Thank you EJsGirl and everyone else for pointing that out to him too. Not all men (or women) are like that of course, but there are enough to take significant notice. Also, sometimes the events that help to perpetuate the change are unforeseeable. Loss of loved one or livelihood, debilitation, long-term illness, other stressful situations that one might not be able to cope with (like a special needs child, bankruptcy, you name it). So to make it sound like there is always evidence up front that the woman should be held responsible for is ludicrous at best and willfully ignorant at worst.
Oh, and upon re-reading, I see that my previous comment could be construed as sexist or homophobic. My utmost apologies. I had no intention whatsoever of only making my case against one rather than the other. I just got lost while responding to his specific dig and never brought the train back full circle into the station. Therefore that sentence should have also applied across the board, despite of sex or orientation.
Wonderful to know that in your bombastic, antiquated, misogynistic world that we’re allowed to take care of something for ourselves without relying on superior knowledge from our husbands or religion. God bless you kind sir. Should I salve your feet with luxuriant oils now or after I’ve fed you grapes while entertaining half-nude dancing girls?
You know my only goal in life is to serve your needs. Don’t worry your pretty little head. Mama has it all under control.
It should also be pointed out that most abusers (male or female) rarely start out as physically abusive. It frequently starts out as emotional and psychological abuse, and when the physical abuse finally begins, the victim frequently believes they are at fault for the abuse. There’s very little will to resist, because it has been pointed out, time and again, how worthless, stupid and deserving the victim is. People often ask “How could anyone stay in that?” without realizing just how low one’s self esteem and self worth are. It’s a horrible cycle, and it’s more than just physical.
Yup Maureen. It’s that little incrimentation from one step to the next (A to B to C, rather than A to L or something) that makes it more palatable and hard to get away from. Most people don’t start out as Manson (and not Marilyn either, although maybe he could be included), but perhaps like Scott Peterson or Susan Smith. At least, I hope not. The psychology isn’t all that hard to figure out or empathize with.
But apparently it might be for some folks. One can just never tell.
And as to me, I’m just a pussy cat. I promise. I just need lots of sleep, catnip and world domination. What else is there? Besides, I’m sure you couldn’t piss me off anyway. Do you come bearing lasagna and balls of string?
Actually this is a combination of two posts, one of them not mine. My hollerin’ Hubby is still in our lives & hopefully will remain so (that whole “death do us part” thing). We’re still working on the details.
Kel Varnsen’s whole personna might be a big whoosh. Either that, or he’s nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake.
After reading fessie’s thread I was about to Pit you myself, but I see Biggirl beat me to it.
Yes. Yes, that is exactly so.
My mother can attest to that. If she’d known he’d turn out like that, I wouldn’t be here to post this.
Kel Varnsen, you have offended everyone deeply. You have no hope of gaining anyone’s respect after this. So please, please just shut your fucking pie-hole. You are not funny. At all.
They overloaded a crane and toppled it. That’s funny, because if you look closely, you can account for everyone in the pictures and nobody got hurt, unless there were casualties in the white van since evacuated. The logos are in English, so this all happened where the industrial infrastructure could stand the loss of a crane. So Ha-Hah.
(even though I totally disagree with your position in this thread, props must be given for the appropriate use of a Spinal Tap reference).
But, frankly, I’ve gotta agree with most everyone else here. And ‘she should know’ he’s an abuser is just flat-out wrong. Some people are jerks, and jerks get married. Maybe some of those jerks get more jerkish and become abusive. How the hell is someone supposed to know ahead of time? You can’t, and you’re kidding yourself if you truly believe you could accurately identify future abusers.
What Eonwe said. Not to mention that a lot of these creeps start out like the kind of guys you WOULD take home to mother. They tend to be manipulative assholes who destroy what ever you have left of your own identity… so, while I understand that a woman can and should leave an abusive man, I won’t place the blame on her for having a really freakin’ hard time doing so, or for having made warped choices while under the abuser’s “control”.
Seems to me you’ve come up with a new logical fallacy. We could call it the “Corollary of the No True Scotsman Argument”.
If you really stand by your statement above, and considering that you have no evidence that Kel Varnsen - Latex Division subscribes to the generally accepted criteria to label someone a fundie, than I can only deduce that you have charged Kel Varnsen - Latex Division with being a troll, and I’m sure that I don’t have to remind you that that is against the rules.
A protestant who believes in the five fundamentals. The sole authority of scripture, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of the death of Christ, the physical resurrection of Christ, and the second coming of Christ to judge the world.
I would assume any subset of the fundamentalist segment of Christianity would have to subscribe to all five fundamentals. I would be surprised if there is any evidence for **Kel Varnsen - Latex Division ** having accepted even one of these doctrines.
You’re not a commie just because you like socialized medicine.
But I think you’d agree that most people are unaware of the specifics of those five fundamentals. I think a strong argument can be made that “generally accepted” could mean either “generally accepted among the population as a whole” or “generally accepted by fundamentalists.” I’m not going to speak for Tom~ of course, but I suspect he meant the former. Most dictionaries, for example, don’t discuss those points.
And then there’s the issue of whether or not most self-describing fundamentalists even understand that set of criteria. It’s pretty clear to me that the term has changed considerably since 1909.
