Why men won't marry you

[Traditio]

:sigh: Why don't you ask your Pope what he thinks of it.

Kmoney:

Do you think that a married woman who brings a lover into the household of her husband, and otherwise does all of the other things that I have described, commits a serious injustice both against her husband and against the State?

Do you further agree that serious acts of injustice merit punishment, the severity of which should correspond to the gravity of the crime?

Do you further grant that the right to mete out punishment corresponds to the right of violence of the State?

Do you further grant that the State may delegate its authority to punish to someone else?

If you disagree with my conclusion, then which premise do you reject?

If you reject none of them, then how can you disagree with my conclusion?

 

[Arthur Brain]

And you're simply wrong. If you insist on making an ad populum argument, then why don't we include "the democracy of the dead," so to speak, as an acquaintance of mine often likes to say? If we take a vote from that democracy, you'll likely find that they vote in favor of my position, not in favor of yours.

The modern, contemporary world is a minority party in the "democratic proceedings" of the whole history of the human race.

Oh shut up you pseudo intellectual little crack pot. Your position is untenable and thankfully you're not in any relationship where you'd have the option to put it 'to the test'.

Stick with your beloved Plato books as partners Trad. At least you won't do them any harm...

 

[Traditio]

Oh shut up you pseudo intellectual little crack pot. Your position is untenable and thankfully you're not in any relationship where you'd have the option to put it 'to the test'.

Stick with your beloved Plato books as partners Trad. At least you won't do them any harm...

And of course, an insult.

Again, AB, why don't you look up the rights of the Roman paterfamilias (father of the family or head of household)?

Why don't you research what Solon permitted Greek husbands to do if they caught their respective wives in adultery?

"Opinion poll" indeed!

 

[annabenedetti]

Indeed ... and deserve to be rated. I give you ...

:shocked: :think: :yawn: :kookoo:

He's quite the narcissist, everything has to be about him. Boring as heck. :chuckle:

 

[Rusha]

He's quite the narcissist, everything has to be about him. Boring as heck. :chuckle:

Of course ... as predictable as ever.

 

[kmoney]

Kmoney:

Do you think that a married woman who brings a lover into the household of her husband, and otherwise does all of the other things that I have described, commits a serious injustice both against her husband and against the State?

Do you further agree that serious acts of injustice merit punishment, the severity of which should correspond to the gravity of the crime?

Do you further grant that the right to mete out punishment corresponds to the right of violence of the State?

Do you further grant that the State may delegate its authority to punish to someone else?

If you disagree with my conclusion, then which premise do you reject?

If you reject none of them, then how can you disagree with my conclusion?

I think I'd disagree right from the start, that her actions are a serious injustice to the State.

But really I don't care (at least at the moment) about any of that. Let's assume that all of that is true. The wife's actions are an injustice to the State, the state can punish with violence, that they can delegate. I would still not agree with you that a husband should use that state delegated right to violence.

Trad, do you think a husband beating his wife, even if it's supposed to be punishment for her wronging him, is loving her as Christ loved the Church? And I'll ask again. Do you think your Pope would agree with your position?

 

[patrick jane]

Kmoney:

Do you think that a married woman who brings a lover into the household of her husband, and otherwise does all of the other things that I have described, commits a serious injustice both against her husband and against the State?

Do you further agree that serious acts of injustice merit punishment, the severity of which should correspond to the gravity of the crime?

Do you further grant that the right to mete out punishment corresponds to the right of violence of the State?

Do you further grant that the State may delegate its authority to punish to someone else?

If you disagree with my conclusion, then which premise do you reject?

If you reject none of them, then how can you disagree with my conclusion?

I reject all of your premises

 

[Arthur Brain]

And of course, an insult.

Again, AB, why don't you look up the rights of the Roman paterfamilias (father of the family or head of household)?

Why don't you research what Solon permitted Greek husbands to do if they caught their respective wives in adultery?

"Opinion poll" indeed!

Right, because how societies used to live should be the same as now?

