family finaces? Did she continue to work.

Hmmmmm. If only there was some system in place to decide what this woman should be entitle to, because I'm guessing that her and her ex would have wildly different opinions about what that is. Wait, I think there is one, but no, you don't think it should get involved.

What if her husband is a jerk and she didn't have a job and he kicked her out on the street. Sure you'll say you're not advocationg kicking women out on the street, but you do support the removal of the legal system from these situations, and hence the elimination of the only recourse that some people who are truely being screwed over have, which is really the same thing.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

So you're advocating prenups and marriage contracts but you believe that the legal system should not solve marital problems?????? I think if you tried you probably couldn't be more contradictory. Who drafts, interperets, and in cases of disupte makes decions on this type of things????

i think that as individuals we should look to the legal system as a last resort, not a first. that's all i said. the rest of this crap... i leave to you.

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I know what you'll say, you don't need lawyers to make up and agree upon a prenup, and you're right, and in a perfect world everyone would agree about what their entitle to in the prenup when the marriage ends, and we could keep lawyers and the legal system out of it. So if you could give me directions to this perfect world where everone will agree to this then that's awesome, if you can't then your arguement that the legal system should stay out of it is at best moot, and at worst completely out to lunch.

i'm trying to introduce what i believe people should be striving toward, a little order in a situation that more often than not blows up - marriage.

we'll always have lawyers, i'm uh... surprised you think what you think here.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Under some circumstances yes, under others no. What other circumstances are there? Did she give up a job to stay home and take care of the family finaces? Did she continue to work.

Hmmmmm. If only there was some system in place to decide what this woman should be entitle to, because I'm guessing that her and her ex would have wildly different opinions about what that is. Wait, I think there is one, but no, you don't think it should get involved.

What if her husband is a jerk and she didn't have a job and he kicked her out on the street. Sure you'll say you're not advocationg kicking women out on the street, but you do support the removal of the legal system from these situations, and hence the elimination of the only recourse that some people who are truely being screwed over have, which is really the same thing.

i was applying your straw man tactics back at you.

i NEVER advocated women with kids being denied any money, and you claimed i did.

this discussion is over because you're not having one.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Looger

wow, the second reference to anarchy!

nice try.

If the law is abandoned...anarchy takes reign. Pretty simple..even for you.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Azure

If the law is abandoned...anarchy takes reign. Pretty simple..even for you.

wow, the mighty squiggly. your parents must be proud.

i didn't advocate abandoning the law, i said that people are WAY too dependent on our legal system and it's become a total joke as a result. cases like what we're seeing would have been tossed a generation ago, i've heard as much from more than one lawyer.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Looger

i was applying your straw man tactics back at you.

i NEVER advocated women with kids being denied any money, and you claimed i did.

this discussion is over because you're not having one.

I never said that you do advocate it, all i'm saying is that what you're advocating a the removal of a system, that would cause this, and is not practical for several reasons, the most pressing being that it would put many people at a disadvantage, such as women with no jobs. If it were left up to people to solve it without the legal system to back them up many people would get screwed over badly.

You want people to solve their own problems? Well the system you want to keep out of marital problems is there to solve problmes for those who have no other recourse.

[Looger]

whatever guys, nice thread.

see you next time i have to plodd through layers of your interpretations of my statements.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Jeeebus Looger...nice work taking the "funny" out of a ridiculous news item

why don't you take a look at who's commenting on the matter at hand, and who's building straw men and adding the mighty mighty ?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

If the law is abandoned...anarchy takes reign. Pretty simple..even for you.

I don't see in this thread the part where Looger advocates anarchy or the removal of the legal system. Not sure how simple this is... but at least you continue to let emoticons do most of the talking, must save a few words.

[fredr123]

Someone just read about straw man arguments in his/her first year philosophy class and decided to throw it out there as much as possible?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Someone just read about straw man arguments in his/her first year philosophy class and decided to throw it out there as much as possible?

so... what would you call it if someone puts words in your mouth and uses them against you?

never took philosophy class. thanks for trying though.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Looger

wow, the mighty squiggly. your parents must be proud.

i didn't advocate abandoning the law, i said that people are WAY too dependent on our legal system and it's become a total joke as a result. cases like what we're seeing would have been tossed a generation ago, i've heard as much from more than one lawyer.

You advocate that we solve our problems on our own. Sure we don't always need lawyers...but do you really think each person wants to shell out $200/h...to hire a lawyer?

We need the law...and lawyers are there to help us interpret the law.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

You advocate that we solve our problems on our own. Sure we don't always need lawyers...but do you really think each person wants to shell out 200/h...to hire a lawyer?

We need the law...and lawyers are there to help us interpret the law.

That doesn't mean we need lawyers for everything. I don't see how suggesting that society depends too much on legal arbitration for personal issues = advocating anarchy and absence of a legal system. Thats a bit of an extreme interpretation.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Azure

You advocate that we solve our problems on our own. Sure we don't always need lawyers...but do you really think each person wants to shell out $200/h...to hire a lawyer?

We need the law...and lawyers are there to help us interpret the law.

I agree....but many times that is the first thing people choose, instead of trying to work it out on their own.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't see in this thread the part where Looger advocates anarchy or the removal of the legal system. Not sure how simple this is... but at least you continue to let emoticons do most of the talking, must save a few words.

And as usual....you're here defending Looger.

"Well..I don't think Looger meant that." Right.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

And as usual....you're here defending Looger.

"Well..I don't think Looger meant that." Right.

I see his point of view and agree. If you don't like it, thats pefectly fine with me. I'll feel free to jump in on any debate I see on whichever side I choose.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Azure

And as usual....you're here defending Looger.

"Well..I don't think Looger meant that." Right.

your interpretations of what i said are completely ridiculous.

it's sick really.

maybe some people are sick of me having to defend myself?

maybe you could develop your own opinions, instead of fabricating false opinions of mine to attack.