A question for Jedi Knight [Archive]

Jedi Knight

31st March 2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by gnome
From this thread:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16378

I really cannot let you go without asking you to respond to this preposterous statement. The first sentence is an opinion, one that I disagree with but which you are entitled to. The second, however, is a blatant falsehood. I invited you multiple times to rephrase it (or to affirm that you mean it literally) and you chose to move on to other threads instead.

No, you do not have to answer to me. Feel free to continue to ignore it. But I think that will say something about your debating integrity that you will drop a bomb like that and then run away from it, because you know it to be indefensible.

On the other hand, you could come back and back up your words, clarify what you meant, admit that you were exaggerating, or even perhaps that you were a bit riled up and said something untrue.

The increase in your credibility would be astounding.

OK, let me rephrase it.

There are no "battered" women in America. The myth of battered women in America is due to the noisy matriarchal terrorists, the American Medina Matriarchal Totalitarian Feminazi Brigades. Men are the true victims and the "battered" in America.

JK

Denise

31st March 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

OK, let me rephrase it.

There are no "battered" women in America. The myth of battered women in America is due to the noisy matriarchal terrorists, the American Medina Matriarchal Totalitarian Feminazi Brigades. Men are the true victims and the "battered" in America.

JK

Do you really believe that Jedi? Or are you just trying to get a rise out of people.

There are many services to help battered women and their children get out of relationships. I could see how you might think that some women enjoy the relationships because they do not avail themselves of those services. Sometimes that is the case, but I think you are painting the problem with too broad a brush IF that is what you think. That's a big if in there if you didn't notice it.

Regnad Kcin

31st March 2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by gnome
But I think that will say something about your debating integrity ...JK? Debating integrity? Surely, you jest.

gnome

31st March 2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

There are no "battered" women in America. The myth of battered women in America is due to the noisy matriarchal terrorists, the American Medina Matriarchal Totalitarian Feminazi Brigades. Men are the true victims and the "battered" in America.

JK

Ok, I'm really trying to give you every chance here. Perhaps we're disagreeing on terms? By "battery" I mean a nonconsensual physical striking of someone. By most reports this happens to men and women. Are you actually saying that this never happens to women?

Everyone that's ever reported, witnessed, or treated a case like this is telling a lie?

Jedi Knight

31st March 2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by gnome

Ok, I'm really trying to give you every chance here. Perhaps we're disagreeing on terms? By "battery" I mean a nonconsensual physical striking of someone. By most reports this happens to men and women. Are you actually saying that this never happens to women?

Everyone that's ever reported, witnessed, or treated a case like this is telling a lie?

Batter (in terms of women's reality in America)--1. Mixture of flour, milk, etc. For baking a cake.

Batter (in terms of men's reality in America as the true victims)--1. Strike Repeatedly 2. Injure by hard use (by women and the matriarchal terror apparatus)

JK

Jedi Knight

31st March 2003, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Denise

Do you really believe that Jedi? Or are you just trying to get a rise out of people.

There are many services to help battered women and their children get out of relationships. I could see how you might think that some women enjoy the relationships because they do not avail themselves of those services. Sometimes that is the case, but I think you are painting the problem with too broad a brush IF that is what you think. That's a big if in there if you didn't notice it.

Hi Denise. ;)

JK

saddam

31st March 2003, 05:55 PM

Lisa

31st March 2003, 06:14 PM

So when my first husband drank a bottle of Scotch, tried to break my arms, sending me to the emergency room, I just misunderstood?

31st March 2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Lisa
So when my first husband drank a bottle of Scotch, tried to break my arms, sending me to the emergency room, I just misunderstood?

Lisa, you just don't understand. Your real (and disgustingly offensive, not due to you) experience doesn't count, because it's part of the "leftism" that Jedi wishes to lie out of existance. :mad:

I think Jedi is half troll, and half male supremicist, anti-gay apologist. I'm not sure (yet) what his position on race is, not having stumbled upon, or stepped into, it.

As you may have guessed, this is not a positive assesement of him in my personal opinion.

Btw, I hope Mr. Creep is looking at some big iron bars?

Lisa

31st March 2003, 06:28 PM

Dunno. I handed him his walking papers, put in for an assignment to Korea and left. Told him he could have all the stuff that was in storage, just never contact me again.

UnrepentantSinner

31st March 2003, 07:18 PM

Jedi Knight is right.

Questioninggeller

31st March 2003, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

There are no "battered" women in America.

Gee, that is too bad you think that. You are ill informed.

subgenius

31st March 2003, 10:34 PM

He's a delusional misogynist who justifies violence against women. Don't know why any one puts up with him.

Regnad Kcin

31st March 2003, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Jedi Knight is right. Dr. Samuel Johnson's right about Olson Johnson being right!

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

1st April 2003, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Jedi Knight is right.

are you JK's sock puppet and another JK fan?

or are you just stating what JK's political perspective appears to be?

Lurker

1st April 2003, 04:30 AM

Clearly JK is half troll. And it also looks like he has some issues with women. Did a girlfriend beat him up and now he is ashamed of it? JK, there are groups you could attend that might help you with your problem.

Lurker

Lord Kenneth

1st April 2003, 04:45 AM

Methinks JK loves fooling around on these boards.

Tricky

1st April 2003, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by subgenius
He's a delusional misogynist who justifies violence against women. Don't know why any one puts up with him.
Indeed. Not only is battering okay, but a man is justified in killing (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9450) women if they have been unjust to him, like giving him a failing grade.

Sadly, I think Jedi seriously believes that women deserve whatever punishment a man gives them.

gnome

1st April 2003, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Batter (in terms of women's reality in America)--1. Mixture of flour, milk, etc. For baking a cake.

Batter (in terms of men's reality in America as the true victims)--1. Strike Repeatedly 2. Injure by hard use (by women and the matriarchal terror apparatus)

JK

Once again, the process of communication has broken down. JK, simply and clearly, do you believe that any female in America has ever been the victim of an act of violence by any male?

rikzilla

1st April 2003, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by gnome

Once again, the process of communication has broken down. JK, simply and clearly, do you believe that any female in America has ever been the victim of an act of violence by any male?

I personally have had my ass kicked while trying to stop my step dad from beating the crap out of my mom. This happened many times. :mad: This same step dad got me drunk on rum and cokes on my 13th birthday, and I almost died choking on my vomit in my sleep. Nice guy. Very responsible. :mad:

Yeah, there are battered women...and a $hitload of battered kids as well. I don't know where JK is coming from on this issue???

I think perhaps he has the more virulently hardcore elements of radical feminism in mind. He needs to realize that although the feminist nuts are...well...nuts...they were not created in a vacuum. Theirs is a reaction to a real problem. It's an unhealthy reaction. (Feminists are attempting to reshape the entire social fabric in their image.) It's an overreaction. The problem exists, but can be dealt with under existing law. Feminists are zealots with an agenda....I don't think they care as much about solving real domestic violence issues as they do in pushing their social agenda. Otherwise why were radical feminists among the largest supporters of Bob Packwood and Bill Clinton?? They obviously were willing to support sexual predators as long as their social agenda was served.

-z

Q-Source

1st April 2003, 06:51 AM

Feminists are not directly responsible to deal with domestic violence. Reducing violence against women (and children) comes just as a side-effect of the feminists' intention, which is to increase the women's role in their society.

In the long run, battered women and children are not only a problem for the people involved in a dysfunctional family but also they are a problem for our societies. For example, we have to deal with those children who grow and become resentful and violent men.

Q-S

Crossbow

1st April 2003, 07:00 AM

Jedi Knight sounds like the kind of person who would get along well with my one grandmother.

Some years ago, after my mother got beaten by her husband, she called her mother (the grandmother in question) and told her about the experience.

To which my grandmother asked, "Well? What did you do that made him hit you?".

Jedi Knight

1st April 2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
Feminists are not directly responsible to deal with domestic violence. Reducing violence against women (and children) comes just as a side-effect of the feminists' intention, which is to increase the women's role in their society.

In the long run, battered women and children are not only a problem for the people involved in a dysfunctional family but also they are a problem for our societies. For example, we have to deal with those children who grow and become resentful and violent men.

Q-S

What violent men? I think that is a feminist myth.

JK

1st April 2003, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

What violent men? I think that is a feminist myth.

JK

Give JK a break, everyone. You'd be a little twisted too if girls had been beating you up all your life.

:D :p

gnome

1st April 2003, 07:51 AM

I will be perfectly happy to shut up once JK makes his views perfectly clear and accepts the consequences to people's opinion of him.

JK... once again you prove incapable of answering a simple yes or no question.

Simply and clearly, do you believe that any female in America has ever been the victim of an act of violence by any male?

Q-Source

1st April 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by gnome

JK... once again you prove incapable of answering a simple yes or no question.

Simply and clearly, do you believe that any female in America has ever been the victim of an act of violence by any male?

You are wasting your time.

JK will probably say no to your question. However, he won’t provide evidence of his outrageous claims because he has no evidence at all. Everything comes from a misogynist mind.

Jedi Knight

1st April 2003, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

You are wasting your time.

JK will probably say no to your question. However, he won’t provide evidence of his outrageous claims because he has no evidence at all. Everything comes from a misogynist mind.

No, I just do not believe feminist matriarchal totalitarian pseudo-propaganda. It would be like believing in ghosts or the paranormal.

JK

1st April 2003, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

What violent men? I think that is a feminist myth.

JK

Jedi, I used to be a campus cop while I was in school. Given my experience alone, I can easily rebut your claim that no woman in the USA has been abused.

You are, by the way, partially right about men being abused, physically or sexually. It is much more unusual, BUT WHEN IT HAPPENS THE SUPPORT "teams" THAT EXIST DID NOT, AT LEAST IN 1975, KICK INTO GEAR, in fact they treated the male victim more like an abuser than a victim. The police (city) refused to even take a report in at least one case.

gnome

1st April 2003, 09:22 AM

It is clear to me that JK refuses to answer the question directly, which I have asked several times and could not have put in less ambiguous terms.

From this I conclude either

1. He knows that what he says was untrue, but refuses to publicly admit a lie.

2. He believes what he says was literally true, but refuses to subject himself to criticism by affirming it clearly.

I cannot think of any other possibility. In any case, I think it is amply demonstrated that JK has no interest in the accuracy of his own statements, or in any form of rational debate, or even acknowledging his own statements. Therefore I now put this coward troll on my ignore list permanently.

