User Profile: Keep Your Skepticals On

Keep Your Skepticals On

Member Since: October 24, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [11] December 19, 2014 at 5:01pm

    I have seen many examples of “no porn, no video games, get everything done, wife the only female on earth” fail horribly.

    These are not reason marriages fail, they’re excuses why they do. Never witnessed a “perfect marriage” fail before? It doesn’t matter if a guy is living up to Matt Walsh’s standards – what matters is keeping the wife happy. Just stopping what may or may not be directly or indirectly hurting a marriage doesn’t mean suddenly it’s going to get better. Doing no wrong doesn’t necessarily mean doing good.

    The real take-away here is that it doesn’t matter what activity you are engaged in – the bottom line is that if it is inhibiting your ability to provide for the needs of your spouse it’s a problem. Doesn’t matter if you are always available, ready to go, chores done with everything all planned out and taken care of if there are other needs going unfulfilled.

    Talk to couples that have been married for decades – you won’t hear “He never watched porn.” or “He was never lazy.” or “He was always very attentive and involved.” as reasons it lasted. What you will hear is that “He loves me.” and “He knows me” and “He provided.” and “He was there.”.

    The key is knowing what counts, when it counts and why it counts. Then follow up and make it count.

  • [5] December 19, 2014 at 4:04pm

    Just know “All things in moderation”. Just as these things can lead to irreversible marital issues, so do the polar opposites. “Porn” is way too specific, it just goes along with extramarital intimacy in general – meaning if whatever things are being outsourced leads to a lack of exchange due to lack of moderation then there is business at home not being taken care of.

    But I think maybe what bothers me most is that any of these things can “kill a marriage”. I find “for better for worse, till death do us part” pretty absolute. Maybe finding all these reasons to blame for failed marriages only empowers them to manipulate people into thinking things so trivial do in fact justify breaking up family commitments.

    Nonetheless – put off personal gratification if favor of that of your spouse and all will be well. “Happy wife, happy life.” is true is no many ways. Maybe that is the problem with these articles… they do not help to find what will make your spouse happy. They start with the premise that avoiding what makes them unhappy will accomplish the same thing – but it won’t. Always assume you both will always do things to make the other unhappy and focus on what you can do to make them happy.

    Good luck!

  • November 27, 2014 at 4:50am

    Misleading headline:
    “There’s Definitely a Reason This A Capella Group’s Cover of Silent Night Is Taking the Internet by Storm.”

    Forthcoming Headline:
    “Pentatonix recently released a music video of ‘Silent Night’ – a song from their latest album ‘That’s Christmas To Me’”

    Misleading Article:
    “Pentatonix, an a cappella music group consisting of five members, published a cover of “Silent Night” Monday — and it’s taking the Internet by storm.”

    Forthcoming Article:
    “After releasing another music video from their most recent Christmas album on Youtube, their main video publishing venue, the video has half-a-million views. Comments included “Wow. Speechless.” and “Chills.” [Details about their second Christmas album here]. After winning the third season of The Sing-Off on NBC, Pentatonix signed a $200,000 deal with Sony. Most recently they singed with Sony Music Entertainment’s flagship record label RCA Records.

  • November 27, 2014 at 4:48am

    Misleading headline:
    “There’s Definitely a Reason This A Capella Group’s Cover of Silent Night Is Taking the Internet by Storm.”

    Forthcoming Headline:
    “Pentatonix recently released a music video of ‘Silent Night’ – a song from their latest album ‘That’s Christmas To Me’”

    Misleading Article:
    “Pentatonix, an a cappella music group consisting of five members, published a cover of “Silent Night” Monday — and it’s taking the Internet by storm.”

    Forthcoming Article:
    “After releasing another music video from their most recent Christmas album on Youtube, their main video publishing venue, the video has half-a-million views. Comments included “Wow. Speechless.” and “Chills.” [Details about their second Christmas album here]. After winning the third season of The Sing-Off on NBC, Pentatonix sign a $200,000 deal with Sony. Most recently they singed with Sony Music Entertainment’s flagship record label RCA Records.

  • [2] November 27, 2014 at 12:53am

    The best thing Ventura could have done to redeem himself and recover his good name would have been to do something honorable.

