Martin Cash said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

On the flip side, rates of spousal and child abuse plummeted largely due to no fault divorce. So while the potential for abuse of the system is very real, it's a reality that it offers an easier path out of very bad/dangerous relationships that previously could be kept together unilaterally and solely by an abusive individual who hid it well enough that abuse/infidelity claims couldn't be supported.

And again, you're understating how often no fault divorce is used as an easier way out of relationships that are ended by the man and he just doesn't file. A woman is under no obligation to stay with a man who cheats on her and she just can't prove it. That happens literally every day and is entirely on him.

---

43 years of experience as a family law attorney, prosecutor and family/criminal law judge calls BS on this.

---

Bingo. Infection boy wasn't even right when his once in a lifetime chance came with covid, but he is so intelligent that he is going to school those of us that see this in our jobs on a daily basis about what is really happening.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Correct, in many cases women are the ones who file despite the man asking for the divorce. This is often MONTHS after that conversation has happened.

The biggest issue though is simply aversion to change. It is extensively documented in the psychological literature that men will often go to extraordinary lengths to keep a known status quo even if they are miserable. It's why men stereotypically have "side pieces" whereas women stereotypically want to leave their husbands for whoever they have an affair with. There's a lot of biology in play there too (we aren't monogamous by nature and men have a drive to sleep with as many women as possible, whereas women desire the safety and stability of a male and monogamy helps them do that).

---

Actually women desire different things based on where she is in her cycle.

This is why you don't date ir marry women when they fall in live with you while on birth control....because what she wants when she is on hormonal therapy is NOT what she is going to want after she stops taking it.

They have done multiple studies that show a woman's secual preferences and attraction to men differs based on whether she is on the pill and where she is at in her cycle.

If she is ovulating she prefers square jaw and muscles.

If she is on the pill or approaching her period she prefers femine men.

And it's absolutely false to claim women are more monogamous than men.

18-25% of kids are born to a different father than the husband. We have those stats now that paternity testing is a thing.

We also know from DNA tracing that women slept around ALOT in their evolutionary past because of how mitochondrial DNA can be traced.

Mitochondrial DNA is DNA that is exclusively passed on from mother to child. The father has no genetic contribution to mitochondrial DNA.

In studies of self reporting infidelity women and men report infidelity at roughly the same rates.

However women oftentimes don't view their own infidelity as "cheating" the same way because they typically have a reason for it and excuse it and don't view it in as negative a light.

Don't get it twisted.

Women are just as unfaithful as men.

They have just always been much better at hiding it.

---

That's an impressive amount of falsehood and pseudoscience packed into a single post

I'm genuinely impressed

---

Don't worry Bruh.

I got you.

Here are some studies....even provided the links for you on female mate selection based on hormones.

Regarding the others you can do your own research..don't have the links at the ready.
2014 Analysis of Studies on Women and their Menstrual cycle

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/what-do-women-want-depends-on-249813

UCLA researchers analyzed dozens of published and unpublished studies on how women's preferences for mates change throughout the menstrual cycle. Their findings suggest that ovulating women have evolved to prefer mates who display sexy traits such as a masculine body type and facial features, dominant behavior and certain scents but not traits typically desired in long-term mates.



So, desires for those masculine characteristics, which are thought to have been markers of high genetic quality in our male ancestors, don't last all month just the few days in a woman's cycle when she is most likely to pass on genes that, eons ago, might have increased the odds of her offspring surviving and reproducing.

Women having regrets over partner choice and reported feelings of relationship satisfaction if they became partnered while on the pill and later moved off it.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/intimately-connected/201901/do-contraceptive-pills-affect-attraction

To the extent that contraceptive pill use alters mate preferences (read more here), women who had taken hormonal contraceptives while meeting their partner and later discontinued their usage (as many do when they wish to conceive) may feel disenchanted with their initial partner choice. Indeed, the use of hormonal contraceptives may not only affect initial partner choice but also have unintended consequences for women's relationship satisfaction if contraceptive pill use subsequently changes. Prior studies have provided evidence for this hypothesis, indicating that women who had used hormonal contraceptives when they first met their partner and then ceased to take them experience lower levels of sexual and relationship satisfaction5 and are more likely to get divorced (Read more here).6

Regarding the rest it is based on a study of mitochondrial DNA dispersion amongst the population versus inherited traits and DNA from men....then they did a data nalaysis to compare how many people of different maternal mitochondrial lines matched with their paternal genetic lines.

