Why men won't marry you

[patrick jane]

What you are effectively committing to saying, Rusha, is that there are absolutely no conceivable causes in which a wife, child or husband could be deserving of a beating.

You're missing the point. Beatings and physical punishments are wrong for everybody, whether it's the state or a government or prison. Only in 2nd and 3rd world countries and Islam do they do these things. Civilized society does no physical beatings or punishments except the death penalty.

 

[Traditio]

You're missing the point. Beatings and physical punishments are wrong for everybody, whether it's the state or a government or prison. Only in 2nd and 3rd world countries and Islam do they do these things. Civilized society does no physical beatings or punishments except the death penalty.

You're speaking from the viewpoint of sheer historical myopia. Civilized society in recent times doesn't do these things. Civilized society up until fairly recent times indeed did these things quite often.

Nor can you assert that it is intrinsically immoral to exact physical torments as the punishment of a crime, if you are a Christian. Haven't you read the Law of Moses?

 

[Rusha]

Is there nothing that a married woman can do, regardless of how illegal or how immoral or how damaging either to herself, her family or the political society and the State, which could possibly merit beating as a due penalty?

Irrelevant question. This just shows how little you know and wish to know about domestic violence.

Common sense would tell you that I am not speaking of a man or woman DEFENDING themselves or their children.

I am speaking of nit-picky control freaks who go nuclear over little things like how you ground beef, put the wash soap and clothes in the washer, setting the air conditioning above 65, removing the loaded gun off of the coffee table and putting it in the night stand, etc.

 

[Traditio]

Irrelevant question. This just shows how little you know and wish to know about domestic violence.

Common sense would tell you that I am not speaking of a man or woman DEFENDING themselves or their children.

Sheer red herring. Did I say anything about self-defense? I'm talking about the right of punishment, the right of violence, the right to exact vengeance for an injustice.

I'm not talking about a man hitting his wife because she's physically threatening him.

I'm talking about a man realizing that his wife had gambled away his retirement savings. She deserves a beating, and the State would be within its rights to delegate to the husband the right to give her what she deserves.

I am speaking of nit-picky control freaks who go nuclear over little things like how you ground beef, put the wash soap and clothes in the washer, setting the air conditioning above 65, removing the loaded gun off of the coffee table and putting it in the night stand, etc.

Yeah. I'm not talking about those things.

I'm fully willing to admit that the vast majority of wife-beatings are bad. I'm not willing to make the claim without any qualifications, however.

Again, consider the woman who gambled her husband's retirement away. She has seriously wronged him. The "due" for that wrong may be repaid in the form of physical torment. She deserves to be beaten. A lot.

In point of fact, in the US or Europe, the husband may not exact this penalty. That's not legal.

Nonetheless, would it be wrong for the State to permit it? I don't think it necessarily would be. I have in mind the Roman paterfamilias (father of the family, or, perhaps, the head of household), for example.

 

[Traditio]

Beating your spouse, girlfriend, partner or whatever is violent abuse. It's as simple as that. At least to anyone who isn't a sociopath or a mindless little moron.

A claim which is easy to make...but much harder to support by means of rational argumentation.

I'll leave the emotives and personal insults to you. :idunno:

 

[Rusha]

I'm talking about a man realizing that his wife had gambled away his retirement savings.

THEIR retirement savings. Did they gamble together? Do they both gamble?

She deserves a beating, and the State would be within its rights to delegate to the husband the right to give her what she deserves.

Oh ... so in the case the husband gambles away THEIR savings, she would be within her right to wait until he falls asleep and beat some sense into him?

Yeah. I'm not talking about those things.

I am. Guess what. I have been married, you have not. The scenarios I gave are more common and realistic than the one you dreamed up in order to justify wife beating.

I'm fully willing to admit that the vast majority of wife-beatings are bad. I'm not willing to make the claim without any qualifications, however.

I am. There are some things that decent people do not do. BEATING their wife, husband, children, mother or father, brother, sister, etc. is on that list.

Sleeping with someone other than your spouse is also something that decent people do not do.

Outside of defending myself and my children from bodily harm, I would never hit my significant other or husband.

There are some idiots who would beat or kill their spouse or significant other for cheating on them. I am not one of those people.

Also, discipline is for children ... not spouses.

Again, consider the woman who gambled her husband's retirement away.

THEIR retirement ...

She has seriously wronged him. The "due" for that wrong may be repaid in the form of physical torment. She deserves to be beaten. A lot.

Something is wrong inside your head, Traditio. Dreaming up scenarios that would justify a husband repaying his wife with physical torment. Any man that thinks that way ... deserves beaten. A lot.

In point of fact, in the US or Europe, the husband may not exact this penalty. That's not legal.

Nonetheless, would it be wrong for the State to permit it? I don't think it necessarily would be.

I know you don't ... because you have little boundaries when it comes to your own actions or the actions of those you agree with.

