. . . or stay deathly silent as they always do when there are especially egregious governmental intrusions into the private lives of citizens:
Citing a morals clause in the woman’s divorce decree, a Texas judge has ruled that she cannot live with her new female partner and still retain custody of her children. The clause is common in divorce cases in Texas and other states. It prevents a divorced parent from having a romantic partner spend the night while children are in the home.
I wonder, is the reason why the US Libertarians are so indifferent to the governmental intrusion into the people’s sex lives that they have none of their own? Or none they find valuable enough to protect from said intrusion?
Clarissa's Blog 
// It prevents a divorced parent from having a romantic partner spend the night while children are in the home.
Has this cause *ever* been used in court against a long term heterosexual partner? Like, you’re 2 years together, but as long as not officially married – no.
Wait, spending all days with kids is A-OK, but a night in the same flat – no? Ridiculous.
LikeLike
Texas, you know? Anything is possible there.
LikeLike
yes, i know. everything is possible in texas or louisiana
LikeLike
I know several people who have been afraid to have a lover of any sex stay overnight for fear of losing custody of their children. This is most definitely used very broadly.
LikeLike
This is beyond bizarre. Of course, I don’t disbelieve you, but the logic of this approach is incomprehensible to me. What is wrong with people having personal lives after getting divorced?
LikeLike
I suppose the excuse is that stepparents have a higher chance to be abusive than parents. Still doesn’t excuse a thing, though.
LikeLike
The abuse can easily happen during the day, too.
LikeLike
Quite. This is pretty obviously an attempt to control an ex-spouse’s sexuality by using custody of the children as leverage.It can’t be spelled out for what it is though, so there needs to be some justification, as flimsy as it might be.
LikeLike
Maybe libertarianism can be interpreted in a different way where the government does have the ability to protect people from certain issues, especially on the basis of human rights and issues like global warming. The problem is when people try to turn libertarian positions into generic, reductionist phrases. It makes those people look like they don’t have a real understanding of how the world works. A common criticism that I’ve heard about libertarianism is that its methods are “autistic,” whatever that means. I saw it on a specific left leaning economic student’s Twitter. I’ll try finding it later to show you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, I know, people often use “autistic” in lieu of “cold, indifferent, unemotional, intellectually limited.” Shows how much they know.
LikeLike
Have you heard of the new Maslow’s Pyramid?
big changes are at the top. Perhaps the most controversial modification is that self-actualization no longer appears on the pyramid at all.
At the top of the new pyramid are three evolutionarily critical motives that Maslow overlooked – mate acquisition, mate retention and parenting.
The researchers state in the article that while self-actualization is interesting and important, it isn’t an evolutionarily fundamental need.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/08/23/updated-maslows-pyramid-of-needs/17144.html
LikeLike
Complete insanity. The evo psychers have gone psycho.
By the way, I take back whatever I said about the death of anti-semitism in Russia. See the following discussion (especially the comments): http://arbatovagidepar.livejournal.com/985014.html#comments
I had to stop reading because I’m too traumatized.
P.S. The link is in Russian.
LikeLike
François Tremblay has a take on this: http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/psychology-declares-war-on-childfreedom/
LikeLike
He is completely right. These evo psych losers are total losers.
LikeLike
// I take back whatever I said about the death of anti-semitism in Russia.
May be one day it won’t be about only Russia. Btw, about Russia you haven’t seen the worst. I’ve seen worse before.
Just read:
Germany is the most positively viewed nation in the world in this year’s annual Country Ratings Poll for the BBC World Service. […] Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran came out worst in terms of how they are viewed globally.
Look at percentages: Russia, Israel, North Korea. Is Israel objectively so horrible? Why do so many people in different countries see it so badly?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22624104
LikeLike
What I wonder is why only 16 countries were selected for the poll and who made the decision as to which countries to select.
People from Ghana were asked to rate Germany. But was anybody asked to consider the importance of Ghana in the world? Why does Brazil make the list but not Argentina? Why is South Korea there but not Mongolia or Mexico? Why is South Africa more important than Nigeria? How is Canada more important in the world than Mexico? How is the tiny Israel more crucial than these huge countries?
The poll is obviously completely rigged to support certain pre-determined points of view.
LikeLike
This was also mentioned by Reason, so I believe the libertarians are getting pissed at it.
LikeLike
A bit of googling also led to this Facebook page.
LikeLike
Good! So they are not hopeless. I’m very glad.
LikeLike
This makes no sense. It’s like saying married peoples aren’t romantic partners when they have children.
LikeLike
// I suppose the excuse is that stepparents have a higher chance to be abusive than parents.
Has somebody used the excuse? Seems not, since the law has no problem with stepparents as long as they’re married. I would bet on the only “explanation” being the poor pure children being corrupted by understanding their parents have sex (not only with legal spouse).
LikeLike
“Look at percentages: Russia, Israel, North Korea. Is Israel objectively so horrible? Why do so many people in different countries see it so badly?”
Hmm, you wonder why. Oh wait, you answered your question already.
“// I take back whatever I said about the death of anti-semitism in Russia.
May be one day it won’t be about only Russia.”
There you go. There’s your answer. This planet is anti-semitic. Perhaps the entire solar system. Hope you feel better now. Time to take a rest, you must be exhausted by all this deep and thorough analysis of the situation.
LikeLike
I’m starting to get jealous of the amount of attention el gets from Stringer Bell. 🙂
LikeLike
SB, the truth is that most people from other countries don’t care about Palestinians either way, but get this little special feeling inside, when they hear the word “Jews”. Something little that isn’t there at hearing words like “Germans” or “French” or “Spanish”. This little something would be there, regardless of Israeli-Palestinians conflict’s state, and was there before Israel was founded. And today the conflict lets those people find the pretext to display their feelings.
This doesn’t refer to most Muslims, who have this little thing too, but in addition feel Israel has no right to exist and should stop to exist by agreeing to right of return. Israel is seeing as foreign, not belonging, affronting by very existence entity. Unfortunately, most people in neighboring countries feel so, and even in their case I don’t think the Palestinian issue is the only main reason for that.
// I’m starting to get jealous of the amount of attention el gets from Stringer Bell.
I am feeling amused sometimes, but you can enjoy negative attention better than me. I would rather SB honestly stated his analysis in (series of) post(s) than being sarcastic. Would have been much more interesting. And told about his background, concerning the question too, as I do. We are all subjective and pretending to be otherwise is dishonest.
LikeLike