I don't expect him to care.

gnome

1st April 2003, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by jj
You are, by the way, partially right about men being abused, physically or sexually. It is much more unusual, BUT WHEN IT HAPPENS THE SUPPORT "teams" THAT EXIST DID NOT, AT LEAST IN 1975, KICK INTO GEAR, in fact they treated the male victim more like an abuser than a victim. The police (city) refused to even take a report in at least one case.

This is unfortunate and I hope it is not widespread. Frankly, I believe that policeman should have been fired for not doing his job.

Q-Source

1st April 2003, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

No, I just do not believe feminist matriarchal totalitarian pseudo-propaganda. It would be like believing in ghosts or the paranormal.

Are you suggesting that Rikzilla and Lisa testimonials are part of

the feminist matriarchal totalitarian pseudo-propaganda???

subgenius

1st April 2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

Are you suggesting that Rikzilla and Lisa testimonials are part of

the feminist matriarchal totalitarian pseudo-propaganda???
Refusing to see what's there to be seen is delusional. That would be sad enough, but to espouse this crap helps to rationalize violence, but that's been pointed out above and many times elsewhere. Its intolerable and sickening. Not even amusing. Someone get him to an abused women's shelter. Make him tend to their injuries. Suppose there's no abused children either, since there's no violent men. All men in prison for assaults are victims of the conspiracy.
All his "opinions" (a valid opinion is based on facts) have the same crediblity.

DrChinese

1st April 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by subgenius

Refusing to see what's there to be seen is delusional. That would be sad enough, but to espouse this crap helps to rationalize violence, but that's been pointed out above and many times elsewhere. Its intolerable and sickening. Not even amusing. Someone get him to an abused women's shelter. Make him tend to their injuries. Suppose there's no abused children either, since there's no violent men. All men in prison for assaults are victims of the conspiracy.
All his "opinions" (a valid opinion is based on facts) have the same crediblity.

Yea, and don't forget - it's the victim's fault. That's the one that always drives me crazy.

Q-Source

1st April 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by subgenius

Refusing to see what's there to be seen is delusional. That would be sad enough, but to espouse this crap helps to rationalize violence, but that's been pointed out above and many times elsewhere. Its intolerable and sickening. Not even amusing. Someone get him to an abused women's shelter. Make him tend to their injuries. Suppose there's no abused children either, since there's no violent men. All men in prison for assaults are victims of the conspiracy.
All his "opinions" (a valid opinion is based on facts) have the same crediblity.

Right.

However, I do not think that Jedi has no knowledge about those abused women's shelter. He probably does.

That is why I just find very strange that a middle-age adult like Jedi can express such extremist thoughts about his own country and about social reality.

Q-S

Q-Source

2nd April 2003, 02:31 AM

Bump

Lothian

2nd April 2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

That is why I just find very strange that a middle-age adult like Jedi can express such extremist thoughts about his own country and about social reality.

Q-S It is only strange if you don’t consider him to be trolling.

Q-Source

2nd April 2003, 07:24 AM

Bump

Don't forget this one Jedi.

Jedi Knight

2nd April 2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
Bump

Don't forget this one Jedi.

Batter (in terms of women's reality in America)--1. Mixture of flour, milk, etc. For baking a cake.

Batter (in terms of men's reality in America as the true victims)--1. Strike Repeatedly 2. Injure by hard use (by women and the matriarchal terror apparatus)

JK

subgenius

2nd April 2003, 10:31 AM

Intimate partner violence made up 20% of all nonfatal violent crime experienced by women in 2001.

1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner in 2000.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipv01.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo/statistics.htm

Jedi Knight

2nd April 2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by subgenius
Intimate partner violence made up 20% of all nonfatal violent crime experienced by women in 2001.

1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner in 2000.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipv01.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo/statistics.htm

Which is the pandemic result of matriarchal cultural terror in the United States, a radical leftist feminist agenda.

JK

Q-Source

2nd April 2003, 10:35 AM

Jedi Knight

2nd April 2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

Are you suggesting that Rikzilla and Lisa testimonials are part of

the feminist matriarchal totalitarian pseudo-propaganda???

Yes or No ?

Not at all, what occured with them was the result of the cultural influence of matriarchal cultural terror. They are both victims indirectly of the matriarchal war unleashed upon the country.

JK

subgenius

2nd April 2003, 10:46 AM

If this misogynist could list one credible entity that agrees with his position maybe he wouldn't appear to be a delusional paranoid schizophrenic.
What causes violence against women includes denial of the problem and blaming the victim. Anyone supporting those approaches is rationalizing, and therefore supporting, women and children being beaten to a pulp.
Big brave soldier afraid of women.

Q-Source

2nd April 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Not at all, what occured with them was the result of the cultural influence of matriarchal cultural terror. They are both victims indirectly of the matriarchal war unleashed upon the country.

JK

Thank you Jedi.

I rest my case.

If Rikzilla and Lisa have something to say, then they should.

headscratcher4

2nd April 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Not at all, what occured with them was the result of the cultural influence of matriarchal cultural terror. They are both victims indirectly of the matriarchal war unleashed upon the country.

JK

Ah, I note, Hitler and his thugs blamed what they did to the Jews on the Jews...

subgenius

5th April 2003, 12:11 AM

Here you sniveling weasel:
No battered women ....they can't even publish the pictures, they are too numerous and gruesome....
you owe your worthless life to women....
http://tarotcanada.tripod.com/Abuse.html

Lemastre

5th April 2003, 02:19 AM

Whoever or whatever "Jedi Knight" is, the number of ridiculous opinions put forth under the JK byline indicates that he/she/it is really just a shill for the forums who sees it as a duty to keep the lines busy by pushing our buttons. The forums don't need a shill, but that's what we have here. That position might be better filled if the ideas espoused weren't so ridiculous, however. Responding to JK's sallies provides some typing practice, but little else, it appears.

MRC_Hans

5th April 2003, 03:19 AM

Hehehe, can't you all see that JK just loves to make a row? Do a search: He's been doing this for ages. Posts some outrageus statement, then just upholds it regardless of arguments. A simple troll.

Have fun with him or ignore him.

Hans

Lisa

5th April 2003, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

Thank you Jedi.

I rest my case.

If Rikzilla and Lisa have something to say, then they should.
Sorry Q, wasn't ignoring you. It's just that with so many of my friends and family sitting in various sandy places right now, I haven't been as active in this folder. Not good for the blood pressure.
Perhaps in my first post I should have explained the situation a bit better. Allow me to do so now.
When I married my first husband, at first things were wonderful. We were both in technical maintenance career fields, and shared a lot of the same interests in music, books, sports, etc. Then he started drinking. I don't mean he was a partier, good time Charlie type. He could get downright surly. I think he really wanted to just party, but whether due to physical makeup, underlying attitude, or as one doc told me, mental illness, this was not to be.
Marriage is a 50/50 partnership, full of compromises. Always at least attempt to meet your partner halfway. I really tried to make it work. Even after he sent me to the emergency room. I remembered how it was in the beginning, so not only was I feeling anger, I was feeling overwhelming saddness. I tried to give it my best and I think I did. But I guess it wasn't what he wanted or needed.
I woke up and realized I wasn't going to live the rest of my life as someone's slave/maid/toy/punching bag. If that's matriarchial whatever, fine. I call it being a thinking independent human being. In that, gender really doesn't matter.
My second husband and I have our 17th anniversary this year. We're already trying to decide what kind of a blow out to have for the 20th. Look, we've have our fights and our scream fests. But never, ever raised a hand in anger. I think we respect each other too much as people and partners to even think about it.

subgenius

5th April 2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Hehehe, can't you all see that JK just loves to make a row? Do a search: He's been doing this for ages. Posts some outrageus statement, then just upholds it regardless of arguments. A simple troll.

Have fun with him or ignore him.

Hans
This is the proper approach except when he espouses or condones violence and hatred.
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
This type takes silence as support or acquiesence. And indeed it is.

MRC_Hans

8th April 2003, 12:34 AM

Lisa: I woke up and realized I wasn't going to live the rest of my life as someone's slave/maid/toy/punching bag. If that's matriarchial whatever, fine. I call it being a thinking independent human being. In that, gender really doesn't matter.
My second husband and I have our 17th anniversary this year. We're already trying to decide what kind of a blow out to have for the 20th. Look, we've have our fights and our scream fests. But never, ever raised a hand in anger. I think we respect each other too much as people and partners to even think about it.
A female wanting to be an independent person probably IS matriarcal whatever to a person like JK. Which makes him a pathetic looser. Congratulations on your "new" marriage, sounds good, way to go!

Sub:
This is the proper approach except when he espouses or condones violence and hatred.
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
This type takes silence as support or acquiesence. And indeed it is.I basicaly agree. My point is that it is useless to argue with him. Arguing against him has a purpose. And flaming him is fine, heheh.

Surely ignoring him totally would be the best of all, but that option only exists in fantasy land.

Hans

Q-Source

8th April 2003, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Lisa

Perhaps in my first post I should have explained the situation a bit better. Allow me to do so now.

Hi Lisa,

No, you don't have to explain the situation you lived to anybody who thinks that this is just a "result of the cultural influence of matriarchal cultural terror".

You don't have to convince anybody, specially closed minded misogynists. Women are abused by ill men who are incapable of using any rational means to communicate except violence. I experienced a similar situation but it was not physical but psychological abuse.

What it bothers me is that society usually focuses all its efforts on treating the consequences that cause abuse on women and children instead of attacking and working with the source of violence: abusive men. It does not help that many people (among them, misogynists) still rely the whole responsibility on women to end with this abusive relationships.

Q-S

8th April 2003, 05:50 AM

To Jedi Knight. 5 questions 2 have been sent privately.

1 - Why is it all matriarchal and not patriarchal?

2 - Explain the Mars theory of life originating from there?

3 -Do you have issues with your mother?

8th April 2003, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Not at all, what occurred with them was the result of the cultural influence of matriarchal cultural terror. They are both victims indirectly of the matriarchal war unleashed upon the country.

