Racism, Bigotry and Misogyny at TOL

[Town Heretic]

Every comment is aimed at me, so..

Answers to comments have a way of being that. Else, anna thanking me for a public service is only about you if you want it to be.

And
It's very supported- as it is clearly seen.
See, you few aren't much for reality.

I made the offer. Get off or on the pot. I'm not interested in posturing in lieu.

Some courts, in some places,

Nope. It's much larger than that and the only thing you've produced on the topic that isn't your declaration backs my assertion, as will any serious research on the point.

And the result is what you saw

No, the result is that a great many couples are working out arrangements that are good for children. The exceptions? Cases involving domestic violence.

See now why that 'equality' nonsense is nonsense?

Being rational, of course not. You're not seeing anything but the blood in your eye. You're certainly not seeing the facts.

It never was about equality, but privilege.

No, that's done. Most of it went in favor of the male until a fairly recent sliver of reversal that was itself reversed, as noted.

And if you can't see that, then you can't see anything.

Like being lectured on fashion by Stevie Wonder.

 

[Crucible]

The law AGREES with me and at the end of the day, that is all that counts.

It's already been established that the only thing that matters is whatever agrees with you. It's part of many female's psychology in a world that accommodates all they demand

 

[Rusha]

Nah, after years of replying to your tales of woe, it's all I am willing to do. The law AGREES with me and at the end of the day, that is all that counts.

It's already been established

Indeed ... that is why I used the word *law*. Quite frankly, the fact that you defend the use of violence as a legitimate response in situations outside of self-defense,tells me all I need or care to know about you.

 

[Crucible]

Answers to comments have a way of being that. Else, anna thanking me for a public service is only about you if you want it to be.

It's not about your 'public service'.
She isn't religiously thanking every post you make on this thread replying to me for that reason- but lie about the truth of the matter, it's what you all do

No, the result is that a great many couples are working out arrangements that are good for children. The exceptions? Cases involving domestic violence.

A man's wife is throwing things around the house, antagonizing him, and otherwise irate and out of control- he pushes her into a couch.

That is only 'assault' in the most scrutinizing, literal sense. What it is, is a man pumping the brake on that insanity- something that used to be just fine because, lo and behold, IT IS JUST FINE. It's his home, and someone is acting like a lunatic within it.

You, and others, have lost your minds is all. No man should have to deal with that and eat fire just to remain a passive little mouse.

 

[Crucible]

Indeed ... that is why I used the word *law*. Quite frankly, the fact that you defend the use of violence as a legitimate response in situations outside of self-defense,tells me all I need or care to know about you.

Yeah, because if someone was out of control in your own home, it's just so bad to do anything about it except walk out of it.

The law is not always right. The law used to say that you, a woman, need to sit down and shut it. And I could sit here and say what you are saying.
Stop using 'da law' as some sort of justification to your nonsense.

 

[annabenedetti]

Yeah, I wasn't talking about myself.

But
Imagine if you were a man and you approached me with this utter lie. You would expect that hostility might ensue but because you are a female you have no intention of actually keeping that mouth shut.

It's hilarious, really. Being a punk is based on perspective, I suppose.

You should have said so at the time. Both Angel and I referred to you in that thread and you didn't correct either one of us then. Why not?

It's called a women acting like a lunatic and because the man didn't let her have her way he's a 'wife beater'.

A man owning up to shoving a women blocking his way from an exit and screaming in his face is "physical abuse".
So yes, I have to say 'shrugging'.

Maybe you should marinate on that for a little bit; maybe notice the fantastic irony of this entire discussion and how it applies to your standing.

You shoved her because she was blocking your way. What was the "overzealous" part?

When she's beating up on him and he gets tired of it and deebos her to the floor.

~overzealous~

So you beat her to the floor.

There have been plenty of men whose wife acts like a lunatic and attacks him verbally and physically, relentlessly, and the man loses his temper and throws her away across the room.
I've seen it, and witnesses both male and female didn't seem to mind. If there were none, and this went to court however..

Does this warrant an assault charge? Losing their kids and their livelihood?

No, it doesn't. I'll tell you what it does warrant- an enlightenment on what constitutes 'physical abuse'.

 

[Rusha]

Yeah, because if someone was out of control in your own home, it's just so bad to do anything about it except walk out of it.

Still babbling away I see. Yes, doing something other than walking away until one is calm and no longer violent is always the right choice. Outside of defending one's self or someone else, physically striking someone is always wrong.

 

[Town Heretic]

It's not about your 'public service'.
She isn't religiously thanking every post you make on this thread replying to me for that reason- but lie about the truth of the matter, it's what you all do

Characterization aside, you should ask yourself why that matters to you in any event. I don't know about you, but I thank or rep comments I agree with/like. What do you do, neg rep them?

A man's wife is throwing things around the house, in his face, antagonizing him, and he pushes her into a couch.

Now you're changing the narrative. Interesting. I think I know why...anyway, here's the thing, you don't have a right to put your hands on anyone in anger unless you're responding to physical violence to defend yourself or someone else. If you're getting to the point where you're approaching that response it's time to walk away, to remove yourself from the temptation.

That is only 'assault' in the most scrutinizing, literal sense.

It's not necessarily an assault at all, but it is a battery. Another law lesson then. Typically, assault involves putting someone in reasonable apprehension of a harmful contact. So if the wife is throwing things at the husband she might be charged. If he threatens her in response or in initiating the conflict then he may be charged. A battery occurs when there is an unwanted contact. The person committing the battery doesn't even have to intend harm, only to intend an unwanted contact. You don't have a right to put your hands on someone who doesn't invite it, absent defense of your person or another. Battery can occur without any physical injury attending.

What it is, is a man pumping the brake on that insanity- something that used to be just fine because, lo and behold, IT IS JUST FINE.

Wrong as a matter of law and immature horsefeathers else.

You, and others, have lost your minds is all.

Like being lectured on modesty by Godiva.

No man should have to deal with that and eat fire just to remain a passive little mouse.

Rather, if a man can't distinguish between mature restraint and an assault on an apparently fragile masculinity then he has bigger fish to fry before he's ready for matrimony.

 

[Rusha]

Rather, if a man can't distinguish between mature restraint and an assault on an apparently fragile masculinity then he has bigger fish to fry before he's ready for matrimony.

^ This ...

I will also add that *men* do not assault women ... just as *women* do not assault men.

 

[Crucible]

Still babbling away I see. Yes, doing something other than walking away until one is calm and no longer violent is always the right choice. Outside of defending one's self or someone else, physically striking someone is always wrong.

Cool story.

When putting some sense back into an out of control person, in your own home no less, warrants a criminal prosecution, then there is an oppressive nature within the law.

You can sit there with your frankly elementary morals all you want, but in the end I've always been right on this and you all are just desperate to conceal reality. That's why you all do as you do- like on that thread when you thanked Cruciform on a debate pertaining to papal infallibility.
You thanked him because he was against me, not because you believe in the damn infallibility of Francis.

I'm not imagining a thing, so stop acting as if I am- you few hate the truth, and therefore make it a point to go against me despite having no real argument.

 

[annabenedetti]

Now I've seen it all. He wants to control how we thank someone on the internet. :chuckle:

 

[Rusha]

When putting some sense back into an out of control person,

Means going to jail ... perhaps the *out of control person* (who committed assault) will learn that there are consequences for their ACTIONS.

 

[Rusha]

Now I've seen it all. He wants to control how we thank someone on the internet. :chuckle:

:chuckle:

 

[Crucible]

*BUMP*

Cool story.

When putting some sense back into an out of control person, in your own home no less, warrants a criminal prosecution, then there is an oppressive nature within the law.

You can sit there with your frankly elementary morals all you want, but in the end I've always been right on this and you all are just desperate to conceal reality. That's why you all do as you do- like on that thread when you thanked Cruciform on a debate pertaining to papal infallibility.
You thanked him because he was against me, not because you believe in the damn infallibility of Francis.

I'm not imagining a thing, so stop acting as if I am- you few hate the truth, and therefore make it a point to go against me despite having no real argument.

I see no reply to this worth a response

They exemplify exactly as I have stated of them repeatedly- while denying it. Just a little thing called delirium, I suppose

 

[Rusha]

*BUMP*

Ah selective reading to match your selective morality, I see. As you know, my response was post number 852 ...

 

[Town Heretic]

When putting some sense back into an out of control person,

That's Cruc's euphemism for battery, which is against the law.

in your own home no less

Also illegal to violate the law in your own home (and hers).

warrants a criminal prosecution

Yes, a battery warrants criminal prosecution if the facts sustain the charge. The police will record evidence, the D.A.'s office will examine the evidence and if the matter goes to trial the trier of fact will determine the outcome.

then there is an oppressive nature within the law.

Absolutely, for criminals.

You can sit there with your frankly elementary morals all you want

As you advance a cause without any.

but in the end I've always been right on this and you all are just desperate to conceal reality.

The problem with Cruc is that he can't be reached rationally, because he never arrived at his position by means of that faculty. There is a darker and emotional root to his problem. It won't be solved until he understands where the responsibility for our actions rests.

 

[Gurucam]

For those who quote the KJV N.T. willy-nilly:

1 Corinthians: 11 KJV N.T.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

The above is totally and literally applicable to 'the dead' until they become spiritually aware and 'in Christ'. Then men and women are equal and both have God given freedom, liberty and justification to transgress: the ten commandments, the above law and all other laws and tenants in scriptures.

Galatians: 4 KJV N.T.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Fact is, women who belong to the billion strong traditional Christians are not yet onto Christ. They cannot perceive life with out allegiance to and dependency on, the ten commandments and they do see themselves equal to men. Therefore they are subjected to 1 Corinthians: 11 verse: 3 KJV N.T., until they actually come onto Christ.

These women who belong to the billion strong traditional Christians generally claim that they are Christians, although they have not 'seen' the folly of the ten commandments. They simply and erroneously assume that they are Christians.

Fact is they are still under the law of sin and death. They sill esteem, use, promote and invoke the ten commandments to keep their spouse 'well behaved' in loveless marital unions with them.

Christians are believers:

Acts: 13 King James Version (KJV)
39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

 

[Crucible]

That's Cruc's euphemism for battery, which is against the law.

I consider 'battery' as doing actual, purposeful harm to a person. The shenanigans that go on in those court rooms is enough to make a reasonable person's blood boil- people being prosecuted on ridiculous semantics.
But you all aren't reasonable- that much is clear. It all comes down to dumping whatever blame you can on a man who makes the slightest mistake.

I don't need to justify that, because it justifies itself. We are in a relatively recent age of insanity that never existed in the 'law' before- it used to be sensible, now it is absurd. There are more men in jail or with a record, who shouldn't be, then in any other time in modern history. And all you few can do is justify it with rank nonsense.

Whatever serves your own interest, I suppose- two rebellious women and a lawyer

 

[Gurucam]

Galatians: 5 King James Version (KJV)
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

One who esteem, use, promote and/or invoke the ten commandments, even in the slightest way, is not under grace of God and not Christian.

 

[Gurucam]

Romans: 7 KJV N.T.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

The above is a very clear instruction to 'serve in the newness of spirit'. This instruction is for newly spiritually aware people. This instruction is for 'the dead who have been recently converted to spiritual awareness. Only they can 'serve in the newness of spirit'.

'Conversion' is an important Christian word which relates only and directly to being newly spiritually aware (from being previously, 'the dead'). This is not conversion to Christianity.

This conversion means that people whose heart were waxed gross and their ears were dull of hearing and their eye were closed, have achieved hearts that are no longer waxed gross and ears and eyes that have opened.

This conversion means that they have moved from having only physical/'natural man' seeing, physical/'natural man' hearing and physical/'natural man' understanding to having spiritual/'inward man' hearing, spiritual/'inward man' seeing and spiritual/'inward man' understanding. They have awakened to their own spirit and the faculties of their own spirits or inward man. They have become spiritually aware. This is to be 'born again'. And now they are given, by God, to know the mysteries of God's kingdom of heaven.

Matthews: 13 KJV N.T.
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Transformation from being 'the dead' to being spiritually aware is their conversion. The instruction in Romans: 7 verses: 4 to 10 KJV N.T., above is how Jesus will heal them

Up to this time they would have been in O.T. styled marital/sexual/procreating unions. They would have been in marital unions that were upheld by the 'thou shall not covet' and 'thou shall not commit adultery' commandments.

The instruction for healing (for embracing Christ), involve leaving all old things (including old marriages and old children) behind and also totally dropping these laws of the ten commandments (the old children would be children of the flesh):

The newly spiritually aware are instructed to transgress the 'thou shall not covet' commandments in order to leave their old spouses and marriages and form a new marriages with new spouses, as urged by the newness of spirit. This is in order for them to become Christians by serving Jesus' God given agenda, which is to stop bringing forth fruits onto death and start bring forth fruits onto God.

Don't you guys want to wake-up to truth?

Romans: 8 King James Version (KJV)
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Romans: 7 verses: 4 to 10 KJV N.T., above is about marriage and instructions to transgress 'thou shall not covet' commandment. The fruits related to these are children.

Therefore the very clear instruction here, to newly spiritually aware people is to leave one's old spouse and marriage and form a new marriage with a new spouse, as urged by the newness of spirit so that: one will stop bringing forth children of the flesh (like Ishmael) and start bring forth children of God (like Isaac).

The above also confirm very clearly that the ten commandments, killeth and they are the law of sin and death. And the ten commandments are totally 'done away with' for Christians. In fact, Christians are instructed to transgress the ten commandments so as to serve in the newness of spirit.

The revelations says: I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death . . . the thou shall not covet commandment, killeth and so newly spiritually aware people are instructed to transgress this commandment so as to 'serve in the newness of spirit' and so get life eternal and enter God's kingdom of heaven.

Traditional Christians corrupt the KJV N.T. so as to corruptly uphold and promote the idea that the ten commandments are not the law of sin and death.

The above provide very important and critical Christian truths. Traditional Christians overpass, suppress, relegate and/or ignore this revelation. In so doing they deny themselves and their own, authentic Christian knowledge which could give them eternal life and so save and deliver them.

There is no contradicting verses in the KJV N.T.

Is there any wonder why many (a billion strong traditional Christians) are called and few chosen.