The result was that there was a discrepancy between how many different mothers people had in their ancestry than fathers.

If women were monogamous the ratio would be roughly 1 genetic father for every 1 genetic mother.

The ration turned out to be 2.5ish mothers for every father.

Translation: women are not monogamous. Now extrapolating from that that some pairings are a result of necessity (husbands dying) or force (ie rape/coercion/polygamy) I took that 50-70% percent and divided it in half.

Further supported by the fact that at paternity centers roughly 30-40% of tests come back as "not the father".

You have to take into consideration that these tests are done when their is a higher likelihood of infidelity.

So I figured reducing both figures by 50-60% is reasonable.

Unless you want to claim that forced intercourse is the cause for the majority infidelity.

And then you end up in 4th wave feminism territory where every man is a rapist......so if you want to go there then we can debunk that load of horse manure.

On a related note...have you not read about all the cheating that was uncovered and kids being raised by different fathers/having different grandfathers that came out when ancestry DNA and 23andme first came out?

Martin Cash said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

On the flip side, rates of spousal and child abuse plummeted largely due to no fault divorce. So while the potential for abuse of the system is very real, it's a reality that it offers an easier path out of very bad/dangerous relationships that previously could be kept together unilaterally and solely by an abusive individual who hid it well enough that abuse/infidelity claims couldn't be supported.

And again, you're understating how often no fault divorce is used as an easier way out of relationships that are ended by the man and he just doesn't file. A woman is under no obligation to stay with a man who cheats on her and she just can't prove it. That happens literally every day and is entirely on him.

---

43 years of experience as a family law attorney, prosecutor and family/criminal law judge calls BS on this.

---

Your field is going to skew your view of the prevalence. Statistically domestic violence (both directed towards spouses and minor children) has declined since 1992 by 60-70% depending on the data set used. No fault divorce was legal in a majority of states by the mid-80s and all but I believe 3 by the late-80s. It's extremely difficult to ignore that temporal relationship given the rates hadn't changed much from the 50s through most of the 80s.

The greatest generation saved our civilization to be sure, but one of the unfortunate and underdiscussed aspects of that generation is that the men can whole from war, drowned their trauma in a bottle and beat the **** out of their wives and kids. This was passed down to their kids and the baby boomers weren't much better. Gen X got a lot wrong but this is one thing they did right and really turned around, and at least part of that was the ability to diffuse ticking time bomb marriages more easily before things got really bad.

Again, this isn't an all out defense of no fault divorce. I agree it is a net negative but it has likely had done benefit in this instance.

Tom Fox said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

On the flip side, rates of spousal and child abuse plummeted largely due to no fault divorce. So while the potential for abuse of the system is very real, it's a reality that it offers an easier path out of very bad/dangerous relationships that previously could be kept together unilaterally and solely by an abusive individual who hid it well enough that abuse/infidelity claims couldn't be supported.

And again, you're understating how often no fault divorce is used as an easier way out of relationships that are ended by the man and he just doesn't file. A woman is under no obligation to stay with a man who cheats on her and she just can't prove it. That happens literally every day and is entirely on him.

---

43 years of experience as a family law attorney, prosecutor and family/criminal law judge calls BS on this.

---

Bingo. Infection boy wasn't even right when his once in a lifetime chance came with covid, but he is so intelligent that he is going to school those of us that see this in our jobs on a daily basis about what is really happening.

---

The fact that the irony of this post is completely lost on you better illustrates my point than anything I could type in response.

stick95 said:

---

I've been with a lot of women, most of them didn't have faith, and were a little crazy. I've been married twice. The first one didn't have faith, nor did I. It was a marriage of two people just serving their own needs. I'll let you guess how it went. My current wife loves Jesus even more than she loves me, and we have an amazing marriage.

As a 53 year old man that has lived some life, for you young guys…. That should be the absolute #1 criteria. Marry a woman the loves Jesus.

Then you don't have to worry about a prenup.

---

Until the love of Jesus begins to fade because of the crappy way he treats her and sometimes the kids.

