LawTalkers - A fashion board in which sometimes we'll remember to post spoiler warnings

There's nothing really to discuss because as I said in my prior post, it's an emotional thing. Everyone has hot button issues where your position isn't something you can debate logically. Cheating is one of mine because it's about trust and I have trust issues. So for me cheating isn't just "mean and I don't like it;" cheating is loathesome and I hate it.

You'd think TM could understand a good rant.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

04-14-2009 12:50 PM

Re: Okay, I need an explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 386851)

I'm with you in theory, really. But you understand, that's not how our society works. We are in a "compensation" society. Maximization of redress for the "victimized" is literally - in the law books, written into the fiber of our legal system via things like joint and several liability - paramount to all other concerns.

Our fucked-up, childish, no assumption of the risk society long ago weighed the issues of equity you describe against the issues of forcing a spouse back into the workplace to fend for him or herself and determined that maintenance and protection of the weaker party trumped fairness.

The breadwinning spouse's protection and rights are simply deemed less important. Call it socialist, call it tort-lawyer thinking run amuck in the domestic arena... It's there, and it's not changing.

Get me some blues recommendations.

ThurgreedMarshall

04-14-2009 12:51 PM

Re: Okay, I need an explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 386859)

So for me cheating isn't just "mean and I don't like it;" cheating is loathesome and I hate it.

Ha! Truly a distinction without meaning.

TM

Did you just call me Coltrane?

04-14-2009 12:54 PM

Re: Okay, I need an explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 386848)

In a lot of cases, cheating's the fault of the cheated-on. To be coarse about it, because that's how I prefer to be, if the fucking at home's solid, the natural need to look elsewhere is deeply compromised.

Some of the cheaters I know - men and women - are simple volume operators, addicted to the thrill of "the strange." But they're the exception to the rule. Most aren't enjoying the relationship at home, and that's usually both parties' fault. We give the cheated-on a pass because they have the built in victim stance. I'm not sure that's fair at all. People need to enjoy being with their spouse, and they need to be excited and fucked regularly, and well. If a spouse doesn't do that and consequently, the man or woman they're with cheats on them, the spouse is at fault, too.

No man would cheat if he came home to a woman as enthusiastic as this:

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f2...8851361181.gif

sebastian_dangerfield

04-14-2009 12:55 PM

Re: Okay, I need an explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 386856)

Uh...I would have thought that you would understand a rant when you heard one. But thanks for letting me know that these outmoded laws are set, even though that's pretty much the focus of the rant.

TM

I thought you would have understood my soapbox preaching when you saw it and ignored that post.

I will never give up an easy chance to flip off a Randian rant.

ThurgreedMarshall

04-14-2009 12:55 PM

Re: Okay, I need an explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 386860)

You'd think TM could understand a good rant.

I don't think you've ever said anything funny. I suppose I could rant about that for awhile.

Being firmly behind anyone grabbing as much as they can from someone else in a divorce because the other party cheated, whether it's a million or a billion dollars, isn't really a rant. And it's this type of attitude that allows people who don't deserve it to get way, way, way too much in lots of divorce cases where the law should be the only deciding factor.

TM

sebastian_dangerfield

04-14-2009 12:57 PM

Re: Okay, I need an explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 386861)

Get me some blues recommendations.

I don't have any. Buddy Guy's entire catalog? You can't go wrong anywhere in it, but I assume you already burned through it based on what you wrote.

Hendrix's "Blues" is a good way to bridge back to rock, which is where you'll return when you're sick of straight blues.

sebastian_dangerfield

04-14-2009 12:59 PM

Re: Okay, I need an explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 386865)

I thought you just said it was a rant. I've no quibble with the jumping genres thing, but ranting on top of ranting, then ranting about not having been ranting when accused of not ranting is ranting I can't abide.

ThurgreedMarshall

04-14-2009 01:03 PM

Re: Okay, I need an explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 386867)

I don't think you understand the last post, but it's not worth explaining.

TM

catrin_darcy

04-14-2009 01:05 PM

Re: Okay, I need an explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1436 (Post 386839)

Never having been divorced my understanding of my own state's laws* is a bit weak, but my general take is that Cali is the only state where you have community property AND spousal support is common. Mel should have moved the family long ago. For religious reasons, of course.

*My limited understanding is that in Texas we have community property, generous child support and a very steep hill to climb for spousal support. It seems to work pretty well in most cases. Everyone bitches about it, which seems a true sign that the system works.

My limited understanding is that this is how is actually works 98% of the time in California, too. I don't think California is really an outlier. The fact that Gibson's wife is seeking spousal support doesn't mean she'll get a penny of it.

sebastian_dangerfield

04-14-2009 01:07 PM

Re: Okay, I need an explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 386859)

Everyone has hot button issues where your position isn't something you can debate logically.

I don't agree with this. Even the things I dislike, and lord knows the list stretches on for galaxies, I feel a need to at least attempt to address rationally. You cannot pick a subject and say, "I cannot debate this rationally." I mean, you can, as it's a free country and all, but doing that should never be condoned. I listened to a cousin debate the bible with my well-sauced wife over Easter and inevitably, the issue came down to, "Well, this is faith, a matter of belief, and I cannot debate this coolly." Nonsense. She should be damned well ready to debate it coolly and logically, as we are rational people, and that is what rational people do.

I realize coming from me this sounds utterly absurd, but if you look back on my history of overheated ravings, you'll note a consistently rational thread buried in the hyperbole. I've thought long and hard about why I dislike the things I do.

Fugee

04-14-2009 01:08 PM

Blues

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 386861)

Get me some blues recommendations.

I almost forgot about this.

I really like Tinsley Ellis. He's newer than the classics but has a track record. I've been on a music-buying moratorium for awhile so I don't have his more recent ones, but here is the Amazon listings for him: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_m?...=tinsley+ellis

Is Stevie Ray Vaughan what you consider classics? You need to check out him and his brother Jimmy. This is my favorite Jimmy: http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Pleasu...9728233&sr=1-8 and I like this older one with the brothers together: http://www.amazon.com/Family-Style-V...9728233&sr=1-4 Steve Ray had lots of good stuff before he died.

And I can't leave out our local boy Jonny Lang. His last couple albums have been gospel so you might not like them but he plays a mean blues guitar.

As you may guess, I prefer blues guitarists with the vocals more secondaryto the guitar playing. I recently discovered a young Brit named Dani Wilde. She's got promise but her voice is still a bit screechy for me.

catrin_darcy

04-14-2009 01:12 PM

Re: Thurgreed Sings the Blues

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 386834)

I am on a bit of a blues kick over the last couple of weeks, but have run through (repeatedly) many of my classics. Anyone have suggestions for some underappreciated Blues artists? Especially contemporary ones?

Go to www.pandora.com, create a B.B. King station, and buy anything you hear on there that you like that you don't already have.

I have also been meaning to get "10 Days Out - Blues from the Backroads" (Kenny Wayne Shepherd's recent project) for some time, but it hasn't yet made it off my wish list. Shepherd's older stuff is good -- "Ledbetter Heights" etc. -- but a lot of vocals, so if you don't like vocals, probably better to avoid it.

Adder

04-14-2009 01:13 PM

Re: Okay, I need an explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 386870)

She should be damned well ready to debate it coolly and logically, as we are rational people, and that is what rational people do.

Wasn't your cousin disclaiming raionality by invoking faith?

sebastian_dangerfield

04-14-2009 01:16 PM

Re: Okay, I need an explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 386868)