This sounds like a great idea!

[Lissa]

For the sake of argument, do you think that bigotry, be it imaginary or real, as long as it's just verbal, should result in jail time?

Nah. Cause then when you get out, you'll just do it again.

Getting your face smashed into the concrete though, might make you think twice about doing it again.

You mean, like this?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/15/politics/c...index.html

Tsk, tsk, your true colors are coming through, interwebs tough guy.

Oh and Lissa, I'm waiting for your answer, although I already know that it will be something like blah, blah, blah.... racist, homophobe, fascist. You know, the factual arguments that liberals pride themselves on so much.... oh, wai....

Why should I answer a question when it's obvious you're twisting it around. The point is Intent. If you couldn't figure out what was required, then:

1) You're obviously trying to just twist things for your own biased opinion.

2) You're too daft to understand what "Intent" means (even with the resources available on the internet from dictionary.com and websters.com).

3) Trolling as usual.

Likewise, you still don't get that this law is an anti-discrimination law, the same as you see in the US involving non-gender aspects (like race, creed, religion), it's just that Canada went the extra step and added gender into their anti-discrimination laws. But given your bigoted attitude, you would never see it this way.

I asked you a direct question, the answer to which you predictably failed to provide. I gave you a real life scenario which could easily happen, and which will by the new law in Trudenada be punishable by jail time. You avoided addressing it by insulting me and telling that I do not understand. This of course is a typical approach taken by the left. Factual argument is not something you choose to engage in, because you can't address it. All you have are slogans, accusations and rhetoric. All methods used very effectively by communists and now, the left... which in reality is just a shade away from real-life communism that has been practiced in certain unfortunate countries for the last 100 years.

Also, please explain to me why you say that I am trolling? Mind you, don't tell me why you *think* I'm trolling, but why you say it.

No, you jump to an extreme point. This law has always been a discrimination law. When was the last time you saw someone get thrown in jail for discrimination that wasn't tied to another crime that was punishable by jail time? You're question, if you want to look at just stating something isn't jail time worthy, it's fine worthy if the person involved presses charges unless your actions constituted a jail time offense as well (like telling said transgender person that they should be harmed instituting assault).

So, you are trolling, as much as you want to deny it. Everyone else in this thread has stated as such that your interpretation is trolling. It's what you do, it's what you enjoy.

And just as an aside, you have no clue was Agnostic means (per what you put in your title). If you truly knew what Agnostic meant you wouldn't have it there.

[eppie]

And just as an aside, you have no clue was Agnostic means (per what you put in your title). If you truly knew what Agnostic meant you wouldn't have it there.

To me he seems most like a christian extremist.

[FireIceTalon]

He doesn't know what capitalism or communism are either.

[Ashock]

Nah. Cause then when you get out, you'll just do it again.

Getting your face smashed into the concrete though, might make you think twice about doing it again.

You mean, like this?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/15/politics/c...index.html

Tsk, tsk, your true colors are coming through, interwebs tough guy.

Oh and Lissa, I'm waiting for your answer, although I already know that it will be something like blah, blah, blah.... racist, homophobe, fascist. You know, the factual arguments that liberals pride themselves on so much.... oh, wai....

Why should I answer a question when it's obvious you're twisting it around. The point is Intent. If you couldn't figure out what was required, then:

1) You're obviously trying to just twist things for your own biased opinion.

2) You're too daft to understand what "Intent" means (even with the resources available on the internet from dictionary.com and websters.com).

3) Trolling as usual.

Likewise, you still don't get that this law is an anti-discrimination law, the same as you see in the US involving non-gender aspects (like race, creed, religion), it's just that Canada went the extra step and added gender into their anti-discrimination laws. But given your bigoted attitude, you would never see it this way.

