You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-21   21-45   46-70   71-79       
 
Author Message
25 new of 79 responses total.
mynxcat
response 21 of 79: Mark Unseen   Jul 31 16:28 UTC 2003

Re 19> I would have to agree on the reason for a lower divorce rate in 
India. I've seen many marriages, that may not be abusive, but are not 
what I would call marriages. The husband and wife live separately, 
citing work, the kids are raised by the mom, and everyone puts up a 
happy front at public occasions. I wouldn't term these marriages 
abusive by any sense, all parties are quite happy with the situation, 
but these aren't really marriages in my opinion. Much better to get a 
divorce and move on,
mynxcat
response 22 of 79: Mark Unseen   Jul 31 16:30 UTC 2003

Re 20> When you say 50% of all marriages end in divorces, it should 
include repeat marriages. Doesn't matter if it's the 1st marriage or 
the 6th marriage of the bride or groom in concern. It is a unique 
marriage, irrespective of past marital status of either partner. I 
don't see how multiple marriages skews results in this case.

tod
response 23 of 79: Mark Unseen   Jul 31 16:31 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

jmsaul
response 24 of 79: Mark Unseen   Jul 31 16:40 UTC 2003

Re #22:  But it isn't a unique marriage independent of the past marital
         status of the two partners.  This isn't like a coin toss: the
         divorce history of the partners influences the chance that the
         current marriage will last.  For some people, the chance that a
         given marriage will end in divorce is far higher than it is for
         the general population.

         These tend to be people who either have a personal problem that
         causes failed marriages, or a pattern of picking spouses who do.
         For example, an alcoholic who becomes abusive when drunk will
         often go through a series of marriages and divorces because he/she
         can behave for long enough to catch a spouse, but will eventually
         fall off the wagon and get dumped.  Similarly, a woman who picks
         abusive husbands (this is more frequent than you might think, and
         usually a result of being raised in an abusive household) but has
         the sense to divorce them when she figures it out could rack up
         quite a list.  Or someone who has affairs.  There are a lot of
         patterns that lead to multiple divorces and make it very likely
         that subsequent marriages will end in divorce too.

         Since these people are included in the statistic, it skews things.
         Unfortunately, I don't remember by how much.

tod
response 25 of 79: Mark Unseen   Jul 31 16:41 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

mynxcat
response 26 of 79: Mark Unseen   Jul 31 17:42 UTC 2003

when referring to someone from the continent, you would prefix it 
with "North" or "South". Anyone from Mexico, Canada or the US is 
a "North American". Any one from Brazil, Argentina, or the like is 
a "South American". There is not continent "America". There is 
a "North America" and a "South America" (and even "Central America", 
though that's not recognised as a separate continent). So it's 
perfectly acceptable to call some one from the USA to call themselves 
American, there's nothing to be confused about.
albaugh
response 27 of 79: Mark Unseen   Jul 31 17:43 UTC 2003

Re: #2: If the president is a bigot based on the remarks he made, then please
add me to the rolls of that bigotry.  In fact, add the overwhelming number
of US citizens to that roll while you're at it.
cmcgee
response 28 of 79: Mark Unseen   Jul 31 17:44 UTC 2003

the 50% is a statistic about marriages, not people who get married.  

If there were only 20 people in the world, and they all married each other
, there would be 10 marriages.  

If four of those people divorced and remarried, 20% of the marriages would
have ended in divorce. And 20% of the people would have gotten divorces.

The, those four people proceed to marry and divorce until they have all been
married and divorced in all possible combinations.  

The percentage of _people_ who divorced would not change.  80% remain married,
20% got divorced.

The percentage of _marriages_ that ended in divorce would change dramatically.
67% of the marriages were stable, 33% ended in divorce.  
dcat
response 29 of 79: Mark Unseen   Jul 31 18:05 UTC 2003

Unless I misread something (else), the numbers in that last line were
reversed, and should've been 33 and 67, respectively.
mynxcat
response 30 of 79: Mark Unseen   Jul 31 18:18 UTC 2003

Re 28> Agreed. I think what Joe was trying to say was that while 50% 
of all marriages end in divorce, one needs to keep in mind that that 
percentage is skewed to some degree by a relatively small number of 
people who have a tendency to repeatedly get into marriages that will 
end in divorce.

