Poll on Marriage and the Secularization of it

[Symmetry]

@Scotty, viewing marriage as an ecclesiastical issue kind of demands the question- which clergy?

[Woodruff]

The secularization of marriage is DIRECTLY responsible for the breakdown in African American families overall.

Explain, please.

Heh. That's so cute.

[Woodruff]

As well, that situation wasn't caused by government intervention, but rather by societal acceptance of divorce.

as i understand the big change USA made in the middle 20th century was introducing a 'no blame' divorce - it was then possible to divorce just because you feel like it, there is no need to prove infidelity, spouse abuse or that the marriage was never real. so marriage is no longer a lifelong commitment but something that can be undone in 5 years if you think it was a mistake. this makes it less grave and easier to rush in to.

but yes obviously society still need to become more accepting for a lot of people to feel like it is o.k. to divorce. i guess both things are a factor ^.^

I was actually thinking specifically of the "no fault divorce" in my reference to society's acceptance.

[Baron Von PWN]

Secularisation is a boon to Christianity. Having spoken to a fair few Christian members of this forum, the main point that comes through is that there is no central Christian viewpoint that is opposed to secularism, which of course is about keeping a central viewpoint out of control.

That's why i find it strange that so many Christians oppose secularism. It's the system that allows their particular branch of Christianity to flourish. It's one of the founding principles of the Pilgrims.

Puritans didn't make the crossing because the crown was intolerant to Christian belief, they felt that their brand of Christianity wasn't tolerated, where other types of Christianity were. And in some cases, where some brands of Christianity were tolerated too far (see anti-Catholicism).

Possible short-term boom... ultimately followed by a collapse of religion as we know it.

Maybe, but then again i don't know if religion as you know it is the same as religion as I know it. I do know enough to call BS on the folks who think Christianity is an indivisible set of beliefs.

D1G. for example, presumably doesn't want Greek Orthodox Christianity to be a ruling force of government when he decries the secularist principles that keep Christianity out of government.

Nor, hopefully, would he espouse the Russian Christian church who's head declared that Vladimir Putin was chosen by God to be a leader.

I certainly hope he hasn't gone so catholic (small c) as to embrace the Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church.

some nit pickery. That would be the Russian Orthodox church to you.



ole Kirill is just keeping up a long Russian orthodox tradition of popping up the guy in the Kremlin who pays sufficient lip service to the church. They be kickin it old schoo, tsarist style!

Fair point- Russian Orthodox is right. Kirill is really going after the Pussy Riot girls at the mo for their protest against Putin.

To be fair to Kirill he doese have a "legitimate" religious reason to be pissed off with the pussy riot ladies. They ran into an orthodox church in their pop outfits(women are supposed to cover their hair dress modestly in an orthodox church) and then preformed a pop/punk song on the altar, a place where women aren't even supposed to go under orthodox traditions.

So while political motive is certainly playing a big role, even without the anti-Putin message the church would be hella pissed off.

[Symmetry]

Secularisation is a boon to Christianity. Having spoken to a fair few Christian members of this forum, the main point that comes through is that there is no central Christian viewpoint that is opposed to secularism, which of course is about keeping a central viewpoint out of control.

That's why i find it strange that so many Christians oppose secularism. It's the system that allows their particular branch of Christianity to flourish. It's one of the founding principles of the Pilgrims.

Puritans didn't make the crossing because the crown was intolerant to Christian belief, they felt that their brand of Christianity wasn't tolerated, where other types of Christianity were. And in some cases, where some brands of Christianity were tolerated too far (see anti-Catholicism).

Possible short-term boom... ultimately followed by a collapse of religion as we know it.

Maybe, but then again i don't know if religion as you know it is the same as religion as I know it. I do know enough to call BS on the folks who think Christianity is an indivisible set of beliefs.

D1G. for example, presumably doesn't want Greek Orthodox Christianity to be a ruling force of government when he decries the secularist principles that keep Christianity out of government.

Nor, hopefully, would he espouse the Russian Christian church who's head declared that Vladimir Putin was chosen by God to be a leader.

I certainly hope he hasn't gone so catholic (small c) as to embrace the Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church.

some nit pickery. That would be the Russian Orthodox church to you.



ole Kirill is just keeping up a long Russian orthodox tradition of popping up the guy in the Kremlin who pays sufficient lip service to the church. They be kickin it old schoo, tsarist style!