JK

Sh*t, sh*t and triple sh*t that's utter cr*p. You saying my ex beat the hell out of me because of that?
Not that he was a selfish twisted evil pig sh*t of a man.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Care to elaborate more on this cop out weak sh*t J.K .:mad:

[i] please note BB is is foul and vicious mood having slept for 8 hours, seeing cop out lame duck excuse that its all matriarchal faults that a man half kills a woman makes my anger hit overload. BBwill now go and calm her hot temper by kicking and punching sh*t out of her boxing bag[ or being ko by the bag itselfi]

:mad:

Q-S I agree with you.

8th April 2003, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by gnome

Once again, the process of communication has broken down. JK, simply and clearly, do you believe that any female in America has ever been the victim of an act of violence by any male?
Oh is it simply retricted to America or doesn't it happen anywhere else in the world. It' s a figment of a battered females mind if they don't live in America. Or doenst the rest of the world exist past American shores?

[venting anger but not at Gnome]

8th April 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by sundog

Give JK a break, everyone. You'd be a little twisted too if girls had been beating you up all your life.

:D :p
Any other time I would have probably found it an amusing reply, but I don't at present probably due to being in a one helluva of a rage at the moment, I don't find violence funny at all especially in that context.

Seeing the twisted bit has made me lose it big time. Having been subjected to repeated rape and being beaten the hell out of for the entire length of my sentence(marriage no, it was a sentence) I find that comment distasteful and bitter tasting. that's like saying I am twisted because of what he did or Lisa or Rikzilla and I know I am not I am sure they are not either, I am however very pi**ed off.

I know you didn't mean it in that way but it's just really fueled my already growing anger and that hurts deeply, because sometimes people really believe things like that comment.

MRC_Hans

8th April 2003, 06:28 AM

BB: Easy, kid! Don't let JK make you angry, that's what he is after. He will say anything to piss somebody off.

Remember, the statement comes from the same person who claimed:

- Atheists are hard-wired to call for God just before they die.

- Gravity is generated only by stars.

- Volkswagen was constructed by Chrysler.

- Moslem countries are secular atheists states.

- The human race originates on Mars.

- Jedi Knight is a genious.

- - and more of the same.

:rolleyes: ;) :p :D

Hans

Q-Source

8th April 2003, 06:40 AM

Biker,

Remember that the credibility of the person who says something makes the difference. ;)

I usually don't take his nonsense seriously, but when other people start taking Jedi’s comments seriously then I immediately feel compelled to respond his posts.

Just in these cases, I think that we cannot allow that such assertions stay unchallenged. [Don't you think so, Hans?]

Q-S

BillyTK

8th April 2003, 06:49 AM

Just while we're asking him stuff--who's harder, Lambikins Skywalker or Princess Armidillo? Even with the Force I bet Lambikins would still get seven shade of crap beaten out of him...

MRC_Hans

8th April 2003, 06:49 AM

Just in these cases, I think that we cannot allow that such assertions stay unchallenged. [Don't you think so, Hans?]
Certainly! Challenge him, flame him, ridicule him, just dont let him ruin your day, 'cause he aint worth it.

I'm a notorius troll feeder, because I think trolls must be either silenced (banned) or fought. And since they are not banned here, somebody must fight them.

But every time one of these guys have started to really p*ss me off, I have put them on ignore for a while. I have better things to do with my emotions than getting riled up over some idiot on the internet.

Hans

Megalodon

8th April 2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

There are no "battered" women in America. The myth of battered women in America is due to the noisy matriarchal terrorists, the American Medina Matriarchal Totalitarian Feminazi Brigades. Men are the true victims and the "battered" in America.

I know you are a troll, and probably in real life you're very different from your online persona, and you're just trying to have a little fun. That's why I normally don't post on the same threads as you or, when I do, is just to take a shot at you... all in good fun.

However, this is not funny at all... These assertions of yours are some of the more disgusting comments I have ever seen you make, and you've already made a few of those around here. An apology would be in order, unless of course if you believe in the barbarities you've been saying.

Are you the guy who wrote this? (http://christianparty.net/vawa.htm)

Jedi Knight

8th April 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
Biker,

Remember that the credibility of the person who says something makes the difference. ;)

I usually don't take his nonsense seriously, but when other people start taking Jedi’s comments seriously then I immediately feel compelled to respond his posts.

Just in these cases, I think that we cannot allow that such assertions stay unchallenged. [Don't you think so, Hans?]

Q-S

I have read some of the responses in this thread and they do not link up with reality. They try to portray women as the defenseless doe that walks to the calm river to lap a drink of water, while dozens of angry men armed with .308 rifles are gunning them down mecilessly.

To put some fog into that, people drop by with their personal experiences of getting beat up by an opposite gender (usually always men). My thoughts on matriarchal cultural terror have nothing to do with the handful of incidents where people beat each other up in the community. That just puts a fog over the reality of matriarchal cultural terror and is feminist propaganda.

Matriarchal totalitarianism is the greatest racket going in America. That agenda is driven by hoards of squeaky feminist wheels who preach day in and day out that women are "victims" for being born women. It is an agenda of lies, feminist lies.

More money is spent on healthcare for women than men. More money is spent on women in college than men. More money is spent on women's agendas than men. Women make just as much money as men in the workforce, and yet men are told constantly that women make less. The divorce industry is entirely structured around the ambitions and agendas of women, not men. Domestic violence is not gender-neutral, and yet men are told that any incident of domestic violence is an incident going against women......

It is laughable propaganda and totalitarian.

That is why I haven't addressed every comment made by every person in the thread. If people get beat up by other people, you get away from them. I say that because women and men beat up by their partners at the same frequency. It is not gender specific. It is a mutual activity between genders and always has been.

Ask yourself this Q, why are you so torn up that I say men are the true victims in society? Are you overwhelmed with emotion that I am right? Are you defending the flaws of matriarchal totalitarianist propaganda?

JK

Jedi Knight

8th April 2003, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Certainly! Challenge him, flame him, ridicule him, just dont let him ruin your day, 'cause he aint worth it.

I'm a notorius troll feeder, because I think trolls must be either silenced (banned) or fought. And since they are not banned here, somebody must fight them.

But every time one of these guys have started to really p*ss me off, I have put them on ignore for a while. I have better things to do with my emotions than getting riled up over some idiot on the internet.

Hans

You are just an angry leftist that can't debate because the very fabric of what you believe is fallacy. That is why you use appeal to popularity logic fallacies in every post you make like the one above.

JK

Jedi Knight

8th April 2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Biker Babe

Sh*t, sh*t and triple sh*t that's utter cr*p. You saying my ex beat the hell out of me because of that?
Not that he was a selfish twisted evil pig sh*t of a man.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Care to elaborate more on this cop out weak sh*t J.K .:mad:

[i] please note BB is is foul and vicious mood having slept for 8 hours, seeing cop out lame duck excuse that its all matriarchal faults that a man half kills a woman makes my anger hit overload. BBwill now go and calm her hot temper by kicking and punching sh*t out of her boxing bag[ or being ko by the bag itselfi]

:mad:

Q-S I agree with you.

Let's look at every feminist lie then, BB. Let's put all the feminist lies on the table and then debate them one by one.

JK

MRC_Hans

8th April 2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

You are just an angry leftist that can't debate because the very fabric of what you believe is fallacy. That is why you use appeal to popularity logic fallacies in every post you make like the one above.

JK That the best you can do? You disappoint me. :rolleyes:

Yes, from your POV I'm a leftist. Just like everything is south of the North Pole.

Hans

Jedi Knight

8th April 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
That the best you can do? You disappoint me. :rolleyes:

Yes, from your POV I'm a leftist. Just like everything is south of the North Pole.

Hans

Hans, as an arch-conservative, I know that you aren't going to agree with any of my opinions because you are a leftist groupie. That isn't a problem either so I don't want you to think it is because if leftists like you weren't around, I wouldn't have anything to talk about.

Just don't get all emotional when I don't see things in your point of view--the source of all your appeal to popularity logic fallacy attempts in this thread and others. But hey, some of the chicks here may like that like Q since she is a communist.

It may be easier to just ask for her telephone number privately rather than performing a leftist mating ritual in the thread lol.

JK

Q-Source

8th April 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Megalodon

Are you the guy who wrote this? (http://christianparty.net/vawa.htm)

It is possible that Jedi wrote this BS. It summarises all the points that he has been making.

Have some comments?, then email him jwknight@polbox.com :rolleyes:

Q-S

Jedi Knight

8th April 2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

It is possible that Jedi wrote this BS. It summarises all the points that he has been making.

Look at the email jwknight@polbox.com

Q-S

No, I didn't write that. That is also not my e-mail.

JK

Jedi Knight

8th April 2003, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
It is possible that Jedi wrote this BS.

Hey Q, I was doing some web surfing and was wondering if this was your e-mail.

loooooser@whiningchick.com

JK

Q-Source

8th April 2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

I have read some of the responses in this thread and they do not link up with reality. They try to portray women as the defenseless doe that walks to the calm river to lap a drink of water, while dozens of angry men armed with .308 rifles are gunning them down mecilessly.

This is your own interpretation of reality. The true is that some women and children are abused by men. If society treats them as victims, then that is another issue. However, let's remember that in many cases, women do not report domestic violence to the Police.

To put some fog into that, people drop by with their personal experiences of getting beat up by an opposite gender (usually always men). My thoughts on matriarchal cultural terror have nothing to do with the handful of incidents where people beat each other up in the community. That just puts a fog over the reality of matriarchal cultural terror and is feminist propaganda.

What exactly do you mean by matriarchal cultural terror and feminist propaganda?

Do you think there is an international complot that gives feminist the control of public and private resources to propagate their agenda?

You perceive feminists as a group operating in detriment of men and family. Let me tell you that feminists are disseminated across countries and across socio-economic groups with little or none organisation. Furthermore, in many cases feminism is assumed as an intellectual position in the academia rather than active role in society.

Matriarchal totalitarianism is the greatest racket going in America. That agenda is driven by hoards of squeaky feminist wheels who preach day in and day out that women are "victims" for being born women. It is an agenda of lies, feminist lies.

I don't know the reality of your country but I can tell that it is precisely the self respect that women have for their bodies and capabilities than makes them become a feminist. You're really confused about what feminism means, you pretend to attribute it characteristics that possibility exist just in some groups that are confrontational rather than participative (as real feminism is).

