Shia LeBouf epically trolled

This forum is for discussions on the noteworthy events, people, places, and circumstances of both the past and the present (note: pop culture etc... is on the back porch).
Post Reply
User avatar
blackeagle603
Posts: 9770
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:13 am

Re: Shia LeBouf epically trolled

Post by blackeagle603 »

Some say "bubble" -- and use it as a universally perjorative term.

You keep saying "bubble" like that's a bad thing. I beg to differ -- in both the use of terms chosen and in the implications about the naivete' or some such of those in that class of folk Vonz has embedded in.

In this context I don't see bubbles. I see different classes and do not immediately assign a moral equivalence to all classes in question.

IMAO, those living in the so-called bubble being discussed are part of a superior, preferable culture for the overall state of our Union and society.
"The Guncounter: More fun than a barrel of tattooed knife-fighting chain-smoking monkey butlers with drinking problems and excessive gambling debts!"

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;" Justice Story
User avatar
skb12172
Posts: 7310
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:45 am

Re: Shia LeBouf epically trolled

Post by skb12172 »

I agree to a point. If that bubble were the greater truth, we would be better off. The truth is, trends support the continued expansion of the toxicity I observe, as opposed to the superior culture some of you are fortunate to still experience. There is a reason Greg fled from NYC to suburban STL. I have spent significant time in both locales. I know which I prefer, but there is little doubt the blight continues to spread, driven by popular media, entertainment, and our intelligencia.
There must be an end to this intimidation by those who come to this great country, but reject its culture.
User avatar
slowpoke
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: Shia LeBouf epically trolled

Post by slowpoke »

Jericho,

I have mostly been argueing from a secular side, because the marital rape laws are purely secular, and because that would be the strongest ground four your position. I am more than happy to argue the point from scripture and the biblical perspective. That makes my arguement that much stronger. After all how can you rape yourself?

As to bringing up romance, you did indirectly. The point of that statement was that in the past it was marriage that made the sex good and it was illegal outside of marriage. That was the legal and the biblical perspective. Now what makes sex legal and good is that the woman wants it. This is is what you are arguing as well, with a bit of ceremony to make it feel more religious.
You ignore Jesus saying that a man and woman become one in marriage. You ignore Peter telling husbands and wives that their bodies belong to the other and it is sinful to not consent.

You also assume that because I hold the position, and logically argue, that there is no such thing as marital rape, that I somehow abuse my wife and force her to be at my beck and call beat her mistreat her and all that. You do that because you think women are valuable, and you think marital rape is a thing and a great wrong, and the only way(you can imagine) that someone would argue otherwise is that they are an evil person that wants to abuse their wife. Now I suggest you discard that frame of reference. As I have been trying to point out that world view, that belief you have is based in feminism and not the bible.

Might I suggest that since you seem to take Christianity and the Bible as a basis for some of your beliefs that you look at that and see where it leads you? I can help you if you want to see what the biblical arguement against marital rape if you like. You havent been able to do it yet. Keep in mind though, if it was biblical then we should have been against it since the new testament was written it should be easy to find the biblical backing.

This might be a good idea for the both of us. Why dont you go read the bible and make the biblical arguement that there is no such thing as marital rape. Find chapter and verse.

I will make the arguement that there is.

How about it?
"Islam delenda est" Aesop
Greg
Posts: 8486
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: Shia LeBouf epically trolled

Post by Greg »

blackeagle603 wrote:Some say "bubble" -- and use it as a universally perjorative term.

You keep saying "bubble" like that's a bad thing. I beg to differ -- in both the use of terms chosen and in the implications about the naivete' or some such of those in that class of folk Vonz has embedded in.

In this context I don't see bubbles. I see different classes and do not immediately assign a moral equivalence to all classes in question.

IMAO, those living in the so-called bubble being discussed are part of a superior, preferable culture for the overall state of our Union and society.
As to your last paragraph, hell yes. Which is why I voted with my feet and moved to middle class heaven, aka St Charles County, MO.

But you're really missing the point. It's a superior environment full of saner people with a healthier way of and approach to life. I've talked about this at length elsewhere various times.

