Triple Talaq

[Texan]

Many cases of triple talaq coming to light these days.

 

Even if our country is not yet ready for a true Uniform Civil Code (hey, it's communal you know!), I think that at the very least, some archaic practices of some religions need to be made illegal. One of them should also include forcing children to fast, such as what we recently witnessed in the death of the Jain teenager. Parents/guardians should be held liable for any adverse health effects of children fasting (even if they claim that it was their child's choice). This should apply across all religions. Practices like Triple talaq should have no place in a modern society.

 

Quote

Married at 16, given triple talaq at 18, girl urges PM to enforce uniform code

 

An 18-year-old Muslim girl who is fighting a battle against triple talaq+ has urged PM Narendra Modi to take immediate steps to bring uniform civil code+ to curb traditions which she says have "destroyed" generations of Muslim women.

At 16, Arshiya was married off to a rich vegetable trader, Mohammad Kazim Bagwan+ . But hardly two years later, he discontinued the relationship by writing `talaq' thrice on a paper. He is not ready to accept her saying he has "no place" for her in his heart. She was asked to leave his home with an eight-month-old child.

"I urge our PM to help women like me and stop this tradition of triple talaq which has destroyed lives of innumerable women," Arshiya, who hails from Baramati, told TOIin a choked voice.

She said she had received the notice of triple talaq from her husband but has not accepted the same. "I have decided to challenge it in family court," she added.

 

 

She also wants to continue her education. "I was promised I will be allowed to continue my education after marriage, but the promise was not kept. I had completed my eleventh standard when I was married off. Now, I will start studying again and stand on my own," she said.

 

 

Her father Nissar Bagwan said, "The government must take efforts to bring uniform code. No one must suffer like my daughter. I am a poor vege table vendor and I made a blunder by marrying off my daughter and not allowing her to complete her education."

 

Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal, which has been fighting for the rights of Muslim women for decades, has thrown its lot behind Arshiya.Mandal chief Shamshuddin Tamboli said, "Misinformation campaign against uniform code is being run by fundamental elements. Muslim community is afraid because there is fear the government will push Hindutva and the uniform code will be saffron.

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Married-at-16-given-triple-talaq-at-18-girl-urges-PM-to-enforce-uniform-code/articleshow/55007042.cms

 

[zen]

Two cases here - a) married at 16 (so opportuniy lost to study), b) ditched (at 18 which is the legal age of even considering getting married) by wrting 3 random words on paper

 

[Mariyam]

Funny thing is that the Triple Talaq ( Talaq al biddat) finds no sanction in the Holy Quran. 

 

Abhorrent custom, which even most Muslim nations have abolished.  Pakistan for instance, abolished the malpractice in 1961. Malaysia even before that.

 

I do not understand the AIMPLB's adamant stand on the Triple Talaq issue. As parochial as they are, they can't be that stupid. Here's a good chance for them to be relevant again by standing by the notice sent by the SC and help abrogate the Triple Talaq. 

Edited October 23, 2016 by Mariyam

[Texan]

59 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Funny thing is that the Triple Talaq ( Talaq al biddat) finds no sanction in the Holy Quran. 

 

Abhorrent custom, which even most Muslim nations have abolished.  Pakistan for instance, abolished the malpractice in 1961. Malaysia even before that.

 

I do not understand the AIMPLB's adamant stand on the Triple Talaq issue. As parochial as they are, they can't be that stupid. Here's a good chance for them to be relevant again by standing by the notice sent by the SC and help abrogate the Triple Talaq. 

Since it doesn't find sanction in the Quran, where did this originate from?

[Crookbond]

Yes - we should have a common civil code.

 

• Unilateral gender neutral divorce (removal of Triple Talaq or any of that non sense)
• Polygamy for all or Monogamy for all
• Beards should be allowed for all or for no one in the army
• Helmet laws should be same for all
• Hindu bigamy law in Goa should be removed
• Hindu Undivided Family tax should be removed

[zen]

7 hours ago, Crookbond said:

 

• Hindu Undivided Family tax should be removed

I dont remember the tax laws in Ind, but why should the above be removed? Why cant it be offered to any family who wants to file asvan undivided family? 

