International News Thread

[HexMachina]

9 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Nutty, and untrue as presented; though it is still an example of the law being an arse.

Yep. Looks more like a case of 'we want to help but really it's not our perogative to legislate in this area, democratic legitimacy etc.'

[Corvinus85]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But it also doesn't allow a man to divorce his wife under the same circumstances. So it's a bit disingenuous for there to be any implication of it as a gender issue.

Fundamentally I'm not opposed to a waiting period in cases of "no fault" divorce. But 5 years seems excessive. I would imagine if there's no reconciliation within the space of a year (or maybe 2) that would be enough for the divorce to be completed.

I never meant to imply that there was a gender issue. It just happens that in this case the husband is being a dickhead, and the wife is stuck.

[Which Tyler]

Not so much "stuck" or "not allowed to divorce" as... needs to find a better reason, or wait the proscribed length of time.

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

Not so much "stuck" or "not allowed to divorce" as... needs to find a better reason, or wait the proscribed length of time.

The only reason that should matter is one party no longer wants to be in the relationship. They shouldn't have to wait a certain amount of time to get out if they're done with the other person.

[Which Tyler]

45 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

The only reason that should matter is one party no longer wants to be in the relationship. They shouldn't have to wait a certain amount of time to get out if they're done with the other person.

Of course - the other side of the story is that

A] The other person does still want to be in a relationship

B] Said other person has a marriage contract with the person wanting out, that includes specific release clauses

C] Those release clauses haven't been met (yet)

D] It is ONLY a matter of time; she is absolutely free to get on with her own life, the only thing she can't do is to marry someone else for another 2 years; which absolutely does NOT amount to "stuck with" or "not allowed to divorce"

 

These things are a matter of law; laws which are different in different countries. In the UK these laws are set by parliament, and everyone knows them when they get married - this lady is upset that they also apply to her.

Now, I happen to think that 5 years separation is (way) longer than necessary, and is a hang-over from times gone by in order to protect the sanctity of marriage, an institution I do not believe deserves any particular sanctity; but it is what it is; presenting it as things it isn't, really isn't helpful though, and amounts to click-bait.

[mormont]

3 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Of course - the other side of the story is that

A] The other person does still want to be in a relationship

 B] Said other person has a marriage contract with the person wanting out, that includes specific release clauses

C] Those release clauses haven't been met (yet)

D] It is ONLY a matter of time; she is absolutely free to get on with her own life, the only thing she can't do is to marry someone else for another 2 years; which absolutely does NOT amount to "stuck with" or "not allowed to divorce"

 

These things are a matter of law; laws which are different in different countries. In the UK these laws are set by parliament, and everyone knows them when they get married - this lady is upset that they also apply to her.

Now, I happen to think that 5 years separation is (way) longer than necessary, and is a hang-over from times gone by in order to protect the sanctity of marriage, an institution I do not believe deserves any particular sanctity; but it is what it is; presenting it as things it isn't, really isn't helpful though, and amounts to click-bait.

I think it's important in these discussions to clearly distinguish between what the law is, and what it should be. The post above kind of mixes the two up. Points B and C are purely legal issues but points A and D are not. 

In relation to those, if one party doesn't want to be in a relationship, there is no relationship. That's what a relationship is. It needs two (or more) willing participants or ot doesn't exist. The wishes of the other party, while they may be sympathised with, are not relevant.

Also, there are perfectly valid reasons why one may not want to be married to someone, other than the inability to marry someone else. 

Anyway, I'm not sure that this whole discussion belongs in this thread. 

[Ice Queen]

11 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

D] It is ONLY a matter of time; she is absolutely free to get on with her own life, the only thing she can't do is to marry someone else for another 2 years; which absolutely does NOT amount to "stuck with" or "not allowed to divorce"

Except that when you're 78, you don't have a lot of time left to waste with someone you don't want to be with.

[Which Tyler]

20 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Except that when you're 78, you don't have a lot of time left to waste with someone you don't want to be with.

She can be with whomever she wants to be with

22 minutes ago, mormont said:

I think it's important in these discussions to clearly distinguish between what the law is, and what it should be. The post above kind of mixes the two up. Points B and C are purely legal issues but points A and D are not. 

In relation to those, if one party doesn't want to be in a relationship, there is no relationship. That's what a relationship is. It needs two (or more) willing participants or ot doesn't exist. The wishes of the other party, while they may be sympathised with, are not relevant.

Also, there are perfectly valid reasons why one may not want to be married to someone, other than the inability to marry someone else. 

Anyway, I'm not sure that this whole discussion belongs in this thread. 