Again, your ability to just flood the zone with nonsense, half truths, cherry picked data and wild ass Facebook **** is truly impressive. Probably second to none on this site. It makes it impossible for normal people with preserved sanity to break it all down in a refutation.

The old quote about the internet weaponizing the ignorance of a dedicated few really was just so on the nose. A devout believer with a search engine and endless free time is the most powerful squabbler in history.

I find it interesting that most of the men lecturing on wives and divorce, haven't experienced the latter.

But they know it all.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

There is no extra time/expense/effort to filing fault vs no fault.

---

Can you explain this?

My understanding is that one had to prove fault in one case? And prove nothing in the other?

---

The courts do not care. Texas is a no-fault divorce state. There's nothing to prove.

Tanya 93 said:

---

I find it interesting that most of the men lecturing on wives and divorce, haven't experienced the latter.

But they know it all.

---

No, you know it all. Your comments on this thread are an excellent example of why prenups might be a good idea.

Pacifico said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

I find it interesting that most of the men lecturing on wives and divorce, haven't experienced the latter.

But they know it all.

---

No, you know it all. Your comments on this thread are an excellent example of why prenups might be a good idea.

---

I don't claim to know it all.
Nor do I just blame one gender for all marriage issues.
That is certain male posters

You *******s are making me side with Tanya. For shame.

I think this entire thread and how many can't agree on things is a great example of why prenups aren't a bad idea. The only actual counter to it I've seen is "well men should be willing to risk it if they really love the woman!"

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

You *******s are making me side with Tanya. For shame.

---

It is just funny these guys are lecturing me on divorce when most of them have never experienced one.

They just read articles blaming women for everything. Men can't be equally at fault.

Sorry.

You like mayo right?
I loathe mayo. Make chicken salad with plain Greek yogurt. Strained plain yogurt as a kid before you could buy Greek yogurt at every grocery store.

I've been divorced. We were married 10 years. No kids. She cheated on me during my second deployment to Iraq and the filed a no fault divorce taking the house and my car. She even tried to keep my grandfather's 1911 he carried in WWII.

I've been remarried for 15 years and we have 2 children. I am in the courthouse almost everyday and see this play out repeatedly.

You want to leave someone, leave. But you don't get half or more of their stuff unless they were at fault and proven in court.

RDV-1992 said:

---

Tanya I think that they have probably been hurt by women. I think you should give them grace.

I think there is fault with both sexes that leads to divorce. I agree with swimmerbabe - there a bad actors of both sexes. I say that as a man who married my girlfriend from Texas A&M and saw her slowly change from a person with the strongest sense of right and wrong that I've ever met to a liar. She beat me down until I finally agreed to a divorce. While hurting me as much as she could in the process. Two of many examples - she made me buy my grandmothers wedding ring back from her. And she had to have our pets. I found out a year later that she left them at the pound. That was a no fault divorce.

Then I as a Christian married an agnostic longhorn. And watched as she has slowly grown into a person who is as beautiful on the inside as she is on the outside. Who goes to church with me. Who walks through life with me.

It's a confusing world out there. Sometimes the "good Christian" is nothing of the sort. Sometimes the wrong pick is the right one.

In terms of having a prenup - I hope you all think through things and make the best decision for yourselves. I had nothing of value (at least to me) during either of my courtships. And so I had no prenups. But in retrospect I could have used one in my first marriage. I don't think I need one with my wife. I hope not at least.

---

Yet they give no woman grace.
Just explain how lazy, selfish, and greedy they are. They are at fault 90+ percent of the time in their perspective.

I am glad you found real happiness. I would rather spend the little time I have left with my son and his dad. Give memories that will always be there. Instead of spending my remaining time hating men.

I understand. There's fault everywhere. I would ask you (and them) to find grace in one another. To turn the other cheek.

And I hope that you make the best memories with your men.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Your field is going to skew your view of the prevalence. Statistically domestic violence (both directed towards spouses and minor children) has declined since 1992 by 60-70% depending on the data set used. No fault divorce was legal in a majority of states by the mid-80s and all but I believe 3 by the late-80s. It's extremely difficult to ignore that temporal relationship given the rates hadn't changed much from the 50s through most of the 80s.


