This from the freedom-for-rapists advocate?
Spanking your wife for Jesus
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
This from the freedom-for-rapists advocate?
Arauca,
First you say
Then you say
This is denial. You're slipping into the kind of duplicity that expresses denial. Here's another example. You came into the discussion with the proposition that Christianity is "better than nothing" since it assesses penalties for bad behavior, etc. But then you say:
Yet this contradicts your belief that bad behavior is best controlled through fear of punishment (the deterrent effect) which seems to be one of your main arguments in favor of religion.
This is not necessarily duplicity of the same kind but it's highly contradictory, and appears to be a more covert expression of denial. Perhaps that's all religion is, a form of denial.
The best thing to do here is to come clean and confess that spousal abuse is criminal behavior and that it may reveal an underlying pathological condition which, if left untreated, can send you to prison.
Most of us operate at a higher level. We simply recognize that it's a sick and disordered state of mind for which we have a natural aversion. That probably also explains why we don't need religion.
FraggleRocker,
(. . . some diversion from the darker side of this thread . . .)
First you say
Then you say
This is denial. You're slipping into the kind of duplicity that expresses denial. Here's another example. You came into the discussion with the proposition that Christianity is "better than nothing" since it assesses penalties for bad behavior, etc. But then you say:
Yet this contradicts your belief that bad behavior is best controlled through fear of punishment (the deterrent effect) which seems to be one of your main arguments in favor of religion.
This is not necessarily duplicity of the same kind but it's highly contradictory, and appears to be a more covert expression of denial. Perhaps that's all religion is, a form of denial.
Here it's not clear which side of the law you are on. You seem to be vacillating. They may lock you up and throw away the key if you hit your wife. You're either on their side or not. (Another bizarre aspect of this statement is that it brings to mind the many cases of official abuse by people in power.)
But they won't be sitting on the jury. The best they can do is refuse to testify, but if there are any marks or bruising, you're dead meat. Same-same if there is some other testimony or facts explaining that the victim is not competent in her desire to protect you. Also well known are the victims who recant after seeing how the long arm of the law works. There are all kinds of angles to this. They no assurance for your acquittal.
The best thing to do here is to come clean and confess that spousal abuse is criminal behavior and that it may reveal an underlying pathological condition which, if left untreated, can send you to prison.
Most of us operate at a higher level. We simply recognize that it's a sick and disordered state of mind for which we have a natural aversion. That probably also explains why we don't need religion.
FraggleRocker,
. . . or maybe they were in a hurry to evict vagrants. Being cops, it might sound a little candy-ass to call themselves The Squatter Team. Then again, if they were mere eviction constables who didn't make it all the way through police academy, they might indeed be doing some remedial body building. Another plausible interpretation is that the officers in question comprise a sub-intelligent group who tend to be clueless in general and were given the moniker after it was often said they don't know squat.arauca said:
(. . . some diversion from the darker side of this thread . . .)Based on your own words, actually.
It's quite clear she was fed up with your violent misogynistic dominance over her and was making sure you knew it, swimmingly, I might add.
But, I've witnessed that kind of behavior before several times in various cultures around the world, wrought from centuries of coddling and nurturing the Abrahamic god, having robbed primitive man of his dignity, courage and honesty eons ago, He continues to fester in the minds of those still living in the past. And, dare they not step into the future, for with it demands forever the release from bondage of not only control over women, but the fear and suffering of enslavement to a selfish dictator.
Do me a favor don't come to me with this slogan " love it or live it " . That is very cheep. Don' cover yourself with the flag.
In your statement $ 70 If an individual see a family violence . Would you cal the cops . Answer me this I take at least 15 to 20 minutes for the cops to arrive . So which is more proper to intervene or wait for those 15 . were a big physical damage the receiver will get. It is common in this society , not to get involved . So if I say get involve is bad If I say get involve it is bad . For you cops is the solution for every thing . What about if you live in an unincorporated area like my self sometime it takes over one half hour before a cop squad arrives . I believe this country was founded by self service , but now this generation is so governmet dependent .
Arauca,
First you say
Then you say
This is denial. You're slipping into the kind of duplicity that expresses denial. Here's another example. You came into the discussion with the proposition that Christianity is "better than nothing" since it assesses penalties for bad behavior, etc. But then you say:
Yet this contradicts your belief that bad behavior is best controlled through fear of punishment (the deterrent effect) which seems to be one of your main arguments in favor of religion.
This is not necessarily duplicity of the same kind but it's highly contradictory, and appears to be a more covert expression of denial. Perhaps that's all religion is, a form of denial.
Here it's not clear which side of the law you are on. You seem to be vacillating. They may lock you up and throw away the key if you hit your wife. You're either on their side or not. (Another bizarre aspect of this statement is that it brings to mind the many cases of official abuse by people in power.)