Fair point- Russian Orthodox is right. Kirill is really going after the Pussy Riot girls at the mo for their protest against Putin.

To be fair to Kirill he doese have a "legitimate" religious reason to be pissed off with the pussy riot ladies. They ran into an orthodox church in their pop outfits(women are supposed to cover their hair dress modestly in an orthodox church) and then preformed a pop/punk song on the altar, a place where women aren't even supposed to go under orthodox traditions.

So while political motive is certainly playing a big role, even without the anti-Putin message the church would be hella pissed off.

As I understand it, charges were only filed after a video went up on youtube. Nobody at the time was particularly bothered enough to consider it a crime.

I get your point, but it seems like the issue of sacrilege was secondary to the primary problem of protest.

[PLAYER57832]

an increased number of people who don't take the vows of marriage seriously

but maybe they do not take it as serious because they know that now if they get bored it is very easy to leave the marriage. whereas before they would have to be much more serious because they knew that if they got married they would be committing for life.

People are no longer committed for life mostly because they don't HAVE to be. In the "old days" just living was pretty much a fulltime occupation. A woman, alone had a very hard time taking care of kids and collecting enough resources to sustain them. Having a partner was very critical. Society continued that structure for a long time, codified it, but the basis was pure survival. This is one reason why the elite classes so often were wont to not follow those "guidelines" (to have mistresses, affairs, etc.).

Governmentally, the primary reason for marriage and marriage recognition was property and inheritances. In days when genetic testing was not possible, marriage was the way children were recognized, often (though not always) the only way, or at least the only legal way.

Both requirements are now gone. Today, people marry for the at once more tenuous, but also stronger reason of "relationship". It was easy for the government to set kinship and inheritance. Its not so easy for any government to decide "relationships".

[BigBallinStalin]

In my serious view, the increased divorce rate (which I presume is what you're getting at) is caused 100% by an increased number of people who don't take the vows of marriage seriously. It has nothing at all to do with government intervention, rather it has to do with people wanting the easy way out and not taking the time to work at something as hard as they need to in order to be successful.

So my view is "no change".

Well, I disagree with the 100% claim although seriousness/attitudes on marriage does play a significant role.

Some of that 100% is due to subsidies offered to single-parent mothers. In other words, for some it may be more profitable to not marry and instead collect the tax credits for being a single mother. Of course, this profit-motive provided by state intervention isn't the only factor, but it is a factor which undermines the monetary and mental profit of remaining married (or seeking marriage).

You got proof of this bbs? Not everyone bases their decisions on how money they will make or lose. Problem with this economic view is that you assume everyone makes a decision based on a $.

I'm not assuming that because I do think attitudes matter, and how people value money over mental profit. I already stated that, but apparently you didn't read that for whatever reason.

You'd be surprised at how influential prices can be on people's behavior. If gas was $0.10 per gallon, would you expect more people to be driving around? Would you expect an influx in less fuel-efficient cars? If you received a tax credit of $100,000 for every time you painted something, would you be more likely to paint more? Or less likely? What do you think?


People make decisions on how much money they will make or lose in relation to the opportunity costs, and how they perceive the benefits. Prices matter, but the lens through which someone views value will change the value of any price.

Granted, I'm not saying that the above incentives are 100% responsible for the outcome. I've been saying they're responsible to some portion, whatever degree that may be. It's as of now unknown. But certainly, we can agree that "the increased divorce rate is NOT caused 100% by an increased number of people who don't take the vows of marriage seriously."

Tax credits matter.

[BigBallinStalin]

In my serious view, the increased divorce rate (which I presume is what you're getting at) is caused 100% by an increased number of people who don't take the vows of marriage seriously. It has nothing at all to do with government intervention, rather it has to do with people wanting the easy way out and not taking the time to work at something as hard as they need to in order to be successful.

So my view is "no change".

Well, I disagree with the 100% claim although seriousness/attitudes on marriage does play a significant role.

Some of that 100% is due to subsidies offered to single-parent mothers. In other words, for some it may be more profitable to not marry and instead collect the tax credits for being a single mother. Of course, this profit-motive provided by state intervention isn't the only factor, but it is a factor which undermines the monetary and mental profit of remaining married (or seeking marriage).

Somehow I don't think you've ever brought up kids on government handouts.
It's not a well-paid job.

For some people, it pays enough in relation to working harder, thus earning more than the poverty line, and then losing all the welfare benefits by doing so.

