And another one bites the dust...

[Speaker to Animals]

I know your roid-induced “Starbucks baristas have the same relationship to Amazon as spouses” argument seems genius to you ... but I also know that’s exclusive to you.

It's the same argument, doofus.

The city is analogous to the marriage. Baristas was gibs taken from the high-earners who pay for most of the city anyway because it's "only fair" and they should be rewarded for their "sacrifices" too. Fuck the fact that serving coffee is not a sacrifice worth what they are demanding. If you question that, then you are probably a racist or an MRA.

LMFAO

You are doing the exact same thing.

[DBTrek]

That’s what a minor in economics gives you, eh?

REFUND.
Collect one.

[Speaker to Animals]

A life in common sense tells me you are completely full of shit, arguing two sides of a principle wherever it suits you. When it's people you don't like arguing for their "fair share" of the wealth, you fill up a fifty page thread lambasting them. When it's some poor, poor little woman who has been living high on the hog on a man's high income who wants her "fair share" of his earnings, you are perfectly fine with it.


In principle you are a fucking loon. You don't have any ground here. It's just whatever suits you in the moment. When socialists do it, you attack it. When Lauer's wife does it, you defend it. No principled ass clown.

[DBTrek]

You’re just mad because I won’t acknowledge a local economy as identical to a two-person partnership. I won’t do that because the differences are legion and obvious. In your mind this makes me arbitrary. To the rest of the reasoning world it makes me not a fool.

[Speaker to Animals]

You are making an irrelevant distinction. What does the fact that a marriage contract and a city contract have different numbers of parties have to do with the principle you contradicted yourself on?

The moral principle involved here has nothing to do with how many people are involved. It has to do with stealing. I.e. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

It doesn't say, thou shalt not steal unless you have a vagina and you are stealing from Matt Lauer.

[DBTrek]

You are making an irrelevant distinction. What does the fact that a marriage contract and a city contract have different numbers of parties have to do with the principle you contradicted yourself on?

The moral principle involved here has nothing to do with how many people are involved. It has to do with stealing. I.e. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

It doesn't say, thou shalt not steal unless you have a vagina and you are stealing from Matt Lauer.

Common Law States
Most states, except those listed as community property states, below, use the "common law" system of property ownership. In these states, it's usually easy to tell which spouse owns what. If only your name is on the deed, registration document, or other title paper, it's yours. You are free to leave your property to whomever you choose, subject to your spouse's right to claim a certain share after your death. (For more information, see Inheritance Rights.)

If you and your spouse both have your name on the title, you each own a half-interest in the property. Your freedom to give away or leave that half-interest depends on how you and your spouse share ownership. If you own the property in "joint tenancy with right of survivorship" or "tenancy by the entirety," the property automatically belongs to the surviving spouse when one spouse dies -- no matter what the deceased spouse's will says. But if you instead own the property in "tenancy in common" (less likely), then you can leave your half-interest to someone other than your spouse if you wish.

If an item doesn't have a title document, generally you own it if you paid for it or received it as a gift.

. . .

Community Property Laws
Generally, in community property states, money earned by either spouse during marriage and all property bought with those earnings are considered community property that is owned equally by husband and wife. Likewise, debts incurred during marriage are generally debts of the couple. At the death of one spouse, his or her half of the community property goes to the surviving spouse unless there is a valid will that directs otherwise.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... 29841.html

It's not a business, it's a partnership with property rules. No one is stealing jack. The rules are there for the participants to agree to, to disagree, or alter as they see fit.
/shrug

[Speaker to Animals]

More distinctions that have nothing to do with the moral principle involved. Is stealing wrong or not?

You cannot rightly sit there and proclaim the Seattle socialists are wrong when they do it, but some do-nothing housewife to a high-earning man is right when she does it.

The principle applies to all or you are just full of shit.

[DBTrek]

More distinctions that have nothing to do with the moral principle involved. Is stealing wrong or not?

You cannot rightly sit there and proclaim the Seattle socialists are wrong when they do it, but some do-nothing housewife to a high-earning man is right when she does it.

The principle applies to all or you are just full of shit.

Stealing is taking something that does not belong to you.
Partnerships with property agreements are consensual affairs.
Thus anything lost to the dissolution of the partnership is not stolen, but divided according to the previous agreements made by the parties involved in the partnership.

You're losing a lot of sleep making false analogies for the divorce a couple of multimillionaires who don't even know you're alive.

[Speaker to Animals]

Matt Lauer's wife didn't earn 25 million dollars. She didn't contribute or sacrifice anything near that amount. You can't possibly justify this. By staying at home and living off his labor she is justified in taking what he earned?? Dude, a nanny cost maybe 35k per year. I doubt she cleaned or cooked. He probably paid for her to have maids and they ate out more often than not.

In no universe do these women "deserve" more than they put into a marriage. This is stealing, DB. Especially when the women are the ones instigating the divorces. FUCK THEM. If they want a divorce, then pack their shit and leave. Why do they need to steal everything these men worked for in the process and why in the fuck do men like you defend this??

How about this bitch pay back Matt Lauer all the money he sunk into her? Pay back all the expensive clothing and jewelry she would never have afforded if not for him. Pay him back for the expensive cars. Pay him back for the maids and God knows whatever else this women burned his money on.

[Fife]

I wish I had a buck for every loser who ever told me, "I didn't sign up for this shit!"

I'd prolly buy the next round at the Waffle House for you all, and buy myself a few dozen new guns, or a boat, or something.

:goteam: :drunk: