Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[innocentbystander]

IB, I didn't answer your question because it is as pointless as having a conversation with a pareot who has been trained to say, "WOMEN SHOULDN"T VOTE! WOMEN SHOULDN"T VOTE! THREAT POINT! THREAT POINT!"

But we must have mercy even on trained parrots. So, pointless as it is, and too keep you from further embarrassing yourself and other Christians, I'll answer it.

The Bible says, wives obey your husbands. But it also says, husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church (i.e., with total self-sacrifice). It is a two-way covenant. Most of the pseudo Christian counselors out there who obsess on the first part completely downplay the second part. You literally said a wife should do "whatever her husband says." Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You and your fellow loons want to give a total blank check to husbands who can be very sinful and use it for their own sinful pleasure, all justified under the all-important wifely submission clause.

It is not a submission clause. It is God's law.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bib ... r-Husband/

1st Peter Chapter 3, verses 1 through 22 basically stipulates that the wife must do whatever he says. SUBMIT. That is what God wants. Your example is just feminist hooey.

She is his property. He OWNS her, he owns her the minute her father gives her away in the marriage ceremony (father is giving his property over to his now son-in-law.) Her husband is her master. She is her slave. That is a Biblical marriage. Because...

God provides THE LAW => Christ comes to fulfill it and save us sinners => Man OBEYS God's law => Wife OBEYS husband => Children honor their parents

That is the hierarchy.

Most Christian wives won't mind submitting to a husband who attempts to practice the whole biblical equation. But Christian wives have every reason to refuse to submit to only one half of the equation (the wifely submission half) as is commonly peddled by theological and pseudo counseling quacks.

No they do NOT. If they refuse to submit they are not doing as God has commanded of them. And YOU are doing a terrible thing because your logic says that God is wrong, His rules for women are wrong. Shame on you.

That snake oil of biblical half-truth that you peddle causes incalculable sorrow and sadness in Christian homes that partake of it.

The sadness is created by feminism. It is feminism that has given us the horror that is threatpoint (a link up above that you still have not clicked on.) You are trying to reconcile feminism with the Bible. You can't. It is impossible. God's Law and feminism are at a complete and total impasse.

[innocentbystander]

He hasn't answered the question whether he is, or ever has been, married or not.

Wonder why.

I am married (very happily in fact.) That is all the personal information (on my marriage) that you will get from me. I am not the least bit interested in knowing if you are married or not.

[innocentbystander]

Threatpoint is a legitimate legal policy

Legitimate??? By what standards?

Take a look... all of you.

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/threatpoint/

We get unilateral and no-fault divorce laws because women vote. As of 2010, all 50 states have unilateral divorce. It is legitimate by the standards of state legal policy, NOT legitimate by God's Law. Threatpoint undermines God's Law.

[AlabamAlum]

Some blog, by a guy who goes by the handle "Dalrock", is your source to claim legitimacy?

lmao...awesome.

[innocentbystander]

Some blog, by a guy who goes by the handle "Dalrock", is your source to claim legitimacy?

lmao...awesome.

Well actually AA, what would be even MORE AWESOME would be if you could read that article he wrote on threatpoint and cite something (anything) that you disagree with and offer your source to back up your disagreement. That would be awesome. Until then, best you not laugh about this because our marriage rate (in this nation) is dropping like a rock.

[Jungle Rat]

I thought IB was married all along. She must be retarded.

[AlabamAlum]

I read it. Dalrock's blog is 10 pounds of crap stuffed in a 5 pound bag. The sources are popish, contrived, circular, overreaching, and based on silliness - as is your posting of this blog to add legitimacy to what you believe.

My point was you cannot seriously expect

[innocentbystander]

I thought IB was married all along. She must be retarded.

Rat, given what happened to you (at the merciless hands of your ex-wife and the meat grinder that is our family court system) I figured you would be one of the people on this very board who would be most amused (and in agreement) with the threatpoint linkie I provided...

[innocentbystander]

I read it. Dalrock's blog is 10 pounds of crap stuffed in a 5 pound bag. The sources are popish, contrived, circular, overreaching, and based on silliness - as is your posting of this blog to add legitimacy to what you believe.