[BigBallinStalin]

The secularization of marriage is DIRECTLY responsible for the breakdown in African American families overall.

If you don't say what you mean by "securalization," then useful discussion will remain at a standstill.


Sure, government has been involved via the legal system through legislation in delineating the rights of both parties in any marriage/divorce, but common law (without state intervention) has played a role in the legality of marriage as well, so do you wish to criticize specific laws/cases on marriage?

For example, at what time would you say that this problem began? The multis Specific users have mentioned times in the past where marriage laws, which were arguably less secularized, actually resulted in the disenfranchisement of women, so do you wish to state that those times were optimal?

They have a point. Some women were imprisoned by marriage. Some men were and are still as well .

What I mean by secularization is the removal of marriage as an ecclesiastical issue. The simpler way to say it is, the government built an exoskeleton of so many benefits and privileges around marriage that the meaning of marriage has been eroded into a paper contract. I have to start pointing out, no, this does not mean every single marriage, just more and more marriage turn out to be shams and less and less thought it being put into marriage and family planning that we should not be surprised about the divorce rate at around 48% and children born into wedlock is as high as 70% in some cases.

I like a lot of the over conversation in this thread as well. People are bringing up some awesome points!

Marriages have been treated like informal contracts for thousands of years by many religions through their laws regarding dowry, so I don't think the problem is that marriage is becoming more like a paper contract--because it has been for quite some time (but it was more of an informal contract).

However, state-granted benefits and privileges to married couples over single (yet dating) couples has affected the idea of marriage to many people. I'm just not so sure how much it affects their concept of marriage... and if the effects are bad.

Could you list some examples to expand on that point?

[Pope Joan]

Secularisation is a boon to Christianity. Having spoken to a fair few Christian members of this forum, the main point that comes through is that there is no central Christian viewpoint that is opposed to secularism, which of course is about keeping a central viewpoint out of control.

That's why i find it strange that so many Christians oppose secularism. It's the system that allows their particular branch of Christianity to flourish. It's one of the founding principles of the Pilgrims.

Puritans didn't make the crossing because the crown was intolerant to Christian belief, they felt that their brand of Christianity wasn't tolerated, where other types of Christianity were. And in some cases, where some brands of Christianity were tolerated too far (see anti-Catholicism).

Possible short-term boom... ultimately followed by a collapse of religion as we know it.

Maybe, but then again i don't know if religion as you know it is the same as religion as I know it. I do know enough to call BS on the folks who think Christianity is an indivisible set of beliefs.

D1G. for example, presumably doesn't want Greek Orthodox Christianity to be a ruling force of government when he decries the secularist principles that keep Christianity out of government.

Nor, hopefully, would he espouse the Russian Christian church who's head declared that Vladimir Putin was chosen by God to be a leader.

I certainly hope he hasn't gone so catholic (small c) as to embrace the Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church.

some nit pickery. That would be the Russian Orthodox church to you.



ole Kirill is just keeping up a long Russian orthodox tradition of popping up the guy in the Kremlin who pays sufficient lip service to the church. They be kickin it old schoo, tsarist style!

Fair point- Russian Orthodox is right. Kirill is really going after the Pussy Riot girls at the mo for their protest against Putin.

To be fair to Kirill he doese have a "legitimate" religious reason to be pissed off with the pussy riot ladies. They ran into an orthodox church in their pop outfits(women are supposed to cover their hair dress modestly in an orthodox church) and then preformed a pop/punk song on the altar, a place where women aren't even supposed to go under orthodox traditions.

So while political motive is certainly playing a big role, even without the anti-Putin message the church would be hella pissed off.

To be fair, Mr. Kirill Gundyaev could go and get pissed in his hellhole with whatever... which should not be a legitimate reason to send anyone to prison

BTW, they did not go into the altar: they stayed on the ambon... and their heads were covered... and I have not understood whether the song was actually performed or put on video later...

[GutTruck]

The secularization of marriage is DIRECTLY responsible for the breakdown in African American families overall.

Since the 60's, supposedly held as the birth of the civil rights movement and championed by the Democrats, African Americans born out of wedlock have risen from 20% pre-secularization to over 70% today, post-secularization. And this is just one area where the failure is obvious.

Despite all their demands to redistribute the wealth, and all their guilt trips based on compassion for a philosophy that obviously made things much worse, and after tens of trillions of dollars have been redistributed, the poverty rate has NEVER fell, and actually increased at times.