More money is spent on healthcare for women than men. More money is spent on women in college than men. More money is spent on women's agendas than men. Women make just as much money as men in the workforce, and yet men are told constantly that women make less. The divorce industry is entirely structured around the ambitions and agendas of women, not men. Domestic violence is not gender-neutral, and yet men are told that any incident of domestic violence is an incident going against women......

It is laughable propaganda and totalitarian.

Are you denying the above?
Are you saying that it is feminist propaganda?

We would need to have statistics to discuss these points, but just consider that women give birth and that implies extra health care for them (if we consider everything else constant). What can society do about it?, it is human nature.

I say that because women and men beat up by their partners at the same frequency. It is not gender specific. It is a mutual activity between genders and always has been.

Well, this is a moot point. The problem is that if this problem exist, then abused men do not report this to the Police. Unless we have data, we cannot speculate about it.

Ask yourself this Q, why are you so torn up that I say men are the true victims in society? Are you overwhelmed with emotion that I am right? Are you defending the flaws of matriarchal totalitarianist propaganda?

I am not objecting this point!, when did I say that?

I just don't have information to claim anything about violence against men. It bothers me is that you dismiss real facts and testimonials because they just support a reality that you refuse to accept.

Q-S

MRC_Hans

8th April 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Hans, as an arch-conservative, I know that you aren't going to agree with any of my opinions because you are a leftist groupie.

Oh, I might. But do you have opinions?

That isn't a problem either so I don't want you to think it is because if leftists like you weren't around, I wouldn't have anything to talk about.

So I should ignore you? Well, mostly I do.

Just don't get all emotional when I don't see things in your point of view--

No, you were never one to p*ss me off. You are too obvious, and not very interesing, really.

the source of all your appeal to popularity logic fallacy attempts in this thread and others.

What are these fallacies you keep talking about? I haven't presented any arguments against your claims in this thread, or indeed recently. I consider it futile.

But hey, some of the chicks here may like that like Q since she is a communist.

It may be easier to just ask for her telephone number privately rather than performing a leftist mating ritual in the thread lol.

* Yawn *

--- Seriously, JK, can't you do better than this? You used to be quite sharp at times, are you loosing it?
[/b]

Hans

Advocate

8th April 2003, 09:53 AM

Despite the problem of abuse against women, which I do not doubt still exists, the reaction to it has been so strong and aggressive that it seems to have built a culture of general hatred toward men. It is all too easy for a man who is innocent of any wrongdoing to be destroyed by an accusation alone due to the violently emotional responses of those sympathetic to the alleged victim. I think it is a dangerous overreaction and the same "male-bashing" culture is evident even in this thread. I find this very disturbing and frightening. IMHO JK's posts are an overreaction of the same type but the opposite direction - a bit more extreme than most on this forum, but no more so than some women I have known in my life.

subgenius

8th April 2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Advocate
Despite the problem of abuse against women, which I do not doubt still exists, the reaction to it has been so strong and aggressive that it seems to have built a culture of general hatred toward men. It is all too easy for a man who is innocent of any wrongdoing to be destroyed by an accusation alone due to the violently emotional responses of those sympathetic to the alleged victim. I think it is a dangerous overreaction and the same "male-bashing" culture is evident even in this thread. I find this very disturbing and frightening. IMHO JK's posts are an overreaction of the same type but the opposite direction - a bit more extreme than most on this forum, but no more so than some women I have known in my life.
There is a big difference between overreacting and delusional thinking that condones and justifies violence. Do you condone bombing of women's clinics, the University of Arizona killings, and the DC snipers? Well he does. All on the basis that its women's fault.

gnome

8th April 2003, 10:00 AM

I notice that someone here has finally admitted to lying when he said that there are no "battered" women:

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
My thoughts on matriarchal cultural terror have nothing to do with the handful of incidents where people beat each other up in the community.

Your thoughts on matriarchal cultural terror would be better served if you didn't toss falsehoods at the very people you are trying to explain them to.

subgenius

8th April 2003, 10:05 AM

"Beat each other up...." implies mutual combat. That is another delusion: that no one gets beat up without asking for it, or agreeing to engage in mutual combat.
And a delusion that each suffers injuries.
Delusions, pure and simple.

Tricky

8th April 2003, 10:18 AM

Advocate

8th April 2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by subgenius
"Beat each other up...." implies mutual combat. That is another delusion: that no one gets beat up without asking for it, or agreeing to engage in mutual combat.
And a delusion that each suffers injuries.
Delusions, pure and simple.

I don't think it is delusion at all. From my own experience, it is very easy to see what is going on and get worked up into a rage and say some very extreme and exaggerated things. Thats the good thing about this forum - you have time to calm down and create a more reasoned response. I am not sure why he doesn't take the time to calm down as I have, but I am fairly certain it is the same effect.

Jedi Knight

8th April 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by subgenius
"Beat each other up...." implies mutual combat. That is another delusion: that no one gets beat up without asking for it, or agreeing to engage in mutual combat.
And a delusion that each suffers injuries.
Delusions, pure and simple.

Batter (in terms of women's reality in America)--1. Mixture of flour, milk, etc. For baking a cake.

Batter (in terms of men's reality in America as the true victims)--1. Strike Repeatedly 2. Injure by hard use (by women and the matriarchal terror apparatus).

JK

Jedi Knight

8th April 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by gnome
I notice that someone here has finally admitted to lying when he said that there are no "battered" women:

Your thoughts on matriarchal cultural terror would be better served if you didn't toss falsehoods at the very people you are trying to explain them to.

There are no battered women. You need to check your reading comprehension skills.

JK

Jedi Knight

8th April 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Hans

You and Q will look good together. A little breeding and you will have a mini-proletariat.

JK

Tricky

8th April 2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
There are no battered women.
Definately benighted (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/b/b0189300.html)

celter

8th April 2003, 03:04 PM

The statement that there are no battered women is, of course, absurd. However the suggestion that men and women don't, "...beat each other up", is almost equally absurd, as is any attempt to suggest that women are always passive victims when domestic violence occurs. The mutual nature of domestic violence is well documented. Researchers Richard Gelles, Murray Straus and Susan Steinmetz have confirmed it repeatedly.

Also, Cal State Long Beach professor Martin Fiebert summarized 111 different studies with over 77,000 respondents and reported that women initiated domestic violence nearly as often as men.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Professor John Archer of the University of Central Lancashire analysed 17 international studies published over the last 20 years. He reports that although women are more likely to be injured as a result of domestic violence, men were equally likely to be victims of less violent forms of abuse, which constitute the overwhelming majority of cases.
(John Archer. Sex Differences in Aggression between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin Vol. 126, pp. 651-680, 2000)

And according to the U.S. Department of Justice it is women who are the perpetrators in the majority of cases of child abuse, and parental murder, arguably the most severe forms of domestic violence. Mothers commit more than 60 percent of confirmed cases of child abuse and 65 percent of parental murders of children.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ncands97/s7.htm

Also, I see that when people debate here, they often point to other positions their opponent has taken in the past that they claim have been shown to be wrong. They suggest that this is evidence that he must be wrong this time too. It's no such thing.

Megalodon

8th April 2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by celter

Also, I see that when people debate here, they often point to other positions their opponent has taken in the past that they claim have been shown to be wrong. They suggest that this is evidence that he must be wrong this time too. It's no such thing.

Thanks for the links

The claim here was that JK was wrong again, and not that he was wrong because of is past (and vast) absurd positions. And he was indeed wrong, since he claimed there is no battered women in the US.

And even if we agree that the percentage of abuse is probably similar in both genders, you must also agree that violence perpretated by a man on a woman has normally more serious consequences than the opposite

Cheers

Advocate

8th April 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Megalodon
And even if we agree that the percentage of abuse is probably similar in both genders, you must also agree that violence perpretated by a man on a woman has normally more serious consequences than the opposite

Only if you only count the purely physical consequences. If you factor in the psychological consequences then I think you would have to come to the reverse conclusion since there exist social support structures for abused women, but abused men have no such support and in addition have the fear of being accused as the abuser even when the victim.

gnome

8th April 2003, 06:16 PM

Bjorn

8th April 2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
- The human race originates on Mars.
:rolleyes: ;) :p :D

Hans Did you see the Onion this week? :p

http://www.theonion.com/onion3913/mean_scientists.html

peptoabysmal

8th April 2003, 11:27 PM

"The weakness of men is the facade of strength;
the strength of women is the facade of weakness."
Warren Farrell

I can't back up JK's claim, ... being that it's absurd. :rolleyes:

However, I will go as far as to say that *some* women have gained incredible power over the lives of others by playing the victim.

My beef is not with the feminazii anyway :p.
... It's with the "politically correct" fascists who think they have a right to tell everyone else how they should think and feel.

MRC_Hans

9th April 2003, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by celter
Also, I see that when people debate here, they often point to other positions their opponent has taken in the past that they claim have been shown to be wrong. They suggest that this is evidence that he must be wrong this time too. It's no such thing. Ideally, you are right, of course. However, I think it is reasonable to look at the overall credibility of people and sources. For instance, most would not be indifferent about whether some news item came from Reuthers or from Fox News.

Likewise, if some poster has repeatedly posted totally unfounded claims in the past, it does change the way you view that person's future postings.

So I find it is relevant to point out that Jedi Knight has a consistent record of being a provocateur with no intellectual honesty, even though that does not neccessarily mean that everything he says is wrong.

Hans

Megalodon

9th April 2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Advocate

Only if you only count the purely physical consequences.

I thought that was the meaning of battered, to be physically attacked.
I agree that there should be support centers for abused husbands, and that there is a societal bias against men in this matter. But that doesn't mean that there are no battered women, and that are no more women than men who end up in the ER due to marital violence

Advocate

9th April 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Megalodon

I thought that was the meaning of battered, to be physically attacked.
Battery is a physical act but not all of its consequences are physical.
I agree that there should be support centers for abused husbands, and that there is a societal bias against men in this matter. But that doesn't mean that there are no battered women, and that are no more women than men who end up in the ER due to marital violence
I am not JK. I never said there were NO battered women. What I was objecting to was the fact that the psychological aspects were being completely ignored. I do not know your intent in doing so, but this approach contributes to the popular stereotype that men are always the one in the wrong. This view is itself a part of the problem.

subgenius

9th April 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Advocate

Battery is a physical act but not all of its consequences are physical.

