What you allude to in your first statement is incorrect for most cases, IMO. Staying together doesn't necessarily mean letting it decrease your happiness. It might just mean you have to get your happiness from a different place.
Often in life you're not presented with win-lose situations. Instead, you're presented with lose-lose situations, and it's your job to choose the least worst solution for everyone involved.
I used to feel this way, but as I've gotten older, I've come to realize that there are a large number of things in life that are completely outside of my control. Accepting that doesn't mean "settling", it means that I've realized that I can't control those situations, but I can control my reaction and how it affects me. Marriage may or may not fall into that category for some people, but generally the behavior of others, health issues, macroeconomic events, etc. are things we can't control and must learn to live with.
Also, the idea that we have to be happy all the time is a particularly American conceit. It can be very rewarding to a point, but there's a thin line between that and narcissism that can make it impossible to form deep relationships. In an ideal marriage, for instance, each supports the others' ambitions, but there obviously has to be some give and take.
I completely agree, but getting divorced is something in your control. The weather is something you can control. Your health is something you can control, to an extent.
I don't know why this was downvoted. I don't agree with the post completely but I don't find it snarky or anything.
To the post itself: It's a bit more complex than that. If the kids mean a lot to you then splitting up means seeing them less, making the "trade" times stressful for everyone, etc. It's a trade off like many things in life.
But I do agree that there are times that staying can be more damaging than leaving.
Your statement attempts to show evidence that a society with no wealth diversity is unstable. That has no bearing on the original hypothesis that high diversity is unstable. Still it fails in this attempt because the historical instability in Communism has always been due to high wealth diversity that arises from political corruption, which ironically supports the original hypothesis.
ynniv - you got him all wrong. He said "Extremes in wealth are not compatible with a stable free society." Could he be any clearer? Everything you said agrees with that.
Because most people who declare themselves to be in an open relationship on Fb aren't in an open relationship. It's most often done just for the sake of being silly or telling everyone who your "BFF" is. The latter is more likely the closer you are to being a 16-year-old girl.
No, people in open relationships post fewer status updates with "happy" words. They also post fewer status updates with "unhappy" words. So, we might be lead to conclude that people in open relationships choose, for whatever reason, to expose their emotions in status updates less often than others. That doesn't particularly mean they have fewer emotions, positive or negative than anyone else.
You also see this strongly in the "widowed" category, who have dramatically less happy or unhappy postings.
Yeah, I'm sick of seeing that idea being passed about without sources. I think most of the people talking about it haven't even heard of John Taylor Gatto, which is where it came from.
For anyone that hasn't read JTG, this is his most well known work and I highly recommend it (and his others). Surprised that no one had mentioned it yet as it's highly relevant to the issue at hand.