But they won't be sitting on the jury. The best they can do is refuse to testify, but if there are any marks or bruising, you're dead meat. Same-same if there is some other testimony or facts explaining that the victim is not competent in her desire to protect you. Also well known are the victims who recant after seeing how the long arm of the law works. There are all kinds of angles to this. They no assurance for your acquittal.
The best thing to do here is to come clean and confess that spousal abuse is criminal behavior and that it may reveal an underlying pathological condition which, if left untreated, can send you to prison.
Most of us operate at a higher level. We simply recognize that it's a sick and disordered state of mind for which we have a natural aversion. That probably also explains why we don't need religion.
FraggleRocker,
. . . or maybe they were in a hurry to evict vagrants. Being cops, it might sound a little candy-ass to call themselves The Squatter Team. Then again, if they were mere eviction constables who didn't make it all the way through police academy, they might indeed be doing some remedial body building. Another plausible interpretation is that the officers in question comprise a sub-intelligent group who tend to be clueless in general and were given the moniker after it was often said they don't know squat.
I appreciate for the analysis of my personality , and in the conclusion of the general analysis of all participants , That I am violent person a wife abuser an child abuser . But we as a family live happy and content , thank God and not needing the law of the land to protect us. and we are not looking forward for the law of the lad to interfere in our lives . You folks , who live away from Gods law , you need the law of the land to protect you .
It is interesting , how the forum started and how it got twisted .and how the outcome from the twist ended . Thank you.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
You've admitted using violence to discipline your children. That is a textbook example of child abuse. Don't try to lie your way out of it: you are, indeed a child abuser.
Not "love it or leave it." My stance is "follow the laws or go to jail. If you don't like that, _then_ leave."
Depends. If there was a shouting/shoving match going on? Then I'd go down there and make it clear I was going to see what happened next. If he started attacking her? Then yes, I'd get involved. If he attacked her and ran away? I'd call the cops and stay there until they arrived.
Yes, and that's unfortunate.
They are rarely a "solution to everything." You have to take some responsibility for yourself.
Yes I have used a belt on my sons , and that is nobody business . Sometime is necessary , and if I would go again and the same need will require I would do it again . I don't hide that. My sons are grown up now and have been good citizen , they did not ask any body for handout , but helped out the undisciplined bastards in this society.
Child abuse scenario is used by social worker in order to make themselves a need so the government will provide them a job.
Maybe not illegal, but a dick move. I'm quite sure they hated you for that. While they may have forgiven you over time, it could not have helped your relationship. You're lucky they didn't cut your throat in your sleep.
I got punished by my father not to many time , It never come across my mind to harm my father , punishment is a correction action . Why are we afraid to go over speed limit , yet we go . Don't you guys violate the speed limit sign ? but if you get punished for speeding with a hefty fine you will remember not to do it as often .
The problem here is you guy pretend to be righteous .
How unfortunate that the cop does not just punch you in the face a few times; perhaps break your fingers.
Why are you coming up with such nonsense . The cop is no family of mine . I am the father and the cop is not my father , if this is the parallel example you are attempting to make..
By the way your society is starting to introduce armored cars for the police department . that is a real sign on how the society is going based on the social upbringing of its adolescent. When I come here the cops walked on the beet , they did not wear a built proof west,
So? He just belts you in the face a few times. It's no one's business other than yours and his, and it's his job to 'educate' you so you won't do it again. A real man would understand and just take his lumps; such acts are no big deal for someone used to violence in the home.
Feel free to leave our society and go back to yours if you prefer.
They don't wear bulletproof vests here either.
I did not expect such nonsense comparison but you insist . The road does not belong to the cop , My children belongs to me not to the state .. The cop beating me up . it is an assault of a non related person . In my home I am the ruler and I make the rules in my castle. The road is a public domain , Beside you are forgetting , that on the road you are getting a summons , which according to the law that you are flashing into my face , I am not guilty until proven in court .
Your flashing love or live . Law are changing like underwear. If people like you will dictate then the so called freedom will be something of the past . Be happy that there are people that criticize because they are a conciseness against dictatorship , that you are willing to impose
This is the fundamental error in your reasoning, your children are not chattel. They don't belong to you, nor does your wife belong to you. They are individuals. They are your responsibility. They are not your property. You are operating under a family paradigm that died a long time ago in wealthy countries. Wives and children are no longer property of the husband/father.
My children carry my Y chromosome , I feed them , clothed , them send them to school , I give the my shelter . They become their own wen the ca take care and provide for them selves . Pardon that crap Philosophy does not stick to me. If I would not have provided those thing and the government would have provided they they would be society's children. My children respond to me just like a dog responds to the owner same way my sons.
Rights which do not include beating your wife.
What makes you think either of these matter? What, you're more important because you came here of your own volition and you've been alive longer?
Considering he will almost certainly be voting against whichever candidate you back, he will have no choice but to change the system without your vote.