Doesn't mean it's not a bubble. Which is sometimes used as a pejorative term but properly is a descriptive one - that of a pocket that is reasonably internally consistent, but at odds with the composition of the surrounding medium. An island of one composition, in a sea of a different composition.

I see bubbles becoming increasingly common as our culture Balkanizes and people self-sort. I did. But you have to remain aware of what's outside and act accordingly. Else you'll look, at best, out of touch.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby

If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
User avatar
slowpoke
Posts: 1231
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: Shia LeBouf epically trolled

Post by slowpoke »

fyi from the legal zoom link:
Although state laws addressing child support payments differ, income withholding is typically mandatory, unless both parents agree that payments will be made some other way. Before such a payment arrangement is enforceable, the judge must approve the alternate arrangement and incorporate it in the child support order. If the judge issues an IWO but the parents agree outside court to some other method of payment, the IWO is still legally effective and the paying parent risks having payments withdrawn from his paycheck even though he is paying support using a different method.
How is that different than what I stated? I stated it wasnt up to the parents to make that choice. You said it is pointed to legal zoom and they say that if they want to keep it private they cant without a Judge's permission.

Oh here is where the federal government gives grants to the states to run child support enforcement, which are the orginizations that directly garnish wages for child support then give to the mother.
http://www.federalgrantswire.com/child- ... OGMgZE8KhA
"Islam delenda est" Aesop
BDK
Posts: 1698
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:14 pm

Re: Shia LeBouf epically trolled

Post by BDK »

A) Conservatism, which is actually liberalism, has its roots in the Enlightenment. Not... Well, whatever all that Odin worshiping Neo-NAZI silliness is about. It is about freedom, but with that always came a healthy, and strong sense of Duty to society. This is where the old "Posse" stuff came from - it wasn't just that a citizen had a right to arrest a felon, its that he was obligated to do so, barring religious scruples.

B) I'm leaning toward throwing a pretty serious flag on the "no such thing as marital rape" bs. And, I suspect, those arguing it, have seen/known of some "husbands" who'd they have no issue subjecting to a long fall, with a short rope, for some of the things they did to their wives.
There's plenty of biblical arguments against self-harm, and for self-love, which come into play. (EG, the "one flesh" bit does join them in the same body, but her body is a Temple to God, just as much as the husband's - and, as such, belongs to God, not her husband.)

C) There have always been "Americans born elsewhere," the problem was when we let in the Socialists - the original wave of which were white, not any other color. ("Races" are Irish, English, Welsh, Norman, etc - pigmentation is not a genetically useful marker.)

D) Anarchy does not work. Some of us have seen that first hand. Order, law, and society works. Honestly, "order" may be needed more than "liberty" for civilization to survive - at least, in an era when morality has become very imperiled. I am concerned that we are headed back to an era of "lawgivers" - who are, historically, rather brutal - Putin would be someone in that mold, if he were to focus on the long-term survival of Russia.

We avoided that fate by the blessing of having Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, et al, present at our birth.
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Shia LeBouf epically trolled

Post by Vonz90 »

slowpoke wrote:fyi from the legal zoom link:
Although state laws addressing child support payments differ, income withholding is typically mandatory, unless both parents agree that payments will be made some other way. Before such a payment arrangement is enforceable, the judge must approve the alternate arrangement and incorporate it in the child support order. If the judge issues an IWO but the parents agree outside court to some other method of payment, the IWO is still legally effective and the paying parent risks having payments withdrawn from his paycheck even though he is paying support using a different method.
How is that different than what I stated? I stated it wasnt up to the parents to make that choice. You said it is pointed to legal zoom and they say that if they want to keep it private they cant without a Judge's permission.

Oh here is where the federal government gives grants to the states to run child support enforcement, which are the orginizations that directly garnish wages for child support then give to the mother.
http://www.federalgrantswire.com/child- ... OGMgZE8KhA
Because you said they "couldn't do that anymore" and all payments have go through the judge. Well it explicitly says that is not true. In any regard, the things my parents wanted - most centrally joint custody - were not allowed at the time so these days it wouldn't require working out side the system for that.