Great, so in those 10 pounds of crap stuffed into a 5 pound bag, would you please cite something (anything) of that "crap" that you believe to be popish, contrived, circular, overreaching, and based on silliness and explain why (with research and links of your own) to support your hypothesis? If you can't, then you are doing no more than what Professor Tiger did.

Dalrock provided links and data points, he even provided the studies that explain the concept of "threatpoint" (quoted people in their studies) and why it is so important to marriage law and feminism. You have provided nothing other than your own rhetoric.

[AlabamAlum]

I did not offer a hypothesis. And, other than telling you that his links didn't appear to be peer reviewed or replicated, and that the leap he took to use them to justify his conclusion was overreaching, I plan to devote zero time dancing to the tune you're playing.

[innocentbystander]

I did not offer a hypothesis. And, other than telling you that his links didn't appear to be peer reviewed or replicated, and that the leap he took to use them to justify his conclusion was overreaching, I plan to devote zero time dancing to the tune you're playing.

I didn't think you would. In fact I knew you wouldn't play that tune. That is why I challenged you and you backed down (probably because you KNOW that in this sense at least, I am right and so is Dalrock.)

[AlabamAlum]

No, because trying to educate an idiot who is convinced he is right, no matter how wrong he is, will bear no fruit. So, continue saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote and that they should mindlessly obey, while touting the blogs by "Dalrock", and I will continue to lampoon and ridicule your room temp IQ from my spot here - who knows, if the mood strikes, I may even post a counter blog by Iguana or Skaterboy2002.

[sardis]

The reality is that men fair better from divorce than women in most cases. Divorce law, whatever they be at the time, does little to change that fact.

[Owlman]

I did look at the sight. Not much of a critical study. Selective and easily rebutted.

example: "The mechanism examined in this paper is a change in divorce regime and we interpret the evidence collected here as an empirical endorsement of the idea that family law provides a potent tool for affecting outcomes within families."

This suggest that family law, since the beginning of this country wasn't a tool for affecting outcomes. It has always been that way and for majority of this country. It lead to women selectively getting the children in the divorce but with men keeping all the money. It also suggest that divorce is something new (those bad feminists). This is hardly the case. Divorce has been around since before the start of this country.

Pretty basic hit piece. Exaggerate the side you disagree with, limit the arguments to the most extreme and then rebut the extreme using opinion that don't stand up to critical study.

Most of his sources are his own blog. The one that actually is a study finds an improvement with women, specifically with the decrease in suicide in women and the decrease in domestic violence. Of course, with the obey no matter what crowd you run with, I suspect that if he beats her, she deserved it.

[Jungle Rat]

Meat grinder? She's on welfare and I just bought a rehab project because Im bored. Quit being a fuck head.

[AlabamAlum]

I did look at the sight. Not much of a critical study. Selective and easily rebutted.

example: "The mechanism examined in this paper is a change in divorce regime and we interpret the evidence collected here as an empirical endorsement of the idea that family law provides a potent tool for affecting outcomes within families."

This suggest that family law, since the beginning of this country wasn't a tool for affecting outcomes. It has always been that way and for majority of this country. It lead to women selectively getting the children in the divorce but with men keeping all the money. It also suggest that divorce is something new (those bad feminists). This is hardly the case. Divorce has been around since before the start of this country.

Pretty basic hit piece. Exaggerate the side you disagree with, limit the arguments to the most extreme and then rebut the extreme using opinion that don't stand up to critical study.

Most of his sources are his own blog. The one that actually is a study finds an improvement with women, specifically with the decrease in suicide in women and the decrease in domestic violence. Of course, with the obey no matter what crowd you run with, I suspect that if he beats her, she deserved it.

That sounds good and all, but I think I'm gonna wait and see what Skaterboy2002 says on his blog.

[Owlman]

oops. site

[AlabamAlum]

Skaterboy2002 would have never let a typo slip.

[Owlman]

probably. I can't skate.

[Professor Tiger]

Dalrock.. Dalrock... I think I bought a set of spark plugs from him at his store a few years ago.

I wonder where Megaskeet420 comes down on this issue. Dalrock is an eminent authority for sure. Adding no less a giant in the field than Megakeet420 would settle this dispute once and for all. After all, he has a blog and everything. I'll try contacting Megaskeet, but last I heard he hadn't paid his cell phone or internet bills.