|
 |
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
From: "Derek" <derekn...@btopenworld.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:54:48 +0100
Local: Fri 15 Aug 2003 18:54
Subject: Re: the source of Jon's success is 40+ years of celibacy
"Jonathan Ball" <jonb...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:Pp7%a.2505$f15.251247@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... I'm quite surprised, because even though I knew > Derek wrote: > > "Jonathan Ball" <jonb...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:_Z6%a.2465$f15.249339@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > >>14 years. I was 9 when they split. > > Wow, that's bad. In seriousness, it must've been > I grew up thinking my siblings and I were not seriously > My older brother and younger brother both have led you had all those brothers and a sister it never occured to me that any of them were less fortunate than yourself in some ways. In fact, I've thought for a long time that maybe you were left behind by at least one of them in academia, and I was hoping to prize it out of you to make some use of it later on. > I have had far, far better career success than any of You're no Victor Mature, but American girls being > them, but not getting married until late 40s tells you > - and me - something. what they are and not very fussy nevertheless probably gave you ample opportunity to marry long before you finally agreed to, so from that I can only assume you made a conscious effort to remain a bachelor. Whether this helped your studies and career is hard to confirm seeing as there are so many examples which show married men to be successful, but there's no doubt it suited you, and would probably have suited your siblings just as well too if I'm reading you correctly. It doesn't suit everyone. > Divorce is terrible. It's far too easy. If there are If I can take you back to something I once wrote to > kids, divorce should be enormously difficult to obtain. > Unless there is hard evidence that one parent is a > menace to the health and safety of the kids, the > parents should stay together for the kids' sake. Swamp, I think it shows I agree with you here, even though the discussion was mainly to explain my ideas on personal responsibilty. "Oh come off it, swamp. No fault divorce is a sham because it doesn't differentiate between a woman who wants to leave an abusive husband and a man who wants to leave his wife for a younger woman. The law makes no distinctions at all. No fault's primary purpose is to empower whichever party wants out, with the least possible fuss and the greatest possible speed with no questions asked. It simply isn't a fair and just law at all if it always empowers the guilty party. I'm not against divorce per se, but I'm very much against this no fault nonsense." > BTW, your subject line is wrong. I have never felt I don't see much wrong in that thinking if it's justified. > that the world rejected me. I think that's the biggest > single difference between me and my two brothers, > particularly the younger. He has a definite attitude > that the world owed him and didn't pay. Some people DO get a raw deal. They never get the breaks others do, and it isn't entirely their fault if they don't recognise them when they come either. Have you ever considered the odds against being born healthy in a rich country with fine universities where your rights are respected at birth? Surely, you feel you owe society something, so what's wrong when people believe society owes them? You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||