I am not JK. I never said there were [B]NO battered women. What I was objecting to was the fact that the psychological aspects were being completely ignored. I do not know your intent in doing so, but this approach contributes to the popular stereotype that men are always the one in the wrong. This view is itself a part of the problem.
No one was ignoring anything. This is all in response to an irresponsible blanket false statement.

Megalodon

9th April 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Advocate

I am not JK. I never said there were NO battered women. What I was objecting to was the fact that the psychological aspects were being completely ignored. I do not know your intent in doing so, but this approach contributes to the popular stereotype that men are always the one in the wrong. This view is itself a part of the problem.

I'm not ignorant of the psychological traumas that may be associated to physical abuse. However, my only input to the discussion was meant to give JK another spoonfull of reality (which he desperatly needs), not to discuss the dynamics of intermarital abuse.

We can, if you want, but I suspect we would be agreeing an awful lot.

Cheers

Advocate

9th April 2003, 11:07 AM

OK. Perhaps I have been a bit too sensitive on this subject. I agree that JK was wrong and that was the original idea behind this thread. Sub is correct in calling it an "irresponsible blanket false statement." I would say that very few such broad statements are true. I was just pointing out that the broader issue is not so one-sided. I certainly did not mean to imply that the existence of one problem implies the non-existence of another. In fact, I was saying the reverse. I am sorry I did not make myself more clear on this point.

9th April 2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Let's look at every feminist lie then, BB. Let's put all the feminist lies on the table and then debate them one by one.

JK

Go for it then JK, one on one.

Just remember not all women are total matriarchal feminatzi do dars.

10th April 2003, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
BB: Easy, kid! Don't let JK make you angry, that's what he is after. He will say anything to piss somebody off.

Remember, the statement comes from the same person who claimed:

- Atheists are hard-wired to call for God just before they die.

- Gravity is generated only by stars.

- Volkswagen was constructed by Chrysler.

- Moslem countries are secular atheists states.

- The human race originates on Mars.

- Jedi Knight is a genius.

- - and more of the same.

Hans

Hans hey kid? Well you just made my day brighter even if it is snowing thanks

VW's made by Chrysler?:eek: You're joking :D lol
Jk a genius Oh come on now don't be hard to hard on him, we are all geniuses some more than others. :D He can also be a really great fun and friendly sometimes, but then he has his attack of PMT and we get the dark-side coming out again, Please donate all choccy to JK during PMT week:D

Actually so you all know his email address is
I_luv_all_feminatzi@mother_knows_best.comi :D

See Darthvader avatar again:rolleyes: he also has a coldsore hence that avatar :D

10th April 2003, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

There are no battered women. You need to check your reading comprehension skills.

JK

What was I then JK? A bowl of cornflakes?

Men, women & children of both sexes can and some are battered, or are you going to say only male children are battered?

It is not down to feminists views blah blah, and not all females have or hold such extreme views either so why are you tarring all of us females with the same blinkered view brush?

Come on down off the monkey tree. There are some times I am sorely tempted to bend you over my knee and spank some sense into you, but then I remember that little husky voice going, 'men are the only victims' and it stops me, that and the distance between us.:p

Or are you saying every female including me is a matriarchal blah blah?

10th April 2003, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by Megalodon

And even if we agree that the percentage of abuse is probably similar in both genders, you must also agree that violence perpetrated by a man on a woman has normally more serious consequences than the opposite

Trying to explain differences and ranting off too sorry:(
Actually I will disagree here in a manner of speaking. Some women can be just as if not more violent when attacking their partners and I am not just saying male partners either, the end game is the same, Saying it is worse for a woman on the receiving end of a males anger is incorrect(see below *). There isn't enough support for battered males and yes I agree the stereotypical biased view doesn't help matters, which is probably why many more battered men do not come forward and report what is happening to them. Fear of ridicule that a supposed believed weak female(in a hetero-sexual relationship presumption, in the same sex relationship even less report it)could beat up this strong male stereotypical image. The stereotyping has to stop, and anybody regardless of sex should come forward and report being abused.

Stereotyping at birth is to blame not feminists view however extreme they are. Plus an acknowledgment that women are as strong and violent as men would be advantageous in helping bring it out into the open and hopefully lead to it being acknowledge and appropriate help for all battered people is equally ensured.

I would love to do the genetics on some of these perpetrators and victims just to see if the hormones namely testosterone and oestrogen play apart in influencing their behavior.

*My best friend he is 6'2 built like a brick sh*t house(works as a bouncer in the club and has martial art training) his wife is 4'11 and built like a twig, she beats him up and she is a really nasty piece of work she has broken bones, caused some very serious internal injuries etc the mental ones often cause more harm than the physical kind( i know I was subjected to both continuously and still do now if he feels like it, amI victim in some eyes yes in my eyes no I am an idiot). I asked him once when she hospitalized him again, why did he stay as she will end up killing him sooner or later. He looked at me and said same reason you stayed with yours so long. He reported her to the police to force her to seek help, the police laughed and told him to put her in her place:eek: Great male advise that is isn't it? Now he doesn't report it, he says not worth giving them a good laugh for. (she is getting help with her violence and she admits she has a problem which is more than most other perpetrators ever do, my ex never has admitted or accepted he was wrong to hit me or the reasons he used were pathetic, it was my fault and still is when he decides I need a lesson and he needs the exercise.:(

Only those who have or are in this violent/mental circle know truly what it feels like, those who sit on the sideline making up lame excuses and blaming everything else than the person regardless of gender in my eyes are just as bad as the perpetrator of the abuse itself.

separate rant
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also so say this to all those who sit on their white picket fences going oh she plays the victim I have no respect for you now ever then blah blah etc.:mad: I do not seek respect from anybody I never have an never will, I value people and if people value me that's their prerogative to do so and they get thanked for it because despite my so called idiotic worthless life I appreciate and still remain warm and open to people. It makes no odds to me at all, I was alone and I mean alone during my marriage, respect didn't come into it then and sure as hell doesn't bother me now. I hope you NEVER have to have go through what I did, having your entire identity, soul and what makes you who you are, ripped apart abused, beaten to a pulp and crushed until all that is left is a empty terrified shell. You don't know what it is like to loose your self esteem to live in terror while putting on a false happy mask to the outside world showing all that you're a happy content person whose madly in love with her wonderful warm adoring husband as he is with you, hiding the fact your shaking with fear knowing the slightest look he gives you means you made a mistake and your payment is coming painfully later, knowing also once the doors and the people are gone the black cold lays there waiting again for you. So don't bother knocking me down because I am a victim I didn't ask for it I was forced to have it, Plus he did and still does occasionally when he can get his kicks, do a far better job of it than you could ever do and in my eyes you're just the same as him, a waste of air. Also I can do a better job or ruining myself down than any of you could even think of. I am not a victim I am a human being trying to slowly rebuild her life back every small step of the way. You can knocked me for bad spelling grammar blah blah all you like, the end of the day I wasn't allowed for 13 years to write let alone speak to anybody, I ask anybody after all that you come out of that level of subjecting of abuse with a high level of eduction, grammar doesn't put food on the table money does, a cuddle solves a child's pain not spellings. A simple life philosophy I follow, so bite me for following it and not being all snobby with writing.:(

E.J.Armstrong

10th April 2003, 06:20 AM

I see that JK is still playing the village idiot. Benighted is a great descriptive term but perhaps vacuum truly describes the state of his mind.

I'm glad that he fully supports Germany and France though. Light can pass through a vacuum from time to time.

10th April 2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I see that JK is still playing the village idiot. Benighted is a great descriptive term but perhaps vacuum truly describes the state of his mind.

I'm glad that he fully supports Germany and France though. Light can pass through a vacuum from time to time.

What has France and Germany got to do with battered people?

Jedi Knight

10th April 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I see that JK is still playing the village idiot. Benighted is a great descriptive term but perhaps vacuum truly describes the state of his mind.

I'm glad that he fully supports Germany and France though. Light can pass through a vacuum from time to time.

I think you need some "Hooked on Phonics" to get your reading comprehension skills fixed.

JK

10th April 2003, 03:56 PM

You going to answer the questions JK and that is just not applicable to mine or continue to sulk still?
:p

11th April 2003, 02:28 AM

Typical patriarchal wimpish cop out reaction then JK. Just run, hide and sulk down the pub instead of discussing it.

Thought you would be more than that.:(

_______________-

Please will some of you I know you have your own reasons and that it is your own views, I accept that, but please stop telling me what a bad troll JK is, for one I have not had a lovers tiff with him:eek: I certainly don't recall having tiff with him yet, he'll know if I do.

Far as I am concerned I may disagree with JK on battered people in some aspects and his matriarchal doo dah fits plus some other things he bamboozles me with, but I still put him in a friend category(whether he likes it or not or class me the same I don't give a flying fig at the moment) and friends can disagree sometimes. When he isn't having a huge hissy strop he is ok. :D

E.J.Armstrong

12th April 2003, 08:09 AM

Isn't it great news that Jedi Knight is supporting the sance of France and Germany in relation to the invasion of Iraq. He's seen some sense at long last. Congratulations Jedi. Welcome to the real world.

E.J.Armstrong

12th April 2003, 08:13 AM

originally posted by Biker BabeWhat has France and Germany got to do with battered people?

Nothing. Good luck.

14th April 2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Nothing. Good luck. Iraqi really hasn't got anything to do with it either.:(

And it is France Germany and Russia so don't heap the blame on just the French. And it is the the Governments that decides what it will and won't support not the public, they are token gesture polls mood indicators.

Thanks but I don't think luck comes into it, it is just polite and good mannered to respond to an already asked question is preferred

Dancing David

14th April 2003, 10:42 AM

Sorry I didn't check out this thread earlier. It is good to see this intelligent discussion.

I had an interesting thought:

What if JK actually is part of the matriarchal conspiracy? His(gender assumed) behavior could easily be explained, the pointless unsupported drivel is meant to give conservative mysoginists a bad name. JK is secretly a feminist trying to help the cause.

