mr_Owl
theonlyowl
of reading
506
Read books
it's illogical for law who values his family more than anything to frown upon spending money on ones family. it's not even a complicated philosophy or ideology. his point of usefulness is really bad since usefulness one way or another is subjective his own family usefulness for example to the like of Japan is actually minus they are unwanted people (criminals) if law was not of value they (Japanese government) would have executed them.
I want you to understand that an adult today isn't the same as in the past. all most all human societies married once they hit puberty further more what defines an adult to begin with? I would save you time and tell you, those who are mentally and physically mature. we today consider 9-17 children but that wasn't the same in the past. Note that prior to the modern age no human society have objected to this practice only in the modern times people objects to this because childhood duration has been extended due technology, games, schools etc.
are you and the one above you that much ignorant about history? . 'Children' were not 'forced' (normativelly at least). You are making a logical fallacy "the historian fallacy" applying the views and the standards of today to the past. Through out history people used to marry once they hit puberty and prior to modernity, where there was no schools and no technology children get mentally mature very early on which is not the same as forced child marriage. And you are confusing arranged marriage with forced marriage ( I can understand why) but there is a thin line between them. I advise you both to read about the history of human societies.
....
king crimson is that you?!?!?!?!?!