To the contrary. I've had a front row seat to it for 43 years. Texas adopted no fault divorce in 1970. It took 22 years to effect a drop in DV?

---

---

The greatest generation saved our civilization to be sure, but one of the unfortunate and underdiscussed aspects of that generation is that the men can whole from war, drowned their trauma in a bottle and beat the **** out of their wives and kids. This was passed down to their kids and the baby boomers weren't much better.

Again, this is total BS. Total.

Gen X got a lot wrong but this is one thing they did right and really turned around, and at least part of that was the ability to diffuse ticking time bomb marriages more easily before things got really bad.

More total BS.

Again, this isn't an all out defense of no fault divorce. I agree it is a net negative but it has likely had done benefit in this instance.

---

I'm done arguing with someone who has limited, if any, first hand experience.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

You *******s are making me side with Tanya. For shame.

---

It is just funny these guys are lecturing me on divorce when most of them have never experienced one.

---

Aand there it is.....when all other arguments and emotional appeals fail..... this is what they result to.

You're not a woman you have no business telling me what is right or wrong about my community's culture MISOGYNIST!

You're not gay, how dare you make an observation on what is right or wrong about my community's culture BIGOT!

You're not black/brown/latino/whatever how dare you make an observation on what is right or wrong about my community's culture RACIST!

Noone is saying every divorce is the woman's fault.

Can we all agree that if 90% of people are doing something that it is statistically significant?

So that leaves us with a quandary. Why are more women leaving now versus in the past? And does leaving make them happy?

First every study ever done shows that compared to their 1950's counterparts modern women are vastly more unhappy and vastly more medicated.

So why are more women leaving than ever before?

Is there something fundamentally flawed with our system that is encouraging and incentivizing this sort of behavior.

This is important because:

The number one predictor of abuse is a step parent in the home.

The number one predictor for failing out of highschool, drug use, jail time, and violent crime is a single mother.

If we want to improve our society we have to figure out why this is happening.

Which leaves us the following possibilities or a mixture of them:

The majority of men are **** husbands.
The majority of women are selfish and Shrews.
Men are incapable of filing for divorce.
The System is set up to incentive women to divorce men the second they feel like they are unhappy.
Marriage is a **** institution and unnecessary.

Take your picks from the above.

Someone doesn't like being called out on the truth.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Someone doesn't like being called out on the truth.

---

Meh.

You have already accused me of oppressing my wife.

You have shown a stark lack of critical thinking skills and spoken of my marriage in every offensive way possible- save accusing me of abuse.

My opinion of you couldn't get much lower when you resorted to that.

Women are vastly more unhappy then they have ever been in the western world and they have more conviences and do much less than ever before.

Why is that?

Maybe instead of blaming men, maybe women should look at what they have been doing differently for the last 60 years....and see if maybe the answer lies there.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Someone doesn't like being called out on the truth.

---

Pot meet kettle.

To all the folks advocating for young men never getting married and instead cohabitate, coparent, etc.

I'd encourage you to read this book. The stats on child outcomes(academic, prison, abuse, behavioral issues, etc.) when the two biological parents aren't married vs are married are shocking.

https://a.co/d/4bH8Igb

If you feel like you are on earth to create top tier human beings then the odds of them turning out the way you want are drastically better if you marry their biological mother and make it work until they're fully independent.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Someone doesn't like being called out on the truth.

---

Meh.

You have already accused me of oppressing my wife.

You have shown a stark lack of critical thinking skills and spoken of my marriage in every offensive way possible- save accusing me of abuse.

My opinion of you couldn't get much lower when you resorted to that.

Women are vastly more unhappy then they have ever been in the western world and they have more conviences and do much less than ever before.

Why is that?

Maybe instead of blaming men, maybe women should look at what they have been doing differently for the last 60 years....and see if maybe the answer lies there.

---

You have no problem insulting the marriage of people who disagree with you.
Why are you special?

You constantly insult women, especially ones who file for divorce. You have no clue what it takes to file or sign those papers. But you know everything about these women. 90+% of these men do nothing wrong and everything is the fault of the wife in your eyes.

It simply isn't true. Especially if the man no longer wants his wife but thinks daily insults and verbal attacks are better than divorce. Divorce would make him look bad. And we can't have that.

