"Men need to be cognizant of the devastating penalties for making the mistake of loving a woman and at some point changing his mind,""In defense of men, there should be a law that prevents them from marrying before taking a class and passing tests that they understands [sic] that 'till death do us part' and 'as long as we both shall live' is more often than not, a delusion." YaVaughnie Wilkins San Francisco State 2004
M. Rigmaiden said ...
I cannot believe all the back tracking and grandstanding in the conversation. KW, your feminist lingo has blinded you to the fact that when you get married that IS the ultimate commitment. CHEATING IS WRONG! There is no analysis needed to know that if you promise to be monogamous and you aren't you are in the WRONG.You don't cheat on your spouse. If you cannot be faithful you can do a few things:
1.Accept that you aren't monogamous and live a polyamorous lifestyle
2.Get into a swinging lifestyle
3.Divorce and move on
4.Never get married in the first place and lie to yourself, your spouse and loved ones about who you really are.
The damage that infidelity causes to a relationship is WRONG!
If my man cheated on me, he'd be WRONG and I would not be pleased.
DV, your machoness and desire to rationalize your own viewpoints makes you look assinine to an extent. You don't think what homeboy did was wrong but thought it was because he was weak?
Shit, the weakest people do some of the WRONGEST things!
Ask your wife if you cheated on her with a woman for eight years if ya'll would still be together. Tell us what she says.
30 comments:
I'm wondering when it became impossible to be weak and wrong?
'Cause I've been following the blog for a minute and never seen that point made.
I'm also wondering what's the problem with saying something is wrong? That doesn't prevent you from addressing the situation.
Hell, DV is on record with saying the wars in Iraq Afghanistan are wrong. Why is it so easy to make a value judgement about right and wrong there, but not in this case?
I'm really curious.
Sidestepping is easy to do.
I'm wondering why Big Man can't think it's wrong ... and DV can't think it's weak.
Why we gotta think the same thing?
Consensus is sooooo overrated.
I say let the memes go toe to toe and see which one is left standing.
Buyer Beware.
Women know their men. They know who is going to cheat and who isn't and they choose accordingly.
Let's not indulge the self-righteousness and pathetic victim role of someone who knew exactly how the movie was going to end.
Liberal philosophy is based on the perpetual victim role. I think some women purposely choose men who will never be faithful as a means of ensuring the rewards and attention that come with living as an eternal victim.
DV
I'm not seeking consensus, I'm seeking clarity.
Why are you opposed to saying this dude is wrong?
You don't have to change your mind, I'm just curious about when you think it's okay to use terms like "right" or "wrong" and when you have a problem with it. But, if you don't want to answer, it's your blog.
Insurgent
Has the woman complained? I haven't seen her complaining or trying to be a victim. I haven't seen her period. She appears to have reconciled with her man and is trying to make her family work despite his dalliances. Not sure where you're getting the info that she's trying to be a victim, but if you have it somewhere, please share.
As for women knowing whether their men are going to cheat, that's a tough one. Some women have obvious warning signs they ignore, others don't. Blanket generalizations about relationships don't make much sense. This dude might have been a great liar, or his wife might have ignored the warning signs because she just had to marry him. None of us really know.
Do you really believe that every man who has ever cheated tipped his wife off before the fact? You seemed to be saying that with this statement:
"Women know their men. They know who is going to cheat and who isn't and they choose accordingly."
I'm not talking about the specifics of this situation when I talk about perpetual victimhood, although I would bet money that the whore mistress will be portrayed in that role and happily live with it for the remainder of her life.
Do you really believe that every man who has ever cheated tipped his wife off before the fact?
Y.E.S.
He didn't necessarily say, "honey, I'm going to get with someone else tonight". He doesn't have to be that explicit. No one does.
If one has eyes to see and ears to hear, then see weakness of character and know it. It's only stupid liberals who have been conditioned to make 1,001 excuses for shortcomings who play dumb who act surprised when things like this happen.
Lil' man,
What II is intimating is that in a radically liberal society where women have unprecedented autonomy being cheated on and betrayed is the mechanism by which one GAINS MORE AUTONOMY.
If men were faithful THEN MODERN LIBERAL WOMAN WOULD ALSO BE COMPELLED TO BE FAITHFUL, but she does not want to be faithful. She wants to be free. Being faithful is an impediment on one's radical autonomy.
"Why are you opposed to saying this dude is wrong?" Big Man
Because that's not what I think.
But make no mistake Big Man, I'm not opposed to YOU saying it.
Say what you want.
But, I don't say what I don't think.
That's why I don't say shit like: "Global System of White Supremacy" or "Save Darfur" or "Bettuh go get yo H1N1 vackseen" or "We Need uh Nashional Helf Care Pwogwam" or "Israel Iz Our Only Friend In Da Middle East".
Let's walk through this slowly Big Man.
Is smoking crack "wrong"?
Or is it simply unhealthy?
Is allowing oneself to be injected with activated monkey virus vaccines wrong?
Or is it simply unhealthy?
Is eating microwaved GMO food wrong?
Or is it simply unhealthy?
Is allowing homosexual men to adopt young boys wrong?
Or is it simply unhealthy?
Is a man having a girlfriend while he is married, but separated ... wrong?
Or is it simply unhealthy?
I prefer the word unhealthy' over "wrong" because unhealthy can be remedied.
"Wrong" serves more as a verdict than it does as advice.
Now tell me Big Man, why do you insist we all use the word "Wrong"?
Jan 26, 2010 5:40:00 PM
Actions have different weight. That's why Bill Cosby was criticized for using the example of some kid getting shot in the back of the head for stealing a pound cake.
The theft of the pound cake could be a wrongful action or it could be an act of necessity. It being an act of necessity exonerates one from the "wrongness" of the crime. Outwardly it's a crime, but with inspection, the inward reveals it's an act of survival (that is if hunger is the case). "Wrongful death" actually exonerates the party from murder. Because the party may have unintentionally killed someone.
Because unhealthy implies 'pending harm' it is not strong enough in all cases. It's more than unhealthy when the 12 year old Monster Kody (CRIP gangbang'er) blasted a dude with a fo'fo' magnum. The action is wrong.
Creating crack in some laboratory is wrong.
Population control with monkey virus vaccines is wrong.
Malcolm X's nobility and honesty is raised to an even higher stage because he could come back to the public and say that all those years of believing in the NOI's cosmology, that he was wrong and he has repaired that wrong.
Being more concerned about people receiving the truth than his own pride being wounded. Because he felt it was necessary that his "wrongs" were not bequeathed to any "unconsciously" knowing individuals. That is taking responsibility for a wrong. More than "two wrongs" in Malcolm's life made him a "right."
I'm thinking ahead of what I'm typing. The "wrongful death" thingy WAS NOT referring to a store owner shooting a child over a pound cake. That is "wrongful murder."
It was showing how "wrong" in the term "wrongful death" actually lessens the offense by throwing out intention to do harm.
DV
I'm not insisting, I'm inquiring.
You use the word wrong.
You choose not to use the word wrong in this case.
Your reason was "I don't feel like it."
Fine. That's your reason.
Insurgent
I don't blame a woman if her man cheats. I don't blame a man if his woman cheats.
Every human makes choices. If you make a choice to promise enternal fidelity, failing to adhere to your vow is a failure on your part, not on anyone else's.
No matter how this woman screwed in her marriage or in her selection of her mate, the bottom line is that her husband made a vow to be faitful. He failed to uphold that vow, and in doing so wronged her.
Acknowledging that fact does not absolve the woman of any blame she has for her own poor choices or actions over the course of their marriage or courtship. But, it seems strange to focus on what the woman did wrong when were discussing her husband's eight-year affair. Almost seems like deflecting attention from one area to provide cover.
The man cheated and nobody forced him to do it.
Big Man said...
"You choose not to use the word wrong in this case.
Your reason was "I don't feel like it."
Fine. That's your reason."
Nah Big Man. That's not the reason I gave.
I said I don't think it is a particularly smart or effective use of the word "wrong".
Why are you so reluctant to expand beyond the use of that one word?
Who is reluctant?
I think the word fits. I think it's perfectly acceptable to call things right or wrong.
In my world, some things are obviously wrong, some things are obviously right.
Serving God: right
Cheating on my wife: wrong
Homosexuality: wrong
Loving all people: right
Some folks find that simplistic, I don't. I think part of establishing a concrete value system is establishing what is right and what is wrong. I don't have to force other folks to adhere to my value system, but I will make myself adhere to it with the help of God.
When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. First step for me is admitting I'm wrong, second step is doing something about it.
You prefer "unhealthy". That's cool.
Cool.
Get that.
But tell me.
Is war wrong?
Is war right?
Is killing someone wrong?
Can killing someone ever be right?
Is feeding one's kids high fructose corn syrup wrong?
I'm curious.
War for the wrong reasons is wrong.
Killing someone for the wrong reasons is wrong.
Feeding children high frutose corn syrup in excess is wrong.
Now, since I've answered your questions, please be so kind to answer my single recurring questions.
Do you never believe in right and wrong, or is just this instance where you refuse to use those terms?
Thank ya' kindly.
"War for the wrong reasons is wrong." Big Man
Oh.
I see.
OK. So "wrong" is relative.
Is cheating on your wife for the right reasons right?
"Do you never believe in right and wrong" BM
I believe 3 + 2 = 4 is wrong.
I belive "dooplicitous" is spelled wrong.
So, you don't think a war can be right or wrong depending on reasons behind the war?
Cause I believe Haiti's revolutionary war was right.
I believe the war in Iraq was wrong.
When I check my Bible, I'm confident that it's ok to fight for what's right in the eyes of God.
And cheating on your wife is never right in the eyes of God.
The war in Iraq is wrong for you.
The war in Iraq is right for a NeoCon.
2 + 3 = 1 is wrong for you.
2 + 3 = 1 is wrong for a NeoCon.
You are attempting to apply the concept "wrong" to that which is subjective.
I only apply it to that which is absolute.
As far as I am concerned the determination of what is absolute is up to God.
Not to DV.
The war in Iraq is not "wrong".
It is not even a "war".
What it is is illegal.
What it is is a head fake.
Ultimately it is an attack upon the American people.
Calling it "wrong" is short sighted and discourages deeper analysis.
God is very clear about what is right and wrong through His Word.
Now, if you don't believe his Word is his Word, then you say only God can speak in absolutes.
But, if you believe His Word is His Word, then you can't go that route.
Some issues aren't clearly addressed by the Bible and a believer is forced to use his own God-given to make a choice. Happens all the time.
Adultery, fornication, lying, stealing and a host of other issues don't fall into that category.
There is nothing stopping folks from looking at issues deeply once they've identified right and wrong. The problem isn't identification, it's mental laziness.
I'm not going to forego what I see as the proper way to behave because other people are mentally lazy.
Taking a stand on right and wrong is an important trait in my opinion. Otherwise you're capable of rationalizing any behavior.
"God is very clear about what is right and wrong through His Word." BM
True.
God is very clear.
Man's interpretation of God's word leaves something to be desired.
I think God left us some clues as to what is "right or wrong" in places other than what we call "His Word".
For example, Nature follows God's rules. I believe we can get guidance to what is right and what is wrong by observing the laws of nature.
Interesting enough, war is rather common in nature.
Ants wage war. Bees wage war.
It's a sight to see.
Statements like ... "war is wrong" don't hold water because "wrong" can't be "sometimey"
Nah...,
Bees don't wage war.
Of all the known social organisms, only ants and you humans engage in massed, lethal, intraspecific conflict.
DV
Where did I write simply "War is wrong."?
That wasn't the answer I provided you.
Like I said, I already knew how you felt about the Bible, which is why you and I have different thoughts on many things.
In my world, some things are clearly wrong and some things are clearly right.
Adultery falls into the clearly wrong category. But, since all of us are wrong sometimes, it doesn't make this brother any worse than the rest of us. At least he realized he was wrong and tried to mend his ways.
"I believe the war in Iraq was wrong." Big Man
"
Like I said, I already knew how you felt about the Bible, which is why you and I have different thoughts on many things." Big Man
Actually Big Man, you don't.
I don't even know how I feel about the bible.
We don't have different thoughts on many things. I think I what I think, and you eventually catch up.
Right behind CNu with his lips poked out.
"Adultery falls into the clearly wrong category." BM
No it doesn't.
Adultery is simply a bad idea. It's base. It's low living. It's not in one's interest.
But "wrong"?
Half the people alive today are the product of an "Adulterous" relationship at some point.
Are they wrong?
Or, do the products of two wrong people make a right?
You think the Bible says .. "DON'T DO IT! IT IS WRONG!"
I interpret the bible as saying "If you do it there will consequences, if you truly desire to develop your spiritual self and to occupy a higher plane (closer to God) you will avoid doing it."
That dogmatic ... Church of Rome ... 332 AD ... Nicene Creed ... way of interpreting the bible doesn't hold up.
That's why so many people become disenchanted with what is presented to them as Christianity and become de facto Secular Fanatics.
(I suspect they were intentionally presented with a distorted understanding of Christianity with the idea in mind that they would eventually be turned off and become de facto Luciferians by trying to be God. But that's another thread)
"God is very clear.
Man's interpretation of God's word leaves something to be desired.
I think God left us some clues as to what is "right or wrong" in places other than what we call "His Word"."
See, I think the Bible is quite clear on many things.
Adultery being one.
Of course there are consequence for doing what's wrong, after all "the wages of sin are death." That's from the Bible too, you know.
Not just physical death, but spiritual and emotional death. A death of the connection between man and God, a separation from his presence. That's the death God promised Adam and Eve when he warned them off the tree, and the death Satan hid from them when he enticed them to eat.
That's why David begged forgiveness when Nathan revealed the venal nature of his adultery and the murder of Uriah. Not just because he realized he had done wrong, hell, he knew he was wrong when he called Bathsheba from his bath. Nah, God revealed the extent of his wrong, and showed him exactly what that wrong had done to their relationship. David talks about it Psalm 51 when he says:
Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion
blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash away all my iniquity
and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.
4 Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are proved right when you speak
and justified when you judge.
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
6 Surely you desire truth in the inner parts ;
you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.
The Word doesn't shy away from establishing right and wrong, and it doesn't shy away from the consequences of our choices.
So, DV, I'm not trying to catch up to anything you say with respect to God. You got some good points on other stuff, and I freely admit to having learned new things from you and the other folks who visit this site.
But, when it comes to God, I don't even listen. Once you denied the resurrection of Christ, it was clear we were on different paths.
Doesn't bother me though, since it's always good to talk about faith with anyone. Peter said if you can't explain what you believe, you've already failed as a Christian. So, I'm just using your platform to spread my beliefs, God will do the rest.
One man planted, another harvests, but God gives the increase.
Good stuff Big Man.
Good stuff.
But um ...
"Once you denied the resurrection of Christ, it was clear we were on different paths."
LOL.
"Deny" the resurrection of Christ. "Deny" the holocaust.
"Deny" Man Mad Global Warming. "Deny" Vaccines.
Funny how all religions throw that same Hegelian Head Fake.
I don't "deny" the resurrection of Christ.
I just don't need to believe Jesus of Nazareth rose from the grave or walked water to believe he was the son of God.
That's some pagan superstition added to the legend of Christ decades and centuries after he was dead.
It would be like someone in 2268 claiming that Martin Luther King Jr. was "resurrected".
I don't need to believe that MLK rose from the grave to believe he was a man in communion with God on a very high level.
Same paths Big Man. Different points.
(Look up in about 2 years. You'll see me up ahead, rounding the bend.)
Preacher man, don't tell me,
Heaven is over the earth.
I know you don't know
What life is really worth.
It's not all that glitters is gold;
'ALF THE STORY HAS NEVER BEEN TOLD
So now you see the light, eh!
Stand up for your rights. come on!
Most people think,
Great god will come from the skies,
Take away everything
And make everybody feel high.
But if you know what life is worth,
You will look for yours on earth:
And now you see the light,
You stand up for your rights. Jah!
We sick an' tired of-a your ism-skism game -
Dyin' 'n' goin' to heaven in-a Jesus' name, lord.
We know when we understand:
Almighty god is a living man.
You can fool some people sometimes,
But you can't fool all the people all the time.
So now we see the light (what you gonna do?),
We gonna stand up for our rights! (yeah, yeah, yeah! )
i'm familiar with Bob's words.
Like many cats, he missed the point.
I know you don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, you've made it abudantly clear. I do.
Thus, we aren't on the same path. If your path denies the deity of Christ, then it's not my path. If your path denies is ressurection, then it's not my path.
You have your message, I have my mine. I appreciate the space to spread mine.
Deity of Christ?
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God 'ALONE'.
Not the speech of a deity.
An age old debate amongst the custodians of Christianity.
Gee Chee
I could get into scriptural debate about Jesus professing his deity, and the attempts by the Pharisee and Sadducees to stone him for doing just that, but what's the point.
If you don't believe he was God, cool. If the Book didn't convince you, that's on you.
That's a side issue here. The original issue was whether we can ever truly define right or wrong. DV's ideas about where we can apply those definitions differ from my own.
Your thoughts?
Post a Comment