Who is head of your house? - Page 17 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #**241** 04-10-2013, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

Equal veto power means that both have the power to negate the other.

Then we were no longer two individuals but part of a union.

Source of definition, please? Besides something you came up with.

An unequal union, since we are being specific

martureo · #**242** 04-10-2013, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

Jeeezuz you are one obnoxious ass in an argument.

I apologize if I like to be precise.

Debates are often won over details.

Quote:

By pre-existing right to trump I mean that when you married your wife she lost her right to equality when you disagree because you, as a male, and as the head of the household, has the right to make the decision and she doesn't.

I challenged the word "pre-existing" as I assumed you had meant that it was a necessary part of the marriage of which my wife entered regardless of her protest.

My wife didn't lose anything. She gave up that right. I'm not an anabaptist nor a Reformed Presbyterian.

martureo · #**243** 04-10-2013, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

But the fact that it gets you nowhere in regards to that decision does not mean that you can't choose not to decide at all.

Which in my marriage is an impossibility. Neither party can act independently if the decision effects both parties.

aklim · #**244** 04-10-2013, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

I challenged the word "pre-existing" as I assumed you had meant that it was a necessary part of the marriage of which my wife entered regardless of her protest.

My wife didn't lose anything. She gave up that right. I'm not an anabaptist nor a Reformed Presbyterian.

So let me ask you this. Hypothetically, if she said "NO. I refuse to give up that right." would you continue with the marriage? What is the difference between that and saying "If you don't give up that right, we cannot get married."?

martureo · #**245** 04-10-2013, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

That is besides the point.

I'm sorry, but that is ENTIRELY the point.

Quote:

You are talking about efficiency of problem solving. What you are saying is "For the sake of efficiency, I will play dictator".

Not even close....

Quote:

Same thing as what Hitler would have wanted. He too listened to his generals but he had veto power. Again, what is the meaning of equal or unequal veto power? I have been unable to find a definition. AFAIK, veto power is giving one party final say over the matter. You are changing the definition of the word "veto"./

No, I'm using the word veto in a reasoned argument.

kerry · #**246** 04-10-2013, 06:13 PM

I believe what Matureo is trying to do is to try to convince himself that his version of patriarchy is not as bad as it seems because even if he has the right to decide and trump his wife's will, he will often decide in favor of his wife and against his own view. He thinks this means that they have a relationship of equals.
It's a bad argument and they aren't equal because his wife, because she has a vagina and not a penis, doesn't get that same opportunity. Now if he said that they alternated--Ms. Matureo trumps the first six months of the year and Mr. Martureo trumps the last six months of the year then maybe it would make sense. But when ultimate authority rests in the male, regardless of what actual decision he makes, it's still patriarchy.

aklim · #**247** 04-10-2013, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

Neither party can act independently if the decision effects both parties.

Ok. So why you? Why must it be you that is the HOH, final arbiter, veto holder or whatever it is you want to call it? Why not her? Why not take turns? Why not flip a coin? The list goes on.

davidmash · #**248** 04-10-2013, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

My wife didn't lose anything. She gave up that right.

martureo · #**249** 04-10-2013, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

So let me ask you this. Hypothetically, if she said "NO. I refuse to give up that right." would you continue with the marriage?

I would have more of a discussion and reasoning process than just ending it right there.

Although in the end I think it would be the end of an engagement if it came to that as I'd rather follow the Bible than end up having someone leave me later.

Quote:

What is the difference between that and saying "If you don't give up that right, we cannot get married."?

If both parties came to the table with that idea.

martureo · #**250** 04-10-2013, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I believe what Matureo is trying to do is to try to convince himself that his version of patriarchy is not as bad as it seems because even if he has the right to decide and trump his wife's will, he will often decide in favor of his wife and against his own view. He thinks this means that they have a relationship of equals.
It's a bad argument and they aren't equal because his wife, because she has a vagina and not a penis, doesn't get that same opportunity. Now if he said that they alternated--Ms. Matureo trumps the first six months of the year and Mr. Martureo trumps the last six months of the year then maybe it would make sense. But when ultimate authority rests in the male, regardless of what actual decision he makes, it's still patriarchy.

You start out making a great argument.... and then it comes to nothing.

You've made no counter argument as to why a patriarchy is bad. You've made reference in the past as to why some patriarchies are bad, but concluding your argument with an indentification void of an actual conclusion is well..... worthless.

aklim · #**251** 04-10-2013, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

Not even close....

No, I'm using the word veto in a reasoned argument.

How so? How is a dictatorship not more efficient from the standpoint of less argument during decision making? Instead of spending 2 hrs to convince my wife that we need to buy car X, it is easier to say "We are buying car X because I think it is the best idea. End of story.", IOW "Because I said so".

You mean putting forth your view in a nice way? You are trying to make a new phrase by saying she has veto power but less than yours. It is not different than saying you have veto power except now you are including her in it.

martureo · #**252** 04-10-2013, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Ok. So why you? Why must it be you that is the HOH, final arbiter, veto holder or whatever it is you want to call it? Why not her? Why not take turns? Why not flip a coin? The list goes on.

Because we are both Christians and appeal to the Bible.

davidmash · #**253** 04-10-2013, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

How so? How is a dictatorship not more efficient from the standpoint of less argument during decision making? Instead of spending 2 hrs to convince my wife that we need to buy car X, it is easier to say "We are buying car X because I think it is the best idea. End of story.", IOW "Because I said so".

You mean putting forth your view in a nice way? You are trying to make a new phrase by saying she has veto power but less than yours. It is not different than saying you have veto power except now you are including her in it.

I believe the term you might be searching for is "benevolent dictator".

Your welcome.

aklim · #**254** 04-10-2013, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

I would have more of a discussion and reasoning process than just ending it right there.

Although in the end I think it would be the end of an engagement if it came to that as I'd rather follow the Bible than end up having someone leave me later.

I think you understand that I am meaning that if that was what it boiled down to, so to speak, at the end of the discussion.

And that is my point. It is a "reasoned argument" from "My way or the highway.".

martureo · #**255** 04-10-2013, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

How so? How is a dictatorship not more efficient from the standpoint of less argument during decision making?

Efficiency is not the norm, effectiveness is.

Quote:

Instead of spending 2 hrs to convince my wife that we need to buy car X, it is easier to say "We are buying car X because I think it is the best idea. End of story.", IOW "Because I said so".

But what respect for your wife would you have?

It is not wasteful to debate an issue with my wife for a week or longer if that's what is necessary.

Quote:

You mean putting forth your view in a nice way?

Nicety had nothing to do with it. The word was being used in this discussion and instead of saying "equal negating power" and confusing certain persons I chose to use "equal veto power".

I felt it was more practical.

Quote:

You are trying to make a new phrase by saying she has veto power but less than yours. It is not different than saying you have veto power except now you are including her in it.

But that's still different from what I was trying to convey.