I asked you a direct question, the answer to which you predictably failed to provide. I gave you a real life scenario which could easily happen, and which will by the new law in Trudenada be punishable by jail time. You avoided addressing it by insulting me and telling that I do not understand. This of course is a typical approach taken by the left. Factual argument is not something you choose to engage in, because you can't address it. All you have are slogans, accusations and rhetoric. All methods used very effectively by communists and now, the left... which in reality is just a shade away from real-life communism that has been practiced in certain unfortunate countries for the last 100 years.

Also, please explain to me why you say that I am trolling? Mind you, don't tell me why you *think* I'm trolling, but why you say it.

No, you jump to an extreme point. This law has always been a discrimination law. When was the last time you saw someone get thrown in jail for discrimination that wasn't tied to another crime that was punishable by jail time? You're question, if you want to look at just stating something isn't jail time worthy, it's fine worthy if the person involved presses charges unless your actions constituted a jail time offense as well (like telling said transgender person that they should be harmed instituting assault).

So, you are trolling, as much as you want to deny it. Everyone else in this thread has stated as such that your interpretation is trolling. It's what you do, it's what you enjoy.

And just as an aside, you have no clue was Agnostic means (per what you put in your title). If you truly knew what Agnostic meant you wouldn't have it there.

The reason everyone here disagrees with me, is simply because they and you are all basically either communists or at least the gentrified western version of communist. To put it simply. with a noted exception, none of you comprehend it. Naturally, people like you, people who seek to control thought, will never agree with me. I know that. It is not for you that I make these posts, it is for those who are unsure where they lean, really unsure. Not just say they are sort of in the middle, but really are. The rest of you are simply a lost cause.

As far as being agnostic..... I used to be an atheist, when I was very young and full of myself. Now, I'm just not sure. That is being agnostic.

As far as not knowing what a communist is.... LOL.

As far as being a christian extremist.... 3xLOL. Usually I do not respond to intellects of your stature, but I'll make an exception. I am half-jew, 1/4 ukranian and 1/4 german of a russian descent. My wife is a daughter of a holacaust survivor. Spending my 1st 13 years in the USSR, even if I had wanted to be religious, it would not be possible. The only religion that country knew was the religion of lib... errr... communism. Religion was strictly a severely punishable crime, opium for the people. This anti-organised religion mindframe is still with me and always will be. Leniin asked for less years to brainwash children, I had 13.

You people just don't get it and you never will. You are not the reason I post here. You are spoiled by your upbringing, by your leftist education and by your inability to see that the whole world does not see things the way you do. It is not the people of the US that need to learn to .... what is that idiotic sticker.... "coexist". It is those that want to control all of your actions and your very thoughts that live in the Middle East, Africa and certain parts of Asia.... and unfortunately these days, to a lesser degree here and in Europe. They only want to "coexist" with you as long as you do it on their terms. You would not like their terms, trust me.

[FireIceTalon]

Blah blah blah. Go back under the bridge, troll.

And for someone who uses Breitbart as a source of news, you are hardly in a position to accuse others of being under or using 'thought control'. You are the EPITOME of the average freedom spouting, fear mongering, propagandist buying, brain dead American citizen who drinks the Western media machine kool-aid at any and every opportunity. I don't think you've ever used an ounce of critical thinking in your life.

[Archon_Wing]

Also, I denounce you!

Oh yeah? Well dishonor on you!

What the cow? That's too personal!

I fart in your general directon! Global warming it i!

[Lissa]

You mean, like this?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/15/politics/c...index.html

Tsk, tsk, your true colors are coming through, interwebs tough guy.

Oh and Lissa, I'm waiting for your answer, although I already know that it will be something like blah, blah, blah.... racist, homophobe, fascist. You know, the factual arguments that liberals pride themselves on so much.... oh, wai....

Why should I answer a question when it's obvious you're twisting it around. The point is Intent. If you couldn't figure out what was required, then:

1) You're obviously trying to just twist things for your own biased opinion.

2) You're too daft to understand what "Intent" means (even with the resources available on the internet from dictionary.com and websters.com).

3) Trolling as usual.