Did I get that right, Joe?
rcurl
response 31 of 79: Mark Unseen   Jul 31 19:03 UTC 2003

Re #25: uhhh....the English drive on the left.
tod
response 32 of 79: Mark Unseen   Jul 31 19:36 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

keesan
response 33 of 79: Mark Unseen   Jul 31 20:03 UTC 2003

In most of the divorces I know about one partner left because they fell in
love with someone else, or wanted to 'find themselves'.  No abuse, no alcohol.
My cousin was amicably divorced twice.  My uncle decided to marry someone 20
years younger.  His first wife invited us all to her second wedding.
jep
response 34 of 79: Mark Unseen   Jul 31 20:43 UTC 2003

We can all agree divorce is pretty common, whatever the statistics 
actually are.  As a divorcee myself, I think it's very unfortunate it 
happens so often.  
jmsaul
response 35 of 79: Mark Unseen   Aug 1 04:00 UTC 2003

Re #30:  Yep.

Re #34:  Yes, but in many cases it's better than the alternative.  I'm not
         speaking for your case specifically.
russ
response 36 of 79: Mark Unseen   Aug 1 04:07 UTC 2003

Re #5:  What's WRONG is defining the public face of the office of
POTUS as an explicitly Christian one.  Government officials should
not act in any sectarian capacity while exercising their office.

Re #21:  Sounds like the way officially Catholic countries handle it.
jaklumen
response 37 of 79: Mark Unseen   Aug 1 07:11 UTC 2003

resp:14 Well, basically why the *English* drove on the left was to 
have your weapon on the ready for that pesky highwayman.  We just 
started driving on the right to spite them and be different, really.  
We embraced Santa Claus because he wasn't that English Father 
Christmas-- if I remember right, there was all sorts of things during 
the 19th century that we did to distance ourselves from Britain.
jep
response 38 of 79: Mark Unseen   Aug 1 13:52 UTC 2003

re resp:35: I wasn't speaking of my divorce, in particular, either, 
though of course it has affected my perceptions of divorce.  As a 
general case, though, I bet we all know someone who has had 4 or more 
marriages.  I knew a guy in college who had had 5 stepdads before he 
graduated from high school.  He was fortunate in that his maternal 
grandfather was a stable influence in his life.  He certainly didn't 
have any other male role models he could count on.  I'm sure his mother 
was unhappy with all of her various husbands, once she married them... 
but at some point, this guy and his two sisters, the children, ought to 
have received some consideration as well.

The American characteristic of driving on the right instead of the left 
originated in the 18th century.

Santa Claus wasn't a big deal anywhere until the late 1800's in 
America.  I don't belive our mass giving of presents occurred until 
after the Great Depression.
janc
response 39 of 79: Mark Unseen   Aug 1 14:38 UTC 2003

I think the modern image of Santa Claus (jolly fat guy with reindeer) was
created first from nearly whole cloth by the author of "The Night Before
Christmas" and popularized via a series of ads for Coca Cola.  Web
searching...yup...http://www.the-north-pole.com/history/ says Thomas Nast
did a lot to develop the character too, and Rudolf was invented for Montgomery
Ward advertisements.  The night before Christmas was 1823, and the Coca Cola
ads were 1931.  Santa is a pretty modern creation though bits of the legend
have ancient roots.
sj2
response 40 of 79: Mark Unseen   Aug 1 20:26 UTC 2003

Thanks!!

What myths/images/impressions created by Hollywood movies, usually, 
would you like to dispel about the US? 
cross
response 41 of 79: Mark Unseen   Aug 2 03:48 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

janc
response 42 of 79: Mark Unseen   Aug 2 03:51 UTC 2003

In real life America, there are toddlers.

As a parent of a toddler, I'm struck by the fact that the only movie that
contains a toddler in a significant roles is "Monsters, Inc" where they
computer generated the toddler.  Apparantly getting a toddler into a movie
is harder than an alien, a talking pig, or a dinosaur.
jaklumen
response 43 of 79: Mark Unseen   Aug 2 04:10 UTC 2003

indubitably.
jaklumen
response 44 of 79: Mark Unseen   Aug 2 04:11 UTC 2003

resp:41 Indeed, many of us have traveled to other countries: and many 
of us even appreciate the mix of culture here in our own backyard.
sj2
response 45 of 79: Mark Unseen   Aug 2 05:26 UTC 2003

Regarding the divorce thing. Do you think that the relative ease of 
getting out of a marriage makes people less adjusting to each other? 
Or tend to hit the eject button sooner than required?

Why do porn stars never take off their footwear in movies (if you ever 
noticed)? ;-)

Do people regularly leave their parents after teenage and see them 
after 5-10 years? Are parents usually left in old-age homes?

How important are relatives to a US family?

How common is sex at say, 13 or 14 years of age? Is it acceptable to 
parents there usually? 

Can you really tell whether a kid is a gay when he/she is 13-14?
 0-21   21-45   46-70   71-79       
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss