Rioting in France.

[Aileron]

Wow...its been going on for two weeks now.

 

I don't think France's government or police force are the cause of this. Okay, I do blame them, but not in the usual way.

 

The supposed reason for these riots is as a backlash to racism and poverty. I think that opinion is wrong.

 

France is a very socialist country. They have tons of social programs with the aim of the goal of helping the poor. They have a national health care system and a top-ranked educational system.

 

Their problems with their social programs is not too few, its too many. They have created a subsection of their society that has become a welfare state. If I recall, a rough estimate of unemployment is about 30% among the group rioting. France is a first world country surrounded by other first world countries. There is no way in heck that the jobs aren't there. France is also a pretty enlightened country. There is no way in heck that there is enough racism to prevent these people from getting jobs.

 

Also, these riots were spurred on by two people, who thinking the police were after them, decided to hide in a power station and ended up getting electrocuted. These two should be given a Darwin Award - their deaths should be laughed at rather than pitied. There shouldn't be spoken a word ill spoken of the French police here...they weren't even chasing the two men. There is no doubt that the installation was covered with warning signs. These two decided to risk their lives to get away from some imaginary police officers. No matter what crimes they might have commited, its a bad gamble...France doesn't allow executions. Whatever the imaginary police were going to charge them with, it wouldn't be worth dying to avoid getting arrested.

 

 

Basically, the mistakes France made to cause these riots are as follows:

 

1 - They encouraged too much anti-government free speech.

 

It is true dictatorships have a habit of quiteing dissidents, and that no government should have the right to shut somebody up for their opinion. However, society shouldn't support dissidents every single time they open their mouths. The vast majority of the time a dissident is merely a moron with nothing better to do.

 

There shouldn't be any law to limit such speach other than basic libel and defamation laws. However, these laws should be enforced. Also, these people should not be receiving psychological support by college campuses bending over backwards to schedule them speaking time.

 

The problem with listening to dissidents too much is that is causes society to be paranoid about all authority. People begin to think governments and businesses are out to get them, even when the government might just merely want to help and the company might only want to do honest business.

 

Take this instance. There were too people so paranoid about police that they for all practical purposes committed suicide. Also, there are so many people paranoid about companies that they are convinced that they can't find a job.

 

 

2 - They encouraged too many free-family styles

 

Like free speech, government really doesn't have a right to interfere here, and tell people they need to have a father/mother/children/dog/white picket fence style family. However, this style has historically proven to be the best. Couples should be encouraged to work their problems out, rather than make it easy for a quickie divorce. There should indeed be a social stigma attached to divorce.

 

The results is that we have a large population here who lived under single parent familys. Such models are not strong enough to give children a good sense of disipline, a requirement for self discipline. Without self discipline, a person might react violently to even the smallest spark of anger, such as in this case where we got a lot of them rioting over pretty much nothing.

 

 

3 - They tied their policeman's hands too much

 

In criminal rights, you are legally considered innocent until proven guilty. However, in real life, there are career criminals. Police officers should have to treat career criminals as career criminals. The fact that they can't make distinctions between career criminals and ordinary persons, has led to the belief that there are no distinctions between criminals and ordinary persons.

 

This gives criminals notions that they have just as many moral rights as everyone else, and they constantly have a false feeling of oppression every time a police officer has to do their job by putting the criminal in jail where he belongs. It gives ordinary citizens notions that the police officers think they are criminals, because the police aren't treating them differently than criminals.

 

 

 

There are limits to how far certain things should go. This is a case of civil rights going too far. Before I was born, the civil rights movement was a great awakening of concious. Now the movement has been corrupted, to the point that people think they can do whatever, attack whatever, destroy whatever, without legal or moral consequence. As what is almost always the case, balance is what is needed here, and France needs a stronger government and stronger society to reenstate the balance.

[LearJett+]

While France is a 1st world country, the people rioting are treated like 2nd class citizens. The racism that is expressed towards these people is unfathomable.