 

[Arthur Brain]

A claim which is easy to make...but much harder to support by means of rational argumentation.

I'll leave the emotives and personal insults to you. :idunno:

It's easy to make as it stands true with anyone with rationale, empathy and anything resembling a conscience.

If you think you can make a rational and cohesive argument whereby it's okay for a person to beat their partner as some form of justice then you get on with that Trad.

I'm sure it'll make for an enlightening read.

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Again, consider the woman who gambled her husband's retirement away. She has seriously wronged him. The "due" for that wrong may be repaid in the form of physical torment. She deserves to be beaten. A lot.

May you never be in a position to inflict that on anyone.

How many more vapid knobs are there who would 'justify' this on here?

 

[Traditio]

It's easy to make as it stands true with anyone with rationale, empathy and anything resembling a conscience.

In point of fact, you're simply wrong. It only "stands true with anyone with rationale, empathy," etc. who lives in Western culture in relatively recent times.

If you think you can make a rational and cohesive argument whereby it's okay for a person to beat their partner as some form of justice then you get on with that Trad.

I presented something like an argument to Rusha. The premises are basically as follows:

1. The State has a right of vengeance/violence.
2. This right of violence may take the form of physical punishment.
3. The State may delegate this authority when suitable.

Again, consider the Roman paterfamilias. If you don't know what that is, wiki it.

 

[Traditio]

THEIR retirement savings. Did they gamble together? Do they both gamble?

No. The husband was completely clueless.

Oh ... so in the case the husband gambles away THEIR savings, she would be within her right to wait until he falls asleep and beat some sense into him?

If the State permits it? Probably. Practically speaking, it's unlikely that she could. Better to get her male relatives to do it.

I am.

I'm not going to argue about something about which we agree.

You assert that a husband shouldn't beat his wife because she made a slight error in polishing his shoes. I agree with you.

My question is whether there are any circumstances in which such a thing is permissible. I think that there are (sometimes, a woman just needs to be beaten), albeit they are relatively rare, and virtually non-existent in the West currently.

I am. There are some things that decent people do not do. BEATING their wife, husband, children, mother or father, brother, sister, etc. is on that list.

If it's an act of justice, then I disagree.

Something is wrong inside your head, Traditio.

Then something has been wrong inside most peoples' head throughout most of history. "Pound of flesh" and all.

 

[bybee]

No. The husband was completely clueless.



If the State permits it? Probably. Practically speaking, it's unlikely that she could. Better to get her male relatives to do it.



I'm not going to argue about something about which we agree.

You assert that a husband shouldn't beat his wife because she made a slight error in polishing his shoes. I agree with you.

My question is whether there are any circumstances in which such a thing is permissible. I think that there are (sometimes, a woman just needs to be beaten), albeit they are relatively rare, and virtually non-existent in the West currently.



If it's an act of justice, then I disagree.



Then something has been wrong inside most peoples' head throughout most of history. "Pound of flesh" and all.

I remember the story of an outraged young man who thought he should beat up his grandfather who was providing a home for him because the grandfather was making demands of him to respect his home.
Where the rubber meets the road, Jesus did not advocate, ever, that a man should beat on another man much less on a woman or a child.
A man is a protector. He is to use his strength for the good of others. A man who physically strikes his spouse will be living with an enemy.

 

[annabenedetti]

My question is whether there are any circumstances in which such a thing is permissible. I think that there are (sometimes, a woman just needs to be beaten), albeit they are relatively rare, and virtually non-existent in the West currently.

Why feminism? Why humanism? TOL never fails to show us why.

 

[theophilus]

Why feminism? Why humanism? TOL never fails to show us why.

...and etc.

True that!

 

[ok doser]

I think that there are (sometimes, a woman just needs to be beaten)...

a wife just needs to be beaten when she's acting like a wayward child

proverbs 13:24

 

[theophilus]

AND...

...I get better "news" than on the antennae TV I don't have to pay for.

:thumb:

 

[bybee]

Why feminism? Why humanism? TOL never fails to show us why.

Trad speaks as an automaton. He dwells in his head and dares to speak of judgment and punishment without the qualities of mercy and forgiveness... let alone love.
He is, I believe, one of those of whom Jesus spoke when in the midst of His agony He said "Father forgive them they know not what they do".

 

[bybee]

a wife just needs to be beaten when she's acting like a wayward child

proverbs 13:24

Why would a man marry a "wayward child"?

 

[ok doser]

Why would a man marry a "wayward child"?

a better question would be "why would a wife act like a wayward child?"

my answer would be that today's modern society encourages her to

 

[bybee]

a better question would be "why would a wife act like a wayward child?"

my answer would be that today's modern society encourages her to

Answer my question.

 

[ok doser]

nope - got three textbooks to plow through before lab in a couple hours


:wave2: