This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - zarby
There may be a biological explanation (e.g. the female body rids itself of toxins better).
My bet is that the primary explanation is stress.
Men are subjected to all kinds of stresses that women just aren't.
Stress weakens the body's defenses.
I was a little different.
I was mad about it before it bit me on the ass.
But, it is true that I didn't do anything about it -- I was just mad -- primarily privately.
I at times believe in "seeing" the future.
I never exactly saw the future specifically but at some level I know I was mad about the family law situation before it "bit me in the ass." I think at some level I could feel that I would eventually be a victim of it.
No, the cop who follows policy is not "bad' just as the rank and file soldier for the Nazis was not "bad" -- just as part of the system that is bigger than him.
Why does the government almost always take the side of women and act with hostility towards men?
I think the reason is that women are allowed to act politically as a group and men aren't.
This could be resolved in one of two ways. 1) men start acting politically as a group, and 2) women
stop acting politically as a group.
The first method is not likely to work because it is politically incorrect and men by their nature generally
don't organize and work well to oppose women's issues. Also, the first method is divisive and
contrary to fundamental principles likely equality of treatment under the law.
Perhaps, the better strategy is to attack women who promote the gender wars rather than escalating the gender wars.
Look, the government should treat all people the same, etc. not men are entitled to rights also -- a different approach.
This puts us in the same line of thought as the civil rights movements for blacks and hispanics and gays, etc.
Those groups have pretty much not sought superior treatment under the law just equal treatment (I know there are
exceptions and there is some degree of preference but pretty minimal I think now).
Perhaps, the better solutation is to attack women's politics rather t
I have toyed with the idea that this kind of "judicial education" is unethical.
It is essentially "ex parte" contact with the judiciary.
It is contact by a group with an agenda to affect pending cases or future cases.
This is true whether or not the "education" is done through semi official agencies such as judicial commissions, conferences, etc.
The judiciary should not be tainted by this kind of "education."
The only education they need is precedent, common sense. and the evidence and argument before them.
If eduation was purely factual or about the status of the "law" that is one thing but when it starts asserting an agenda and diverges from pure facts and law then that is another thing. I think technically this kind of "education" is unethical but then again this line of thought will of course go nowhere.
It takes over 32 hours of work to pay $225 at $7 an hour.
The point is that $225 is a lot of money for a guy making minimum wage.
He gets dumped by the first woman and has a child with a second and then he's paying twice that or over 64 hours of work.
The point is that quoting small numbers means little. It is still a lot of money to those paying it (people who make small amounts of money).
I doubt $225 is average. It is about average probably for those making near minimum wage.
The minimum wage guy who pays $225 makes about $1,200 a month.
Try supporting oneself and a new girlfriend or wife on that?
Absolutely. We have heard so much about sexual harassment, stalking, etc. and these concepts are interpreted so broadly that the message we have received is to stay away. Any attention given a woman that isn't purely busines or asexual is potentially "wrong" possibly even "criminal" at the woman's election.
Great. The next "world war" many believe will be essentially a religious war between Islam and Christianity.
Does this found familiar? Hasn't this happened before?
We need the feminist trying to impose their world view on Islam like we need a bullet hole in the head.
Live and let live. Don't try to force others to be like yourself.
They don't want feminism. Leave them alone. If you pick a fight, you fight it -- certainly not me.
I thought women were suppose to be the peacmakers?
I think more and more people are understanding it.
The really important group is the younger people.
I think they understand it better than I did when I was young.
Most of them have seen their parent(s) subjected to these things (or some close relative).
I think the word is getting out to the younger men.
Of course, young men tend to have the "it will never happen to me type of attitude."
The only thing I would quibble with is the assertion that women do get raped.
I am not denying that it happens.
I am saying that I think it is not anywhere near as common as is claimed.
I think it is an abberational and rare event.
You cannot really put a monetary value on having one's life destroyed.
This is true whether destruction is through say an airplane crash or say imprisonment.
I very well might prefer instantaneous death in an airplane crash than slow death over decades in prison.
However, society must somehow value these injuries and the amount paid cannot be infinite like the injury is.
Otherwise, society cannot function because these things are going to happen. The compensation must be manageable.
It must be enough to deter carelessness but at the same time not so much that society ceases to function.
Millions of dollars is really all that anybody with some sense needs to make the most of their remaining life.
Millions of dollars also is generally enough to deter carelessness.
Thus, I wouldn't argue that this man didn't get enough. I would argue the victim of a "grab of the butt" got too much.
The real problem is that most don't get any compensation at all. The doctrine of "sovereign immunity" and many other
obstacles prevent most victims of wrongful convictions from getting any compensation whatsoever.
The State has very little incentive to exercise care in locking people up. My experience is that the State pursues
politically correct cases with reckless disregard for the rights of the accused.
The double standards are so extreme that those that hold them must get close to qualifying for mental illness.
Their inability to see the double standards is a complete distortion of realilty.
A woman wants bigger breasts, she is a victim suffering from evil social presssures.
A man wants a bigger penis and he is an egotistical jerk.
Dumb asses. The fact is that bigger breasts will attract some men and a bigger penis will attract some women.
This is pretty damn obvious. I would hope this works better for women than men. A woman's breasts are pretty
obvious whereas normally a man's penis is not but anyway.
I go for modest seized breasts, but anyway.
It would be so nice if these people could just speak the truth.
Women kill plenty. They just different methods. They are more indirect about doing it.
Divorces are one way they do it. Sometimes, the death caused by the divorce is actually fairly direct. A man has a very serious heart condition. He needs heart surgery. The wife is divorcing him. The man is on the wife's insurance. He'll never get insurance elsewhere due to preexisting condition. The heart surgery probably is not available to uninsured people. He certainly doesn't have the cash to pay for it. The woman is having an affair with a young man who drives a camero with a playboy emblem on it. It is suggested to the wife that she can continue her affair -- no problem -- just don't formally divorce so that the man can have his heart surgery. She just shrugs her shoulders and says she wants a divorce. This is an extreme example, but I think not that uncommon as a concept. The man who is thrown out of his house and jailed on BS DV charge and loses his children and has a strange man move in with his children immediately and who is financially plundered, etc. is very likely to go into depression which will have severe health effects and possibly lead to suicide whether obvious or not.
Correction, of course:
would not tell the truth
So, I run this scenario by a female friend and express my total disgust.
Her response is that "he must have done something to her for her to say something like that."
"Would you say that if the sexes were reversed?"
"Wouldn't you be appalled at him for saying something like that about his wife in front of her?"
"Wouldn't you think he was emotionally abusive?"
The response was "No, I would think the same thing if the sexes were reversed."
I am not so sure, though.
I know this. If my wife said something like that making clear that she would tell the truth even if the consequence was that I go to prison because she can always get a new husband, I would immediately get up and politely say goodbye and walk away from the relationship as fast as I could. Actually, I would run.