Marriage is a Trap

[waynward]

Stumbled upon this article and thought it was interesting. The more I think about it, the less I really can't accept the idea of anything but an open polyamorous marriage. May not agree with all the points in this article. But certainly allot things that hit the nail on the head :

http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12155

 

[canada-man]

winston wu at the happier abroad site is a fraud.

 

[SchlongConery]

winston wu at the happier abroad site is a fraud.

He may well be, but he speaks the truth on this issue!

Any comments on the actual points he raises, or just ad hominem attacks on the author?

 

[canada-man]

He may well be, but he speaks the truth on this issue!

Any comments on the actual points he raises, or just ad hominem attacks on the author?

it's not ad hominem attacks. he first went to russia/eastern europe got in trouble when caught "cheating" left and never went back. he then went to the philipines. he met a woman there are started a relationship. he sent out a email newsletter complaining the woman not getting pregnant. when she got pregnant he asked is fans on how to terminate the pregnancy. on the day of his son't birth he uploaded pictures of himself and another woman having sex. after the birth of his son. he constantly complains of his girlfriend's "behavior" when she repeatedly ask him to help her take care of their son. one day he left the philipines and went to Taiwan. there he complains that no Taiwanese women is willing to date or sleep with him. he created a dating profile on a taiwanese website on it he said he does not have any children. he deleted after somebody on the happier abroad forum found it. sometime later i found him on a philipino forum complaining that his girlfriend is dating a "rich foreigner"

 

[SchlongConery]

it's not ad hominem attacks. he first went to russia/eastern europe got in trouble when caught "cheating" left and never went back. he then went to the philipines. he met a woman there are started a relationship. he sent out a email newsletter complaining the woman not getting pregnant. when she got pregnant he asked is fans on how to terminate the pregnancy. on the day of his son't birth he uploaded pictures of himself and another woman having sex. after the birth of his son. he constantly complains of his girlfriend's "behavior" when she repeatedly ask him to help her take care of their son. one day he left the philipines and went to Taiwan. there he complains that no Taiwanese women is willing to date or sleep with him. he created a dating profile on a taiwanese website on it he said he does not have any children. he deleted after somebody on the happier abroad forum found it. sometime later i found him on a philipino forum complaining that his girlfriend is dating a "rich foreigner"

LMAO!!!

Congratulations! You have made the clearest example of Part A of an ad homing attack I've seen.... purely against the man!

Yet, you still failed to counter his contention and reasons for stating that marriage is a trap . Part B

Maybe you aren't aware of what an ad hominem attack is and why it is a fallacious argument.

Here is a cut and paste (you know how to do that don't you?) from : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html


An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
[h=4]Example of Ad Hominem[/h]

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
   Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
   Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
   Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

 

[corrie fan]

I agree that marriage is a way to get people to conform. I think the root cause of most relationship problems is people getting into a relationship in order to conform to society. They are not willing to put the effort into the relationship that they would if they got into a relationship for their own reasons.

Another way people are encouraged to conform is the requirement that every wedding be an elaborate, expensive affair. The stupid amounts of money spent on weddings would be better used for a down payment on a house for example. I wonder if those who organize these affairs realize how many cynical, cranky people like me only attend because they feel obligated.

 

[canada-man]

LMAO!!!

Congratulations! You have made the clearest example of Part A of an ad homing attack I've seen.... purely against the man!

Yet, you still failed to counter his contention and reasons for stating that marriage is a trap . Part B

Maybe you aren't aware of what an ad hominem attack is and why it is a fallacious argument.

Here is a cut and paste (you know how to do that don't you?) from : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html


An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
[h=4]Example of Ad Hominem[/h]

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
   Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
   Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
   Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

all of this are in public on his blogs and websites and emails he sent out. i forget to ad that he is funded by his father in the U.S all of this can be found by google searching

 

[Cassini]

The attack is only ad-hominem if it is off-topic. For example:

Claim: "Chastity is beautiful."

Ad-hominem attack: "This said from someone who is a drunk." (off-topic)

Not Ad-hominem attack: "You have a mistress." (on-topic)

 

[SchlongConery]

all of this are in public on his blogs and websites and emails he sent out. i forget to ad that he is funded by his father in the U.S all of this can be found by google searching

Are you stubborn or stupid?

I have no reason to disbelieve he is a douchebag. He may also drive without insurance and be a bad poker player.

But the discussion is about his contention that marriage is a trap. He writes at length about the reasons he thinks so.

The discussion is not whether HE is "a fraud".

Your SOLE input is to try to discredit his argument simply by discrediting him.