Can we finally demand Democrats are held accountable for their track record? And that track record is a complete failure.

How about the men are just pieces of s**t that choose to not take care of their responsibilities. Men who sleep with women without one iota of care for the consequences and then choose not to take care of the child are the reason for the broken homes. Place the blame where it belongs. I am the proud father of 4 children who's fathers chose not to take care of their business. I also have 2 children of my own their home is not broken because I didn't shirk my responsibility

[Baron Von PWN]

To be fair, Mr. Kirill Gundyaev could go and get pissed in his hellhole with whatever... which should not be a legitimate reason to send anyone to prison

BTW, they did not go into the altar: they stayed on the ambon... and their heads were covered... and I have not understood whether the song was actually performed or put on video later...

I agree the sentence is rather outrageous. I also don't really care what Kiril or any other religious group gets pissed about.

I stand corrected on where the performance was done inside the church.

However even in the west if you barge uninvited into a place of worship and preform an impromptu punk concert profanity and all. You're bound to be in some trouble. Certainly not 2 years in jail trouble, but there would be consequences.

[Pope Joan]

To be fair, Mr. Kirill Gundyaev could go and get pissed in his hellhole with whatever... which should not be a legitimate reason to send anyone to prison

BTW, they did not go into the altar: they stayed on the ambon... and their heads were covered... and I have not understood whether the song was actually performed or put on video later...

I agree the sentence is rather outrageous. I also don't really care what Kiril or any other religious group gets pissed about.

I stand corrected on where the performance was done inside the church.

However even in the west if you barge uninvited into a place of worship and preform an impromptu punk concert profanity and all. You're bound to be in some trouble. Certainly not 2 years in jail trouble, but there would be consequences.

I am not sure what "the west", especially in this context, is. I watched http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/red_state/ yesterday and I am pretty sure the good folks of the Five Points Trinity Church would teach any punks a very good lesson indeed

IMHO, the outrageous thing here is the lack of rule of law in Russia. As Russia is a civic law country, the court needed to decide on a specific point, whether the action contained religious hatred. If it did, then the sentence itself was reasonable. From what I have read, there were 3 expert opinions, 2 saying NO, and 1 YES but the latter had some procedural irregularities. None of the experts testified in court. Hence, the court's decision is at least groundless and at worst malicious.

[PLAYER57832]

In my serious view, the increased divorce rate (which I presume is what you're getting at) is caused 100% by an increased number of people who don't take the vows of marriage seriously. It has nothing at all to do with government intervention, rather it has to do with people wanting the easy way out and not taking the time to work at something as hard as they need to in order to be successful.

So my view is "no change".

Well, I disagree with the 100% claim although seriousness/attitudes on marriage does play a significant role.

Some of that 100% is due to subsidies offered to single-parent mothers. In other words, for some it may be more profitable to not marry and instead collect the tax credits for being a single mother. Of course, this profit-motive provided by state intervention isn't the only factor, but it is a factor which undermines the monetary and mental profit of remaining married (or seeking marriage).

You got proof of this bbs? Not everyone bases their decisions on how money they will make or lose. Problem with this economic view is that you assume everyone makes a decision based on a $.

I'm not assuming that because I do think attitudes matter, and how people value money over mental profit. I already stated that, but apparently you didn't read that for whatever reason.

You'd be surprised at how influential prices can be on people's behavior. If gas was $0.10 per gallon, would you expect more people to be driving around? Would you expect an influx in less fuel-efficient cars? If you received a tax credit of $100,000 for every time you painted something, would you be more likely to paint more? Or less likely? What do you think?


People make decisions on how much money they will make or lose in relation to the opportunity costs, and how they perceive the benefits. Prices matter, but the lens through which someone views value will change the value of any price.

Granted, I'm not saying that the above incentives are 100% responsible for the outcome. I've been saying they're responsible to some portion, whatever degree that may be. It's as of now unknown. But certainly, we can agree that "the increased divorce rate is NOT caused 100% by an increased number of people who don't take the vows of marriage seriously."

Tax credits matter.

BBS while I don't dispute your facts, I DO dispute how that course of events happened and why the immediate fix is not to just cut out tax breaks.

