jross

Mikey J. would never go for this... but it seems like a good secular idea. Do you know what should come with marriage? Prenup education and boilerplate agreement on the commons: children, inheritance, assets, alimony, debts, etc. Two people work out the high-level details when the relationship is delightful to avoid the shitshow if it becomes dreadful.

Is it also the children's business, where two parents have equal accountability for their upbringing? Allowing a spouse some time to mend their family, if they choose, is fair.

Disagreement might come about this proposal. What alternatives are there to reduce unnecessary divorce for the parent-of-minor scenario? https://divorcereform.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Parental-Divorce-Reduction-Act-PDF.pdf for the children... https://divorcereform.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/DR_talkingPoints1.pdf

Both my sisters no-fault divorced their husbands of around 14 years because they were unhappy. One had 4, and the other had 5 minor children. The 'hell' these children (and spouses) have gone through... It is fair to the spouse and children to have the parents go through counseling over some period before the divorce goes through. The counseling might teach the impact of divorce to adults and children. It might teach them how to have crucial conversations and maintain their relationship. It might save a family. Studies show that family is good. ...not interested in the exceptions (see statement on 'not trapped' in harmful).

Married parents with kids should never be trapped in a (sustained) unhappy or harmful relationship. But what about other reasons for unhappiness like boredom or financial stress? It's not selfish to seek happiness, but it's important to consider your children's well-being. Choose daily to commit to your spouse and prioritize your children. Unhappiness is temporary; it too shall pass. Emotional damage to children may never pass. To walk out on one's spouse and children because you 'feel like it?' Selfish and damaging.

The point of sharing is to support Offthemat with how stupid our youth are. This post is not meant to derail the conversation off track from Israel attacked.

That's a common opinion, unfortunately. I have 9 nieces and nephews that disagree with you.

I always appreciate the great research and sources that you utilize /s, like proving your point that no-fault divorces have been overwhelmingly good things... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/there-is-no-republican-plot-to-end-no-fault-divorce-but-there-should-be https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/13/when-divorce-is-a-family-affair

Nuance. ... privacy (HIPAA), security (confidential docs), IP (copyrighted material), protecting children (xxx), materials calling for imminent lawless action ... https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/19990531/33480-paladin-press-pays-millions-to-settle-hit-man-case.html

Yes, regardless of educational improvements and such, other parts of life were diminished, and that's why after the initial 250K golden exile, another 260K working-class immigrants came to the USA as part of the Freedom Flights. Again, more immigrants in two individual immigrant waves than from 1900 to 1959 combined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Flights

Uncle's comment supports that China strives to do what it says in its constitution. We've been talking now about Deng Xiaoping Theory. China is ruled by a single majority party that suppresses political consent and criticism... as it favors the CCP political party and the "collective" taking precedence over individual liberties. It spies on its citizens and censures... showing elements of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. State-owned enterprises in China are still common and often have monopolies... You can point out that different ideologies overlap, but much of the ascribed country behavior fits Communism... the party name is Communism... the constitution says Communism...

China is failing on the classless front. The country's wealth disparity rivals the USA.

Communism is not a monolithic ideology

...support it depends on what characteristics and actions you want to emphasize. Since you say China is not what it says it is, and China is not what it says it strives to be, how does Plasi label the ideology? China describes its economic system as "socialism with Chinese characteristics" but does that mean the 'country' is not communist?

Well, my family friend 'Angel' (who left China and still has family living in China) also says and criticizes...

I answered your question strongly. It is a subjective question with pros/cons documented by folks who lived in both situations (quora). Rather than debating subjective opinions, I pointed out that the actions the Cubans took were the answer. Sure the initial departure was the ruling class, but that's the minority overall.

Well, their constitution says:

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP),[3] officially the Communist Party of China (CPC),[4] is the founding and sole ruling party of the People's Republic of China (PRC). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party https://www.britannica.com/topic/Chinese-Communist-Party

What does it imply when considering there were 125,000 Cuban immigrants in America across 50 years before the revolution, 250,000 Cuban immigrants in the first 3 years post-revolution, and over 1 million Cuban immigrants in the US across the next 50 years?

If a gunman was holding your entire bloodline of 20 children/grandchildren as a human shield, would you be okay with the police killing them all to also take out the gunman? Whether it is 1 or 20 children, who is the gunman, and how many more will die if the gunman lives another day?

Profit

Does the Second Amendment allow for a well-regulated militia to protect security and from government tyranny? (yes) Given that it is (assumed) unrealistic to protect oneself from government tyranny, explain the Bundy Standoff outcome. Does the US citizen need to be concerned about other countries (with guns) invading the US country? If nobody had a gun in the US, why would one need to bear arms to protect oneself?

Does the Second Amendment protect citizens' right to hunt animals and shoot for sport? Neither hunting nor clay pigeon shooting fits with the right to bear arms for self-defense. The amendment protects self-defense from a bear but does not grant the right to hunt the bear. Have gun ban advocates challenged the right to ban arms for hunting and sport?

Does the Second Amendment protect citizens' right to bear arms for self-defense? Yes, read the history documented in these BRIEFs OF AMICUS CURIAE CENTER of petitioners (NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASS’N) of respondents (CITY OF NEW YORK) Key points Self-defense is long recognized: Aristotle stated that “arms bearing” was an essential aspect of each citizen’s proper role (300 BC) On the Law of War and Peace by Hugo Grotius (1625) It has already been proved that when our lives are threatened with immediate danger, it is lawful to kill the aggressor if the danger cannot otherwise be avoided: an instance, as it has been shown, on which the justice of private war rests. We must observe that this kind of defense originates from the principle of self-preservation, which nature has given to every living creature, and not from the injustice or misconduct of the aggressor. Wherefore though he may be clear of guilt, as, for instance, a soldier in actual service, mistaking my person for that of another, or a madman in his frenzy, or a man walking in his sleep, none of these cases deprive me of the right of self-defense against those persons. For I am not bound to submit to the danger or mischief intended, any more than to expose myself to the attacks of a wild beast. John Locke wrote (1690) For no Man, or Society of Men, having a Power to deliver up their Preservation, or consequently the means of it, to the Absolute Will and arbitrary Dominion of another; whenever any one shall go about to bring them into such a Slavish Condition, they will always have a right to preserve what they have not a Power to part with; and to rid themselves of those who invade this Fundamental, Sacred, and unalterable Law of Self-Preservation, for which they enter'd into Society. And thus the Community may be said in this respect to be always the Supream Power, but not as considered under any Form of Government, because this Power of the People can never take place till the Government be dissolved. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791 and based on prior understanding Of the nine state constitutional protections for the right to bear arms enacted immediately after 1789, at least seven unequivocally protected an individual citizen’s right to self-defense. This is strong evidence that the founding generation understood the right to bear arms as part of the fundamental right of self-defense. In the first published appellate decision on the right to bear arms, Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822), an opinion of the Kentucky Court of Appeals (then the state's highest court), the court invalidated a state statute prohibiting concealed carrying of weapons. The court ruled that this prohibition infringed upon the "right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state.