Doesn't matter. It's a choice- willingly made. Why should anyone else have to pay for your choices? The husband supports the wife already- free food and board + whatever they want to spend money on.
If you have children, the husband is LEGALLY obliged to pay child support and morally obliged to keep them healthy and happy. If you don't have kids together, that's even less reason she should receive money.
Furthermore, if you choose not to improve yourself because you are happy being taken care of, that's also not a justification for receiving money. It's not as if the only way for a woman to increase employability or secure income is through being a career woman. Also, let's not pretend that a woman couldn't find another man to support her and that the previous husband would be off the hook for alimony if she did.
Completely disagree. Alimony has never made sense because a women is equally as entitled to a man's earnings after divorce as she is burdened with his debt.
It's a very odd framing to say she is "sacrificing" a potential career/earnings. It's not as if only the woman loses something when starting a family and that the majority of a man's pay didn't go to supporting it.
Fernbaby mom: when you're too incompetent and irresponsible to keep an actual animal alive.
Seems like a cry for attention- maybe they ran out of ideas for new pronouns.
Agreed. Even then, I actually prefer leaving the joke in and explaining it elsewhere (like an editor's note); I end up learning something new and can better appreciate similar jokes later.
legal*
*In Ukraine, but not in the US or they would have done it domestically.
And they are obligated to you. Well said.
It's much worse than that: people who enjoy foreign mediums consume it because it's different. If they wanted more of what's familiar, they could just watch any old crap that's easily and readily available from their own country.
This is why I despise the "wider audience" bullshit. They are depriving the opportunity for both the original fans to watch what they wanted, and potential new fans of finding something unique.
That's a really good point. Some people are definitely sheep that need to be led, and most of it because they were never made to grow up in a nanny-state society.
Doesn't he just do that so he can argue against lefties? "I'm using your sources. Look: newsguard rates them x"
I think he's developed a much more complete world view where freedom has to be accompanied by responsibility. The free-er you are, the more responsible you are for maintaining your own moral standards.
Compromise: They get drafted onto the enemy side.
Bonus: They ruin morale and unit cohesion of the enemy.
Telling them that we won't stone them to death as long as they work to keep it in the closet was basic human decency. It's at best a fetish and, like all perversions, should never be made public knowledge.
Don't forget that any time a jew or hispanic commit a hate crime, they are "white", but when "white man bad" they are non-white jewish/hispanic.
Current mood: Meh
During showcase: Meh
After showcase: ... [inhales] UBER-MEH!
<current year> has killed my enthusiasm for any media. At best, I'll wait until something is released, customer reviews are in, several months have passed and it's on sale at least 66+%. I've been disappointed far too many times to care: marketing switcharoos, microtransactions, cut content resold as DLC, insulting players, etc etc. I don't even keep up with what's being released any more and I can't remember the last time I purchased a game for myself.
If you put your shoulders that far back, you can make your boobs look bigger too.
They cast Elliot Page for the remake
[Looks at current celebrity worship culture] They were too nice...
I might prefer her without clothes if it meant she had to return to the ocean- never to be seen again (sorry, sea life, not sorry)
I'm honestly stunned: didn't know you could hit the wall twice
"since you are really a boy, your girl body really isn’t yours so it’s no big thing to sell pictures to men for money"
just a sign? Looks pretty self-evident to me.
Even if the courts were fair, didn't the judge have multiple conflicts of interest? Went as far as denying Johnny and his lawyers from presenting evidence that later won his case in US courts. Absolute farce of a trial.
They sure as shit get unfair sentences. Worst of all, they don't even get deported, so there are cases where the victims later run into them out and about and they can't do anything about it.
In unrelated news: why is white nationalism skyrocketing amongst all age groups? Stay tuned to Clown.world.tv to find out more!
This should be the reaction a lot more often: if you want to play stupid "diversity" games, your opinion is invalid because "shut up whitey" is a valid response.
Yep. Point? Why does a man have to pay for it when it's no longer good?
Alimony is not fair, and how the hell do you quantify what is "fair" repayment? Any number you could put on it is entirely arbitrary. It's a union, not employment.
No. You still haven't explained why that would entitle her to receive money after she ceases to be one.
My point there was you can improve yourself while also being a "homemaker". Wives get degrees, take up hobbies, DIY, whatever- they do have free time within which they can do or learn other things.
There's nothing rational about alimony- it's entirely based on men and women's bias towards women. It's at best a forced "charity" to help women long after they can get back on their own 2 feet.
Besides, you still haven't answered the most important argument: if a woman isn't forced to share the same debt after a divorce, why should she be able to take a share of the earnings? Why is a woman entitled to enough money to "maintain her lifestyle" even if the man is bankrupt, or the alimony puts him there? Nobody is entitled to comfort or safety at someone else's expense.