14-02-2003 11:00									#91
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: that is to say: if someone can be legally in trouble for lying under oath, to an officer of the law, to obtain money, why is it 'ridiculous' to question why it is not legally wrong to lie about to a partner in a marriage contract?

Because you don't read? Someone already posted that marriage IS NOT a contract between two people. It is a contract between the two of you and the state. The state is the other party.

Furthermore, lying under oath or to an officer of the law is obstruction of justice (though lying to an officer usually doesn't get you in much trouble... unless you lied to him about committing the crime ).

	14-02-2003 11:02									#92
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Now please explain why it's okay to jail somebody for cheating on his wife, but not because he called in sick in order to go fishing.

ok! an argument! Well sorta...

Hell am I going to have to make this for you?

You're saying that calling in sick when you want to go fishing, if caught, could be legitimate grounds for being fired, this of course synonymous to if you cheat on your spouse and get caught it's grounds for divorce. Correct?

	14-02-2003 11:05									#93
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by orange I still don't see the philosophical difference between lying in one instance and lying in another. Both are 'wrong'. Now, if Clinton lies under oath about his sex life, which I support since it's none of anyone's damn business, but gets impeached for it...why is that a crime whereas lying to a spouse whom with you have a 'contract' based on fidelity is not? Ok, so this becomes grounds for a divorce...so what? I don't think the difference is 'obvious'. I think there are differences, but the root crime is the same. There are circumstances that I can think of where lying under oath would be 'permissable' or forgivable, but I can't think of many, if any times where cheating on a spouse could be forgivable when it is an expressed part of your marriage to that person that you will be faithful and exclusive. I understand why you compared me to Floyd, and to be honest I'm not 100% serious about this...but am I upset that cheating on a spouse is regarded as just something that happens and that should be accepted - you bet!

I think that it's none of the State's business, and none of mine what goes on between a husband and a wife in terms of fidelity.

The only time it arises is when the marriage is dissolved by the offended party. And that's what the civil consequences are about.

Jailing somebody for adultery is an unforgivable intrusion of the State on the individual. And that's just how it is.

	14-02-2003 11:06									#94
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Both are 'wrong'. Now, if Clinton lies under oath about his sex life, which I support since it's none of anyone's damn business, but gets impeached for it

Impeachment is much different than criminal penalties. If you recall, Clinton NEVER was brought to court for perjury.

You could make a case he should have because his false testimony obstructed justice. That is why we have perjury, so you don't obstruct justice by lying.

--

Oh, and if marriage WAS a contract between two people, you'd have a HELL of a time getting a divorce... it'd be so close to impossible no one would ever do it.

	14-02-2003 11:07									#95
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Because you don't read? Someone already posted that marriage IS NOT a contract between two people. It is a contract between the two of you and the state. The state is the other party.

I read it. I understand it. According to law you're really only making a contract to deligate monetary responsibility and such.

My counterargument for that is: if that's the case, why would infidelity be grounds for a divorce, a breaking of that contract, if fidelity is not an issue with the contract? And why should it matter with regards to alimony.

quote: Furthermore, lying under oath or to an officer of the law is obstruction of justice

Well, if under the current system infidelity is grounds for divorce, wouldn't lying about cheating be an obstruction of justice as well?

	14-02-2003 11:09									#96
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Jailing somebody for adultery is an unforgivable intrusion of the State on the individual. And that's just how it is.

Well it's certainly hard to argue the overwhelmingly substantial evidence presented in this quote.

	14-02-2003 11:09									#97
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by orange ok! an argument! Well sorta... Hell am I going to have to make this for you? You're saying that calling in sick when you want to go fishing, if caught, could be legitimate grounds for being fired, this of course synonymous to if you cheat on your spouse and get caught it's grounds for divorce. Correct?

Why don't you try to explain why there's a difference? I'm not posing it as an exercise in analogy making.

	14-02-2003 11:10									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by orange Well it's certainly hard to argue the overwhelmingly substantial evidence presented in this quote.

Ahem.

quote: The difference is there, it's obvious, and it's completely inexplicable to someone who chooses not to see it.

	14-02-2003 11:10									#99
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Impeachment is much different than criminal penalties. If you recall, Clinton NEVER was brought to court for perjury.

Yes, but he could have, correct? Besides, that's a whole 'nother story

quote: You could make a case he should have because his false testimony obstructed justice. That is why we have perjury, so you don't obstruct justice by lying.

I already did.

quote: Oh, and if marriage WAS a contract between two people, you'd have a HELL of a time getting a divorce... it'd be so close to impossible no one would ever do it.

I don't know about that...

	14-02-2003 11:11									#100
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The whole concept of marriage as a legal device is flawed beyond belief.

	14-02-2003 11:13									#101
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Why don't you try to explain why there's a difference? I'm not posing it as an exercise in analogy making.

I can't

But if that's the case, and that's your argument, I can easily say that lying could apply to all such things. No punishment is necessary as it simply violates a contract. And in the case of the police, there is no contract. Under oath I suppose the contract is really made with "God", so that is the only contract that is broken, yes?

