Why men won't marry you

[Traditio]

No, the state is in the legal business.

And the business of the law is justice. Therefore, by transitivity... :idunno:

 

[theophilus]

I'll leave mercy, forgiveness and love to the theologians. The State is in the business of justice.

Rom. 13:1-5

:thumb:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Another obvious example in which it should be perfectly permissible, and, in fact, legally encouraged, to beat one's wife:

I was watching a murder documentary a while back. A man's wife takes a younger lover. She even moves him into their house and permanently kicks the husband out of their bedroom, consigning him...either to the couch or to another bedroom. I forget which. She then permits the young man's friends to hang over at their house, drink alcohol, etc.

They ultimately ended up murdering the husband, if I recall correctly.

In my view, the State should delegate its right of violence in such cases to the offended party.

The husband should have been legally permitted and encouraged to beat his wife until either:

1. She saw reason

or

2. She died.

It should have been a perfectly legitimate legal defense for the husband to have walked into court, pointed to his wife's dead body and said: "Your honor, I tried to beat some sense into my wife, but the thing just could not be done. No matter how hard I punched her in the face, she just didn't seem to 'get it.'"

Had he done so, and had it been legal for him to do so, I assure you, everyone would be better off now.

[And yes, Rusha, I'll gladly say the same thing in the case of a male offender. The wife's relatives should be able to give the same legal defense in such a case, were the husband to move a lover into their household, etc.]

Vigilante justice. That is all us. No need for any witnesses, just beat the tar out of her. Course, she should have the same right to beat him if he cheats. In fact, since most women can't beat a man to death, logically, you should allow them to use a gun. As long as the first shots aren't leathal, he needs a chance to learn his lesson too, it should work great.

 

[Traditio]

Rom. 13:1-5

:thumb:

Yes indeed: the State wields the sword as a terror to evil-doers.

Now, remind me, theophilus...what are swords used for again? Is this the sword of mercy? Of love? Of forgiveness? Of organizing liberal hippy hug-fests?

 

[bybee]

No, the state is in the legal business. Occasionally justice is served by the legal system.

Indeed! The state considers motivation, state of mind, provocation among other factors in the decision making process.
Some times....

 

[theophilus]

Yes indeed: the State wields the sword as a terror to evil-doers.

Now, remind me, theophilus...what are swords used for again? Is this the sword of mercy? Of love? Of forgiveness? Of organizing liberal hippy hug-fests?

It's the sword of justice; the sword of the avenger (see OT for "avenger.")

The sword that kills for the sake of justice.

It is the sword of the Lord.

 

[Traditio]

Vigilante justice.

If the State enshrines it in law, it's not vigilantism.

That is all us. No need for any witnesses, just beat the tar out of her. Course, she should have the same right to beat him if he cheats.

It's not just that she cheated. The injustice and outrage against the husband was grievous, "public" and ongoing.

We're not talking about mere suspicion, CM.

In fact, since most women can't beat a man to death, logically, you should allow them to use a gun. As long as the first shots aren't lethal, he needs a chance to learn his lesson too, it should work great.

If the husband moves his lover into the household and lets all of her female friends hang around, drink, etc? Yeah, I don't think that the wife should be blamed for shooting every single one of them, whether the shots be lethal or otherwise.

They're all at least guilty of conspiracy, association, etc.

 

[theophilus]

Another obvious example in which it should be perfectly permissible, and, in fact, legally encouraged, to beat one's wife:

I was watching a murder documentary a while back. A man's wife takes a younger lover. She even moves him into their house and permanently kicks the husband out of their bedroom, consigning him...either to the couch or to another bedroom. I forget which. She then permits the young man's friends to hang over at their house, drink alcohol, etc.

They ultimately ended up murdering the husband, if I recall correctly.

In my view, the State should delegate its right of violence in such cases to the offended party.

The husband should have been legally permitted and encouraged to beat his wife until either:

1. She saw reason

or

2. She died.

It should have been a perfectly legitimate legal defense for the husband to have walked into court, pointed to his wife's dead body and said: "Your honor, I tried to beat some sense into my wife, but the thing just could not be done. No matter how hard I punched her in the face, she just didn't seem to 'get it.'"

Had he done so, and had it been legal for him to do so, I assure you, everyone would be better off now.

[And yes, Rusha, I'll gladly say the same thing in the case of a male offender. The wife's relatives should be able to give the same legal defense in such a case, were the husband to move a lover into their household, etc.]

This woman needed her butt kicked.

This husband needed his butt kicked for "allowing" his wife to do this "thing."

In the OT she would have been stoned to death.

 

[CabinetMaker]

And the business of the law is justice. Therefore, by transitivity... :idunno:

Your reasoning is deeply flawed as your assumption that what is legal and what is just are the same. What is legal and what is just? A number of years ago, the SCOTUS ruled the actually being innocent is not sufficient cause for overturning a convection. Perfectly legal. Is it just?

 

[Traditio]

Your reasoning is deeply flawed as your assumption that what is legal and what is just are the same. What is legal and what is just? A number of years ago, the SCOTUS ruled the actually being innocent is not sufficient cause for overturning a convection. Perfectly legal. Is it just?