The two kids running did not want to get Rodney King'ed, and neither would you if you were in their shoes.

 

Ail, what makes you say that they weren't being chased? I heard they were.

[MonteZuma]

Their problems with their social programs is not too few, its too many.

Interesting viewpoint. If your basic premise is right, then I'd argue that the problem isn't too many programs. The problem might be too many inappropriate or ineffective programs. Having said that, I'm not convinced you are right - yet.

 

France is a first world country surrounded by other first world countries. There is no way in heck that the jobs aren't there. France is also a pretty enlightened country. There is no way in heck that there is enough racism to prevent these people from getting jobs.

I'm not sure that it would be so easy for a new migrant to get a job.

 

Also, these riots were spurred on by two people, who thinking the police were after them, decided to hide in a power station and ended up getting electrocuted. These two should be given a Darwin Award - their deaths should be laughed at rather than pitied. There shouldn't be spoken a word ill spoken of the French police here...they weren't even chasing the two men. There is no doubt that the installation was covered with warning signs. These two decided to risk their lives to get away from some imaginary police officers. No matter what crimes they might have commited, its a bad gamble...France doesn't allow executions. Whatever the imaginary police were going to charge them with, it wouldn't be worth dying to avoid getting arrested.

In recent years, riots have begun in several cities in several countries after incidents of perceived police abuse. This problem isn't unique to France.

 

Basically, the mistakes France made to cause these riots are as follows:

 

1 - They encouraged too much anti-government free speech.

Huh? There are many countries that give equal or greater 'encouragement' for individuals to criticise the government.

 

Take this instance. There were too people so paranoid about police that they for all practical purposes committed suicide. Also, there are so many people paranoid about companies that they are convinced that they can't find a job.

I doubt that people become paranoid about government, police and industry because they are given too much freedom. The kids that were killed were probably young troublemakers trying to avoid being busted. They didn't commit suicide. They just made a dumb move. A bunch of poor and angry people have used this as an excuse to vent their anger. Understanding this problem is about understanding why these people are angry. Free-speech is not the cause.

 

 

2 - They encouraged too many free-family styles

...There should indeed be a social stigma attached to divorce.

Comments like this convince me that you are totally wrong and, in my mind, totally destroy any faith that I originally had that you might have a valid point. In any case, you've convinced me of what I think is the real cause of the riots - social stigma.

 

Many of the people that live in the affected communities are poor muslim immigrants or refugees. I'm not sure if divorce is any more problematic in their community than it is anywhere else, but they suffer from all sorts of social stigma. They are isolated religiously, economically, educationally, racially and culturally from the rest of French society.

[Paine]

Monte, I still find it impossible to take your posts seriously when you have a bouncing banana in your sig

[MonteZuma]

Monte, I still find it impossible to take your posts seriously when you have a bouncing banana in your sig

Would you take me any more seriously if I had a pic like this?

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/banana-11100.jpg

[Paine]

There is no emoticon to descibe how hard I laughed at that picture.

[Aileron]

I will use your fourth point to counter your third...Yes, there are many countries that encourage too much dissident behavior, that's why anti-government riots isn't unique to France. I mean, don't get me wrong...sometimes dissidency and protests are necessary to get the wheels of change moving. However, when you have people criticising government left and right and rioting against government, when all in all they are doing a pretty good job, then dissidency is a problem. The biggest problem with this is it causes the "boy who cried wolf" effect. If someone is always saying government is crooked when it isn't, no one will believe him when the government is.

 

 

Anger does not need a reason. Its an emotion, and by definition does not need to be logical. Its possible to work yourself into a rage over absolutely nothing, or to imagine a scenario and get angry over that. I don't think these rioters are angry over any situation they might be in...I think that in this case they might have up and decided to work themselves into a rage. I mean, their situation is pretty good in a worldwide perspective.

 

 

About the social stigma...I said it should only be attached to divorce, which is a decision. There certainly should NOT be any social stigma attached to race, immigrancy economically, or the like. (Moving to a country may be a decision, but you wouldn't have to make that decision if by fate you were born there to begin with.)

 

Divorce on the other hand is completely different...especially in France, where in most cases custody is given exclusively to the mother. Then, the family has one overwhelmed parent running around, juggling a job and taking care of the children. She does not have the time to do anything more than feed, clothe, and shelter the children until they are adults. This leaves the children lacking a lot of wisdom and lessons about life that is usually passed down from generation to generation.

 

I'm not saying divorce couples should be shunned or anything like that, but I am saying that society should regard it as a desperate last resort rather than a common solution. 50% of marriages end in divorce...that number is too high.

 

 

If there is any social stigma attached to any of the other things you mentioned, they have to go. However, I doubt they exist (except educational-wise - I hate the way France runs their schools.). The point is, there is very little social and racial injustice here, and riots are still going on - there must be some other reason.

 

(I could be entirely wrong, and these could be a group of people who were tested out of public school at a young age and feel bitter about it.)

 

 

I never said it would be easy for a immigrant to find a job. Its tough to find a job when you aren't an immigrant, and tougher to find one when you are. All I am saying is that they jobs are there, and the employers are in the most part not racist enough to put "muslims need not apply" signs up. A job matching service might be a good government program here, but there are no great economic or social improvements that can be done...France is already wealthy and enlighted.

[Spyed]

Yeah there's too much racism in France. Puts me off living there.

[MonteZuma]

...I don't think these rioters are angry over any situation they might be in...I think that in this case they might have up and decided to work themselves into a rage. I mean, their situation is pretty good in a worldwide perspective.

I think that you have no idea what it is like to be poor in a wealthy country. I think you have no idea what it is like to not have a strong social support network. I think that is why you find it so easy to write these people off.

 

About the social stigma...I said it should only be attached to divorce, which is a decision. There certainly should NOT be any social stigma attached to race, immigrancy economically, or the like.

No. There should be no stigma attached to divorce. The kids of divorced parents have a hard enough time coping with their family situation as it is. To encourage more stigmatisation is unhelpful in the extreme.

 

Divorce on the other hand is completely different...especially in France, where in most cases custody is given exclusively to the mother. Then, the family has one overwhelmed parent running around, juggling a job and taking care of the children. She does not have the time to do anything more than feed, clothe, and shelter the children until they are adults. This leaves the children lacking a lot of wisdom and lessons about life that is usually passed down from generation to generation.

Does catholocism teach you to hate women? In every western nation, women are given preference over men in custody battles. That is because when it comes to the crunch, women are generally better at raising kids. It is better that a child grow up in a single parent home than in a severely dysfunctional nuclear family.

 

I'm not saying divorce couples should be shunned or anything like that, but I am saying that society should regard it as a desperate last resort rather than a common solution. 50% of marriages end in divorce...that number is too high.

The way to fix that is not to stigmatise divorce. Divorce is an important ins!@#$%^&*ution. I know people that have suffered severe psychological damage from emotional and physical abuse because the mother wanted to avoid the stigma attached to single parenthood.

 

If there is any social stigma attached to any of the other things you mentioned, they have to go. However, I doubt they exist (except educational-wise - I hate the way France runs their schools.). The point is, there is very little social and racial injustice here, and riots are still going on - there must be some other reason.

This tells me that you have never lived in a community with high unemployment, poverty and ethnic difference. There is a lot of injustice. Where planners in France and almost everywhere else in the first world have gone wrong is in allowing the formation of enclaves and ghettos based on ethnicity or wealth. These create a perception that the residents are second-class citizens. That makes people feel stigmatised and angry.

 

I never said it would be easy for a immigrant to find a job. Its tough to find a job when you aren't an immigrant, and tougher to find one when you are.