[Crookbond]

18 hours ago, zen said:

I dont remember the tax laws in Ind, but why should the above be removed? Why cant it be offered to any family who wants to file asvan undivided family? 

The same reason Triple Talaq should be removed. You should not get a special tax because you start a family. 

[zen]

1 hour ago, Crookbond said:

The same reason Triple Talaq should be removed. You should not get a special tax because you start a family. 

My question was why can't it be offered to any family irrespective of the religion? Is the "undivided family" law discriminating against anyone like 3T (triple talaq) is against muslim women 

 

Just because 3T should be removed does not necessarily mean that any law with any religious name in front of it should be removed even if the law could be benificial

 

Btw, starting a family is a huge initiative. Depending upon the income levels of the family, special provisions should be given to those being supported in the family by the rest of family. It is better to have a culture that saves taxes legally than illegally by evading taxes 

Edited October 24, 2016 by zen

[Tibarn]

I'm not sure the PM should have made a statement on this, there's no reason to spend political capital on this. 

[Texy]

I thought only Arabs used triple talaq to void the quickie marriage done to justify raping some poor girl after parents' silence bought w/ money in the subcontinent 

[Yoda-esque]

Litmus test, will lead to failure

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Muloghonto]

Indian divorce laws are medieval, backwards and in serious need of update.

Regardless of religion, it should be the same and it should be easy to get. 

The whole idea of 'need a valid cause for divorce' is nonsense,as 'i don't want to be married to him/her' should be a sufficient reason in itself. 

You have one life and if you wish to spend it with whomever you want, provided its consensual and of adult participants, there should be no restrictions against it. If you want a divorce, go get a divorce. As long as the dependents in the marriage (i.e., children) are provided for sufficiently (who has custody, child support from both parents,visitation rights unless one parent is a crackpot, etc), which isn't directly related to divorce anyways.

The idea of 'need valid reason for divorce' is based on mistaken notion of 'family has sanctity'. It doesn't. Or the idea that 'divorce is bad for children'. It isn't. I've seen plenty of cases very close up, where the children are more damaged because they got to grow up under two very unhappy and fighting people and far better outcomes when divorce goes through and parents remain civil due to shared custody. 

[sandeep]

If Muslim board doesn't want Indian govt to interfere or impose rules on marraige, then they should come up with divorce laws for muslims that equal or exceed the protections provided to non-muslim women.  You shouldn't be able to legally defend injustice in guise of religion.  

[Crookbond]

On 10/24/2016 at 10:45 PM, zen said:

My question was why can't it be offered to any family irrespective of the religion? Is the "undivided family" law discriminating against anyone like 3T (triple talaq) is against muslim women 

 

Just because 3T should be removed does not necessarily mean that any law with any religious name in front of it should be removed even if the law could be benificial

 

Btw, starting a family is a huge initiative. Depending upon the income levels of the family, special provisions should be given to those being supported in the family by the rest of family. It is better to have a culture that saves taxes legally than illegally by evading taxes 

Starting a family is a personal choice - the government has no business to provide incentives for a personal choice. 

[Tibarn]

Not to derail the purpose of this thread, but I must vehemently disagree with the poster a few posts above me. 

 

I'm not sure when families suddenly stopped being the bedrock of civilization, but they are very clearly sacrosanct. There is nothing "backward" about viewing families as such. If anything, it is far more primitive to think that families are not important. 

 

The part about children is even more absurd. They very clearly are negatively affected by divorce. Don't invent justifications for bad decisions. I can provide scores of studies that show the deleterious effects divorce has on children including psychological problems, academic issues, and divorce even being a predictor of future health issues. Furthermore, there is no basis in biology for such a statement.

 

The Indian laws are fine in that regard. If you want to live like a degenerate, then don't get married and especially don't have children. This hedonistic nonsense is neither "progress", "rational" nor the basis on which a society can be built. 

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Not to derail the purpose of this thread, but I must vehemently disagree with the poster a few posts above me. 

 

I'm not sure when families suddenly stopped being the bedrock of civilization, but they are very clearly sacrosanct. There is nothing "backward" about viewing families as such. If anything, it is far more primitive to think that families are not important. 

