|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 25, @10:54AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
What a complete and total idiot. Men's chivalry knows no bounds. How are we supposed to get people to take DV against men seriously when men are trivializing it this way?
Personally, I hope he gets shot by his next gf. And I hope she has better aim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We are not trying to say, 'Bulimia made me do it,' " but... "Bulemia made me do it." In the end, that's what it boils down to, doesn't it?
What jumped out at me was the defense's assertion that her delicate mental condition made her think that he was cheating on her when in fact he wasn't. So... is their argument that it's OK to shoot a cheating boyfriend? That's what Judge Patrick Dohm in B.C., Canada said when he let off Kim Tran for cutting off her husband's penis because he was cheating on her. Are we to believe that the cad deserved it? Are we to believe that if the boyfriend really had been cheating on her, then he would have deserved being shot? It seems to me that that is what defense was, in part, arguing.
As for the assertion the she wouldn't survive three years in prison. Um... good. Who wants some murderous psychopath wandering the streets, looking for her next target—I mean boyfriend?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The judge, Brennan, said a message needs to be sent that there are “serious consequences if you intentionally choose to harm a person or put other people in danger.”
Just before telling Rioux he was suspending the sentence, Brennan reflected, “Tomorrow I may be sentencing people for drug offenses or non-violent thefts to a substantially longer sentence than I’m giving you.”
WTF?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WTF?
It's hypocrisy. Plain and simple.
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It's hypocrisy. Plain and simple"
Really, and here I thought it was just cowardice. Something that is commonly typical among Judges in Canada.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We keep hearing, and seeing ads and bumper stickers claiming, that "There's No Excuse For Domestic Violence."
Well, apparently, there's actually LOTS of excuses. The main one seems to be the level of estrogen in the perp.
To be truthfull (as if...) it should read: "There's No Excuse For Domestic Violence for Men."
For women, no matter how trivia their discomfort or inconvenience, it's a quarantee that they'll be excused even the most vile, brutal behaviour. For men, no matter how cruelly or horrendously they're bashed, tormented, and battered, they will be vilified and criminalized for even the most basic attempt at self-defense.
This is because we believe in equality.
(Excuse me. I had to go throw up there.) Oh, wait, I can't be excused. Good thing there wasn't a woman around to be annoyed by the sight of me with my head in the toilet. I might have gotten shot... and then thrown in jail.
Serious legal professionals nod their heads sagely and declare, 'ahh, this was done by a woman, so we certainly can't hold her accountabe for her own actions. I mean, they're _women_. They're incapable of retraining themselves or even of understanding what they're actually doing."
Don't women ever find being legally assumed to be incompetent, irresposible, and brainless to be insulting? Guess it doesn't matter when they're never at fault.
(As an aside, I wonder if women being declared legally incompetent so many times can be used as ammo in court? Hmmm.)
And, of course, these legally-declared-incompetent beings are the ones given all the authority.
Give one group all the authority and no responsibility or accountability, and the other unfortunate group no authority whatsoever, but hold them responsible for whatever happens. A recipe for disaster.
I recall chatting once with a previous boss of mine (he used to be a ship's captain, actually). He told me this, and I've always remembered it: "To give an employee responsibility without authority is unfair, and to give an employee authority without responsibility is unwise. Either situation is a serious problem for the company."
The creed of feminism? "Men are evil brutes and women are pathetic infants." Feminists just hate everyone. Especially themselves.
---
And the biggest, most far-reaching, deepest question, the one that makes me despair for the human race is, how did we let this happen?
How could we, in a supposedly 'enlightened' society, allow a supremisist hate cult to gain so much political power? Within one generation of the British Commonwealth and the US defeating the worst hate cult ever seen, we've allowed a _worse_ one to spawn it's demon brood of despair and suffering right here at home.
Eventually it'll be brought down, but will it happen again? How many more times will we, as a race, have to fight this fight? When will we ever learn?
Sometimes I weep for our future.
Ragtime
The opinions expressed in this posting are my own, but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 25, @04:32PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
It's time for all to admit to the following;
In order for the American male to SURVIVE, Chivalry must DIE!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't women ever find being legally assumed to be incompetent, irresposible, and brainless to be insulting?
I'm not sure this is the sentiment behind women getting a pass in this regard. Think about it - if it had been another female that she shot, might she not have been judged more harshly?
I think the real sentiment is not that women are stupid, but rather that male behavior is often so incredibly immoral that the morally superior female mentality cannot deal with it rationally. Like any normal person's psyche can crack under the strain of an incredibly catastrophic event, women's sane and moral psyches can crack under the strain of male behavior that is often brute and immoral beyond human reason (because the male mentality, it has been decided, can be profoundly inhuman and unreasonable).
That, I think, is the real sentiment behind all of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If people continue to fall for this shit defence than it will continue to happen.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting point about the difference in reaction to female-on-female crime compared to male-on-female crime. I wonder if there have been any good studies done on the difference in the way men and women are treated who commit violent crimes against women (with other factors being equal or similar).
"I think the real sentiment is not that women are stupid, but rather that male behavior is often so incredibly immoral that the morally superior female mentality cannot deal with it rationally."
"Morally superior female mentality"? Actually, there are numerous examples of "incredibly immoral" female behavior. It's just that we censor publicity focused on awful female behavior OR work hard to find excuses for the behavior. The media and academia reinforce this practice of ignoring or excusing immoral female behavior. Whether it's women murdering their children, poisoning their patients over many years, killing male hitchhikers, participating in the physical butchery called genocide, or just helping political or racist tyrants do their work, women are held to lower standards of accountability than those applied to men.
We don't like to think of women as being anything other than innocent compared to men. Patricia Pearson discusses this in her '97 book "When She Was Bad - Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collins wrote:
Interesting point about the difference in reaction to female-on-female crime compared to male-on-female crime. I wonder if there have been any good studies done on the difference in the way men and women are treated who commit violent crimes against women (with other factors being equal or similar).
I did read a somewhat related study (sorry, I can't find the link anymore) which analyzed the patterns of charging and sentencing for murder, particularly in the South. They expected to find bias against black men who murdered. Their statistical analysis didn't find that.
What surprised them was that the strongest predictor of harshness in charging and sentencing was the race and sex of the victim. Murder of a white woman brought the harshest penalties. Murder of a black man the least. Black women and white men were in the middle, about the same.
If that holds true in general, then same-race female-on-female crime would receive harsher penalties than female-on-male crime, because the judicial system apparently sees a female victim as more valuable.
It sounds worth researching to me (and worth finding that study again).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can anyone ever find an excuse to commit murder? somebody should have made that woman understand that if you take a life, you lose yours too!!!
stupid b**ch!
Emmanuel Matteer Jnr.
Emanslave@aol.com
*****MASCULISM IS A BLACK MALE'S BEST FRIEND*****
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
