Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor’s Wife

[RainbowUnicorn]

'SS'

what a mockery of law & civility

'SS'
I know.  It’s crazy, isn’t it?

We’re no longer considered property, so it shifted from loss of proprietary interest to the loss of emotional and physical comfort. You have to prove that genuine love existed within the marriage and that a third party destroyed it. You don’t have to prove that your marriage was perfect but that some amount of love was involved. The only evidence required for proof is that the jilted spouse thought they had a good marriage. 

The justification for maintaining this law is to discourage divorce and infidelity.  Adultery is still illegal in twenty states. You can be fined and/or imprisoned. Normally, it’s in conjunction with criminal conversation (infidelity) but it doesn’t have to be. Anyone that encourages you to leave the marriage can be sued. Unlike with alienation of affection, though, not knowing that someone is married isn’t a applicable defense to criminal converstion. The offense has to take place within the state, though.  Hmm…maybe we should invest in a few hotels next to the State line.

How can you own love and affection? Why should the government be involved in the matters of the heart?  How can they regulate our sentiments?

and... it removes independant authority of self from the wife.
the wife becomes a chattle by the law removing her ability to be culpable.
the on flow effect would be making the husband also culpable as a willing part of the relationship and ecconomic loss.

if there is a financial risk to the business there should be insurance litigation to prove it.
thus a policy for marriage when both are involved in a busines.
taking on a wife/spouse while starting or owning a business is by default making the busines at risk of loss by the virtue of the marriage.

[Syne]

You don't keep up too well. The goal post was moved from simply '"I’m glad I’m not black" or "I’m glad I’m not a woman"' to specific times or places. Has nothing to do with anything I asked you.

Culture affects our behavior and our interpretation of other people’s behavior. It can be passed down from one generation to the next.  Even our concepts of success is derived from our culture. Why limit it to western society?

Your culture largely encompasses your accepted and mostly unquestioned norms. Now if you're talking about a cultural transplant, that just seems like a further moving of the goal posts...with no end in sight.

I’d rather be a man when I’m in dangerous areas, too. Last week, I drove by two guys that were shot and killed and then their car was lit on fire.

You didn’t call me out on my bias, so I don’t expect you to spot yours. You’re more likely to be murdered than I am. You’ve probably experienced more physical and verbal aggression than I have.

Do you see any in your sentence?

Sometimes it would be nice to have more scholarship opportunities or granted automatic authority on minority issues or get money/attention just because of my body.

Those are objective facts, not biases.

You didn't ask about specific times or places, which now feels like moving the goal posts, but whatever. And the problem with doing so is that, if you were in those times or places, it would likely be the norm that you wouldn't even question. If I were a woman, I wouldn't think twice about liking men, or being subject to an arranged marriage...like every other woman of that time & place.

If we didn’t question it, we wouldn’t be where we are today.

There's a difference between questioning norms and a gradual change of norms over time.

[Secular Sanity]

Sometimes it would be nice to have more scholarship opportunities or granted automatic authority on minority issues or get money/attention just because of my body.

Those are objective facts, not biases.

Are you saying that it’s okay to resent minorities because they have more opportunities than you do but it’s not okay to resent rich white males?

Are they objective facts? 

Do Caucasians receive fewer scholarships than any other race?

I didn’t know that I was entitled to free money for just having a nice body. Where do I sign up?

[Syne]

Sometimes it would be nice to have more scholarship opportunities or granted automatic authority on minority issues or get money/attention just because of my body.

Those are objective facts, not biases.

Are you saying that it’s okay to resent minorities because they have more opportunities than you do but it’s not okay to resent rich white males?

Are they objective facts? 

Who said ANYTHING about resenting minorities? O_o
I seriously hope that's not parapraxis.

It's not healthy to resent anyone, period. Saying "it would be nice to have __" is a very far cry from resentment. For example, it would be nice to have a Lamborghini, but I don't resent anyone who has one. It takes an especially petty person to resent everyone better off than themselves.

Do Caucasians receive fewer scholarships than any other race?

In raw numbers, of course not. But certainly as a percent of the population. https://studentloans.net/college-scholar...nd-gender/

I didn’t know that I was entitled to free money for just having a nice body. Where do I sign up?

Modeling, Instagram, exotic dancing, etc..
But you have to have a face to match for many of those.

[Secular Sanity]

Who said ANYTHING about resenting minorities? O_o
I seriously hope that's not parapraxis.

No. The point I’m trying to make is that it’s important for people to realize that we don’t live in a meritocratic society. Believing in meritocracy makes it easier to overlook subconscious biases.

"Not everyone gets what they deserve. And not everyone deserves what they get."

Modeling, Instagram, exotic dancing, etc..
But you have to have a face to match for many of those.

That's work and the same opportunities are afforded to men. 

What are your thoughts on the OP? Do you think that the civil actions of alienation of affections and criminal conversation should be abolished?

[Syne]

Who said ANYTHING about resenting minorities? O_o
I seriously hope that's not parapraxis.

No. The point I’m trying to make is that it’s important for people to realize that we don’t live in a meritocratic society. Believing in meritocracy makes it easier to overlook subconscious biases.

"Not everyone gets what they deserve. And not everyone deserves what they get."

People who resent others for doing better do get what they deserve, because it is their attitude that is the limiting belief that keeps them where they are. Same goes for people who expect a hand out in lieu of personal hard work. Not believing in merit is an excuse for limiting beliefs that lead to actual suffering.