 

The part about children is even more absurd. They very clearly are negatively affected by divorce. Don't invent justifications for bad decisions. I can provide scores of studies that show the deleterious effects divorce has on children including psychological problems, academic issues, and divorce even being a predictor of future health issues. Furthermore, there is no basis in biology for such a statement.

 

The Indian laws are fine in that regard. If you want to live like a degenerate, then don't get married and especially don't have children. This hedonistic nonsense is neither "progress", "rational" nor the basis on which a society can be built. 

If you want, i can quote you legions of research papers from universities that show children are better off with two divorced parents that are civil with each other versus two parents who make each other miserable but refuse to divorce. The 'deleterious issues' with children are not because of divorce, it is because of the example parents set for the children. When parents act like babies, it is what makes children act out and have issues. 

The Indian laws are backwards in this regard, which is clearly evident with the far greater level of domestic violence associated with divorce & marriages in India than in the progressive west. 

 

And I'd like some evidence of this 'sacrosanct' entity called the nuclear family. The fact that nuclear families are not important, is being clearly demonstrated by the western world. In the last 40 years, the 'nuclear family' has nosedived in its prevalence in most of the west. Especially in the most progressive & socially stable nations like Canada, Finland, Sweden, Germany, etc. The fact that over 60% of these nations's 'families' experience divorce and less than 60% of people bother to get married in the first place, yet these places are #1 in virtually all social justice, social cohesion & social acceptance is of no coincidence.

 

The entire reason marriage has been treated as sacrosanct is because treating marriage as sacrosanct was our ONLY way to guarantee inheritance for the future generations. Now, thanks to science, this necessity is dead, which is why societies that you label 'hedonistic' are the most progressive and happy on this planet. 

 

It is no coincidence that since birth control & genetic testing for geneology has been introduced, women's rights have skyrocketed. Why is it that every religion puts higher benchmark for women's sexual purity ? Why is it that Abrahamic faiths give less than half the rights to women as to men ?

Why is it that in Ramayana, Sita had to take an 'agni-pariksha' to prove she didnt fool around with Ravana (or his men), but Ram, who is in identical situation (separated from wife), doesnt have to prove his chastity ?

It is because these 'morals' are creations of stone-age men who saw controlling women's sexuality as the ONLY guarantee to guarantee that your son is your son and not some other random guy's son. Because it mattered for inheritance. If your wife sleeps around, you have no way to prove your son is actually your son and you wouldn't be motivated to build an empire to leave for him. 

 

But now, that is a completely moot point, which is why we have a nation like Belgium, which averages 71% divorce rate (i.e., 71% of marriages end in divorce) also rated as one of the top HDI places on the planet. 
Correlate divorce rates with HDI rates and its actually surprising : highly developed & educated nations, with low religious garbage in their system, are also high on the divorce count.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by Muloghonto

[zen]

11 hours ago, Crookbond said:

Starting a family is a personal choice - the government has no business to provide incentives for a personal choice. 

In thst case, even whether to work or not or star a new business is a personal choice.

 

Btw, my point is not related to starting a family but once there is a family, it should have the means at its disposal to be able to support it esp in the absense of social welfare programs including free basic medical care, primary education, etc. Provisions such as HUF help families to save on taxes so the additional income could be put to uses such as supporting the family in various ways 

[Tibarn]

11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

If you want, i can quote you legions of research papers from universities that show children are better off with two divorced parents that are civil with each other versus two parents who make each other miserable but refuse to divorce. The 'deleterious issues' with children are not because of divorce, it is because of the example parents set for the children. When parents act like babies, it is what makes children act out and have issues.

This is simply not the case. The biological and psychological evidence says otherwise. Let's see an actual study that comes to the conclusion that you claim. I have a meta-analysis of 92 psychological papers that prove otherwise, from the American Psychological Association. Your example is just a subset of a greater set (set theory). A pair of parents that are horrible with each other would obviously have negative effects on the child, no one claimed otherwise, but that is a subset of the larger divorce problem. It is well established that children have multiple negative effects when they experience a divorce. Parents matter; a father and mother are important. Again, what you wish to be true doesn't become reality. If you want to divorce, do it, but don't invent truths that children will be unaffected. If you want to indulge in hedonistic activities, that is your business, but don't shoot off the shoulders of children. 