Maybe he deserves a gold star for valour in the face of sanity.

Peace
dancing david

PS To who all those who may wonder if men are victims of domestic violence, sure they are. Emotional abuse is always described as worse than physical violence. The reason that there are women's shelters and not men's shelter is that there are societal pressures which make it easier for men to leave than women.

E.J.Armstrong

16th April 2003, 12:29 PM

Iraqi really hasn't got anything to do with it either.

And it is France Germany and Russia so don't heap the blame on just the French. And it is the the Governments that decides what it will and won't support not the public, they are token gesture polls mood indicators.

Thanks but I don't think luck comes into it, it is just polite and good mannered to respond to an already asked question is preferred.

Can I just point out that I was specifically responding to a comment made by Tricky earlier in the thread. Not all of us are able to debate in real or near real time. I know - I should have quoted the original comment. As I have heaped no blame on anyone I am unclear why you appear to imagine that I am heaping the blame on the French only given that I mentioned the French and the Germans. Also I am afraid I do not know what 'token gesture polls mood indicators' means. Just in case I was also unclear on that point can I just state that I support the French and German governments in their anti-war in Iraq stance because a large part of the world believes that no adequate case was made for the war on Iraq. I also believe that, given the polls of the French and German people, they support their governments position.

I am also somewhat confused what you mean by your last comment. I guess my meaning in saying good luck was unclear. As such I apologise. Herewith is my explanation.

You should know that you are trying to engage a member who is well known for having used sectarian, racist and homophobic comments. He is also prone to making false claims, a reluctance to justify his claims and illogicality on a scale difficult to comprehend or to find easily in the real world. I wish you good luck in trying to engage him in a meaningful debate as most people understand the term. Just about everyone else who has tried to do so has failed miserably. I hope you succeed but it doesn't look promising as usual.

RandFan

16th April 2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
He is also prone to making false claims, a reluctance to justify his claims and illogicality on a scale difficult to comprehend or to find easily in the real world. I wish you good luck in trying to engage him in a meaningful debate as most people understand the term. Just about everyone else who has tried to do so has failed miserably. I hope you succeed but it doesn't look promising as usual. :D Hope springs eternal.

Baker

16th April 2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

He is also prone to making false claims, a reluctance to justify his claims and illogicality on a scale difficult to comprehend or to find easily in the real world. I wish you good luck in trying to engage him in a meaningful debate as most people understand the term. Just about everyone else who has tried to do so has failed miserably. I hope you succeed but it doesn't look promising as usual.

Well that’s the same definition we all get about AUP!

oops nevermind you where talking about JK.

E.J.Armstrong

16th April 2003, 08:09 PM

originally posted by RandFan
Hope springs eternal.

The arrival of the pot at last.

Now where where we?

Ah yes. Abuse based on a faulty memory.

You were 'saying'?

17th April 2003, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You should know that you are trying to engage a member who is well known for having used sectarian, racist and homophobic comments. He is also prone to making false claims, a reluctance to justify his claims and illogicality on a scale difficult to comprehend or to find easily in the real world. I wish you good luck in trying to engage him in a meaningful debate as most people understand the term. Just about everyone else who has tried to do so has failed miserably. I hope you succeed but it doesn't look promising as usual.

ok. It's easy to have a reasonable debate with Jk. all you have to do is tie him to a rack and talk him to death while wearing a matriarchal dominatrix leather all in one number, he is like butter in my leather clad hands.:D

He hasn't made any of those things to me, if he had it was lost on me I didn't notice.:p

Yes he can be arrogant but then so can most people and their opinions can be also be so far fetched you end up looking for their strait jackets.

Maybe it is me being too damn street savvy I see things in a different light, he never seems to be that bad as you lot make out, then nobody seems to me that bad either. He gets near the knuckle sometimes with me then thats because I have experienced it and its my gut reactions kicking in.

But hell isn't it beneficial to have people whose views are so far from your own that what makes for great debates?

gnome

18th April 2003, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by Biker Babe
But hell isn't it beneficial to have people whose views are so far from your own that what makes for great debates?

The problem is a great debate is impossible if someone isn't willing to clarify what they have said, or will take advantage of an ambiguity to back away from something they clearly meant to be taken differently.

Or launch into a speech whenever asked a yes or no question instead of giving the answer.

E.J.Armstrong

26th April 2003, 05:04 PM

originally posted by Biker Babe
But hell isn't it beneficial to have people whose views are so far from your own that what makes for great debates?

If he knew what a debate was then you would be right. Nevertheless I do admire your style and really wish you luck. It would be great to see a reprobate of JK's proportions actually engaging in a human level of constructive debate with someone else and it won't be any of the rest of us then I hope you achieve the miracle. Unfortunately as an ex-Christian I no longer have any faith in miracles but maybe they will work for you.

Good luck.

Baker

26th April 2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

If he knew what a debate was then you would be right. Nevertheless I do admire your style and really wish you luck. It would be great to see a reprobate of JK's proportions actually engaging in a human level of constructive debate with someone else and it won't be any of the rest of us then I hope you achieve the miracle. Unfortunately as an ex-Christian I no longer have any faith in miracles but maybe they will work for you.

Good luck.

Why revive this thread it deserves to be buried.

E.J.Armstrong

26th April 2003, 05:13 PM

originaly posted by Baker
Why revive this thread it deserves to be buried

I don't want to be too logical but why bother responding to something that deserves to be buried?

subgenius

26th April 2003, 06:32 PM

More matriarchal totalitarian caused wife abuse:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/119458_chief26ww.html

subgenius

27th April 2003, 12:33 AM

And more:
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7838991&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6

Jedi Knight

27th April 2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by subgenius
More matriarchal totalitarian caused wife abuse:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/119458_chief26ww.html

That poor police chief that everyone in that community loved was trapped inside the matriarchal divorce industry and it might have drove him to kill...we just don't know yet. You know, cause & effect.

I find it hard to believe that no external pressures caused the chief to kill. There simply had to be an external problem that made the chief think that he had no hope in this world, and that is why he whipped out his Glock and started gunning his wife down. Good men don't kill unless extremist assaults on them push them into it. It is in the matriarchal system of totalitarianism to not leave men a way out. The chief appeared to be a desperate man, whatever was happening to him. I hope after the investigation is done the public will get to know the systemic problem in this case--not that I already haven't drawn some conclusions--but just for verification.

JK

Jedi Knight

27th April 2003, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by subgenius
And more:
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7838991&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6

What drove that good man and a protector of the community to kill?

JK

The Fool

27th April 2003, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

What drove that good man and a protector of the community to kill?

JK
let me get this straight...all men who are violent are driven to it by women. All women who are violent are not driven to it by men, they are just inherently violent??? Is that a fair summation of the fantasy?

Jeffrey Dahmer the cannibal
Ed Gein the silence of the lambs inspirer
Fritz Haarmann the german monster
Henry Lee Lucas & Ottis Toole the killer lovers
Ted Bundy the nice seductor
Pedro Lopez the crazy killing machine
Arthur Shawcross the french monster
Charles Manson killer guru
H.H Holmes the torture doctor
Andrei Chikatilo the russian kids lover
Jack the ripper the legendary london killer
Peter Kurten the dusseldorf monster
John Wayne Gacy the killer clown
Gilles De Rais the original bluebeard
Vlad the impaler, aka Dracula
Albert Fish the ghoul
Edmund Kemper the co-ed killer
David Berkowitz the son of Sam
Richard Ramirez the night stalker
Wayne Williams the atlanta kids murderer
Richard Chase the vampire of Sacramento
David Carpenter the trailside killer
Nicolas Claux the vampire of Paris

All Nice guys, driven to kill by Matriarchal Totalitarianism!

subgenius

27th April 2003, 06:24 PM

I think you've got it.
Interesting how personal responsibility does not come into play in this version of the right wing world.

subgenius

27th April 2003, 06:47 PM

"I hope after the investigation is done the public will get to know the systemic problem in this case--not that I already haven't drawn some conclusions--but just for verification."

(Don't confuse me with the facts, I've made up my mind.
:D)

Let's see, start with a conclusion, ignore any facts that conflict with it....there's a name for that...people help me out here....I'm having a senior moment...

Although the benighted one claims that his "theory" does not justify violence against women, "just cause and effect", obviously he gives any man a free pass to kill with the iron clad excuse that the devil made me do it.
They obviously can't be convicted because they were forced to kill, and they certainly shouldn't be punished. So that certainly would encourage anyone on the edge to go over it.

This matriarchal whatchamacallit sure is powerful. So many big strong men are overcome by it. Must be a really, really big strong he-man to resist going berserk and killing them all. But the pressure must be enormous.

E.J.Armstrong

28th April 2003, 12:01 PM

originally posted by Jedi KnightI find it hard to believe that no external pressures caused the chief to kill.
Can you use this logic in others areas of the world I wonder? For some strange reason the Middle East, springs to mind but I can't think why.

Well done JK however for pointing out that outside pressures can drive people to do bad things - like killing. As you said so appositely put it 'You know, cause & effect.' Or isn't it right to use that logic elsewhere in the world? Hmmmm.

subgenius

28th April 2003, 10:22 PM

An estimated 5.3 million U.S. women over the age of 17 are victimized every year, leaving nearly 2 million of them injured, with more than 550,000 of them requiring medical attention, according to the study, released in conjunction with a CDC Injury Center national conference called "Safety in Numbers."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/intimate_violence030428.html

The benighted one has no empathy for them, just sympathy for the perpetrators. How pathetic and dangerous.

Jedi Knight

29th April 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by subgenius
"I hope after the investigation is done the public will get to know the systemic problem in this case--not that I already haven't drawn some conclusions--but just for verification."

(Don't confuse me with the facts, I've made up my mind.
:D)

Let's see, start with a conclusion, ignore any facts that conflict with it....there's a name for that...people help me out here....I'm having a senior moment...

Although the benighted one claims that his "theory" does not justify violence against women, "just cause and effect", obviously he gives any man a free pass to kill with the iron clad excuse that the devil made me do it.
They obviously can't be convicted because they were forced to kill, and they certainly shouldn't be punished. So that certainly would encourage anyone on the edge to go over it.

This matriarchal whatchamacallit sure is powerful. So many big strong men are overcome by it. Must be a really, really big strong he-man to resist going berserk and killing them all. But the pressure must be enormous.