It is easy to find a job when you are white, middle-class, psychologically and physically healthy, well-educated with a healthy family support network. Take any of those things out of the equation and it becomes exponentially harder. Take out most or all of them and you're screwed. Poor communities are full of disadvantaged people.

[X`terrania]

Also, let us not forget - they are french.

[Dr.Worthless]

I heard a statistic concerning the employment of the demographic rioting, I don't remember exactly but there were high numbers of high-school dropouts in the demographic also.

 

Poor and Uneducated is a very bad combination. This goes into intentional racism/result-based racism and clearly this is a result-based racism case. If this demographic is in the situation they are in, even in a socialist nation like France, they are clearly being discriminated against, and clearly they aren't very happy about it.

 

If I recall, a rough estimate of unemployment is about 30% among the group rioting. France is a first world country surrounded by other first world countries. There is no way in heck that the jobs aren't there.

The fact that they are counted as unemployed shows that the job isn't there. France's unemployment rate is floating around 10%, around the highest for industrialized countries.

 

I think that in this case they might have up and decided to work themselves into a rage. I mean, their situation is pretty good in a worldwide perspective.

 

Very true, when the average poor person on the earth lives off of around $150, this demographic is doing well above average, and certainly are doing much better than how'd they be if their parents hadn't imigrated to France. However, Many educated folks can't grasp that idea, so to expect uneducated ones to is unrealistic.

 

The way to fix that is not to stigmatise divorce. Divorce is an important ins!@#$%^&*ution. I know people that have suffered severe psychological damage from emotional and physical abuse because the mother wanted to avoid the stigma attached to single parenthood.

It is easy to find a job when you are white, middle-class, psychologically and physically healthy, well-educated with a healthy family support network. Take any of those things out of the equation and it becomes exponentially harder.

 

I believe Divorce is likely to take away one of the above.

[MonteZuma]

It is easy to find a job when you are white, middle-class, psychologically and physically healthy, well-educated with a healthy family support network. Take any of those things out of the equation and it becomes exponentially harder.

 

I believe Divorce is likely to take away one of the above.

Living in a dysfunctional two-parent household does not make things better. It can make things worse.

[Dr.Worthless]

OMG MONTEZUMA YOU BROKE ONE OF GERBILS RULES OF INTERNET POSTING!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Sorry... Anywho

 

Living in a dysfunctional two-parent household does not make things better. It can make things worse.

 

I absolutly agree. The current divorce rate in America is floating around 50%, lets just throw out a number and say 10% of those involve children. How many of those 10% do you think involve truely dysfunctional familes where the child would be done a service by the parents splitting? I would say under half.

 

Divorce can be a good thing, it can also be a bad thing. It was for me when I had to go through it, and it effectivly moved me from middle-class to well into poverty in 1 day. It works both ways, and in most cases I would say it does more harm than good.

 

I don't think we can view children who live in single parent homes as being on equal footing as those with 2 parents. Kids aren't advantaged or disadvantaged, kids live with the reality they are handed. In terms of ability, the kid who lives with 1 parent has just as much as the child who lives with 2. However, most often, the child who lives with 2 parents has access to an incredible amount of resources when compaired to the child whom grows up with 1.

 

In my view, this is a problem. Because when looking at where a child goes in his or her life, if one child is given more resources than another child, when both have the same ability, its more likely that child A is going to go further. If one demographic has more "A" children, than another demographic who has more "B" children, viola, we've got France, and to an extent the USA. Children from the "B" category can and sometimes do become very successful, but far more B's, who have just as much ability, get left behind.

[MonteZuma]

OMG MONTEZUMA YOU BROKE ONE OF GERBILS RULES OF INTERNET POSTING!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah. I'm bad!@#$%^&*.

 

The current divorce rate in America is floating around 50%, lets just throw out a number and say 10% of those involve children. How many of those 10% do you think involve truely dysfunctional familes where the child would be done a service by the parents splitting? I would say under half.

I dunno. I reckon if parents want a divorce, then the family is dysfunctional, by definition, and this isn't good for the kids. If the parent's can't sort their problems out then it is a bad environment for kids.