 

There is a reason there is an entire industry dealing with psychological counseling of children of divorced parents. I myself have volunteered as an undergrad with children undergoing depression post divorce, among other things. Adults of divorced families also self report greater rates of psychological disorders. This pertains to one of your later statements, but the rise of divorce in the West also correlates to increased use of psychiatric medicine in young adults. Greater than 40% of US college students are currently on some form of anti-depressant treatment.  The causality of problems is the divorce, although certain factors can attenuate the effects, ie having a lot of siblings can help minimize the effects of divorce on academic performance, but there is still a significant negative effect even at the levels of having 6+ siblings. 

 

11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

The Indian laws are backwards in this regard, which is clearly evident with the far greater level of domestic violence associated with divorce & marriages in India than in the progressive west. 

That can be a result of proper law and order and economic development. You have failed to draw a causal link between lax divorce laws and lower rates of violence against women.  The "progressive" West also has higher rates of  rape, and murder than India. Not to mention it being legal to have sex with animals in Canada now. Women also get lesser punishment for the same crimes than men in the US. Is that also a benefit of divorce. Men also experience domestic violence in the US, do you have any data if that is different between the West and India. If not, then what is the basis of claiming progress when there is a whole gender you ignore? 

 

11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

The entire reason marriage has been treated as sacrosanct is because treating marriage as sacrosanct was our ONLY way to guarantee inheritance for the future generations. Now, thanks to science, this necessity is dead, which is why societies that you label 'hedonistic' are the most progressive and happy on this planet. 

You are inventing history to suit your narrative. I am a scientist, so this part perturbs me. Science is a method, a process, not a buzzword to be dropped whenever one feels like they need to strengthen their political points. Marriage is sacrosanct because it is the bedrock of civilization. There is no reason to think it was a means of inheritance alone.

11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

And I'd like some evidence of this 'sacrosanct' entity called the nuclear family. The fact that nuclear families are not important, is being clearly demonstrated by the western world. In the last 40 years, the 'nuclear family' has nosedived in its prevalence in most of the west. Especially in the most progressive & socially stable nations like Canada, Finland, Sweden, Germany, etc. The fact that over 60% of these nations's 'families' experience divorce and less than 60% of people bother to get married in the first place, yet these places are #1 in virtually all social justice, social cohesion & social acceptance is of no coincidence.

40 years is hardly a representative sample size of the human species, and in no way a descriptive one. On the point of the nuclear family, humans have had roughly 200,000 yrs of development. During the vast majority of this time bonds like family and marriage have been bedrocks of civilization. In biology, (and in psychology/ecology), we make the assumption that when a trait or trend is observed throughout a species, that means that that trait is of evolutionary significance. The trait of human society having and being based around marriage and family is therefore a biological and psychological fact. My sample size of over 6 billion current and multiple billion now dead members of the human species far outweigh your minuscule "evidence" of a declining West that you seem to hold as the standard bearer for all thing right in the world. Your idea stems from Marxist social theory and moral relativism deriving from some post-Enlightenment ideas, not science.   

 

You have low standards for the term fact. The West rose in the 1800s when they still had nuclear families. The lone superpower of the last 60 years, the US had strong family traditions even in the 80s. Their rival, the USSR was proud of its high divorce rates, yet it collapsed.  You seem to be doing a common fallacy of wrong association; your post repeats that the West is some standard bearer for all human progress and achievement, but then you pick and choose what you want to associate the success with, in terms of causality. The success of the West by your statement could also be associated with their Christian background, their European origin, or even other things like cold weather in Europe, their diet composition, or surplus caloric intake. If I drew a correlation between the rise of the West and their Christian heritage, you would rightly think I was daft. Name a reason why your correlation leads to causation of Western progress. The West's progress is correctly attributed to economic freedom, that which actually impacts the standard of living of common Western citizens. There is a basic chart that we use to teach undergraduate science students, it is a correlation between the decline of pirates and the rise of global warming/climate change. If someone uncritically comes to the conclusion that the pirate decline is the cause of climate change, that is indeed bizarre. You are doing the same thing here.

