Why men won't marry you

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Soo.. reporting things that aren't against the rules because you don't like it.

Don't come to America, broskillet :thumb:

Advocating beating a spouse is advocating criminal activity - which just so happens to contravene the rules of this forum.

Suck it up ya crank.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
The Law of Moses advises the death penalty in the latter case. If stoning is permissible, a forteriori, beating is permissible.

In the former case, do you assert that the woman is culpable of wrong doing or not? Has she wrong her husband or not? If she is culpable of wrong doing, does she deserve punishment? If she does, then what form of punishment is suitable for the wrong that she's done?

And let's ignore the question of what she deserves. If you were on a jury, would you convict a man who beat his wife after he just found out that he can't retire because she's an idiot? I wouldn't.

Yes I would. There's no excuse for spousal abuse no matter how much you try to twist some sort of justification for it.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Advocating beating a spouse is advocating criminal activity - which just so happens to contravene the rules of this forum.

That's reaching. Why don't you be a man and just deal with another person's opinion?

Advocating killing criminals for non-capitol offenses, a perfectly illegal act, is brought up just about every day here.

The rule is isn't in place for what you're trying to make it be for- if it even exists.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
That's reaching. Why don't you be a man and just deal with another person's opinion?

Advocating killing criminals for non-capitol offenses, a perfectly illegal act, is brought up just about every day here.

The rule is isn't in place for what you're trying to make it be for- if it even exists.

Wow, I guess you, SOD, Trad & THall are all 'real men' then eh?

Shove it up a certain part of your anatomy Sum...
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
It's in a parent's self interest (and the whole family's) to be guarded and I'm not implying otherwise. Never did.

But that will not change the predator. He just searches for the most vulnerable child until he finds a victim. And if he wants a particular one, he'll just scheme and wait for the right moment.

That's what is wrong with victim blaming. It works the same way with those who hunt adult human prey. It's not going to reduce crime to keep yourself from being a victim on any given day, it just means the victim gets shifted to being someone else - or the same victim but in a different situation at a different time.

Squirm all you want. You insist on not taking responsibility for your own actions....not providing adequate supervision at Wal Mart or the beach, so all those other "what if's" are put forth for one purpose....to deflect your guilt, in situations where YOU are responsible, onto some unnamed pervert.

You say, "That's what is wrong with victim blaming".

Believe it or not....your child would be the victim and I'm not blaming the child, I'm blaming YOU. Your lack of supervision would make YOU responsible for your child being taken by some pervert. He would only be responsible for his own behavior. Thus, YOUR guilt would be as great or even greater than his. It's YOUR responsibility to keep your children safe....not a perverts.
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
Squirm all you want.

This is how you show you can't handle the argument I made. You call it squirming because you haven't pinned anything on me.

You insist on not taking responsibility for your own actions....not providing adequate supervision at Wal Mart or the beach,

We are very cautious parents. But we don't judge and blame the parents of child victims for what a predator did.

When my mother was 5 my oldest aunt was a super jealous sociopath and she took her to a part of town that had seen kidnappings of little girls like my mother. She dropped her off and left. Happy ending; she was rescued by her father when he found out what happened... before a predator found her. What my aunt did would have made her partly responsible and an accessory to a crime.

That's not the same as a mom at a pool or beach who suddenly finds that her daughter was molested when her guard comes down momentarily - over what could be a perfectly legitimate reason. But regardless of whether you want to judge the mom, we should keep those places free of perps, not blame the victims or their parents.

so all those other "what if's" are put forth for one purpose....to deflect your guilt, in situations where YOU are responsible, onto some unnamed pervert.

I don't have guilt to deflect. I've done nothing wrong.

And I refuse to take responsibility or credit for my children not being victims. No matter how many steps I take to protect them.

Believe it or not....your child would be the victim and I'm not blaming the child, I'm blaming YOU. Your lack of supervision would make YOU responsible for your child being taken by some pervert. He would only be responsible for his own behavior. Thus, YOUR guilt would be as great or even greater than his. It's YOUR responsibility to keep your children safe....not a perverts.

Consider this; Psalm 127 means God gets credit for our safety and we do not get the blame or credit. It does not imply that Job was in any way guilty when the house his children were in collapsed, for example.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
This is how you show you can't handle the argument I made. You call it squirming because you haven't pinned anything on me.


.

You made no argument...you gave excuses for why it wouldn't be your fault if you got too busy in Walmart or at the beach to watch your child adequately.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
You made no argument...you gave excuses for why it wouldn't be your fault if you got too busy in Walmart or at the beach to watch your child adequately.

All you do is generalize peoples' posts. You take a comment about how easy it is to be the victim of a predator, and turn it around to say the Mom wasn't being cautious and making excuses - your MO - latch on to a wrong interpretaion and beat it into the ground, ridiculous -
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
Yes I would. There's no excuse for spousal abuse no matter how much you try to twist some sort of justification for it.

1. You are begging the question by using the loaded term "spousal abuse."

2. Granting that it is spousal abuse, it seems to me as though what I've described constitute graves mitigating factors with respect to the culpability of the husband. If he acts wrongly, it's highly understandable that he would be seriously tempted to do so. He would be right to be angry at his wife.
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
Wow, I guess you, SOD, Trad & THall are all 'real men' then eh?

Shove it up a certain part of your anatomy Sum...

:confused:

Let me be perfectly clear. In point of fact, I don't advise that any man living in Europe or the U.S. actually beat his wife for any reason.
 
Last edited:

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
:confused:

Let me be perfectly clear. In point of fact, I don't advise that any man living in Europe or the U.S. actually beat his wife for any reason.

But it's ok in other parts of the world ?

I don't want to categorically say that it isn't. If the law permits it in certain cases? I don't know.

:think: So much for *absolute morality*. There are no *certain cases* which would make beating a wife/child/husband okay.

In most cases, an spouse will get angry over something their partner says or does and hit her/him.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Women give men grief, act irate, get in your face screaming, break things, and all matter of other lunacies.

This began when a single finger on a woman landed you in jail. Women take advantage of the fact that you can't do to them what you can do to another man.

That is, by definition, called being a 'punk'. And women have no shame in it because there is a lacking morality complex in many females today- you see, shame implies guilt or humility. Women being 'empowered' is an illusion, men simply just betrayed themselves and their interests and since women don't care about such interests nobody does.
 

bybee

New member
Women give men grief, act irate, get in your face screaming, break things, and all matter of other lunacies.

This began when a single finger on a woman landed you in jail. Women take advantage of the fact that you can't do to them what you can do to another man.

That is, by definition, being a 'punk'- women being 'empowered' is an illusion, men just betrayed themselves and their self respect is all.

So, do you wish to beat a woman with your fists?
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Women give men grief, act irate, get in your face screaming, break things, and all matter of other lunacies.

Men give women grief, act irate, get in your face screaming, break things, and all matter of other lunacies.

This began when a single finger on a woman landed you in jail. Women take advantage of the fact that you can't do to them what you can do to another man.

This began when immature, overgrown boys didn't learn enough self control to keep their hands to themselves. Women, if they are wise, report battery to the police because they know the cowardly toad will do it again.

That is, by definition, being a 'punk'- women being 'empowered' is an illusion, men just betrayed themselves and their self respect is all.

:chuckle: The only illusion around here is the fact that you pretend that there are women who do not hold power over you.
 
Top