| |
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian |
> >>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
> Derek wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jonb...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:_Z6%a.2465$f15.249339@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > an utterly shattering experience, so I shouldn't be
> > using it to get back at you for anything really.
> > Sorry Jon.
> affected by it. Only in relatively recent years have I
> seen how wrong I was.
> thoroughly unproductive and unhappy lives. Neither has
> had any career success at all. My younger brother
> bounces from one job to another, all of them ending in
> a firing. He hardly has a pot to piss in. My older
> brother hasn't worked in at least 15 years. Younger
> has been married and divorced twice; older has been
> married, unhappily, for over 25 years (lucky for him).
> My sister has had ups and downs, but has been doing
> okay for the last 10 years; married and divorced, once.
> I think she's done relatively better than my brothers
> in part because she was too young (4) to have any idea
> what was going on at the time.
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.
> 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.
> 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."
> 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?