 

 Social justice, social cohesion & social acceptance are mostly political terms and there is certainly no evidence that divorce leads to any of the three you mentioned. I will present separate paragraphs for each of the three phrases in bold.

 

Social justice: 

This is the most political term you presented. What is social justice exactly? Who defines it? Is it just another extension of Marxist social theory and moral relativism? I will present two examples, 1 from the US and 1 from India, since from our previous interactions, we both have lived in the two areas.

 

US) Here the term social justice implies that US "whites" pay for some sort of white privilege and allocate advantages to Blacks and Hispanics. There are multiple problems here. The current "whites", aside from those who were alive in the 1970s, have nothing to do with any oppression faced by blacks historically.  This idea is punishing "whites" for sins of some of their ancestors, as most whites did not have either slave owner or deep south lynch mob ancestors. This is a form of collective punishment, something so-called Social Justice Warriors would protest if say the US military mass bombed civilians in Syria to topple Assad. This is injustice but is considered social justice.

 

To further the above point, many of the so-called whites weren't considered whites in earlier US history, yet they have to pay for damages done by a subset of people with origins from England/Wales. At different points in US history, Irish, Italians, and even Russians were considered black, yet their descendants have to pay for crimes of whites? The KKK would even lynch Catholics in the South, yet Catholics would pay reparations? This is injustice but is considered social justice.

 

There is also no reason for "whites" to allocate any form of reparations to Hispanics, as these people are all somewhat recent immigrants to the country.  There is no legacy of discrimination here. Furthermore, why do Asian immigrants and their children have to pay reparations in the form of college admissions acceptance to blacks and hispanics, when Asians have nothing to do with any sort of oppression in the US. What you call social justice, I call racism. This is injustice but is considered social justice.

 

India) The Dalit example doesn't fit here because members of that sub-varna do indeed still face discrimination in many parts of the country. I am supportive of reservation on my part, for this group. On the other hand, social justice in India also means some sort of reallocation of resources to Muslims, because Muslims are backwards. The community that historically oppresses other communities gets reservations. That is bizarre, but Indian social justice activists would tell you that evil Hindoos are oppressing Muslims, a reverse of the actual oppressor-victim paradigm. This is indeed injustice but would be considered social justice. On the other hand, a member of the Shudra varna like myself never got any reservations, even though some members of my jati were sweepers before we became farmers. (Note I don't want any reservations).

 

What I am trying to say with the examples I presented is that social justice is just a political term used to patronize favored groups by certain political parties based on their voting needs and persuasions. What you are claiming is social justice can also be argued to be injustice. 

 

Social Cohesion:

There are plenty of arguments about what brings social cohesion; none are tied to lax divorce rates or the destruction of families. The rate of social cohesion is very highly tied to homogeneity far more than other things. Also I would once again argue proper economics, providing a better standard of living,  likely helps cohesion as well. Most European countries have had very little diversity historically, and East Asian countries even less so. The research shows that less diverse areas are more cohesive than more diverse. It is not a coincidence that the highly diverse countries of post colonial Africa experience more violent conflict than homogeneous areas like Japan and the Netherlands. The evidence from America itself shows how ethnic groups congregate in particular areas to live with each other rather than in diverse neighborhoods.  There is also evidence that the more diverse a place is the greater the mistrust there is in said place, and that people who don't live near "the other" have better opinions of them than those who do. This phenomenon can be seen in how left-liberals almost always come from middle/upper-middle class families with little experience growing up near diverse people, ie living in well off parts of Manhattan but never visiting Harlem.

 

Social Acceptance:

This is a matter of opinion. I can say that India has far better social acceptance than the US, or I can say vice versa. If I was an Agori sadhu in the US, I would be jailed, but I can be one in India. Muslims, although I disagree with these practices, can murder animals on the streets in India, they can have multiple wives, and they can triple talaq. These would all be banned in the US, but are acceptable in India. What you say is social acceptance isn't the be all end all of social acceptance. There is hardly a way to quantify such a claim. 

11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

The entire reason marriage has been treated as sacrosanct is because treating marriage as sacrosanct was our ONLY way to guarantee inheritance for the future generations. Now, thanks to science, this necessity is dead, which is why societies that you label 'hedonistic' are the most progressive and happy on this planet. 