 

On point D - then yeah, fair enough; but A is also a legal issue; if it wasn't for A then it would be mutual, and the divorce would have happened by now - there's no 5 year time limit there. So yeah, the wishes of the other party are relevant, because they create this situation in the first place.
Oh, and yes, there are other valid reasons to not want to be married to someone - but I can't think of any that she is legally prohibited from doing due to her existing marriage (which could just be because I lack imagination).

[Tywin et al.]

On top of what Mormont wrote, there are very clear reasons to want to be divorced from someone, chiefly for financial reasons. But I agree this is getting off topic and should probably get its own thread.

[Tywin et al.]

On 7/21/2018 at 8:11 PM, LongRider said:

 

ahem

 

Peace offer?:

They've found a lake on Mars.

[Jace, Extat]

58 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

 

They've found a lake on Mars.

THAT LAKE IS NOT FOR THE LIKES OF YOU, LEAVE IT TO YOUR BETTERS!!!!

[LongRider]

4 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Peace offer?:

They've found a lake on Mars.

Water on Mars isn't just International, it's Interplanetary, just right next door really.    So ya man, peace.        Mugs O' Mars Best!

[The Anti-Targ]

So with the latest portents of climate change doom to appear in the media, have we reached the tipping point where the forces opposing emissions reduction have achieved the result of making substantial cuts to emissions largely pointless, because we've passed a point of no return in terms of worst case scenarios being most likely regardless of what we do over the next couple of decades?

Is it time to start planning for how to best cope with the disasters that are coming (and already here to some extent), rather than putting effort and expense into trying to prevent or limit the disasters?

Quote

Re an essay published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

The authors say the effects of the self-reinforcing feedbacks could "cause continued warming on a 'Hothouse Earth' pathway, even as human emissions are reduced".

They also warn that the requirements of the UN's climate change contract the Paris Agreement may not be stringent enough to keep global temperatures stable.

"I do hope we are wrong," said author Johan Rockström, the executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre.

"But as scientists we have a responsibility to explore whether this is real. We need to know now. It's so urgent. This is one of the most existential questions in science."

 

[Ser Reptitious]

Things are heating up in Romania: https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-what-is-happening-in-romania-is-not-democracy/a-45046129?maca=en-linkedin-sharing

[The Anti-Targ]

In International news from 1912

Quote

Coal consumption affecting climate

“The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries.”

 - August 14, 1912, the Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette printed a prescient paragraph in its “science notes and news”

 

[williamjm]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

In International news from 1912

This got shared a lot on Facebook a few months back. Apparently it was a reprint of part of an article in Popular Mechanics magazine, which shows that the Greenhouse Effect wasn't only being discussed in New Zealand local papers at the time.

[Squab]

UK: https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/16/women-fed-mens-bathroom-habits-home-office-gender-neutral-toilets-7846233/

France: https://bigthink.com/ned-dymoke/are-public-urinals-putting-the-p-in-paris

[The Anti-Targ]

Interesting consequence of gender neutral bathrooms. People with penises are used to peeing in full view of people, so shutting a door to pee is a foreign concept.

I've always advocated for a few toilets being standup urinals only, which is where people with penises will go to pee. The rest of the toilets will be cubicles for people will go who need to sit while peeing, or when needing to poop, or change sanitary products, or have a mid-afternoon nap.

Urinals increase toilet use efficiency. There's less space required per position, and there's shorter turnaround time. It's why at big sporting events and concerts there are always much shorter lines for the men's loos than for the women's. So having 100% gender neutral bathrooms, where everything is a toilet cubicle, isn't actually the best solution for all concerned.

[Meera of Tarth]

On 8/17/2018 at 2:41 AM, Squab said:

UK: https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/16/women-fed-mens-bathroom-habits-home-office-gender-neutral-toilets-7846233/

France: https://bigthink.com/ned-dymoke/are-public-urinals-putting-the-p-in-paris

The urinals just for men in public street in Paris are just gross. They could have easily made them for both genders, without causing this controversy.

Not to mention that it is extremely sexist.

[Meera of Tarth]

On 8/17/2018 at 4:17 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

Interesting consequence of gender neutral bathrooms. People with penises are used to peeing in full view of people, so shutting a door to pee is a foreign concept.

I've always advocated for a few toilets being standup urinals only, which is where people with penises will go to pee. The rest of the toilets will be cubicles for people will go who need to sit while peeing, or when needing to poop, or change sanitary products, or have a mid-afternoon nap.

Urinals increase toilet use efficiency. There's less space required per position, and there's shorter turnaround time. It's why at big sporting events and concerts there are always much shorter lines for the men's loos than for the women's. So having 100% gender neutral bathrooms, where everything is a toilet cubicle, isn't actually the best solution for all concerned.

Sure, but then again, make them not "street public" so that everyone can see them peeing, and put as much cublicles as urinals as well in the toilets.