Likewise, you still don't get that this law is an anti-discrimination law, the same as you see in the US involving non-gender aspects (like race, creed, religion), it's just that Canada went the extra step and added gender into their anti-discrimination laws. But given your bigoted attitude, you would never see it this way.

I asked you a direct question, the answer to which you predictably failed to provide. I gave you a real life scenario which could easily happen, and which will by the new law in Trudenada be punishable by jail time. You avoided addressing it by insulting me and telling that I do not understand. This of course is a typical approach taken by the left. Factual argument is not something you choose to engage in, because you can't address it. All you have are slogans, accusations and rhetoric. All methods used very effectively by communists and now, the left... which in reality is just a shade away from real-life communism that has been practiced in certain unfortunate countries for the last 100 years.

Also, please explain to me why you say that I am trolling? Mind you, don't tell me why you *think* I'm trolling, but why you say it.

No, you jump to an extreme point. This law has always been a discrimination law. When was the last time you saw someone get thrown in jail for discrimination that wasn't tied to another crime that was punishable by jail time? You're question, if you want to look at just stating something isn't jail time worthy, it's fine worthy if the person involved presses charges unless your actions constituted a jail time offense as well (like telling said transgender person that they should be harmed instituting assault).

So, you are trolling, as much as you want to deny it. Everyone else in this thread has stated as such that your interpretation is trolling. It's what you do, it's what you enjoy.

And just as an aside, you have no clue was Agnostic means (per what you put in your title). If you truly knew what Agnostic meant you wouldn't have it there.

The reason everyone here disagrees with me, is simply because they and you are all basically either communists or at least the gentrified western version of communist. To put it simply. with a noted exception, none of you comprehend it. Naturally, people like you, people who seek to control thought, will never agree with me. I know that. It is not for you that I make these posts, it is for those who are unsure where they lean, really unsure. Not just say they are sort of in the middle, but really are. The rest of you are simply a lost cause.

As far as being agnostic..... I used to be an atheist, when I was very young and full of myself. Now, I'm just not sure. That is being agnostic.

As far as not knowing what a communist is.... LOL.

As far as being a christian extremist.... 3xLOL. Usually I do not respond to intellects of your stature, but I'll make an exception. I am half-jew, 1/4 ukranian and 1/4 german of a russian descent. My wife is a daughter of a holacaust survivor. Spending my 1st 13 years in the USSR, even if I had wanted to be religious, it would not be possible. The only religion that country knew was the religion of lib... errr... communism. Religion was strictly a severely punishable crime, opium for the people. This anti-organised religion mindframe is still with me and always will be. Leniin asked for less years to brainwash children, I had 13.

You people just don't get it and you never will. You are not the reason I post here. You are spoiled by your upbringing, by your leftist education and by your inability to see that the whole world does not see things the way you do. It is not the people of the US that need to learn to .... what is that idiotic sticker.... "coexist". It is those that want to control all of your actions and your very thoughts that live in the Middle East, Africa and certain parts of Asia.... and unfortunately these days, to a lesser degree here and in Europe. They only want to "coexist" with you as long as you do it on their terms. You would not like their terms, trust me.

And you just showed why you get the grief here that you get. You don't understand what it is to try and learn about other people's cultures. Yes, there are people around that world that are unwilling to learn about other cultures, but you're showing it in this post. I've been exposed to huge number of different cultures from where I've lived, where I've learned, where I've travelled, and who I've worked with. I sit down and try to learn about other people and I don't make a decision on someone based on stereotype that is believed of a specific culture.

I went to school with an Iranian, an Iraqi, an Egyptian, a Korean, a Japanese, a couple of Vietnamese, and several other countries while getting my Nuclear Engineering degree. I saw the stereotype people portrayed for each of these people and none of them acted anywhere near those stereotypes. I've worked with several Vietnamese, Hispanics (Mexicans, Guatamalans, Puerto Ricans, and others), Africans, African Americans, Middle Easterners, Various Europeans, An Aussie, several Indians, a couple Pakistani, several Chinese, and others. I've travelled to Europe, South America, Mexico, and Canada. I've seen people act like the stereotypes, but I've also seen many more not.