 

Divorce can be a good thing, it can also be a bad thing. It was for me when I had to go through it, and it effectivly moved me from middle-class to well into poverty in 1 day. It works both ways, and in most cases I would say it does more harm than good.

I agree that it can be a bad thing. Ideally, the parents would sort out their differences and put their kids first, but sometimes this is impossible. I've seen a lot of kids in single-parent families (and my parent's are divorced too). In my case, I dropped from being in a working class family to poverty overnight. Nevertheless, I think it was probably the best thing that could have happened under the cir!@#$%^&*stances. Ideally I would have had two perfect parents/role models all my life, but I didn't. The reality is, if my parents stayed together I would probably be stealing cars and stomping on kittens for fun about now.

 

I don't think we can view children who live in single parent homes as being on equal footing as those with 2 parents. Kids aren't advantaged or disadvantaged, kids live with the reality they are handed. In terms of ability, the kid who lives with 1 parent has just as much as the child who lives with 2. However, most often, the child who lives with 2 parents has access to an incredible amount of resources when compaired to the child whom grows up with 1.

Agreed (with this and the rest of your post). But money isn't everything. Living with an alcoholic parent, a drug addicted parent, an abuser, a psychopathological parent - or whatever - is worse than living in poverty.

[Dr.Worthless]

You are correct, in that instance it is better. However, Like I said above I'm willing to say that the majority of divorces aren't got because of those situations. Having an increased percentage of divorce increases the children who live in poverty, which increases the gap between have and have nots. All it takes is a spark to light a fire, and if there are alot of have nots, the fire grows quickly.

[Aileron]

How am I hating women? I thought I was being too rude to men here!

 

 

For clarification, I do think a single mother and a single father are both equally capable of raising children. What I AM saying in the strong sense is that two parents are better than one, and in the weak sense that one parent does not have the time and energy to raise more than two children and teach each all the life lessons they need. Two parents on the other hand can handle much more, probably about eight...the two incomes can certainly get the monetary support in, and early on they definitely have the time to teach the elder children the life lessons they need, and the elders teach the youngers...all the parents have to do is mediate the fights that break out.

 

 

My point, which I stated last time in too many words...the father should still be required to be around for the kids, and at very least should be paying child support. He shouldn't be able to divorce, say "Hunny, handle this from here." and ride off into the sunset never to be seen again.

 

And what I meant by the social stigma attached to divorce: If a couple divorces, they made atleast on mistake. Either they gave up on a marriage over a disagreement they would have eventually worked out, or they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. They should be regarded as persons who made a mistake. Now, people who made a mistake shouldn't be relegated to a ghetto for certain. People make mistakes.

 

I just figured out why we aren't thinking on the same page. I said: "There should be a social stigma attached to divorce" You think I said: "There should be a social stigma against persons who go through a divorce."

 

 

 

You are right in that all ghettos should be eliminated. I know a problem in the US is that a lot of times the NAACP confuses ghetto culture with african-american culture. The latter should be supported, but ghetto culture should be eliminated because it only serves to divide our country. Maybe in this case France confused muslim culture with ghetto culture as well.

 

 

 

However, while the barriers that ghettos set up cause many negative things, they don't cause riots. Ghettos usually cause a steady stream of violence in the form of high crime rates. The ghetto system is probably increasing the length and scale of violence, but is probably not the root cause.

 

Maybe the root cause is related to terrorism. Maybe since most terrorists are muslim, and that the French government hasn't made any official recognition of this fact, that non-muslims are taking matters into their own hands. For example, since French immigration agents aren't allowed to double-check a muslim's travel visa, that the local cafe owner is taking matters into his own hands by not hiring muslims. However, this is a stretch and I doubt this.

 

Or maybe its related to the war on terrorism another way, in that the French media kept portraying legitimate democratic governments and Islamic terrorist organizations as moral equals. Then, a bunch of people come to believe this, decide that they want to fight their own little Jihad. I doubt this too.

 

{Another possibility I can think of is the French public school system. They use testing to fail students from school once after elementary school and once after high school. (FYI, that's why US public schools aren't testing as well as foreign schools...we teach (and therefore test) everybody, wheras France, Germany, and Japan are only dealing with their best students.) If you consider immigrants who during their younger years had a weak grasp of the native language, got tested out of elementary school because they couldn't understand the lessons taught in French, and years later come to the realisation that they will live the rest of their lives as lower class citizens because they could not grasp certain concepts when they were about 10 yrs hold and couldn't speak and understand French well at that time. Now THAT is something I would riot over! Still, this can't be the reason either...if it was, rioting would have occurred years ago.} -Upon detailed investigation, this information appears to be innaccurate. I apologize.

 

 

Overall, I simply think its a group of people who came to the conclusion that government is all-powerfull and can make life easy, and then found out that life is tough. For example I will use the point of finding a job. It is NEVER easy finding a job. Its a long, aggrivating, and tedious process no matter what. And this group, thinking that the government or atleast some economic changes can somehow make this process easy, blamed the government for the fact that its an annoying process.

 

In general, they lived in a culture where the first thing people do when they encounter a problem is blame the government for it. In this case the problems that are besetting these people are mostly facts of life that no one has, no should have, the power to change. However, instead of looking at themselves for not adapting to the world, they blame the government for not adapting the world to them.

 

 

Overall, Islamic Terrorism was the spark, the ghetto was the hot dry environment, but it was the fact that in French culture its customary to blame the government for all problems is which was the powderkeg.

Edited November 16, 2005 by Aileron

[MonteZuma]

...the father should still be required to be around for the kids, and at very least should be paying child support. He shouldn't be able to divorce, say "Hunny, handle this from here." and ride off into the sunset never to be seen again.

Often it is best if the father doesn't stick around. Fathers or mothers already do need to pay child support.

 

And what I meant by the social stigma attached to divorce: If a couple divorces, they made atleast on mistake. Either they gave up on a marriage over a disagreement they would have eventually worked out, or they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. They should be regarded as persons who made a mistake. Now, people who made a mistake shouldn't be relegated to a ghetto for certain. People make mistakes.

I think that most divorced people, especially those with kids, would agree that their marriage was a mistake.

 

I just figured out why we aren't thinking on the same page. I said: "There should be a social stigma attached to divorce" You think I said: "There should be a social stigma against persons who go through a divorce."

Fair point, but any divorce-related stigma is bad for the child. I support anything that gives the child the best opportunity. Sometimes there is no way out and divorce is the 'least worst' option. Perhaps there are instances where the parents could work things out? If that is the case, then I think society should encourage mediation or couples counselling or whatever for the benefit of the child. But this type of thing should be implemented via education programs and incentives. Stigmatisation is bad. It fragments society in the same way that divorce and poverty fragments society.

Maybe in this case France confused muslim culture with ghetto culture as well.

Good point. Maybe.

 

I'm not positive that this is a muslim issue, but it might be, and the war on terror might be one of the indirect triggers.

 

Another possibility I can think of is the French public school system.

The school system might also be an indirect trigger.

 

Overall, I simply think its a group of people who came to the conclusion that government is all-powerfull and can make life easy, and then found out that life is tough.

Most of the people involved in the riots are from poor countries. Some are refugees. I think they know that life can be tough. Although I agree that life in France may not be what they hoped and expected it to be. They may have been disillusioned. This could be another causal factor.

 

For example I will use the point of finding a job. It is NEVER easy finding a job. Its a long, aggrivating, and tedious process no matter what. And this group, thinking that the government or atleast some economic changes can somehow make this process easy, blamed the government for the fact that its an annoying process.

Finding a job is usually stressful and tedious, but I have never found it hard to find a job. But some people need help (and I might too, one day). Immigrants are disadvantaged and need help. They don't want to live off welfare. Perhaps the French governmement needs to manage community expectations better? This might be another trigger.