Firstly, this is again, you coming to a conclusion first and then inventing evidence afterwards. Secondly, I doubt you are a scientist; I am on the other hand. Science doesn't conform to whatever random belief that you have, don't use it as a buzzword to lend credence to your argument. Science is a process not a political belief. 

 

Please prove that contracts were the reason for marriage. This is again a derivative of Marxist social theory that you are passing off as proof.  Societies that are happier are also wealthier. Maybe economic well being is the key to happiness. Prove your claim that divorce and hedonism lead to happiness. In fact, I can post a study that shows the number of sexual partners a woman has is associated with a decreased life satisfaction and higher rates of depression/potential suicide. I wager that one would find the same for men. As mentioned earlier, over 40 percent of college age Americans have reported symptoms of MDD, major depressive disorder. That sounds like joy to me. 

 

Coming to my statement on money. I also have a study that correlates income to life satisfaction in the US. It would seem that when people don't have to worry about basic needs they are happy. Who would have thought?

11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

It is no coincidence that since birth control & genetic testing for geneology has been introduced, women's rights have skyrocketed. Why is it that every religion puts higher benchmark for women's sexual purity ? Why is it that Abrahamic faiths give less than half the rights to women as to men ?

Why is it that in Ramayana, Sita had to take an 'agni-pariksha' to prove she didnt fool around with Ravana (or his men), but Ram, who is in identical situation (separated from wife), doesnt have to prove his chastity ?

Did you know that women incorporate DNA of sexual partners into their own? Probably not. Did you know that women have different sexual functions, different hormones, and different tendencies to both behavior and pathologies to men? You don realize that Abrahamic faiths also consider eternal damnation a punishment for lying with another man's wife, right? You do realize that nobody wants their daughter to associate with a guy that gets around in Abrahamic societies? Nobody, but the West you are idolizing, puts great emphasis and respect on hedonism of males, let alone females.

 

Coming to Ramayana. There is debate whether the agni-pariksha was in Valmiki's Ramayana, but I haven't read it, so I do not wish to make a claim regarding that.

 

Coming to the question. You are betraying your own lack of knowledge on the Ramayana. Ravana was a notorious rapist, there is infinitely greater chance of a rapist raping even a woman who is a paragon of virtue than a man, who is also a paragon of virtue, ever lying with another woman.

 

Even if what I said wasn't true, the pariksha is still morally justified, as the honor of the country is more important than any personal relationship. If the citizens had doubts, the prerogative of the King is to relieve their apprehensions. Ram and Sita's personal love do not come before a Raja's duty to his Desh. That is a key part of Kshatriya Dharma. Ram was of course Karmic-ly punished by being killed by his own sons later in life of course, for not fulfilling his Dharma as a father and husband.  

11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

It is because these 'morals' are creations of stone-age men who saw controlling women's sexuality as the ONLY guarantee to guarantee that your son is your son and not some other random guy's son. Because it mattered for inheritance. If your wife sleeps around, you have no way to prove your son is actually your son and you wouldn't be motivated to build an empire to leave for him.

Morals are hard-wired into people which is implied by the conserved nature of morals across humanity. You are once again engaging in  moral relativism. You are likely inspired by 300 year old gibberish from the "Enlightenment" where nonsense like tabula rosa and such were propagated as "rationality."

 

Sons can be traced via Y chromosome, which is unique to males. There are also other minor factors that are able to help people recognize paternal origins. Nevertheless, even if chastity was only to maintain inheritance, that is a key part of society. Families have always been the bedrocks of successful societies and hedonism has been a sign of societal collapse. Please read about Roman society before Rome's decline and read about Sparta's society before it's decline. I also mentioned the Soviet Union as well, so that is a third society that was destroyed via the social behavior you are advocating. Please do read up on them.

 

You are close to repeating the Marxist statement that marriage is oppression of women, this is based in their false theory known as conflict theory.

11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

But now, that is a completely moot point, which is why we have a nation like Belgium, which averages 71% divorce rate (i.e., 71% of marriages end in divorce) also rated as one of the top HDI places on the planet. 
Correlate divorce rates with HDI rates and its actually surprising : highly developed & educated nations, with low religious garbage in their system, are also high on the divorce count.