You obviously haven't met that many people as you seem to stereotype people based on what you read of a select few without bothering to get to know people. You think that your bias is how everyone of that stereotype will act. You make a judgement before you even get to know the person you're dealing with. You and people like you are the problem we have so many problems in this world. You jump to a conclusion based on your bias without first trying to find out more information. You pull your information from the locations that confirm you bias without trying to find the information that might go against your bias.

You also don't understand what Agnostic means. There's more to it than religious context (which is why I know you don't understand it). The direct translation of Agnostic is without knowledge. So, it's more than just religion, it's also things like not taking an extreme position (which you take often), it is not being biased automatically towards something (like when dealing with a program that is platform Agnostic meaning it doesn't care what OS is the platform it will still run).

So, TLDR, you're biased, you don't like having your bias challenged, and will only look to information that confirms your bias and you think that anyone that possibly thinks different is a waste. You have a closed mind and are unwilling to try and open it.

[DeeBye]

... and by your inability to see that the whole world does not see things the way you do.

This applies to you as well.

[EspyLacopa]

So, you are trolling, as much as you want to deny it. Everyone else in this thread has stated as such that your interpretation is trolling. It's what you do, it's what you enjoy.

If you know he is trolling you. . .Why do you keep feeding him?

[Ashock]

... and by your inability to see that the whole world does not see things the way you do.

This applies to you as well.

I know that, this is precisely what I am talking about. For example, I do not believe that blowing people up is what normal human beings should do to voice their displeasure. However, I also understand that certain people do believe that. It is not a question of trying to understand them. It is a question of preventing them, by any means. There are certain things in this world that are gray. There are also certain things that are black and white.

---

Blah blah blah. Go back under the bridge, troll.

And for someone who uses Breitbart as a source of news, you are hardly in a position to accuse others of being under or using 'thought control'. You are the EPITOME of the average freedom spouting, fear mongering, propagandist buying, brain dead American citizen who drinks the Western media machine kool-aid at any and every opportunity. I don't think you've ever used an ounce of critical thinking in your life.

Honestly, if you watched the movie the link to which I posted, were you rooting for the Cheka guys? Where you wishing.... just a little.... that you were one of them? So much power, so many deserving people to butcher....

Ahh, good time, good times.....

[eppie]

As far as being a christian extremist.... 3xLOL. Usually I do not respond to intellects of your stature, but I'll make an exception. I am half-jew, 1/4 ukranian and 1/4 german of a russian descent. My wife is a daughter of a holacaust survivor. Spending my 1st 13 years in the USSR, even if I had wanted to be religious, it would not be possible. The only religion that country knew was the religion of lib... errr... communism. Religion was strictly a severely punishable crime, opium for the people. This anti-organised religion mindframe is still with me and always will be. Leniin asked for less years to brainwash children, I had 13.

I know your background. And most people with your background are Christian extremists. See Poland nowadays, see Ukrain, See Hungary. A group of lands trying to benefit from a united Europe and at the same time trying to lynch all blacks, gays, jews and whatever other minority they can find.

Because I knew your background and I read your posts I figured you should have been a christian extremist (issues with minorities, hatred of science etc.). So if you're not, I am sorry.....I usually have a pretty good idea about what people are like when I meet them (or read from them) but apparantly I was wrong.

edited: By the way I can imagine how anoying it is if someone voices an opinion about someone else based on that someones ethnicity without thinking about it a bit deeper.

o and an agnostic is just a scared atheist.....both names are by the way quite poor. Atheist assumes that theism is the norm (or truth) while belonging to a group in a discussion about life stance based on the fact that you don't really know doesn't seem a good basis for anything to me.