The reality is you know nothing about the emotions and decisions to divorce. Just rants that the woman is selfish and does nothing at home except steal his money and sit on the couch.

Have a good night. Arguing with someone blind to what men can and will do often in marriage isn't worth the issues it causes my system.

No one is perfect in a marriage but too many men think the husband is an angel and the majority of wives are lazy scum.

I think most are advocating to eliminate no fault divorce and the family court imbalance. This will encourage more two parent families.

MRB10 said:

---

To all the folks advocating for young men never getting married and instead cohabitate, coparent, etc.

I'd encourage you to read this book. The stats on child outcomes(academic, prison, abuse, behavioral issues, etc.) when the two biological parents aren't married vs are married are shocking.

https://a.co/d/4bH8Igb

If you feel like you are on earth to create top tier human beings then the odds of them turning out the way you want are drastically better if you marry their biological mother and make it work until they're fully independent.

---

Yep

annie88 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Don't marry crazy people

---

---

Some people are sane at 23, and go bat**** crazy around 45 when certain hormone changes kick in, and start making really bad decisions.

I think that no-fault divorce is terrible.

If I were a man in his 20's right now, I would not get married without making it impossible to file for a no-fault divorce.

---

So you think it's only women that go for a no fault divorce that men are never using that angle? Really? You don't think men go through a midlife crisis? Good grief.

---

73% of divorces are initiated by women. That goes up to 92% among college-educated women, and over 95% when both the dude and the girl are college-educated. So, it's not 'only' women, but there is one demographic that is statistically more likely to jump than tge other

Really wish I had been able to marry men who had not been married before me. That probably would have benen much different.

But both men I married had been married before and had children that were part of the package deal. I was widowed, not divorced. He died on me.

I was seriously involved once with a guy who had not been married before. He died. That kind of messed me up thinking I was some sort of black widow spider, or something.

I became afraid to care to care that much.

Then...I married a guy...who ran into burning buildings...often. Go figure.

Meh, he is gorgous, Marlboro Man, still makes me laugh after nearly 30 years.

So sometimes, work through issues. Stay with it. A reason one chose to marry in the first place. Find it.

Are assets that placed into a Revocable Trust prior to marriage at risk in a future divorce? Example: I place my ownership of commercial real estate or assign my interest in a partnership into a Revocable Trust. IMHO those assets should be separated via the trust.

Burnsey said:

---

Are assets that placed into a Revocable Trust prior to marriage at risk in a future divorce? Example: I place my ownership of commercial real estate or assign my interest in a partnership into a Revocable Trust. IMHO those assets should be separated via the trust.

---

WOW, getting into weeds on how that was structured timing and who signed,

Point remains. Does a Revocable Trusts provide protection as alternative to prenups?

Proposition Joe said:

---

I think this entire thread and how many can't agree on things is a great example of why prenups aren't a bad idea. The only actual counter to it I've seen is "well men should be willing to risk it if they really love the woman!"

---

Exactly. Stupidest rationale presented on this thread so far, downright laughable.

The woman risks getting married to a wealthy guy (poor baby), but leaves with a fortune literally whenever she wants. Drop of a hat, the second she feels like he's not good enough anymore, but his money sure still works for her. Luckily for her, she doesnt have to give up her lifestyle, just the guy she doesnt want anymore.

The guy spent his entire life before meeting her taking risks and working hard, then loses half his assets as well as losing a wife (who he might not actually want to break it off with), and probably the kids too. Seems fair. Of course a guy isn't going to push for a divorce. He has more to lose. The woman actually benefits by getting rid of the guy she apparently doesnt like as well as walking away with stuff she apparently deserves from before they even met. How is this fair in any way? A guy takes risks to build wealth, does well for himself, then takes a bigger risk on a woman. She has risked what in this equation? She wins either way. A good marriage she can stay in her whole life, while living a very comfortable lifestyle, vs a crappy marriage (maybe, or maybe she's screwing the mailman while her naive husband is working his ass off to keep her happy and is fooled into thinking she actually loves him) she doesnt have to stick with if she doesnt want to, but can remain living her comfortable lifestyle without the baggage of a stupid gullible idiot she has to put up with. It's a win win for her. The risk is completely on the side of the man in this scenario. Unless you go in poor together, it will always be one sided.