You say religious garbage, yet you are basing what you say on pseudo-scientific pseudo-religious arguments as well. You have yet to prove any causality between your idea of a hedonistic society and well being of citizens.

 

Furthermore, you are making the mistake in thinking that the conditions that are prevalent in the West today are the pinnacle of human achievement, that this type of society was not present before, and that "history is over." You are assuming a static state where the current level of morality and behavior in the West is sustainable.

 

Let me give some examples:

 

1)

 Demographics: This works on multiple levels. The demographic trends in many Western countries are negative in multiple ways. Certain countries, like Belgium, are undergoing massive ethnic change in terms of percentages. Where will your great, "progressive" society be when it is 25% middle eastern, or 50% middle eastern. Will Belgium have the same laws and values as demography changes?

Demographics also affect on the economic level. An old population in Western societies lead to overburdening of social welfare systems and increased debt. The West has a declining native workforce, in terms of ethnic Europeans. If they import workers from the Middle East, what will your beloved West look like in 25, 50 years? I guess history isn't over.

 

2)

Ecology: The West is the ecological burden on the planet. An average American, for example, has a Carbon cost of around 22 times the cost of an average Indian. Do you think they are willing to become Carbon neutral if it affects their lifestyle? No, they won't. The problem with hedonism, is that it breed people who take no personal responsibility for their actions and always want others to solve their problems with no cost to them.

 

Statement: Red meat production hurts the environment, we should stop red meat consumption

Hedonist: My life, my rules, I don't have to worry about future generations, you only live once. Don't be oppressive, etc, etc. 

 

Hypothetically, how will India, the subcontinent, sub-Saharan Africa develop without the use of fossil fuels? If we use the amount of fossil fuels that they do, and bring our levels of Carbon per capita to their levels, what do you think will happen to the climate?

  

This is not how a society functions, it is how one declines.

 

I will conclude with the statement I made in my earlier post, you are free to be a hedonist if you want, but don't pretend that it doesn't have consequences. Beliefs and actions both have consequences.  Don't defile marriage to suit your lust, and don't sacrifice a child's well being for your wandering eye. Do your business without getting married and without having kids. 

Edited October 26, 2016 by Tibarn
One part of my post didn't post

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, sarchasm said:

Tibarn looks like he's gon beat the dogged Mulo at his own game

Bhai, it is not a contest. Atleast, i don't think it is. It is nice to find someone to share ideas with and debate, for that is how true change & progress works: via consultation, debate and answering concerns. I am enjoying this. If he proves me wrong, I'd happily acknowledge it and I hope the same goes for him.

 

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, Tibarn said:

This is simply not the case. The biological and psychological evidence says otherwise. Let's see an actual study that comes to the conclusion that you claim. I have a meta-analysis of 92 psychological papers that prove otherwise, from the American Psychological Association. Your example is just a subset of a greater set (set theory). A pair of parents that are horrible with each other would obviously have negative effects on the child, no one claimed otherwise, but that is a subset of the larger divorce problem. It is well established that children have multiple negative effects when they experience a divorce. Parents matter; a father and mother are important. Again, what you wish to be true doesn't become reality. If you want to divorce, do it, but don't invent truths that children will be unaffected. If you want to indulge in hedonistic activities, that is your business, but don't shoot off the shoulders of children. 

 

I will start off by stating that I am a scientist/have a science background. I came to Canada in 1989, graduated in Electrical Engineering (BASc) in 1992, MASc in 1994. My specialization is in control systems and i worked in several companies- mining, pulp mill, electronics production, etc. for almost 15+ years. Then i transitioned into programming, predominantly due to a superior lifestyle ( i am a master of my own time as a coder) almost 5 years ago and since then, i've mostly been doing programming and some occasional engineering consultancy.

 

Thanks to spending years in the frozen north of Canada in the mining sector, I've become very good at computer games & read a lot of history (since your options were to sit on the internet or hookers & blow after work, nothing else).

I am married for over 10 years, have two beautiful girls and my wife is a therapist/counsellor. 