    To take a stand against the man who besmirched him to clear his name is honorable enough, taking legal action for monetary damages is questionable – but then pursuing a dead mans family looking for restitution is far more telling than a small tidbit in a book some guy wrote about something that may or may not have happened many years ago.

    If he came out and said he is dropping the suit because he did not want to burden the widowed family of a dead man – while still standing behind his claim that the story was false – I would not only believe it, but would have respect for the man.

    If this was about what Chris Kyle said, it would have ended with his death. Instead, it ended with the legal system deciding where money should go. A monetary settlement certainly won’t clear his name – but his actions could have given him a better one. He is either oblivious or that was not his goal. Maybe both.

    Seriously – what is more honorable? A judges decision and a monetary settlement -or- pardoning a widowed family from the sins of a dead man? I have a hard time believing a man who would choose A over B.

  • November 18, 2014 at 10:53pm

    $42,875?!?!?!?!?!?

    Better not just be aluminum but have a few pounds of gold in the glove box too.

  • [3] October 13, 2014 at 11:58pm

    “If this was a case involving race, religion or national origin, there would be no debate on right or wrong.”

    This makes no sense because they refused the content, not the people.

  • October 5, 2014 at 1:47pm

    Nevermind the truth behind it, it is a completely different issue with the Nazi Germany photos because in the ISIS case it is individual papers choosing not to publish something on their own while other publications can do as they please. That does not prevent distribution. In the case of the Nazi photos it was individuals trying to prevent anyone from publishing it. That is wholly to prevent any distribution.

    Comparing the two is a horrible analogy. People should be able to choose what they do/don’t publish but people should not be able to choose what someone else can/can’t.

  • [2] October 5, 2014 at 1:37pm

    Each publication should be able to decide to publish or not publish whatever it wants.

    Whether or not it is right depends on the publication and their readership. Especially these days, not much reason to republish controversial stuff anyway – just link to it or reference it or don’t. For every one not publishing it there’s a thousand that are.

    A publication choosing not to publish it doesn’t mean it’s hiding or censoring it – it’s just not providing it. Otherwise it may as well be argued that any publications – news or not – that isn’t publishing it is censoring it or that anyone not talking about it is censoring it.

    But, if a higher authority keeps it from the press or orders it not to be published, that’s a problem. If it’s about controlling the source to prevent it being seen that’s one thing – not plastering it on the front page should be individually discretionary. The only people who know if the decision is a good one or not is the publication, it’s readership and their tolerances either way.

  • [3] September 30, 2014 at 3:02pm

    The law is not the problem here – the problem is no one seems to be able to tell the difference between declining objectionable work and refusing service to certain people. The shop knowingly served gay & lesbian customers without issue – the problem was how they were asked to prepare the cake.

  • [5] September 30, 2014 at 2:59pm

    Yes – they happily served gay & lesbian customers. They only took issue with one particular requested service. It’s almost like they have no problem with who the customer is, only with the service they were asked to provide.

  • [2] September 30, 2014 at 2:56pm

    …or just explain the difference between refusing service to certain people vs. declining objectionable work.

    That would make sense though.

  • [2] September 30, 2014 at 2:53pm

    The painter does have the right to refuse to paint something he disagrees with – just as a newspaper or magazine can decline to run ads it finds disagreeable or objectionable.

    Cakes do endorse things. If the Kleins win in court and you have a cake shop can I ask you to make a cake that celebrates the Kleins success? Heck – signs, balloons, ad space, the works – all the print shops & party stores & venues have to express my opinion exactly how I want or I get to drag them to court?

  • [2] September 30, 2014 at 2:44pm

    So the shop happily served gay & lesbian customers regularly, but after declining to make one particular item a certain way they are discriminating?

    Do research, they knew they had gay/lesbian customers and did not refuse them service. They declined to provide a service – they did not decline to service certain customers.

  • [12] September 30, 2014 at 2:40pm

    Do some research. The shop happily served gay & lesbian customers – they just drew the line at preparing a cake a certain way that endorses a lifestyle they disagree with.

