@[email protected]’s presentation is scary – no doubt purposefully so – but all it suggests is that some believe that contracts entered into within the purview of family law should be treated as contracts, and not be some handwavvy thing that cannot be understood or predicted upon until a court makes an arbitrary decision. I expect most see family law as something that has become a complete joke.
You don’t have to enter into contracts. Having someone hold a gun to your back wouldn’t satisfy a court’s determination that you ended into a contract willfully. These are only applicable to people who actually want to be bound by such terms. No different than any other contract situation outside of the purview of family law, such as an agreement made between business partners.
Fair, but it has also lost its connotations with being an insult over the decades.
Being a geek and/or nerd became economically useful when we moved into the information age, and thus is now considered in high regard. The average Joe is now envious of geeks and nerds. Most people would love to be able to trade places with Bill Gates or Elon Musk.
Geek and nerd had negative connotations when geeks and nerds were commonly poor, but then things shifted and, notably with the rise of the Information Age, being a geek and/or nerd turned into being useful in becoming wealthy. Now it is a compliment.
True of all insults, really. Same reason, for example, words with associations to slavery are considered insults. Or those related to the sale of sexual favours. The implication is that one is poor. Any words you can throw at someone who is rich will be something most people will want to wear as a badge of honour.
Is it the biting a chicken’s head off thing? I’m not really sure how that translates to an insult, though. Maybe you are ashamed of biting chicken heads? But if that’s the case, stop biting chicken heads?
@[email protected]’s presentation is scary – no doubt purposefully so – but all it suggests is that some believe that contracts entered into within the purview of family law should be treated as contracts, and not be some handwavvy thing that cannot be understood or predicted upon until a court makes an arbitrary decision. I expect most see family law as something that has become a complete joke.
You don’t have to enter into contracts. Having someone hold a gun to your back wouldn’t satisfy a court’s determination that you ended into a contract willfully. These are only applicable to people who actually want to be bound by such terms. No different than any other contract situation outside of the purview of family law, such as an agreement made between business partners.