[Bolty]

If you know he is trolling you. . .Why do you keep feeding him?

[Ashock]

As far as being a christian extremist.... 3xLOL. Usually I do not respond to intellects of your stature, but I'll make an exception. I am half-jew, 1/4 ukranian and 1/4 german of a russian descent. My wife is a daughter of a holacaust survivor. Spending my 1st 13 years in the USSR, even if I had wanted to be religious, it would not be possible. The only religion that country knew was the religion of lib... errr... communism. Religion was strictly a severely punishable crime, opium for the people. This anti-organised religion mindframe is still with me and always will be. Leniin asked for less years to brainwash children, I had 13.

I know your background. And most people with your background are Christian extremists. See Poland nowadays, see Ukrain, See Hungary. A group of lands trying to benefit from a united Europe and at the same time trying to lynch all blacks, gays, jews and whatever other minority they can find.

Because I knew your background and I read your posts I figured you should have been a christian extremist (issues with minorities, hatred of science etc.). So if you're not, I am sorry.....I usually have a pretty good idea about what people are like when I meet them (or read from them) but apparantly I was wrong.

edited: By the way I can imagine how anoying it is if someone voices an opinion about someone else based on that someones ethnicity without thinking about it a bit deeper.

o and an agnostic is just a scared atheist.....both names are by the way quite poor. Atheist assumes that theism is the norm (or truth) while belonging to a group in a discussion about life stance based on the fact that you don't really know doesn't seem a good basis for anything to me.

I do not have issues with any minorities as a group. I have issues with individuals. If they are useful members of society and do not abuse the system, I don't care who they are and where they are from. If they are not, or worse, I also don't care who they are and where they are from.
If I did have issues with blacks as a group for example, I would not think a few years ago that Condoleezza Rice would have made an excellent president. I would also not greatly admire Thomas Sowell, and my favorite political talk show host would not be Larry Elder, whom I listen to every chance I get.
I am simply not afraid to voice my opinions, unlike so many these days and I do not live my life by walking on eggshells. Except at work, of course.

For example, after the Trump election, one of the managers at my work (very liberal area btw) said this to me: "Can you believe that this happened and we now have Trump as President?" The young me would have said, sure I do and also I voted for Trump. The current day me said, yeah... can you believe how completely wrong all the pollsters were? Now, the truly PC answer would have been, yeah.... I can't believe it. That's not me.
However, just the fact that I had to hide the fact that I voted for Trump is not a good thing. It's not a slippery slope, it's a cliff. I know I'm not the only one who needs to dance that way.

As far as an agnostic being just a scared atheist, perhaps some are. I've been one since 30, which is not the age when you feel your mortality. As far as that not being a good basis for anything, that is irrelevant. It is simply a fact. I do not have enough data to make up my mind either way, although the idea of a strictly Biblical god seems unlikely to me, which is possibly the result of my early childhood. There are however, other possible alternatives to a Biblical god.

[FireIceTalon]

Atheist assumes that theism is the norm (or truth) while belonging to a group in a discussion about life stance based on the fact that you don't really know doesn't seem a good basis for anything to me.

I think you meant agnostic?

Atheism is the firm position that no god or higher deity exists, and that atheism is the default position for every person until the concept of theism is learned.

[Ashock]

If you know he is trolling you. . .Why do you keep feeding him?

Bolty, I am kind of disappointed in your response. I thought you understood that there is only one person here that I actually troll.

[eppie]

Atheist assumes that theism is the norm (or truth) while belonging to a group in a discussion about life stance based on the fact that you don't really know doesn't seem a good basis for anything to me.

I think you meant agnostic?

Atheism is the firm position that no god or higher deity exists, and that atheism is the default position for every person until the concept of theism is learned.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant the word atheist. a-theist.
I prefer humanist or so, or scientist.
Otherwise the could call it a-flyingspaghetimonsterist as well.