More facts have come out about the police chief case. They all fall in line with matriarchal totalitarianism too. The police chief's wife, probably at the behest of her attorney to give her sympathy and leverage in her divorce case, made "claims" in her divorce case against her husband that she had to know would destroy the man's career, factual or not.

Now, if the police chief was "beating" her, or "drew a gun on her", why didn't she call 911? If the police chief was so "abusive", why did her "claims" come out in the divorce only?

I will tell you what I think happened and I am probably right. I am thinking that the police chief's wife didn't want to be married anymore and she initiated a no-fault divorce against her husband and added herself to the ranks of women that initiate divorces in this country (almost 90% of all divorces are initiated by women). Since any worthless chick can go apply for a no-fault divorce, she didn't need to make up lies about her husband but did it out of spite. She declared war on the police chief. In war, there are times that people might die, depending on the circumstances. So it became a situation where the "wife" perhaps just didn't want to end the relationship, but wanted to destroy her husband and be a very war-like person, not considering that her husband was also war-like. That is my opinion of it. She could have done the no-fault thing and moved on, but no, she had to get him.

It is an industry, a very profitable industry where "claims" can be huge payoffs and the competition to be the "winner" must try to destroy the other side.

So all the police chief's wife had to do was go in there and say: "gosh, abuse this and abuse that" and she automatically gets sympathy from the matriarchal divorce industry, clearly a tool for women to clean up when they want to loot their husbands and leave them high and dry.

So not only did the husband lose his marriage, he now had to deal with public records the matriarchal terror media took as "facts" and published, humiliating him.

Was the husband abusing his wife? Police reports could prove that, but gosh, the media hasn't reported any. Maybe that "abuse" arose when the divorce industry thought it needed that abuse to win for the wife. Not that it really matters now, huh.

The point is this--we need tort reform. We need divorce cases sealed until the "claims" made in them can be backed up with "facts". Somewhere along the way facts became secondary to cleaning up. The dishonest media that found out about the police chief's divorce naturally was going to print the dirt on him, especially if the police chief had political opponents which he probably most certainly did. It didn't matter if the dirt was true or not. It just "sounded" cool and fashionable to print it.

All that police chief did his whole life was be a cop trying to protect the community. But his divorce became something more than that--it became something that sought to completely embarass him and destroy him personally and publicly just so the matriarchal totalitarian system could let his wife win. It is a system where 90% of all married women file for divorces no-fault. It is a system where "claims" can be printed in the newspaper and used against leaders in the community like the police chief to completely destroy him.

It is time for that system to be completely scrapped, thrown into the garbage can and replaced with a system of real justice, or at least something that appears to have a particle of justice. Men have no such justice now.

I am convinced that my opinion above is what drove that humble police chief to gun his wife down in the shopping mall parking lot. What did that poor guy have left? He lost his marraige and now his wife was seeding the destruction of his life-long career. It was an unwarranted attack on his whole person, just to get his wife a better position publicly and privately in court, the way the matriarchal terror apparatus in the United States is specifically designed to work.

The only thing dangerous is the very system that drove that loyal police chief to kill--it was cause/effect. When you speak of danger sub-man, that is the danger--the matriarchal totalitarianism that drives men to kill out of pure desperation. When police chiefs kill, there is obviously a huge problem in this country.

Divorce is for people separating from marriage, not driving them to kill. It is a tool for people to start over, to break a relationship, not permanently destroy one person so the other person and their attorney gets a few more percentage points in the looting that follows. All the divorce proceedings in the police chief's case did was create hostility and conflict, where divorce is supposed to be conflict resolution. America needs to cleanse itself of bad law so that men are not driven to do it themselves, like the police chief did. I prefer tort reform, but obviously others seem to enjoy ignoring the problem and then whine when police chiefs gun their wives down in parking lots, thinking with delusion that there is no cause-effect relationship to these acts of violence.

JK

subgenius

29th April 2003, 09:47 AM

But if he hadn't killed himself he would still be guilty of murder because none of that is a defense.
Its all wild assumption anyways.

Mr Manifesto

29th April 2003, 09:47 AM

Now, if the police chief was "beating" her, or "drew a gun on her", why didn't she call 911? If the police chief was so "abusive", why did her "claims" come out in the divorce only?

Why didn't the wife of a police cheif call the police and say she was being abused? Very funny. You aren't really this stupid are you?

subgenius

29th April 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Why didn't the wife of a police cheif call the police and say she was being abused? Very funny. You aren't really this stupid are you?
That's a rhetorical question, right?;)

Jedi Knight

29th April 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by subgenius
But if he hadn't killed himself he would still be guilty of murder because none of that is a defense.
Its all wild assumption anyways.

Gosh, that is all you have to say? lol.

Hard to defend matriarchal terror, huh.

Sure he would be guilty of murder. I am not denying that for a second. This is not a discussion about murder because we all know there was "murder" and "suicide". Those are givens.

Tell me, sub-man, what is your opinion about what can be done to lessen the hostility in divorce cases? When did divorce go from a "conflict-resolution" industry to a "murder and destroy" industry?

JK

Jedi Knight

29th April 2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by subgenius

That's a rhetorical question, right?;)

Why did the police chief really kill his wife? What drove that desperate man to kill?

JK

subgenius

29th April 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Gosh, that is all you have to say? lol.

Hard to defend matriarchal terror, huh.

Sure he would be guilty of murder. I am not denying that for a second. This is not a discussion about murder because we all know there was "murder" and "suicide". Those are givens.

Tell me, sub-man, what is your opinion about what can be done to lessen the hostility in divorce cases? When did divorce go from a "conflict-resolution" industry to a "murder and destroy" industry?

JK
Hard to defend figments of people's imagination, so I don't bother.
Divorces are hostile because of the nature of the action (So are landlord-tenant cases.), but not all of them are.
It was ever thus.
One way of lessening the hostility is to counter mis-information such as "matriarchal totalitarianism," so that people realize they have control and responsiblity for their actions.

Perhaps you will share your personal experiences with and victimization at the hands of "matriarchal totalitarianism" (going back to your earliest recollections), and how you have gotten the strength to resist killing the evil ones. I hope you continue to personally avoid violence.
______________________________________________
P.S. (from your earlier post): "marraige"----remember castigating Tula for her spelling. Less of a holier than thou attitude is in order.
"He who is without sin....."(know the rest?)

subgenius

29th April 2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Why did the police chief really kill his wife? What drove that desperate man to kill?

JK
You do have some notion of how complex the human psyche is, right?

Jedi Knight

29th April 2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by subgenius

Hard to defend figments of people's imagination, so I don't bother.
Divorces are hostile because of the nature of the action (So are landlord-tenant cases.), but not all of them are.
It was ever thus.
One way of lessening the hostility is to counter mis-information such as "matriarchal totalitarianism," so that people realize they have control and responsiblity for their actions.

Perhaps you will share your personal experiences with and victimization at the hands of "matriarchal totalitarianism" (going back to your earliest recollections), and how you have gotten the strength to resist killing the evil ones. I hope you continue to personally avoid violence.
______________________________________________
P.S. (from your earlier post): "marraige"----remember castigating Tula for her spelling. Less of a holier than thou attitude is in order.
"He who is without sin....."(know the rest?)

I hope that you personally avoid violence too sub-man and get some medication for some of the mental deficiences I think you have, not that I am a shrink or anything. I am sort of thinking of some of the things that Randi said about people with brain-disorders and you are the first person on the forum I have encountered that I think has one. Just my opinion, not that it matters and I don't expect it to.

JK

Jedi Knight

29th April 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by subgenius

You do have some notion of how complex the human psyche is, right?

Answer the question, sub-man. Why did the police chief really kill his wife? Why didn't he kill her before the matriarchal terror apparatus got their claws into him?

JK

Mr Manifesto

29th April 2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Answer the question, sub-man. Why did the police chief really kill his wife? Why didn't he kill her before the matriarchal terror apparatus got their claws into him?

JK

It is well documented that many men murder thier wives while they are in the process of divorce. Many men see the expectation that women are their property -a possession. Losing the wife in divorce is equalled to a loss of property. With it comes a feeling of impotence which is brought on by social expectation. It is not the sort of pressure that isn't there one minute and there the next like a bomb exploding. It builds up over time. The court case may simply have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

Jedi Knight

29th April 2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

It is well documented that many men murder thier wives while they are in the process of divorce. Many men see the expectation that women are their property -a possession. Losing the wife in divorce is equalled to a loss of property. With it comes a feeling of impotence which is brought on by social expectation. It is not the sort of pressure that isn't there one minute and there the next like a bomb exploding. It builds up over time. The court case may simply have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

You are thinking of 1890's era male expectations. Men in this country have been taught lower expectations for decades. We are taught to have lower expectations in the women we engage with because they were taught by leftists to be marginal females.

So while I would like to agree with you, I really would, men know that the system is matriarchal and with the number of divorces today (a full 75% of all marriages end in divorce), if what you said was true there would be women gunned down by the tens of thousands every year. I think that many men, the majority, just suck it up and drive on after being terrorized. The increase in killings, in my opinion, is because of the increase in matriarchal terror. As the terror increases, it becomes harder for men like the police chief to cope with that terror and it makes them desperate men, dangerous men. That is why the chief gunned his wife down. I think the system drove him to kill, a cause-effect relationship.

JK

Mr Manifesto

29th April 2003, 11:16 AM

You have an undefined middle in your logic.

It is not 'some murders are a result of divorce, therefore all divorce ends in murder'.

subgenius

29th April 2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Answer the question, sub-man. Why did the police chief really kill his wife? Why didn't he kill her before the matriarchal terror apparatus got their claws into him?

JK
Even with my particular brain disorders (by the way Randi did not mention brain disorders, I did, in quoting Scott Adams), and I have my share , I would not presume to make such a quick judgement, not knowing all the facts.
You on the other hand know the answer before things even happen: its all due to MT.
A lot easier than the hardest work of all: thinking.
It is also true that many things are unknowable.
You are so intent on proving your "theory" that you see all of the minimal facts you do come across (and assume what you read or hear is accurate), as consistent with it.
We see and hear what we expect to see and hear.
The fewer the expectations a scientist has the more objective the data collection and the more accurate the conclusion (if any) reached. Its hard enough getting the facts, much less drawing conclusions from them.
A conclusion is the place where we got tired of thinking.
I am gratified to know that you nonetheless feel people are responsible for their actions and should be held accountable for them. It certainly would be a rather chaotic world otherwise.