Again, even if the garnishment was mandatory, there is still nothing keeping two people from working out something different on the side, money is fungible. Your thesis in nonsense on the face of it.
User avatar
skb12172
Posts: 7310
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:45 am

Re: Shia LeBouf epically trolled

Post by skb12172 »

I'm just curious. How many of you are currently involved in making payments through Family Court or know someone in your immediate tribe who is ? Because, frankly, if all you're doing is relying on information from websites like LegalZoom and you're not actually in the system, you really don't know what you're talking about

For an analogy, I'm reminded of a shooting that made the national wire a few years ago . Some jackass who is no longer with us was trying to argue the facts of the incident with me . His source of information was a newspaper article . The reporter in question relied entirely on police statements and was never allowed through the barricade to see the actual scene. On the other hand, I was actually a witness on the scene and inside the barricade . As you can imagine, there was some discrepancy between what I saw and reported and what the newspaper article said. Yet, the Nimrod I was arguing with just wouldn't let it go and insisted that the newspaper article had to be correct.

I'm having a bit of déjà vu here .
There must be an end to this intimidation by those who come to this great country, but reject its culture.
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Shia LeBouf epically trolled

Post by Vonz90 »

skb12172 wrote:I'm just curious. How many of you are currently involved in making payments through Family Court or know someone in your immediate tribe who is ? Because, frankly, if all you're doing is relying on information from websites like LegalZoom and you're not actually in the system, you really don't know what you're talking about
If you are saying "My situation is ...." or "In the state I live in the rules are ...." then sure; I am more than happy to differ to your superior local knowledge.

None of this would apply to the point at issue; which is is a blanket statement that a divorcing couple who just wanted to work together to come up with their own equitable solution - "cannot do that any more (or words to that effect)" which as I said above, is nonsense. Blanket statements can be disproven with one counter example - which is what I showed.

Again, if you (or Slowpoke) had said it is harder to do now, in my state...., or their are additional hurdles now, or whatever - then sure. But that is not what was said.

Also, news flash. It is not like I do not know anyone who has been recently divorced. I have seen it happen easy and I have seen it be a PITA. The devil is in the details.

....so what is actually happening is that one person (or two) is extrapolating their personal experience to the entire country and saying that it could not be any different.
User avatar
skb12172
Posts: 7310
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:45 am

Re: Shia LeBouf epically trolled

Post by skb12172 »

Well, just to clear the air, this is my situation.

I just exited the system after 12 years. The Commonwealth required everything to go through them. We worked out our own deal, but the Judge had to approve it. If the Judge didn't like it, no deal. There was no appeal. Even with our agreement, all payments still had to be processed through their office.

In our meetings, right in front of me, the caseworkers (99% of the time female) told her how badly the law allowed her to screw me and urged her to go for the maximum. She refused, but it was her choice. I had no appeal or recourse. My attorney said I would have more rights and recourse if I were charged with murder.

Every few months I would have to have a face-to-face update meeting, her presence not required, which means I have to take a half day off and stand in line for a couple of hours. The meeting usually lasts 5 minutes or less. The purpose seems to be to make you jump through a hoop.

Spending all that time in line means you talk with others and share stories. There were a couple of women, but that is compared to a couple of hundred men. I found out that I have the best ex-wife in the world. She tried very hard to be fair, despite the Commonwealth trying very hard to convince her to screw me.

At one point, when the economy went to shit in 2007, I got about $800 behind . At that time my caseworker was this little twitchet that was barely out of law school and seemed to be a bona fide man hater . She kept threatening me with jail and was requiring me to jump through a ridiculous amount of red tape and other hoops. When she finally took maternity leave after more than a year, I got a new case worker. She was shocked that I was being required to do the things I had been required to do. She said that level of hoop jumping is usually reserved for the people that are about $30,000 behind .

All the same she required me to do it, she had the power to do so, and there was nothing I could do about it.

In my discussions in online father's rights forums, it appears that my siruation and the way my locale does things is more common than not. Now you know where I am coming from with all this. It comes from personal experience, yes, but also a considerable amount of reliable knowledge from the way things work in most places across the nation.
There must be an end to this intimidation by those who come to this great country, but reject its culture.
Post Reply