---

For example, after the Trump election, one of the managers at my work (very liberal area btw) said this to me: "Can you believe that this happened and we now have Trump as President?" The young me would have said, sure I do and also I voted for Trump. The current day me said, yeah... can you believe how completely wrong all the pollsters were? Now, the truly PC answer would have been, yeah.... I can't believe it. That's not me.
However, just the fact that I had to hide the fact that I voted for Trump is not a good thing. It's not a slippery slope, it's a cliff. I know I'm not the only one who needs to dance that way.

As far as an agnostic being just a scared atheist, perhaps some are. I've been one since 30, which is not the age when you feel your mortality. As far as that not being a good basis for anything, that is irrelevant. It is simply a fact. I do not have enough data to make up my mind either way, although the idea of a strictly Biblical god seems unlikely to me, which is possibly the result of my early childhood. There are however, other possible alternatives to a Biblical god.

Interesting.....I like this post of yours a lot more than other of your posts.
I am surprised you would have to hide voting for the winner. Also, I think usually being a republican would be a positive thing for your career in the US.
Maybe your issue would be more with being non-religious. I have the feeling the non-religious are being discriminated against in the US (not only the US by the way, in most of the world atheists are being discriminated against....even in countries like germany and sweden).


In the US it seems you can beat up journalists or tell you grab women by the pussy and get elected.....but stating god does not exist would probably instantly give you 95% less votes.

[FireIceTalon]

He may be right for once, in that Trump is basically the most unpopular president ever. It wouldn't be much surprised that he has to keep his support for Trump on the down low if he lives in a so-called very "liberal" area.

Of course, I live in a very right-wing reactionary Red state (Idaho), which as a staunch Marxist can make me feel like I live in the twilight zone. Of course, when I lived in CA, a so called super liberal state, it wasn't much different in that regard since liberals hate Marxism and Marxists as much as conservatives do.

But Marxists have a objectively better understanding of capitalism's workings than either liberals or conservatives do, and that is all we need to be sure of our politics. Liberals I saw when I lived in CA used to get red-baited all the time by conservatives and as a result were immediately put on the defensive in any political debate. However, you CAN'T red-bait a Marxist. We are immune to that tactic

[Ashock]

Atheist assumes that theism is the norm (or truth) while belonging to a group in a discussion about life stance based on the fact that you don't really know doesn't seem a good basis for anything to me.

I think you meant agnostic?

Atheism is the firm position that no god or higher deity exists, and that atheism is the default position for every person until the concept of theism is learned.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant the word atheist. a-theist.
I prefer humanist or so, or scientist.
Otherwise the could call it a-flyingspaghetimonsterist as well.

---

For example, after the Trump election, one of the managers at my work (very liberal area btw) said this to me: "Can you believe that this happened and we now have Trump as President?" The young me would have said, sure I do and also I voted for Trump. The current day me said, yeah... can you believe how completely wrong all the pollsters were? Now, the truly PC answer would have been, yeah.... I can't believe it. That's not me.
However, just the fact that I had to hide the fact that I voted for Trump is not a good thing. It's not a slippery slope, it's a cliff. I know I'm not the only one who needs to dance that way.

As far as an agnostic being just a scared atheist, perhaps some are. I've been one since 30, which is not the age when you feel your mortality. As far as that not being a good basis for anything, that is irrelevant. It is simply a fact. I do not have enough data to make up my mind either way, although the idea of a strictly Biblical god seems unlikely to me, which is possibly the result of my early childhood. There are however, other possible alternatives to a Biblical god.

Interesting.....I like this post of yours a lot more than other of your posts.
I am surprised you would have to hide voting for the winner. Also, I think usually being a republican would be a positive thing for your career in the US.
Maybe your issue would be more with being non-religious. I have the feeling the non-religious are being discriminated against in the US (not only the US by the way, in most of the world atheists are being discriminated against....even in countries like germany and sweden).


In the US it seems you can beat up journalists or tell you grab women by the pussy and get elected.....but stating god does not exist would probably instantly give you 95% less votes.

