28 ms·

I'm confused, America had a system where divorce rates where much lower (even in the face of poverty!) , which is ostensibly your goal. You've simply brushed a

I'm confused, America had a system where divorce rates where much lower (even in the face of poverty!) , which is ostensibly your goal. You've simply brushed aside a tested system. Of course you could test your novel experiments in parallel, assuming you can find willing parties to fund this experiment.

brimble 5y ago
"I'm just so confused that you don't want to go back to 1950s mores around marriage and divorce, it's tested and it works" Are you really confused, though? [EDIT] To be clear, I'm not uncertain about that, and know you aren't. That was rhetorical.
- notch656a 5y ago
  I'm genuinely confused at your complete dismissal, no it wasn't rhetorical or sarcasm. Your goal was to reduce divorce; completely ignoring and brushing aside historical precedent in favor of your pet theories (which may work and may not) calls into question your actual goals. Earlier your thesis was regarding concern for the children and the impact of divorce, but when confronted with an actual historical precedent where fewer children grew up in divorced households you simply ignored the precedent entirely in favor of marching on towards your other social goals. I'm not the one saying 1950's 'works' -- I never advocated against divorce or that the family needs to be married. Personally I'd rather see a society where lifelong monogamy or marriage is optional and our society, including children, aren't made to feel out of place because they don't fit into the (largely religious) institution of marriage. I think if you dig deep you may find marriage actually has a long history, one that can't be ignored if we are to understand how it fits into modern society. >"I'm just so confused that you don't want to go back to 1950s mores around marriage and divorce, it's tested and it works" If you're going to fabricate quotes this conversation is over, good day.

brimble 5y ago

"I'm just so confused that you don't want to go back to 1950s mores around marriage and divorce, it's tested and it works" Are you really confused, though? [EDIT] To be clear, I'm not uncertain about that, and know you aren't. That was rhetorical.

notch656a 5y ago
I'm genuinely confused at your complete dismissal, no it wasn't rhetorical or sarcasm. Your goal was to reduce divorce; completely ignoring and brushing aside historical precedent in favor of your pet theories (which may work and may not) calls into question your actual goals. Earlier your thesis was regarding concern for the children and the impact of divorce, but when confronted with an actual historical precedent where fewer children grew up in divorced households you simply ignored the precedent entirely in favor of marching on towards your other social goals. I'm not the one saying 1950's 'works' -- I never advocated against divorce or that the family needs to be married. Personally I'd rather see a society where lifelong monogamy or marriage is optional and our society, including children, aren't made to feel out of place because they don't fit into the (largely religious) institution of marriage. I think if you dig deep you may find marriage actually has a long history, one that can't be ignored if we are to understand how it fits into modern society. >"I'm just so confused that you don't want to go back to 1950s mores around marriage and divorce, it's tested and it works" If you're going to fabricate quotes this conversation is over, good day.