    The point that just flew by was that the problem is not the gay clients, it’s with the service they were asked to provide. Just like a publisher can deny ad space for material it finds agreeable or objectionable without violating free speech or discrimination laws.

    Just because someone wants to express something doesn’t mean someone else has to publish it – be it in a magazine or on a cake. If I go in to a cake shop and ask for a cake to celebrate successful passage voter ID laws, pro-life legislation and repealing a ban on military style assault weapons can they refuse? Is that refusing service to someone because of their political views? Or is it simply objecting to the ideals I want them to help me express via their services?

    They cannot refuse me service, but they can refuse to publish my ideals. Not that hard to understand.

  • [12] September 30, 2014 at 2:18pm

    “Klein and her husband, Aaron, have been at the forefront of the debate surrounding whether Christian business owners who provide wedding services should be forced to serve gay and lesbian clients.”

    It has nothing to do with serving gay and lesbian clients. It has everything to do with providing gay and lesbian services. BIG difference. They happily served gay & lesbian customers but drew the line at participation and enabling it. Stop spreading the same horse manure that obfuscates the issue.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 26, 2014 at 3:06pm

    That is not the point – a nude pick from a stolen wallet getting Xeroxed is no different.

    The point is that while she did not expose herself publicly, she did expose herself to a high risk of getting exposed publicly. Their fault it was stolen? No. Their fault something not meant for prying eyes was recorded on a medium easily stolen distributed? Yes.

  • September 26, 2014 at 2:47pm

    Nudity between spouses is not a sin, but exhibitionism due to carelessness or ignorance is still exhibitionism. Accident happen and people make mistakes, but using the same mediums that are used to publicize nudity for private intimacy ignorant, careless, stupid or reckless and it should be acknowledged so everyone can learn from the situation.

    It is a sin to expose yourself publicly, no? Regardless of intentions, there was no reasonable expectation it would not be public exposure – pictures (especially digital) are easily copied & distributed and easily end up in the hands of unintended recipients. Just because she did not expose herself doesn’t excuse putting something on a public medium that is not meant to be public.

    “Hey honey, let’s videotape ourselves. It’s not our fault for being on video for the world to see even if chances are at some point the world will see it.”

  • [1] September 26, 2014 at 2:11pm

    So, if it being “for her husband”… at what point does carelessness constitute willful publication?

    Is it ok to have a stack of polaroids in the nightstand where the kids can easily find them? How about a few Kodaks in the wallet that can eahsily be lost or stolen then maliciously reproduce

    Intended audience is all fine & dandy but there is personal responsibility in not making intimacy easily accessible and/or reproducible. The hacker are solely to blame for the leak, but someone is responsible for the picture existing in the first place.

    “Judge not lest ye be judged” – sure it’s not up to anyone to damn them or visa versa, but if people are exposing themselves to harmful situations in risky ways, let’s not be afraid to point it out, lest we all be willfully ignorant of those risks.

  • [1] September 26, 2014 at 1:54pm

    Isn’t there a commandment about graven images with more than a few reference of vanity and lust used to describe an idols of worship?

    Who it is intended for it really irrelevant. Horrible situation for them, but I am a little saddened the message they are conveying is “Hackers are solely responsible for the situation” instead of “Hey, this is one very good reason not to do what we did.”

    Is the thought process really “It’s not exhibitionism unless explicitly intended for public consumption” even when knowingly using the same format and medium that is used for public distribution? 10 years ago, wasn’t it a bad idea for a husband to keep a nude photo of his wife in his wallet? Sure it’s only meant for him, but anyone who happens upon his wallet suddenly has it and may or may not have access to a Xerox.

    Nudity is great, just don’t publish it. The elephant in the room is the personal responsibility of not generating, allowing access or allow misuse of things beyond intended persons or uses. Next let’s all blame petty thieves when they steal personal items from the car without acknowledging who didn’t check to be sure it was locked or who carelessly left such priceless items in it. Sure the thieves are to blame, but let’s put pride aside and teach everyone how to protect themselves from similar violations.

    Don’t expose your nudity in easily publicized ways without expectation it is will be easily publicized – by accident or by malicious intent.

123 To page: Go