A question for Jedi Knight

[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'.

 

[subgenius]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for Jedi Knight

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Jedi KnightIf you put populations under stress, there are levels of stress that those populations can function in before they become dangerous

Is Jedi Knight justifying or explaining away terrorism here? How does this apply to say - Palestine.

 

[Hellcat]

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.

People read things as they want to read them not as the person has tired to put across or implied, there lies half the problem. Some are unwilling to admit they are wrong or have made a mistake regarding another's view, they just turn snidely and back bite back, somewhat defeats the debate in the end really.

I know and understand what you mean.