 

I think the reasons that things exploded in Paris are complicated. I think the solution is to offer more and better support to these communities. The fact is, most people that live in these communities are poor and were not involved in rioting. Most of these poor people just became victims in a new way - through vandalism or destruction of their property, or through fear. The way to manage this is to break the cycle of poverty that makes people feel victimised, angry and helpless. Telling them to stop complaining, get off their !@#$%^&*es and find work won't help.

[Dr.Worthless]

Another possibility I can think of is the French public school system. They use testing to fail students from school once after elementary school and once after high school. (FYI, that's why US public schools aren't testing as well as foreign schools...we teach (and therefore test) everybody, wheras France, Germany, and Japan are only dealing with their best students.)

 

Can you provide me links pertaining to this? I'm studying to enter the education field and wasn't aware of this.

[Aileron]

Well, the War on Terror has to be a trigger...it is the only thing that is both relevent and recent to the group rioting. However, it is unimportant really. As I said...it is only the spark that set this whole thing off. "Sparks" happen all the time, and nobody can prevent them from occuring. What is important is the reaction to the "sparks".

 

What I mean is that the War on Terror is related to whatever started this thing, but it was the environment in these areas that turned that trigger into a riot. What's more, if that trigger didn't set this off, then it would have only been a matter of time until something else did.

 

 

 

Erm...I apologize, I appear to have been wrong with my statement over French education:

 

Big boring website

 

If you select the "France - EN" option, it links to a pdf file. At the end of the 4.f. section it reads:

 

"On completion of their collège schooling, pupils are awarded a brevet (national certificate) on the basis

of their marks in the final two years (fourth and third classes) and a national examination. The brevet is

not a compulsory qualification and continuation of their schooling in a lycée is not dependent on their

passing the examination."

 

Basically they need to p!@#$%^&* a national exam to graduate collége. (US equivolent is high school).

 

I thought I learned what I wrote earlier from a german foreign exchange student, but it seems my memory, the translation, or my interpretation of the information appears to have been wrong.

[»Ducky]

Parents were divorced.

I was already poor previous to the fact. I was just more-so afterwards.

Father doesn't pay a dime in child support.

Mother worked 1 average low paying full time job to support 2 children fine.

 

Choice of lifestyle has a large part to play in anyones life.

I can easily say that I am poor after looking at and comprehending salary comparisons. When I was little though? I hadn't the slightest clue I was poor. The quality of the time presented to me was much more than any entertainment that could have been bought.

 

Had my mother and father not split, I would most likely have travelled the path of alcoholism and have accomplished more criminal activity than I had when I was younger.

Both of my parents are close friends with one another despite having gone through what they had.

Marriage will be, forever more for myself just a word to determine the legality of a couple.

 

Most of those without religion do not see marriage as a sacred pact, and shouldn't be held to the "Social Standards" of those who do.

Had I been divorced, and someone attempted to 'blacklist' me because of it, I would laugh and go about my business.

I myself will probably marry the woman I live with, whether I love her won't make much of a difference if the arrangement is more convenient for us both. When we decide to splt? Divorce most likely. No hard feelings or regret.

[GENERAL_SLAYER]

wow. thats all i can say

[Spyed]

[LearJett+]

Spyed, I can barely tolerate when you spread your stupidity through spam forums. When you do so in the politics forum however, you're !@#$%^&*ing with the wrong people.

 

 

Someone needs to put you in your place.

[Spyed]

Spyed, I can barely tolerate when you spread your stupidity through spam forums. When you do so in the politics forum however, you're !@#$%^&*ing with the wrong people.

 

 

Someone needs to put you in your place.

 

The govenor of california is scary!

[Aileron]

That's barely spam, LearJett+. Plz quit calling Spyed names.

 

Spyed, I know you didn't really spam the topic, but plz post something relevant.