Normatively, all laws should be just. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that human law is a participation and determination of the Natural Law. To the extent that the State fails at enacting justice, the State has failed at doing its job.

 

[CabinetMaker]

If the State enshrines it in law, it's not vigilantism.

If. I would fight such legislation vehemently.

It's not just that she cheated. The injustice and outrage against the husband was grievous, "public" and ongoing.

We're not talking about mere suspicion, CM.



If the husband moves his lover into the household and lets all of her female friends hang around, drink, etc? Yeah, I don't think that the wife should be blamed for shooting every single one of them. Whether the shots be lethal or otherwise.

Interesting. God required two witness and a judge yet you don't think that is needed. Often, disputes have two sides. You would beat the wife for cheating. But what if the husband were responsible for her cheating because he failed to live up to what God commands husbands to do? Is it just to beat your wife because you failed as a husband?

 

[bybee]

Normatively, all laws should be just. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that human law is a participation and determination of the Natural Law. To the extent that the State fails at enacting justice, the State has failed at doing its job.

Then what?

 

[Traditio]

It's the sword of justice; the sword of the avenger (see OT for "avenger.")

The sword that kills for the sake of justice.

:thumb:

I have ever in mind the words Judge Dredd in America whenever I think about the role of the State:

"Where do I stand? I'll tell you where I stand. I stand four-square for justice. I stand for discipline, good order and the rigid application of the law - and grud help any limp-wrist liberals who say different. The people, they know where I stand. They need rules to live by - I provide them. They break the rules, I break them. That's the way it works. The people like it that way. They need to know where they stand. Rights? Sure. I'm all for rights. But not at the expense of order. That's why I like to see that Statue of Judgment standing there, towering over liberty. Kind of a symbol. Justice has a price. The price is freedom."

Karl Urban reading the first page of America

 

[theophilus]

Rev. 19:15

 

[bybee]

:thumb:

I have ever in mind the words Judge Dredd in America whenever I think about the role of the State:

"Where do I stand? I'll tell you where I stand. I stand four-square for justice. I stand for discipline, good order and the rigid application of the law - and grud help any limp-wrist liberals who say different. The people, they know where I stand. They need rules to live by - I provide them. They break the rules, I break them. That's the way it works. The people like it that way. They need to know where they stand. Rights? Sure. I'm all for rights. But not at the expense of order. That's why I like to see that Statue of Judgment standing there, towering over liberty. Kind of a symbol. Justice has a price. The price is freedom."

Karl Urban reading the first page of America

You are a "Jack Booted moron"!
Without freedom life is meaningless.

 

[Rusha]

Did you hear about this?

Let the ironic male tears fall: The “make rape legal” guys cancel meetups because they don’t feel safe In hilarious news, Roosh V's "heterosexual, masculine men" will not be gathering in 43 countries this weekend It’s entirely likely that over the past few days, your social media feed has been full of outrage over proposed “pro rape” get togethers around the world for this weekend. The event was spearheaded by Daryush “Roosh” Valizadeh, the guy behind “masculinity” site Return of Kings. Over the past few years, ROK has gained a degree of Internet infamy for its “Women Are the Worst/Here’s How to Get Women to Be Your Girlfriend” philosophy. They actually say things like “The key to life is for men to honor their primal nature” and “Why Facebook is emasculating and how to stop it.” I know. Much of it is pretty damn hilarious. Yet as we all know, you don’t have to be smart to be dangerous, and ROK also promotes a remarkably rape-friendly agenda. A year ago, Roosh penned an essay in which he offered a modest proposal: “Make rape legal if done on private property. I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds.” He went on to explain, “Let’s make rape legal. Less women will be raped because they won’t voluntarily drug themselves with booze and follow a strange man into a bedroom, and less men will be unfairly jailed for what was anything but a maniacal alley rape.” Read the rest.

Return of Kings... :chuckle:

Yes, it was on my Google news page. From there, elo and I went to the website. Really good if you want to laugh hard. We wondered if it was satire. And then we did research. Other critics wonder the same thing.

Color me surprised that such creatures as these exist.

 

[theophilus]

Without freedom life is meaningless.

Sweet woman,

Both from secular and biblical perspectives freedom is never free.

:think:

 

[Traditio]

If. I would fight such legislation vehemently.

That says more about you than anything else. :idunno:

Interesting. God required two witness

In this case? I'm counting at least 3.

and a judge yet you don't think that is needed. Often, disputes have two sides. You would beat the wife for cheating. But what if the husband were responsible for her cheating because he failed to live up to what God commands husbands to do? Is it just to beat your wife because you failed as a husband?

Even if that were the case (and, in point of fact, it wasn't), that doesn't excuse her actions.

 

[bybee]

Sweet woman,

Both from secular and biblical perspectives freedom is never free.

:think:

Freedom continues to be purchased in blood.
Knuckling under to despots is no way to live.

 

[Rusha]

A beating ... for cheating. As someone who was the faithful wife of an adulterer, I will leave you with this:

He wasn't *worth* beating.