I have spoken on this before, but the real issue here is not so much tax credits as the way welfare/AFDC is administered historically. Recognize that at the time welfare was implemented, a big reason was precisely because the idea of single women, particularly war widows (WWII being a recent event) having to go out and work to support their kids was considered horrible. There was no requirement to work because women were "not supposed to work".. except for the lowest classes (who, per "standard society" standards), "just did not really count". A woman who cleaned houses or took care of other people's kids was "respectable" to some extent (just not of a "class that counted", but women who waitressed and the like were just not).

The onus was on making sure that these women were not "cheating" by having a man who would actually support them. In a time when many black men could not GET a decent job (in the Pittsburgh steel mills, for example, while paid very well by white standards, all blacks, no matter how educated, were paid less than the whites and relegated to the most dangerous and difficult jobs -- and those were among the "best" jobs available for any black male at the time), plus the fact that many men were arrested for the "crime" of "being black" back then and a lot of women did "elect" to stay single. Add in that many discovered they did not necessarily like to live under the "traditional standards" of male domination back then and you had large groups of strong, independent women raising their kids essentially alone.

So, society changed, but the rules did not change.. and what was considered "just normal" (women supported by society so they could raise their kids) has become codified. Society changed, but it has taken time for the changes to be widespread enough for people to demand legal changes. It also took a return of decent economic times in which women actually could get decent-paying jobs.

Its easy to forget that even in the 1960's, the only jobs available to most women were teachers, secretaries maids and the occasional store clerk.

Cutting out tax breaks for kids will simply make life harder for ALL people, men and women, who are trying to raise kids. If your goal is to decrease the number of kids people have, then that might (and only "might" -- there are a lot of other issues to consider) be a reasonable idea.

Similarly, cutting the tax break for married people will have the impact of discouraging legal marriage.

Overall, I agree with Woodruff. Your basic surface facts are correct, but that is like saying that taking an antihistime "cures" the cold -- you are looking at symptoms, not the real causes of the issues.

[PLAYER57832]

For some people, it pays enough in relation to working harder, thus earning more than the poverty line, and then losing all the welfare benefits by doing so.

And how do you propose that to happen when there ARE no jobs available that pay above the poverty line?

[PLAYER57832]

How about the men are just pieces of s**t that choose to not take care of their responsibilities. Men who sleep with women without one iota of care for the consequences and then choose not to take care of the child are the reason for the broken homes. Place the blame where it belongs. I am the proud father of 4 children who's fathers chose not to take care of their business. I also have 2 children of my own their home is not broken because I didn't shirk my responsibility

Certainly that happens, but why?

The cure absolutely involves teaching men to become better fathers, but simply saying "men are bad" does not go far toward really fixing the situation when the reasons are very complex, particularly when referring to blacks. Black males ARE far more likely to wind up in jail -- and not, historically, because they commit more crimes (even today, in our "enlightened" age, black men are still far more likley to be arrested, convicted and given harsher sentances given the same circumstances as whites). I won't get into all that here, becuase it starts to get off topic, but you are, like BBS, looking at the symptoms and not the cause.

A cure means looking at the root causes, not just the symptoms.

[PLAYER57832]

PS Also, right now, the state considered men who simply plop down a check to be a "good father" who is "doing his responsibilities". A man who may volunteer for all his kids events, spend time with them whenever possible and just generally who is involved, but who misses a payment for whatever reason is not a "good father.

Further, a woman can remarry and the step father's income in non-joint property states is not considered income for the kids family. A man who remarries, to contrast, cannot take off one dime from his check when calculating things like school lunch reductions, rent and child care, even medical benefits.

We almost wound up having to seperate at one point to get my sons medical care. We had insurance, worked, but could not pay over $5000 in deductables.

[BigBallinStalin]

In my serious view, the increased divorce rate (which I presume is what you're getting at) is caused 100% by an increased number of people who don't take the vows of marriage seriously. It has nothing at all to do with government intervention, rather it has to do with people wanting the easy way out and not taking the time to work at something as hard as they need to in order to be successful.

So my view is "no change".

Well, I disagree with the 100% claim although seriousness/attitudes on marriage does play a significant role.

Some of that 100% is due to subsidies offered to single-parent mothers. In other words, for some it may be more profitable to not marry and instead collect the tax credits for being a single mother. Of course, this profit-motive provided by state intervention isn't the only factor, but it is a factor which undermines the monetary and mental profit of remaining married (or seeking marriage).

You got proof of this bbs? Not everyone bases their decisions on how money they will make or lose. Problem with this economic view is that you assume everyone makes a decision based on a $.

BBS while I don't dispute your facts, I DO dispute how that course of events happened and why the immediate fix is not to just cut out tax breaks.

I'm not assuming that because I do think attitudes matter, and how people value money over mental profit. I already stated that, but apparently you didn't read that for whatever reason.

You'd be surprised at how influential prices can be on people's behavior. If gas was $0.10 per gallon, would you expect more people to be driving around? Would you expect an influx in less fuel-efficient cars? If you received a tax credit of $100,000 for every time you painted something, would you be more likely to paint more? Or less likely? What do you think?


People make decisions on how much money they will make or lose in relation to the opportunity costs, and how they perceive the benefits. Prices matter, but the lens through which someone views value will change the value of any price.

Granted, I'm not saying that the above incentives are 100% responsible for the outcome. I've been saying they're responsible to some portion, whatever degree that may be. It's as of now unknown. But certainly, we can agree that "the increased divorce rate is NOT caused 100% by an increased number of people who don't take the vows of marriage seriously."

Tax credits matter.

I have spoken on this before, but the real issue here is not so much tax credits as the way welfare/AFDC is administered historically. Recognize that at the time welfare was implemented, a big reason was precisely because the idea of single women, particularly war widows (WWII being a recent event) having to go out and work to support their kids was considered horrible. There was no requirement to work because women were "not supposed to work".. except for the lowest classes (who, per "standard society" standards), "just did not really count". A woman who cleaned houses or took care of other people's kids was "respectable" to some extent (just not of a "class that counted", but women who waitressed and the like were just not).

The onus was on making sure that these women were not "cheating" by having a man who would actually support them. In a time when many black men could not GET a decent job (in the Pittsburgh steel mills, for example, while paid very well by white standards, all blacks, no matter how educated, were paid less than the whites and relegated to the most dangerous and difficult jobs -- and those were among the "best" jobs available for any black male at the time), plus the fact that many men were arrested for the "crime" of "being black" back then and a lot of women did "elect" to stay single. Add in that many discovered they did not necessarily like to live under the "traditional standards" of male domination back then and you had large groups of strong, independent women raising their kids essentially alone.

So, society changed, but the rules did not change.. and what was considered "just normal" (women supported by society so they could raise their kids) has become codified. Society changed, but it has taken time for the changes to be widespread enough for people to demand legal changes. It also took a return of decent economic times in which women actually could get decent-paying jobs.

Its easy to forget that even in the 1960's, the only jobs available to most women were teachers, secretaries maids and the occasional store clerk.

Cutting out tax breaks for kids will simply make life harder for ALL people, men and women, who are trying to raise kids. If your goal is to decrease the number of kids people have, then that might (and only "might" -- there are a lot of other issues to consider) be a reasonable idea.

Similarly, cutting the tax break for married people will have the impact of discouraging legal marriage.

Overall, I agree with Woodruff. Your basic surface facts are correct, but that is like saying that taking an antihistime "cures" the cold -- you are looking at symptoms, not the real causes of the issues.

Your quotes are out of whack, so I'm not sure who you're responding to and with what.

For some people, it pays enough in relation to working harder, thus earning more than the poverty line, and then losing all the welfare benefits by doing so.

And how do you propose that to happen when there ARE no jobs available that pay above the poverty line?

Please link the to the full context if you want me to respond.

[PLAYER57832]

For some people, it pays enough in relation to working harder, thus earning more than the poverty line, and then losing all the welfare benefits by doing so.

And how do you propose that to happen when there ARE no jobs available that pay above the poverty line?

Please link the to the full context if you want me to respond.

No other context is needed.

But hey..why should I expect anything different. You dodge whenever you dislike the question.

lol okay, Player. Have fun.

I'm more than willing to answer your questions, provided that--you know--provide context to whatever you're responding to. This allows me to see if you've... missed the point, or are arguing about something irrelevant, etc.

I know you're not disposed to lending yourself vulnerable to the above possibilities, so it's understandable that you'll refuse to provide any context.

Yeah, because trying to justify the idea that if the poor only worked hard enough they would not be poor is pretty difficult.

[BigBallinStalin]

lol okay, Player. Have fun.

I'm more than willing to answer your questions, provided that--you know--provide context to whatever you're responding to. This allows me to see if you've... missed the point, or are arguing about something irrelevant, etc.

I know you're not disposed to lending yourself vulnerable to the above possibilities, so it's understandable that you'll refuse to provide any context.