Well, no. That's why we don't tolerate domestic abuse, sexual abuse, violence, kids being shot up chimneys, blacks being segregated, women having no voice etc etc etc.

lain:

 

[Traditio]

I think I'd disagree right from the start, that her actions are a serious injustice to the State.

I understand how it may be difficult to grant this. In defense of it, I wish to note, cursorily, that the State takes an interest in marriage. This is evident in the issuance of marriage licenses. Furthermore, it should be noted that the family is the very basis and ground of the political society. An offense against marriage is an offense against the political society itself, over which the State has care.

In committing adultery, the woman denies the State its rights of the assurance of legitimate heirs, children who are properly and lawfully brought up, etc.

Furthermore, it brings great insult, a great affront, against the State, who has endowed her and her husband's marital union with legal, public recognition and encouragement.

Marriage is a deeply political institution, and adultery violates and undermines marriage.

It is, perhaps (and here, I speak inquiringly, and not from a view of settled knowledge), not incorrect to view the crimes of adultery and abortion on par with treason. :idunno:

But do note, Kmo, that I didn't even bring up a mere case of adultery. No, I spoke of a woman who brought her lover into her husband's house, let his friends hang out there, and kicked her husband out of the marital bed.

We're not talking about a woman who was incontinent. We're talking about open, brazen displays of vice, of hardened, ingrained wickedness. We're talking about someone who was, at least insofar as her actions can lead us to believe (I don't know what's in her heart), in the words of Plato and Aristotle, "incurably evil."

For the life of me, I can't see how it could possibly be in the interests of the State to permit such a woman to live.

But really I don't care (at least at the moment) about any of that. Let's assume that all of that is true. The wife's actions are an injustice to the State, the state can punish with violence, that they can delegate. I would still not agree with you that a husband should use that state delegated right to violence.

Prima facie, it seems like what you are saying is contradictory. If you grant the right of the State to punish the woman for her action, and, likewise, admit the desert and just due of the woman to punishment, then you are telling me that it is unjust for the husband to exact what is: 1. objectively just and 2. just for him.

Trad, do you think a husband beating his wife, even if it's supposed to be punishment for her wronging him, is loving her as Christ loved the Church? And I'll ask again. Do you think your Pope would agree with your position?

I don't know. :idunno:

I wish to note, however, that I'm not speaking qua Christian, nor am I arguing from theological principles. I'm speaking qua reasonable human being.

 

[Traditio]

Right, because how societies used to live should be the same as now?

Well, no. That's why we don't tolerate domestic abuse, sexual abuse, violence, kids being shot up chimneys, blacks being segregated, women having no voice etc etc etc.

lain:

You're the one appealing to public opinion. My question is simply this: why appeal only to current public opinion, and only a subsection of it at that?

Because it just so happens to be the subsection that you agree with?

 

[Crucible]

He's quite the narcissist, everything has to be about him.

:rotfl:
Modern women are naturally narcissistic.
Vanities and expectations that women enjoy are a rolled out carpet into their glass house of narcissism.

 

[annabenedetti]

:rotfl:
Modern women are naturally narcissistic.
Vanities and expectations that women enjoy are a rolled out carpet into their glass house of narcissism.

Crucible's narcissism, exhibit A:

In a conversation that wasn't about him, he pops up with:

That's why they don't like me, because I don't adulterate anythhing- I give it hard like Augustine did, who is one of my intellectual heroes :thumb:

:chuckle:

 

[elohiym]

1. Even granting that they have been abrogated, this doesn't refute the proposition, i.e., which is that stoning is, in principle, permissible. Even if you deny that societies other than the ancient Jewish body politic should stone adulterers, you must nonetheless grant that it was permissible for them.

I grant execution of adulterers was commanded under the dispensation of law.

If you grant this (as you must), I'll then ask: "Granted that stoning was permissible, could Moses have prescribed beating instead, for at least some cases?"

No. It is written, "If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel."

You have no evidence that Moses could choose a lighter penalty. Haven't you read the scriptures instructing them to not pity or spare, etc? It's not likely you are going to overcome that point.