 

Now, to answer your queries. There is a good reason, if you look at my post, i omitted USA from my argument. This is because, USA is to the western world what Saudi Arabia is to the middle east: biggest, baddest, richest and by far the most socially backwards. 

The negative effects you speak of- has a huge social expectation component and in the USA, which is predominantly a religious country (only 13% of US residents report themselves as non-religious/atheist), the feelings of guilt, persecution & 'wrong' dominate, from a divorce angle. 

Obviously, children will feel their parents have 'done something wrong' and act out, if the over-arching social viewpoint is 'divorce is wrong because religion says so'. 

This is why i am more interested in debating my point within the parameters I've set : the effects of divorce on children in societies where religion is not a big part of the equation. 

Germany ( 51% Atheist+agnostic, 20% believers in a higher power but not religion), Finland (60% being atheists + agnostics), Sweden (49-51% Atheists/Agnosts), etc. are representative of my viewpoint.

 

This debate is a non-starter, if you wish to use USA as representative of the west or western lifestyle. It is not. Western Liberalism is of a marginal presence in the US compared to most other western countries. 

 

Quote

This pertains to one of your later statements, but the rise of divorce in the West also correlates to increased use of psychiatric medicine in young adults. Greater than 40% of US college students are currently on some form of anti-depressant treatment.  The causality of problems is the divorce, although certain factors can attenuate the effects, ie having a lot of siblings can help minimize the effects of divorce on academic performance, but there is still a significant negative effect even at the levels of having 6+ siblings. 

If you wish to get into 'correlation & causation' discourse, i can fill up entire forums with it, because the fundamental work of a control system specialist is to discern correlation & causation. The above from you, is a fundamental error in mistaking correlation with causation. Greater than 40% of US college students use antidepressants today and less than 5% used it 40 years ago, not because of rising divorce rates in the US but because 90% of anti-depressive medication has come into existence in the last 40 years, people have become far more accepting of seeking treatment for mental disorders today than 40 years ago, etc.

 

I could draw similar analogy, where there is a far greater percentage of people today taking medication for epilepsy than 50 years ago. It doesnt mean people today are more epileptic than 50 years ago, its because most epilepsy medication exists today didn't exist 50 years ago.

 

Quote

That can be a result of proper law and order and economic development. You have failed to draw a causal link between lax divorce laws and lower rates of violence against women.  The "progressive" West also has higher rates of  rape, and murder than India. Not to mention it being legal to have sex with animals in Canada now. Women also get lesser punishment for the same crimes than men in the US. Is that also a benefit of divorce. Men also experience domestic violence in the US, do you have any data if that is different between the West and India. If not, then what is the basis of claiming progress when there is a whole gender you ignore? 

1. You are mistaken. Beastiality is not legal in Canada and cannot be legal till you can communicate with the animal in question to get consent. Having sex with a cow is wrong, not because it is a beast, but because you are raping it (you have no way to gauge consent). This is the official position of the supreme court of Canada.

 

2. The west doesn't have higher prevalence of rape, we have higher prevalence of reporting a rape. This is because in India there are many, many parents who will disown/kill the girl for getting raped, while in Canada, except for a few Sikh & Muslim nutters, nobody has done that in over 30 years. 

 

3. You have also altered my argument (basic strawmanship): I said there is a causal link between higher acceptance of divorce rate & lower rates of domestic violence. It is not to be construed as a point towards overall violence against women, it is simply about domestic violence.

 

Quote

You are inventing history to suit your narrative. I am a scientist, so this part perturbs me. Science is a method, a process, not a buzzword to be dropped whenever one feels like they need to strengthen their political points. Marriage is sacrosanct because it is the bedrock of civilization. There is no reason to think it was a means of inheritance alone.

Suffice to say, I too am a scientist and i know why i used this example. It is because scientific progress gives us practical options, some of them often overturns social order due to it. Feudalism died due to science, because there is no point having a warrior class when any damn fool can point a gun and pull a trigger.  There is nothing sacrosanct about marriage or it being a bedrock of civilization and i will demonstrate it.

 

I will break up my response into another post, because it will be easier for us to present our POVs if it is less of a 'quote-response' essay.

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by Muloghonto