	14-02-2003 11:14									#102
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Ahem. quote: The difference is there, it's obvious, and it's completely inexplicable to someone who chooses not to see it.

I don't understand this. I didn't post that, did I?

	14-02-2003 11:15									#103
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Asher The whole concept of marriage as a legal device is flawed beyond belief.

Asher!!

: points while touching nose :

	14-02-2003 11:21									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by orange Asher!! : points while touching nose :

I'm not sure if that was defending your statements.

I just don't think the government should have anything at all to do with marriage, that's a religious thing.

I think civil unions should be allowed under law, for reasons such as taxes, but there's no reason the law should retrict this to, say, between a man and a woman. It should be allowed between man/woman, man/man, woman/woman... But that's a civil union, and certainly doesn't warrant any criminal punishment if someone cheats on their SO or anything. Civil suits are fair game...

	14-02-2003 11:22									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: why would infidelity be grounds for a divorce, a breaking of that contract

Because the contract with the state is wholly terminable by the parties at will. It isn't bound in stone, well since recently it hasn't.

quote: I don't know about that...

If it were a contract between two people (in the sense of a legally recognized contract and not a political contract), then whenever one party said "I want a divorce", the other could claim anticipatory repudiation, and claim the first party was in material breach. Since the marriage to the one person is unique, the best remedy is specific performance (ie, forcing the people to stay married). If you wanted monetary damages, you'd have to prove how much money you'd be losing in the future.

Marriage is different. In divorce it is usually 50/50. We know it is different and make it that way, so you won't have to jump through hoops nowadays to get divorced.

	14-02-2003 11:24									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

hehe, no no, i was just saying that you read my mind. When I first got into this discussion I had two things in mind:

A) Adultery sucks ass and really isn't regarded as a bad thing anymore. And I find that to be a bad thing.

and B) 'Marriage' is an odd thing for the state to have any hand in. Perhaps by showing the flaws in punishment or lack there of for Adultery it can be shown that there are flaws in the whole system.

I think Provost Harrison said it on the first page too

	14-02-2003 11:27									#107
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The reasoning for the state to have a hand in marriage is said to be promotion of the institution, so that children have more than one parent.

Of course this presents problems with some people's restrictions on that institution to certain people.

	14-02-2003 11:29									#108
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Because the contract with the state is wholly terminable by the parties at will. It isn't bound in stone, well since recently it hasn't.

So adultery is as good a reason as "The old cow has put on a few"?

quote: If it were a contract between two people (in the sense of a legally recognized contract and not a political contract), then whenever one party said "I want a divorce", the other could claim anticipatory repudiation, and claim the first party was in material breach. Since the marriage to the one person is unique, the best remedy is specific performance (ie, forcing the people to stay married). If you wanted monetary damages, you'd have to prove how much money you'd be losing in the future.

If both parties agreed, though it would be simple...

quote: Marriage is different. In divorce it is usually 50/50. We know it is different and make it that way, so you won't have to jump through hoops nowadays to get divorced.

What do you mean by the part in bold?

	14-02-2003 11:30									#109
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Of course this presents problems with some people's restrictions on that institution to certain people.

Which should be determined on an individual basis anyway, yes?

	14-02-2003 11:45									#110
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I like the fact Texas juries get to sentence the convicted, so often I hear jurors complain that they would not have convicted someone if they knew the judge was going to send the accused up the river for 40 years for some stupid violation. But I'm a bit puzzled, some of the people at Waco got 30 to 40 years for gun law violations, but that sentence came from the judge, not the jury. How did that happen in Texas? Was it federal court where juries don't get to make the sentence?

	14-02-2003 11:47									#111
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Berzerker - not sure actually, but there are definitely pros and cons to having juries decide. That's a very tough debate, I don't think I've ever fully made my mind up on it. Wow...yeah I'm really on the fence on that one...both have signifigant flaws.

	14-02-2003 16:11									#112
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I say, bring back the old damp and cold dungeons, and throw them there. Or make them medical quinea pigs. Something usefull.

	14-02-2003 16:43									#113
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Whoa, this discussion evolved fast. I live in the wrong bloody timezone.

Anyway, if you ask me (and you dont ), there is the question what to do with her, and the question whether or not he deserved it.
She killed a person for cheating on her. Now I know that must be frustrating, but taking someones life... I think the problem with such murders (and the 3 teens and the waitress murder too) is general lack of respect for a persons life. I mean, there is so much killing going on everywhere you turn, that people just loose their compass too easily. Our children are growing up in a violent world and that world is telling them that its OK. And if she gets executed, that sends the wrong message again.

Did he deserve to die? I guess not. But who am I to judge. Did he deserve to get his dong cut off? Maybe. Who's to say. Maybe she was lousy in bed and he wanted some real action? If reasons like that mattered that much, why not divorce her?

I definately wouldn't want to be in that jury...

	14-02-2003 17:04									#114
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I don't see why it would be hard to be in that jury, seems like a cut and dry case to me. Women runs over man five times, just to make sure he's dead mind you. She commited murder, jail for life or the death penalty. Seems simple to me.

As for the bobbit case with the 'dong' cutting this one is pretty simple also. Women cuts off husband's dong- admits to doing it. Sounds like guilty to me. Some people say he deserved it because he abused her and commited marital rape. This is silly for a number of reasons. If he did commit a crime against her unless she was acting in self defence by cutting his dong off in his sleep then she is also commiting a crime. She has redress through the legal system for any crimes he may have commited. Mainly I have no sympathy for her because John Bobbit did go to trial on the charges she accused him of and John was found not guilty on all charges. In the world of feminazism I suppose that it hardly matters that John was found not guilty. He must be a rapist and abuser because a women said it's true and women can't lie. Damn the patriarchal phallocentric courts! It amazes me how far so many people will go to support criminals that commit any number of crimes from murder to infanticide as long as the criminal is a women.

Recently here in Alberta a women left her baby to starve to death in his crib while she continued on her daily duties. She would talk on the phone, do her chores, etc... This wasn't even a so-called 'crime of passion' this women knew the whole time she was going about her regular routine that her kid was starving to death. After a few days she went up changed the babies diaper and clothes then called 911. She was convicted and found guilty. Her sentence---a conditional sentence to spend 9 months at her mother's house then probation after, not even jail time. I figure to a feminazi though this murderer of babies must have just commited a late term abortion and hey the kid was a boy so one less patriarch in the world. I wouldn't be suprised if the judge was a hardcore feminazi as many are around here.

	14-02-2003 17:21									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Uhmmm, my comment on not wanting to be in that jury might be because i dont know all the details. Does the JURY say what the punishment should be or someone else? What I wanted to say is that I wouldn't like to determine what she gets.

As for the guilty part, sure I agree with you.

	14-02-2003 17:22									#116
	Increase Your PM Length

It's despicable how moral relativists try to absolve people who have committed heinous crimes. I don't care if some one had a bad childhood; if you do the crime then you do the time.

	14-02-2003 17:26									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by SirTweek Recently here in Alberta a women left her baby to starve to death in his crib while she continued on her daily duties. She would talk on the phone, do her chores, etc... This wasn't even a so-called 'crime of passion' this women knew the whole time she was going about her regular routine that her kid was starving to death. After a few days she went up changed the babies diaper and clothes then called 911. She was convicted and found guilty. Her sentence---a conditional sentence to spend 9 months at her mother's house then probation after, not even jail time. I figure to a feminazi though this murderer of babies must have just commited a late term abortion and hey the kid was a boy so one less patriarch in the world. I wouldn't be suprised if the judge was a hardcore feminazi as many are around here.

Have you heard of the concept of post natal depression.

Does her behaviour sound normal.

This has **** all to do with abortion. It is a very sad case and you should try showing compassion for her her baby and her family

	14-02-2003 17:39									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Post natal depression does exist but it is often used frivolously as an excuse of last resort. That woman from North Carolina who drowned her 2.5 year old twin sons got a bunch of femanazis to use the "post natal depression" excuse in court.

Every psychologist in the world who wasn't employed by NOW said 2.5 years was way out of the window for post natal depression. For the extremists all that matters when a woman murders her children or her husband is that she is "striking back for all womankind".

	14-02-2003 17:42									#119
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger Have you heard of the concept of post natal depression. Does her behaviour sound normal. This has **** all to do with abortion. It is a very sad case and you should try showing compassion for her her baby and her family

It would be impossible to show compassion for her baby since the baby is dead. I do have compassion for what the baby must have gone through laying in the crib in his own feces and urine, screaming at the top of his lungs for someone to come and feed and change him. When I read this story my first emotion was to cry as I can only imagine if this happened to my own son the suffering he would go through. My second emotion was extreme anger at the light sentence she recieved at the very least she should be sterilized.

I have no compassion for her at all. When my son was born I took leave from my work for 9 months to stay at home to take care of him. In Alberta (the same province this women lives in) a nurse comes to your house at least three times after you have a child to check on you and the baby. Numerous pamphlets are given to you describing post partum depression, what to do about it and the diffrent places you can call or go to for help. When you take your child in for the required immunizations they are required to ask you questions about your mental health and how you are faring. When I took my son in for immunization the nurse said it was kind of diffrent asking a guy the questions since it never happened to her before, she also told me that she thought depression can strike a father after a child's birth just as much as a mother and it was a good idea to ask father's the questions. With so much help available this murderer could have picked up the phone at any time to get help if she was overwhelmed, she didn't.

	14-02-2003 17:47									#120
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Daz Uhmmm, my comment on not wanting to be in that jury might be because i dont know all the details. Does the JURY say what the punishment should be or someone else? What I wanted to say is that I wouldn't like to determine what she gets. As for the guilty part, sure I agree with you.

Yeah I understand your point. Where I live the jury just determines guilt and the judge does the sentence. I'd hate to be the judge with so many political forces pulling at me and having to decide what sentence to give. This case could make you a very unpopular judge.