Being a vocal republican in California is basically a career death sentence, and not just in Hollywood. I'm sure the same applies to most of the states on the coasts of the US. Orwell's work was a warning, not a freaking blueprint, as the liberals treat it.

As far as grabbing, well think of it this way..... What guy when around other guys does not at least sometime in their life talk like that? OTOH, look at the biggest Democratic presidential heroes in the US since WW2 - Kennedy and Clinton. Kennedy slept with everything that moved, while being married and being President. Clinton did the same and even stooped to having sex with a White House intern, who was what like 20 yo? Then he proceeded to perjure himself under oath that he didn't.

So I ask you, what is a bigger deal, trash talk among the guys, or habitual and rampant cheating while being President? See, liberals would have you believe that Trump denigrates women, where all he did was some trash talking when he was young. Meanwhile, one of his chief strategists during the election was a woman and so is his ambassador to the UN. Their presidential heroes are known womanizers and habitual cheaters. See the hypocrisy here?

As far as thinking that being non-religious in the US is a disadvantage, you are completely dead wrong. Maybe 50 years ago that was true. These days, noone cares. In fact, in a place like California, if you are openly very religious, you will be rediculed in some circles. BTW, I'm giving you completely serious answers as you are asking legitimate questions.

[DeeBye]

What guy when around other guys does not at least sometime in their life talk like that?

Men who think it's normal - even jokingly - to talk about sexually assaulting women disgust me. Some of us are not cavemen.

edit: it's like, a million times worse when the man is in a position of authority. I've been around enough women to know that talk like that - EVEN JOKINGLY - from a man in a position of authority, is genuinely scary.

[FireIceTalon]

What guy when around other guys does not at least sometime in their life talk like that?

Men who think it's normal - even jokingly - to talk about sexually assaulting women disgust me. Some of us are not cavemen.

I agree with the first part of your statement entirely, it disgusts me also. However, the notion that our male ancestors treated our female ancestors like animals is pretty much a myth now and is no longer the consensus in most scientific communities. Evidence suggests that Hunter/Gatherer societies, on the contrary, were quite egalitarian. Hierarchy between the sexes didn't really come to be until the introduction of agriculture when surpluses of resources began to explode; roughly 7,000 years ago or so. And so class society developed for the first time ever.

What people like Ashock fail to understand is this: Just about every president has likely cheated; regardless of party affiliation. Bill just happened to get caught. But then again, "cheating" wouldn't be an issue if marriage wasn't an institution that was designed to perpetuate and uphold private property relations, in the first place. I'm not necessarily against marriage itself, however, so much as I am against marriage under THE PRESENT ORDER of things. Other communists may have more radical positions on this than I do, and are against the institution of marriage ENTIRELY because of its historical subjugation of women in many societies. They may be right, since under post capitalist organization of society, it doesn't seem like marriage would be a necessary endeavor anymore for either economic or social/cultural reasons; as it is now. It's hard to say for sure, but it seems a logical outcome when taken into consideration the social relations that comprise capitalistic societies, and their distinction from those that would comprise a communist one, or even a lower stage socialist one for that matter.

Lastly, when a woman "cheats" on her husband, she tends to be viewed in a much more negative light than when the opposite happens, due to the bourgeois conception of male superiority and domination over the female sex. This is of course, a result of the structural origin of marriage during feudal times, when women were the absolute property of their husbands that were either kings, dukes, or otherwise members of a royal family, and it was passed down through generations. As society began to industrialize and technology and markets began to replace agrarian life during the Industrial Revolution, this changed right up into modern capitalism with the dissolution of most monarchies, where, men no longer had absolute ownership over their wives but because of their historical position as the ruling class relative to women, it was and still is more socially acceptable for them to cheat...even if its looked down upon. If a woman cheats, she will face the same scorn ten fold. Of course in some societies, women still have virtually zero rights as wives or as humans period - I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia.