this is a great thread ! ! !
Toxicity
- Thread starter Jewels-PiXie
- Start date
it would be better
if
you just answered the question
and
the answer is yes
it is a good thing for the mother to stay home with the kids
and
society should encourage this
the question was
who should get his social security?
and
the answer that you are avoiding
is
she should get his social security
because
she stayed home to take care of the kids
noguru
Well-known member
Is Social Security the only form of income people get? Is it even a substantial amount compared to other forms? Will you even have it when you retire?
Your myopic question might sooth your ego, but it is of no avail to a person with a broader view of reality.
How old are you?
I am not avoiding your *narrow* question, but rather expanding on it. In your little world, you pretend that that is ALWAYS an option. It isn't.
Society should encourage MUTUAL RESPECT. Apparently you do not understand that "The Stepford Wives" was only a movie.
noguru
Well-known member
He is being purposely stubborn now. He usually does this when backed into a corner with clear logic. It is typical behavior for immature individuals.
He will not consider the other side and/or where he is wrong, so any future discussion with him is an exercise in futility. Impossible people are often factually challenged on the issue which they make difficult. In the end he only does himself a disservice. Reasonable people will just pick up and move on, leaving his train wreck behind, for a chance at clearly understanding reality.
This is know ... he likes to pretend that the *other gender* is responsible for everything that is wrong with the world.
He makes the leap that the only reason to marry is to have children and that every couple will have children.
noguru
Well-known member
It does not even matter if children are involved. Anyone who is even partially aware of fiscal reality knows that social security is not the only, nor a sufficient, or perhaps not even a future possibility for income to live and raise children. As soon as he admits this his argument is a moot point. So he has now become entrenched on this point, entrenched to the point of absurdity. There are many sources of income that need to be factored in, that is why child support and alimony are the way spouses collect from exes for themselves and their children. His stubborn refusal to admit this just makes him look like an idiot.
Indeed. A mother with young children could not support herself and her child/children on social security. She is no different than any other single parent.
noguru
Well-known member
Perhaps he is referring to a woman that is at retirement age and no longer has to support children. That might be the point he is making. But remedying that by not allowing divorce seems to be an inept and unworkable solution in a pluralistic free society. And a woman who chooses to not have a profession other than raising children ought to be aware of the risks involved. To make sweeping generalized law prohibiting divorce to accommodate such a narrow scenario is absurd on its face.
just wanted to capture this before you changed it
noguru
Well-known member
Why would I change it? It is honestly how I see it. If you would like to offer accurate correction, I would welcome that.
noguru
Well-known member
Earth to Chrystosom!
Your real example is myopic!
Your question was answered, you are just too stubborn to see that.
She can get his social security even if they divorce if she was married to him for at least 10 years.
http://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourdivspouse.html
Foxfire
Well-known member
Sage advice.
Ah, a rookie. Well, time will edit that one out for you.
Foxfire
Well-known member
Was a content specific comment.