(Whatcha doing for fun these beautiful spring days? I've managed to get out golfing a couple of times....on both occasions walked 9 holes in an hour and twenty minutes.)
Spring has finally sprung here in Michigan.:)

Be well my friend.

Jedi Knight

29th April 2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You have an undefined middle in your logic.

It is not 'some murders are a result of divorce, therefore all divorce ends in murder'.

Think of the logic problem again.

If you put populations under stress, there are levels of stress that those populations can function in before they become dangerous. Starve people, and eventually the starving will arm themselves and come after your loaf of bread. Steal from people, and eventually the victims of that theft will arm security personnel to protect from theft.

The same can be said for gender. When men continuously and increasing get raped by the matriarchal totalitarian system, eventually the threshold is reached where some of them begin to operate against the matriarchal terror apparatus. To be fed. To protect from theft.

The problem with totalitarianism, especially matriarchal totalitarianism, is that all forms of totalitarianism will only increase in applying pressure on populations until those populations self-destruct. Since totalitarianism is anti-freedom, it can only take away from freedom and natural rights. Eventually it takes too much away and those populations it terrorizes begin killing, as the police chief killed.

To me, it could be defined as a logic problem but more in terms of fluid chaos theory.

JK

Mr Manifesto

29th April 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

The problem with totalitarianism, especially matriarchal totalitarianism, is that all forms of totalitarianism will only increase in applying pressure on populations until those populations self-destruct. Since totalitarianism is anti-freedom, it can only take away from freedom and natural rights. Eventually it takes too much away and those populations it terrorizes begin killing, as the police chief killed.

JK

I have asked this in another thread but I think you missed it. What exactly is this matriarchal totalitarianism? You don't have any defintion for it.

Dancing David

29th April 2003, 11:52 AM

Oh Jk, I am sorry that you have become rational, I am not laughing as hard at your posts.

Lets see, so you say men are raped by the divorce industry. You mean that they have to pay child support? Or do you mean that they have to split marital property?
Which way is it that men loose out on divorce and why is it any different than what happens to women, I would presume that both men and women loose equally in a divorec. Although I belief that there are matriarchal fabrications that show men usually get the better end of divorce.

Your logic is wonderful as usual, it is divorce that drives abusive men to kill, they do so because it is the last act to control the victim who is leaving them.

I suppose that somehow it is the fault of pregnant women that thier risk for homicide doubles over non gravid women.

Peace
dancing david

PS You are still doing a great job of making conservatives look like total loons I will have request another medal from the Matriarchal Visionay Supreme Council.

Advocate

29th April 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Lets see, so you say men are raped by the divorce industry. You mean that they have to pay child support? Or do you mean that they have to split marital property?

While I do NOT agree with JK that all abuse of women is fabricated or that all men who kill women were driven to it, I do believe that divorce favors women.

First, look at who initiates divorces. A majority of them are filed by women. If divorces favored men why would this be the case? In societies and at times when divorce favors men it is the reverse.

Second, women get custody of the children in the majority of cases. So men end up not only losing their children, but also paying for the "privilege" of losing them. If divorce was really fair to both parties, men would end up with custody as often as women. This is clearly not the case.

Jedi Knight

29th April 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Oh Jk, I am sorry that you have become rational, I am not laughing as hard at your posts.

Lets see, so you say men are raped by the divorce industry. You mean that they have to pay child support? Or do you mean that they have to split marital property?
Which way is it that men loose out on divorce and why is it any different than what happens to women, I would presume that both men and women loose equally in a divorec. Although I belief that there are matriarchal fabrications that show men usually get the better end of divorce.

Your logic is wonderful as usual, it is divorce that drives abusive men to kill, they do so because it is the last act to control the victim who is leaving them.

I suppose that somehow it is the fault of pregnant women that thier risk for homicide doubles over non gravid women.

Peace
dancing david

PS You are still doing a great job of making conservatives look like total loons I will have request another medal from the Matriarchal Visionay Supreme Council.

Laughing at my posts is pretty strange since all I am doing is putting a face on why the police chief gunned down his wife. I don't think that when the police chief's wife stared down the barrel of that .45 Glock that she was laughing. I don't find anything humorous in bullets going through the police chief's wife at 1800 feet per second in front of her children.

But I guess to the left it is OK to laugh about it, knowing that the matriarchal terror system provided the atmosphere of violence for that to happen. The left laughs because the divorce industry is a matriarchal totalitarianism-only industry and between women and lawyers they are cleaning up. I can see why the left benefits from it and laughs about it.

But tell me, was the police chief's wife laughing or screaming when those .45 cal slugs went into her body? I would think that she was screaming and her kids were probably screaming too, as well as all the folks who went to the mall with their kids that saw and heard it happen. But if you find something funny with that, hey, it is America so I guess you can laugh about it like it is something out of Hollywood or whatever.

JK

subgenius

29th April 2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Advocate

While I do NOT agree with JK that all abuse of women is fabricated or that all men who kill women were driven to it, I do believe that divorce favors women.

First, look at who initiates divorces. A majority of them are filed by women. If divorces favored men why would this be the case? In societies and at times when divorce favors men it is the reverse.

Second, women get custody of the children in the majority of cases. So men end up not only losing their children, but also paying for the "privilege" of losing them. If divorce was really fair to both parties, men would end up with custody as often as women. This is clearly not the case.
So if women initiate divorce does that make them the guilty party or the opposite? Or do some marriages just not work out?

Advocate

29th April 2003, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by subgenius

So if women initiate divorce does that make them the guilty party or the opposite? Or do some marriages just not work out?

I never said either was the guilty party. Most divorces are "no fault" these days anyway. All I was saying was that divorce as it stands in the US today favors women. I am sure some marriages do "just not work out" but I think it is an indicator of who gets hurt more in the divorce that women file for them more often.

LucyR

29th April 2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

I think perhaps he has the more virulently hardcore elements of radical feminism in mind. He needs to realize that although the feminist nuts are...well...nuts...they were not created in a vacuum. Theirs is a reaction to a real problem. It's an unhealthy reaction. (Feminists are attempting to reshape the entire social fabric in their image.) It's an overreaction. The problem exists, but can be dealt with under existing law. Feminists are zealots with an agenda....I don't think they care as much about solving real domestic violence issues as they do in pushing their social agenda. Otherwise why were radical feminists among the largest supporters of Bob Packwood and Bill Clinton?? They obviously were willing to support sexual predators as long as their social agenda was served.

-z

Apropos nothing really, but are you suggesting that sexual predators are more likely than the average to indulge in domestic violence?

Jedi Knight

29th April 2003, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by subgenius

So if women initiate divorce does that make them the guilty party or the opposite? Or do some marriages just not work out?

I am confused about the part that requires men to lose their jobs, get hassled by the media, and have their lives destroyed when their wives initiate divorces. I thought divorces were to allow people to separate, not annihilate the one that doesn't initiate the divorce by using the media to literally destroy the guy.

No matter what "claims" the chick had against the police chief, it was bad business to destroy the guy who just put his whole life into being a cop. Why should it cost the chief his job to get a divorce? When the police chief pulled the trigger it was easier for him to do it knowing he lost everything anyway. It wasn't like the poor bastard was shown any respect or mercy in the situation.

JK

subgenius

30th April 2003, 12:06 AM

When you call women "chicks" it reveals your dehumanizing demeaning opinion of half of your god's creation and the nurturer of you. Was your mother a "chick"? Was she a matriarchal totalitarian? It is the same as calling people "******".
That having been said, there's no evidence that the guy wasn't an abusive creep, after all he decided, of his own free will, to traumatize his own kids by shooting their mother and himself in front of them.
Big strong patriarchal hero.
Couldn't resist that matriarchal power. Wow that's strong stuff.
Hope you can continue to hold out. Its tough though isn't it?
Why do you think men are so powerless (impotent) to resist the force? I've got no problem not killing people.

Jedi Knight

30th April 2003, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by subgenius
I've got no problem not killing people.

Good for you. Perhaps if the system didn't rip the police chief apart, his chick would still be alive.

JK

Dancing David

30th April 2003, 07:15 AM

Gee JK, it is your absurd rhetoric that I laugh at not the violence that you apparently condone by saying that 'divorce made him do it'. I think your very intellegent so why you would think that I am laughing at the violence and not your outrageous posturing is beyond me.

So what proof do you have that men loose out in divorce or that women initiate divorce more than men. Do most men loose thier jobs as a result of the divorce? Or is this just more spinning on your part.

By the way if a man beats his wife on a regular basis and she kills him in his sleep, would I be justified in saying that 'he drove her to it'?

Peace
dancing David

Dancing David

30th April 2003, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

No matter what "claims" the chick had against the police chief, it was bad business to destroy the guy who just put his whole life into being a cop. Why should it cost the chief his job to get a divorce? When the police chief pulled the trigger it was easier for him to do it knowing he lost everything anyway. It wasn't like the poor bastard was shown any respect or mercy in the situation.

JK

So do you have the divorce case in front of you or are you just spinning fantasy into gold?
Why was he loosing his job? So if someone is a police officer and they go and kill people, we blame the person he killed because he was a cop? Lots of people put thier lifes into being police officers and go through a divorce and they don't go and kill.
So hypothetically if a man molests his children and the wife brings that up in the divorce case , and he is a police chief then he is justified in killing her?(They are just 'claims" after all)
So wheres the divorce case, why did he loose his job? The news reports I have read don't say anything about the divorce so where do you get the news.
As a social worker i have a real respect for police officers, they do a job that is probably the hardest in the world, they are underpaid, overworked, and often unsupported by thier communities. In my town they bring battered women to our shelter on a regular basis and are very supportive of the domestic violence movement.(Ooops I did it again I mentioned battered women)

By the way JK do you think it's funny to say there are no battered women in America? You say it all the time so either it's just rhetoric, stupidity or humor. Can you tell me if you think it's funny when a man chokes his wife until she passes out?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Peace
dancing David