And despite several attempts to point this out to you, and to invite you to discuss or argue for or against the premise that "marriage is a trap", you STILL stick to trying to discredit there person.

So, are you stubborn or just don't get it?

 

[SchlongConery]

The attack is only ad-hominem if it is off-topic. For example:

Claim: "Chastity is beautiful."

Ad-hominem attack: "This said from someone who is a drunk." (off-topic)

Not Ad-hominem attack: "You have a mistress." (on-topic)

Huh?

Aside from the fundamental error in your position of the fallacy of ad hominem attacks, the example fails the logic test on its face.

What disqualifies the drunk's judgement or opinion if Chastity truly is beautiful?

What does the adulterer's morals have to do with the beauty of Chastity?

 

[canada-man]

Are you stubborn or stupid?

I have no reason to disbelieve he is a douchebag. He may also drive without insurance and be a bad poker player.

But the discussion is about his contention that marriage is a trap. He writes at length about the reasons he thinks so.

The discussion is not whether HE is "a fraud".

Your SOLE input is to try to discredit his argument simply by discrediting him.

And despite several attempts to point this out to you, and to invite you to discuss or argue for or against the premise that "marriage is a trap", you STILL stick to trying to discredit there person.

So, are you stubborn or just don't get it?

he has no credibility he is a hypocrite and he is currently living in the U.S.A. while trashing U.S.A and american social culture

 

[wazup]

Huh?

Aside from the fundamental error in your position of the fallacy of ad hominem attacks, the example fails the logic test on its face.

What disqualifies the drunk's judgement or opinion if Chastity truly is beautiful?

What does the adulterer's morals have to do with the beauty of Chastity?

Do you actually believe your argument or just playing devils advocate for fun?

If I want to read about the pitfalls of marriage I want it to be from someone who has given it an effort, and not someone complaining about looking after his kids. Too many 'what ifs' in his article.

 

[SchlongConery]

he has no credibility he is a hypocrite and he is currently living in the U.S.A. while trashing U.S.A and american social culture

Ok, so pretend it is written anonymously or by someone else that you respect.

Now what is your opinion? Is marriage a trap?

 

[SchlongConery]

Do you actually believe your argument or just playing devils advocate for fun?

I believe it.

What am I missing or where is the fault in my argument?

 

[wazup]

Do you actually believe your argument or just playing devils advocate for fun?

If I want to read about the pitfalls of marriage I want it to be from someone who has given it an effort, and not someone complaining about looking after his kids. Too many 'what ifs' in his article.

SC, here

 

[canada-man]

Ok, so pretend it is written anonymously or by someone else that you respect.

Now what is your opinion? Is marriage a trap?

somebody like Wu who is never married have no business giving marriage advice

 

[SchlongConery]

SC, here

I guess I replied before you went back and edited your original post that I replied to.

But to your position regarding credibility of the writer.

I guess I am one of the people who is not swayed so easily by who is writing something as much as what they are saying.

Lots of broke businessmen who are brilliant in all but one aspect of business. Lots of disbarred lawyers who are incredible legal minds. And LOTS of divorced men who are EXPERTS on what happens when things go to shit.

And to that end, I really don't want the advice of Ward Cleaver when it comes to assessing my risks in getting married. I'd much rather have a cad like you guys say he is, telling me what to watch out for.

This article was not a "fair and balanced" treatise on marriage. It is an OPINION based on someone's direct experience and indirect knowledge of the risks associated with the "trap" of marriage.

I'm wise enough to pick and choose what I can use and is relevant to me when I read something. I don't have to agree with everything someone says to find value in what they say.

 

[SchlongConery]

somebody like Wu who is never married have no business giving marriage advice

Stupid logic.

Does a divorce attorney have to had been divorced to give advice?

Do you have to have had the shit beaten out of you in a home invasion to write an article on not opening your door to strangers?

 

[red]

Are you stubborn or stupid?

I have no reason to disbelieve he is a douchebag. He may also drive without insurance and be a bad poker player.

But the discussion is about his contention that marriage is a trap. He writes at length about the reasons he thinks so.

The discussion is not whether HE is "a fraud".

Your SOLE input is to try to discredit his argument simply by discrediting him.

And despite several attempts to point this out to you, and to invite you to discuss or argue for or against the premise that "marriage is a trap", you STILL stick to trying to discredit there person.

So, are you stubborn or just don't get it?

He was caught running with scissors in pamplona

 

[SchlongConery]

He was caught running with scissors in pamplona

No bull?