It's funny, I have an uncle who was married to a bat **** crazy ***** he met in college (classic MRS degree). They went in with nothing, so a prenup didnt apply, but he built a huge and very profitable computer business in socal. His wife turned crazy and demanding and did nothing but spend his money any chance she could get (yes, she was a SAHM). When it became apparent that the marriage wasn't working, mostly because she was a demanding crazy psycho, my uncle did everything he could to not divorce, knowing she'd clean him out. So he would pay her an allowance to keep her happy, literally a fortune every month to bribe her into behaving so he didnt have to go through with the inevitable divorce. Eventually she made him do it, so he had to pay her off to go away anyway, but luckily she didnt go after his company. He has since married a good woman who actually respects him and they have a solid marriage. Took a couple decades of being screwed over, but eventually he learned.

Yeah, lesson learned from paying attention to how the world works these days, make her sign a prenup or don't get married. If you have something to lose, you're likely to lose it. And she'll go home as the victim. All the way to the bank.

aggiehawg said:

---

Burnsey said:

---

Are assets that placed into a Revocable Trust prior to marriage at risk in a future divorce? Example: I place my ownership of commercial real estate or assign my interest in a partnership into a Revocable Trust. IMHO those assets should be separated via the trust.

---

WOW, getting into weeds on how that was structured timing and who signed,

---

I actually have the same question. It's a legitimate and relevant scenario, and applies to many of us. I have a 3+ million dollar commercial property that would be a nice target. So yes, it's actually a good and practical question, if a prenup is off the table (for fear of getting the "you don't love me if you want me to sign a prenup, you should blindly take the risk on me and not ever ask me to give up my future millions...err...I mean...you don't really love me, how dare you?!" response).

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

On the flip side, rates of spousal and child abuse plummeted largely due to no fault divorce. So while the potential for abuse of the system is very real, it's a reality that it offers an easier path out of very bad/dangerous relationships that previously could be kept together unilaterally and solely by an abusive individual who hid it well enough that abuse/infidelity claims couldn't be supported.

And again, you're understating how often no fault divorce is used as an easier way out of relationships that are ended by the man and he just doesn't file. A woman is under no obligation to stay with a man who cheats on her and she just can't prove it. That happens literally every day and is entirely on him.

---

43 years of experience as a family law attorney, prosecutor and family/criminal law judge calls BS on this.

---

Bingo. Infection boy wasn't even right when his once in a lifetime chance came with covid, but he is so intelligent that he is going to school those of us that see this in our jobs on a daily basis about what is really happening.

---

The fact that the irony of this post is completely lost on you better illustrates my point than anything I could type in response.

---

Typical doctor. They're "smarter" (seriously probably are) than lawyers but out of their lane. I have so many doctors and doctor-run practices that need my services because they won't listen to the lawyers they're smarter than and end up in severe financial distress and call the chapter 11 attorney. Maybe stay in your lane?

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

On the flip side, rates of spousal and child abuse plummeted largely due to no fault divorce. So while the potential for abuse of the system is very real, it's a reality that it offers an easier path out of very bad/dangerous relationships that previously could be kept together unilaterally and solely by an abusive individual who hid it well enough that abuse/infidelity claims couldn't be supported.

And again, you're understating how often no fault divorce is used as an easier way out of relationships that are ended by the man and he just doesn't file. A woman is under no obligation to stay with a man who cheats on her and she just can't prove it. That happens literally every day and is entirely on him.

---

43 years of experience as a family law attorney, prosecutor and family/criminal law judge calls BS on this.

---

Bingo. Infection boy wasn't even right when his once in a lifetime chance came with covid, but he is so intelligent that he is going to school those of us that see this in our jobs on a daily basis about what is really happening.

---

The fact that the irony of this post is completely lost on you better illustrates my point than anything I could type in response.

---

Typical doctor. They're "smarter" (seriously probably are) than lawyers but out of their lane. I have so many doctors and doctor-run practices that need my services because they won't listen to the lawyers they're smarter than and end up in severe financial distress and call the chapter 11 attorney. Maybe stay in your lane?

---

More "educated" means more better and more right. Always.

You're proving your ignorance and lower worth by questioning your betters.