But speaking of subconscious bias, did you ever sack-up and take more implicit bias tests? O_o
Maybe you should refrain from getting sanctimonious about it until you do.

Meritocracy means that ANYONE can improve their own life...a very egalitarian notion. To presume that race or gender can be an inherent or insurmountable impediment is bigoted.

Modeling, Instagram, exotic dancing, etc..
But you have to have a face to match for many of those.

That's work and the same opportunities are afforded to men. 

You're delusional if you think men have even remotely the same opportunities to make money from their looks alone. Women generally do not pay to look at men. Many men pay to look at relatively average women.

What are your thought on the OP? Do you think that the civil actions of alienation of affections and criminal conversation should be abolished?

Silly and antiquated notion.

[Secular Sanity]

Meritocracy means that ANYONE can improve their own life...a very egalitarian notion.

It’s a protestant ideology that may at times encourage and foster the perception that outcomes correspond with the effort of the individual, but do you really think that we live in a system in which people advance and are chosen solely on the basis of their achievements, or that we all come from a similar background? No. Opportunity, circumstances, and luck are major factors. You’re delusional if you think they’re not.

"If you have a society where people genuinely believe that those at the top deserve their success — because they've worked hard, because they're clever etc. — you almost have to believe that those at the bottom deserve their failure"—Alain De Botton

You're delusional if you think men have even remotely the same opportunities to make money from their looks alone. Women generally do not pay to look at men. Many men pay to look at relatively average women.

There are women that don’t like people to stare at them.  They don’t like people commenting on their appearance. They don’t like being approached.  I am one them and I really-really don’t like it when people think sex is all that we have to offer. You’re delusional if you think it’s a walk in the park.

[Syne]

Meritocracy means that ANYONE can improve their own life...a very egalitarian notion.

It’s a protestant ideology that may at times encourage and foster the perception that outcomes correspond with the effort of the individual, but do you really think that we live in a system in which people advance and are chosen solely on the basis of their achievements, or that we all come from a similar background? No. Opportunity, circumstances, and luck are major factors. You’re delusional if you think they’re not.

"If you have a society where people genuinely believe that those at the top deserve their success — because they've worked hard, because they're clever etc. — you almost have to believe that those at the bottom deserve their failure"—Alain De Botton

It's also a Buddhist philosophy.

“When he is doing evil, the fool does not realize it. The idiot is punished by his own deeds, like one is scorched by fire.”
- Buddhist, Dhammapada – Sayings of the Buddha 1

As well as the basic scientific principle of cause and effect.

Outcomes are largely dependent on effort. And this is demonstrated by people from the exact same background having wildly disparate results. Opportunity, circumstances, and luck are all largely a matter of outlook and attitude. People deserve their failure because they actively choose their failure. They just can't stand the idea that they have that much responsibility for their own lives. Only misguided overly-emotional sympathies or simpatico justifications would lead one to think otherwise.

"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability." - As Good as It Gets (1997)

You're delusional if you think men have even remotely the same opportunities to make money from their looks alone. Women generally do not pay to look at men. Many men pay to look at relatively average women.

There are women that don’t like people to stare at them.  They don’t like people commenting on their appearance. They don’t like being approached.  I am one them and I really-really don’t like it when people think sex is all that we have to offer. You’re delusional if you think it’s a walk in the park.

Yes, there are many emotionally damaged people, who can't stand normal social behaviors and interactions. It's that emotional damage that leads such people to believe that "people think sex is all [they] have to offer". Their delusion is what makes their life less than a "walk in the park".

People are always best at lying to themselves, and they will go to any lengths to justify their own behavior.

[Secular Sanity]

Yes, there are many emotionally damaged people, who can't stand normal social behaviors and interactions. It's that emotional damage that leads such people to believe that "people think sex is all [they] have to offer". Their delusion is what makes their life less than a "walk in the park".

You're the one that said that we were viewed as a cost and that sex was what motivates you to tolerate us. 

Only an emotionally damaged person wouldn't like unsolicited attention, is that it? 

I don't have the patience for you anymore.

[Syne]

Yes, there are many emotionally damaged people, who can't stand normal social behaviors and interactions. It's that emotional damage that leads such people to believe that "people think sex is all [they] have to offer". Their delusion is what makes their life less than a "walk in the park".

You're the one that said that we were viewed as a cost and that sex was what motivates you to tolerate us. 

"Cost"? Where? O_o
Sex is ONE motivation to make up for a disparity of value offered.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/9u0-o0fNORg

The only "cost" involved is perhaps the opportunity cost, since there is not really any cost to a voluntary exchange (win/win).

Only an emotionally damaged person wouldn't like unsolicited attention, is that it? 

Yes, only damaged people would find the freedom of others to be discomforting. It's a bad coping strategy to blame others for one's own reaction.
We're learning a lot about you today.  

I don't have the patience for you anymore.

Which explains why you're begging off.

---

What are your thought on the OP? Do you think that the civil actions of alienation of affections and criminal conversation should be abolished?

Silly and antiquated notion.

Were you expecting something else? O_o

---

It’s a protestant ideology that may at times encourage and foster the perception that outcomes correspond with the effort of the individual, but do you really think that we live in a system in which people advance and are chosen solely on the basis of their achievements, or that we all come from a similar background? No. Opportunity, circumstances, and luck are major factors. You’re delusional if you think they’re not.

"If you have a society where people genuinely believe that those at the top deserve their success — because they've worked hard, because they're clever etc. — you almost have to believe that those at the bottom deserve their failure"—Alain De Botton

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/nDsoyyJn1jU