General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:28 am
I think every case will be different and no set standard can be used. Some single father can and do parent better than their ex and it is to the courts to evaluate each case on it's own facts and merits of the participants with the child in mind. It is the real victim of divorce.
That is not close to response to everything you and I brought up. Please stop abandoning your stances without even acknowledging the shift and start discussing your position because at this rate I'm just going to focus my attention elsewhere.
I'm glad you're in favor of equal treatment under the law in divorce cases.
I did not think I was abandoning a stance as you state.
Perhaps a more specific question would bring you a more specific answer.
I am also French so do allow some leeway in our understanding of each others concerns.
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:57 am
I did not think I was abandoning a stance as you state.
Perhaps a more specific question would bring you a more specific answer.
I am also French so do allow some leeway in our understanding of each others concerns.
Regards
DL
First you say you support different legal treatment for men on the one hand and women and children on the other, then you swap position without any explanation. Then you respond to only a fraction of my previous comment where I'm trying to figure out what you're saying.
Please read my previous comment and respond to it in its entirety!
PS: I'll try to keep the language barrier in mind.
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:57 am
I did not think I was abandoning a stance as you state.
Perhaps a more specific question would bring you a more specific answer.
I am also French so do allow some leeway in our understanding of each others concerns.
Regards
DL
First you say you support different legal treatment for men on the one hand and women and children on the other, then you swap position without any explanation. Then you respond to only a fraction of my previous comment where I'm trying to figure out what you're saying.
Please read my previous comment and respond to it in its entirety!
PS: I'll try to keep the language barrier in mind.
Quotes or direct questions are good.
I do not see where you get that I support a different legal treatment for men. I do not.
Equality under the law is where I sit.
I do expand on my view that men should put women and children above us, regardless of the law, do to our duty to the family and the honor of doing so.
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:10 pm
Do you believe in equality under the law for women, children and gays?
I do for gays but not for women and children.
There should only be one law for all.
So you believe men, women and children should be treated equally by law. Got it.
This is where you change your position. First you say:
'I don't believe in equality under the law for women and children.' (edited for brevity)
Then later you say:
'There should only be one law for all.'
Did you just make a mistake when you were writing down your position?
When it comes to women and children, I think men are duty bound to put family duty and responsibilities above themselves and thus men should not consider themselves as equal to women and children. Men should put the needs of women and children ahead of their own.
Here you're not referring to legal inequality but rather a social or informal inequality where society should still effectively treat adult men and the others differently, specifically: adult men should (generally? always?) put the needs of the others ahead of their own. Why should they do that? You say this:
Think in terms of the good logic of the law of the sea and it being applied to land.
but I don't know what the 'law of the sea' means applied to this context. What do you mean by it? Why is it morally better to organize things in this way when compared to the alternatives?
And there's everything else.
Last edited by Commissaris on Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks for allowing me to try to be more clear in my position.
The law of the sea says that by law, men and our wants and needs take a back seat to children first, and women second.
The strong, in a sense, are to place the weaker of us ahead of the strong.
The equality laws on land, and I am thinking divorce here, places children first then give equality under the law to men and women.
I am of the opinion that women make better single parents than men, generally speaking, even as I recognize that there are exceptions to this general view.
I think that judges might agree, generally, as most children in divorce cases end with mothers.
I also think that having the law of the sea apply on land might be better psychologically for men as then they would place the needs of children and women ahead of themselves in a more automatic way.
This, I think, would make it a lot easier for those who have to use family law to resolve turmoil or conflict and would create a better environment for the children as well as the women.
This men putting women and children ahead of men is to follow natural laws better than to think that men should be above children and women.
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:10 pm
Men should put the needs of women.... ahead of their own.
I don't agree with this, I think equality can mean equal needs.
It may make sense to give women's needs slightly more consideration in slightly sexist societies (e.g. US, UK), to give women a little more benefits to compensate for the fact that they have to struggle more to achieve the same. For example, does it make sense for a man to offer to pay slightly more of the household costs (rent, bills setc) because women on average are earning 5-20% less salary because of discrimination? I am not sure. Maybe.
Regarding the point that are women are on average physically weaker, it's possible that they are on avearge intellectually superior or less destructive in other ways. Regarding examples of physical strength, it's likely there are other examples where men hold women back, e.g. because of greater likelihood of destructive urges of poor communication skills.
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:10 pm
Men should put the needs of women.... ahead of their own.
I don't agree with this, I think equality can mean equal needs.
It may make sense to give women's needs slightly more consideration in slightly sexist societies (e.g. US, UK), to give women a little more benefits to compensate for the fact that they have to struggle more to achieve the same. For example, does it make sense for a man to offer to pay slightly more of the household costs (rent, bills setc) because women on average are earning 5-20% less salary because of discrimination? I am not sure. Maybe.
Regarding the point that are women are on average physically weaker, it's possible that they are on avearge intellectually superior or less destructive in other ways. Regarding examples of physical strength, it's likely there are other examples where men hold women back, e.g. because of greater likelihood of destructive urges or poor communication skills.
Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:10 pm
Men should put the needs of women.... ahead of their own.
I don't agree with this, I think equality can mean equal needs.
It may make sense to give women's needs slightly more consideration in slightly sexist societies (e.g. US, UK), to give women a little more benefits to compensate for the fact that they have to struggle more to achieve the same. For example, does it make sense for a man to offer to pay slightly more of the household costs (rent, bills setc) because women on average are earning 5-20% less salary because of discrimination? I am not sure. Maybe.
Regarding the point that are women are on average physically weaker, it's possible that they are on avearge intellectually superior or less destructive in other ways. Regarding examples of physical strength, it's likely there are other examples where men hold women back, e.g. because of greater likelihood of destructive urges of poor communication skills.
To argue against you, I would be splitting hairs and I will not do so as we are close enough. You are thinking of these things in an intelligent way. I am quite happy to let you continue to ponder these issues.