...to cast serious doubt on whether those laws were good and just laws. I say that they were excellent laws and most fitting to ensure the common good of the ancient Jewish political society.

God stated through the prophet that he gave them laws that were not good, too. Did you know that?

Ezekiel 20:25 "I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live;

What I've said is either obviously true or obviously false. If you insist that, for any given crime, there is one and precisely one acceptable punishment, then what I've said is clearly false. The less severe punishment is too lenient and, therefore, unjust. All murderers MUST die. Period. No exceptions. Again: all adulterers MUST die. Period. No exceptions.

Under the Mosaic Law, yes. All adulterers MUST die. Period. No exceptions.

[D]o you deny that Moses could have permitted [a beating] in the case of adultery?

Yes, I deny that.

I grant that. If the State doesn't delegate its right of violence to the offended party, then the offended party is not permitted to exact vengeance.

The state cannot delegate the punishment of criminals to men who want to treat their wives like criminals.

:e4e:

 

[Traditio]

I grant execution of adulterers was commanded under the dispensation of law.

No. It is written, "If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel."

You have no evidence that Moses could choose a lighter penalty. Haven't you read the scriptures instructing them to not pity or spare, etc? It's not likely you are going to overcome that point.

Then, as I said, you end up arguing against yourself. If the less severe may not be substituted for the more severe for a given class of criminal acts, then:

1. Drug dealers MUST be burned to death
2. Adulterers MUST be stoned to death

And I could go on. Whether in the time of Moses or in any other time.

God stated through the prophet that he gave them laws that were not good, too. Did you know that?

I'm aware of the passage. What is intended is that the Law of Moses didn't confer them sufficient grace to keep it. The law itself was good, but the people were bad; for them, the law was "not good," insofar as it condemned them for their wicked actions.

The state cannot delegate the punishment of criminals to men who want to treat their wives like criminals.

By your own admission, the wives in question are criminals.

 

[Rusha]

Crucible's narcissism, exhibit A:

In a conversation that wasn't about him, he pops up with:

:chuckle:

He is just unwilling to accept the fact that one of the main reasons he is not liked is due to his dishonesty. His misogyny comes in a close second.

*New Guy* indeed.

 

[annabenedetti]

He is just unwilling to accept the fact that one of the main reasons he is not liked is due to his dishonesty. His misogyny comes in a close second.

*New Guy* indeed.

Meh. That, but I mostly ignore him because he just says the same things, over and over.

 

[elohiym]

Then, as I said, you end up arguing against yourself. If the less severe may not be substituted for the more severe for a given class of criminal acts, then:

1. Drug dealers MUST be burned to death
2. Adulterers MUST be stoned to death

And I could go on. Whether in the time of Moses or in any other time.

No, not any other time frame. We are under the dispensation of grace, not law. You can show mercy to people who don't deserve mercy. Has anyone ever done that for you?

By your own admission, the wives in question are criminals.

In the case of adultery, yes.
In the case of losing her "husband's money" to gambling, no.

 

[ClimateSanity]

As for the case trad brought up. The husband should have waited until his wife and her male friends left for shopping or what have you, and then moved all of her things out and put a new lock on the door and have his lawyer get a restraining order on the wife and boy toys. Then he should go to the bank and withdraw all the money and set up a new account in his name.

 

[Crucible]

In a conversation that wasn't about him

It wasn't about anyone specific, it was a call out to those as yourself who don't like those who do not dwell in your fantasy world.

I made mention that I'm one of them :idunno:
There you go making up weird things again.

 

[Traditio]

No, not any other time frame. We are under the dispensation of grace, not law. You can show mercy to people who don't deserve mercy. Has anyone ever done that for you?

I've said this before, and I'll repeat it again:

I'll leave grace, mercy, forgiveness and all of that jazz to theologians. From the viewpoint of the State, all that matters is justice.

And you've already admitted, Elo., that the sole just punishment for adultery, this side of eternity, is death.

That's much harsher than anything I've said in this thread.