I am happy to continue this discussion as it lends great clarity to so many important things that you are raising. But I must again insist that you read carefully, before responding, as requested earlier.
so you didn't say that bonds don't exist, you said that no one can prove that they exist. Here you're saying that it can be proven that bonds don't exist. Ok, prove it to me please. Prove to me that bonds don't exist.
As I said above, it can be proven in the court of law. In a court of law, a contract is defined as a 'meeting of the minds'. If two people agree a contract, lets say a landlord agreement or even a business partnership, the court will recognise certain agreements even if it has not been written and signed on paper provided that the judge agrees that a 'meeting of the minds' has been made by the parties involved. So if at any time one member of the agreement steps aside and says 'I change my mind', the judge will not accept the person's free will to do so until any obligations made under the partnership or agreement have been ratified. In the case of marriage (which is also a contractual agreement), the same rules apply except that this agreement MUST be made on paper or the court will not recognise the agreement. Furthermore, the court also recognises civil partnerships, the main legal difference being that anything brought or owned by the person still belongs to that person and is not shared 50/50, like in a marriage where everything
brought is owned half-half. Of course, the ultimate sharing of assets depends on the way the marriage ends but there have been countless cases of women coming into marriages with male celebrities, only to divorce them a few years later taking substantial amounts of cash. Everybody knows it's wrong, but the court rules in favour of the woman who had planned it all along...because that's the way the law was made.
But all of the above is based on assets, money or labour. No repayment of any agreement can be made via emotional commitment. In a civil partnership, the judge will never rule in favour of the person who wants to keep the relationship going over the person who wants to leave the relationship. As there are no assets, money or labour in question with regard to the civil relationship, the only agreement left is the bond between the two parties and if one of them backs away and says 'no I do not feel a bond for this person', then the meeting of the minds is no longer there and since there are no resources to trade, the contract is broken.
The judge can never rule in favour of you Barca because to do so would violate the Human Rights Act (1998) and would be considered slavery.
Interestingly, the court do recognise an emotional bond between children and their parents. They call it a 'legal relationship'. However, this law is also bias towards women
and has been for decades. When an ordinary couple file for divorce, it is natural for the mother to get custody of the children and for the father to get visitation rights. This is made on the basis that the mother is seen as the primary carer - and this happens a lot because the man is usually the one who is out working to put food on the table.
Now copy the above and take it to any lawyer in Catalonia, you will find that they would agree.
how come you assume that the society made me believe (programmed me) that bonds exist, but in the same time, you don't assume the opposite? I mean, how come you don't assume that society programmed you into believing that bonds don't exist?
I did not say that I did not believe that bonds don't exist. I said that you can't prove that they exist.
We've been over this already.
Exactly, when happiness is experienced by the self, then there's no need to prove it to others. I experienced this bond i'm talking about, so i too don't need to prove it to others, but i'm trying it here because we're discussing this subject.
You are not having to prove anything to me or anyone else here. You are going to have to prove it to the women when she (and she will) stabs you in the back. And when you can't do it you will come crying to the community. Many do.
Anyway, about the example you mentioned, are you saying that if two people feel that they share a bond with each other, then that means that the bond does exist between the two? If yes, then that's great, because that's what i have been saying all the time
Yes. That is correct. And I never disagreed with you. What I'm saying is that any one individual can revoke that agreement anytime they like. I do not want you to experience this without warning as such a thing is greatly distressing and traumatic. People commit suicide over such matters.
However, if a person doesn't feel the bond his partner is feeling, then yes, the partner would be in trouble, because he can't prove that a bond exists in this particular situation, with this particular partner.
Yes. Yes. You're getting there now.
But, he might have experienced it with others, so in this case he knows that it exists, and he can prove it with them.
I don't understand - what are you talking about? Do you mean the 'other' relationships where the bonds have been broken?
So it all comes down to which people you choose as patners. Choosing someone who also believes in bonds (or has similar believes) would make this whole point alot easier, and it's very possible that both sides share a special bond and in the same time strongly believe in it. That's why, as i told you, i don't just pick any girl.
It doesn't matter if the girl strongly believes in a strong bond or not. If she is a high quality girl, she will know her worth, if she's any girl, she will understand choice.
She will understand that she has the right to choose whatever, whenever she likes.
Because for people who understand choice, no matter how strong the bond is...
....they can still leave you any time they like....
....and suck the cocks of the men whom you despise the most: