The Goat Pen

Oh, I almost forgot...

THREAT POINT!!!!

See AA & Tiger? This is how you critique a point that you might disagree with. Owlman took some time to think about this and made a lucid argument. The only problem with his lucid argument is he ignored the entire concept of threatpoint.

Owlman wrote: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.

No sir. Family law most certainly was NOT always that way. You are making the grand mistake for confusing divorce with unilateral divorce (the leverage used to create threatpoint.) Take away the unilateral part from divorce, and you have no threatpoint.

Do you even know what unilateral divorce is and how it differs from ordinary divorce? Because if you don't, then you will never understand threatpoint.

Owlman wrote: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.

Divorce has been around since the beginning of this country. Unilateral divorce and no-fault divorce? NO! That has most certainly NOT been around since the start of this country. Its only been around since Jan 1st, 1970 when then California Governor Ronald Reagan signed into state law, unilateral and no-fault divorce. Thus changing forever something that is supposed to be sacred and a moral good to a horrible gamble being made by the one who most wants to maintain the marriage vows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce

Owlman wrote: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.

Well you didn't actually debate threatpoint. I'm not exactly sure that you (or any of you) fully understand it.

Owlman wrote: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.

If he beats her, she does not need no-fault divorce or unilateral divorce law to protect her. There is actual FAULT there now isn't there? Moreover, if she OBEYS him (does whatever he tells her to) then why oh why would the most violent man in the world want to risk all that by hitting her (and thus damaging his property?)

I did critique it. I said many of the same things he did - a couple with just a bit of different terminology - something that I'm sure you recognize from your research classes.

And like I said yesterday, I knew it would do no good. I knew that you'd have some long-winded reply on how your crazy and deluded ramblings were right.


I love to argue, to debate, but I will only engage people I respect, like, or trust on the internet - arguing with anyone who is unable or unwilling to debate honestly, is a waste of time.

innocentbystander wrote:See AA & Tiger? This is how you critique a point that you might disagree with. Owlman took some time to think about this and made a lucid argument. The only problem with his lucid argument is he ignored the entire concept of threatpoint.

Owlman wrote: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.

No sir. Family law most certainly was NOT always that way. You are making the grand mistake for confusing divorce with unilateral divorce (the leverage used to create threatpoint.) Take away the unilateral part from divorce, and you have no threatpoint.

Bullcrap IB. Family law has always picked winners and losers in this country. The fact that it is a little different now then it was before doesn't not mean that it didn't always favor a one party over another. If you want to say that it isn't the same as it was 250 years ago, that' part is true. But the fact is family law does pick winners, not and forever. Even the idea that the oldest inherits (as in some societies) but the youngest doesn't is family law. As for threatpoint, it is a term art that has no meaning, is made up by some blogger who not only is wrong in the way he discusses the law, he doesn't understand the law at all. He sounds like a bitter divorced man (who probably ended up with a lot more money than the woman and child he left)

According to your ilk, the guy who assassinated the poor family all to find out where his ex-wife should still be married, because he didn't want the divorce. Council that 15 year old shot in the head (luckily grazed) while here 4 siblings and parents were murdered all because their parent's cousin had to gall to divorce her crazy husband.

And by the way, it is not unilateral divorce. It's no-fault divorce. A party for years could get a divorce for cause.

Her and the children's fault. Shouldn't have threatened to leave her. Anyway, a man can't rape his wife. If she'd just shut up and did exactly what he wanted, this wouldn't have happened. She deserved it.

http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article ... 604525.php
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A Utah police officer who killed his wife, their two children, his mother-in-law and then himself received text messages from his wife just hours earlier threatening to leave him and take their kids and confronting him for raping her, new documents show....

You're so close to convincing him, I can feel it.

The whole reason Jesus was anti-divorce was because Jewish men in that day would do stuff like:

*divorce barren wives so that they wouldn't have to support them
*divorce women they were obligated to marry by law (their brother's widow, etc.)
*divorce mentally ill wives
*declare wives as "rebellious" and divorce them when they got old or menopausal

They would manipulate the law to persecute women (women did not have the right to sue for divorce).

But it is antithetical to the concept of grace that God would condemn a person to a life of misery because they chose to marry the wrong person - particularly those who were in arranged marriages or married when they were too young to make an informed decision.

Get ready Minnesota. Monday may be the coldest July 14 in at least 128 years.

If the forecast numbers are right Minnesota may see record cold temps for Monday July 14. The Twin Cities will likely tie or break the all time record for the coldest daytime maximum temps on Monday of 68 degrees — set way back in 1884.

" Like JD I use Burbank and Oakland instead of SFO."

SFO is a great airport...

From the blog IB linked:

"The switch to a unilateral divorce regime redistributes power in a marriage, giving power to the person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage."

That seems like a good change to me. Nobody should be forced to stay in a marriage if they don't want to be. That person should have more power than the person trying to make them do something against their will...

From the comments section:

"The second amplifies why women are unhappier in marriage. They are married to men who are fearful of having their lives destroyed, their children taken from them and their assets squandered. They give in to wives, hoping to make them happy. Nothing irritates a wife more than her husband overtly trying to make her happy."

hedge wrote:From the comments section:

"The second amplifies why women are unhappier in marriage. They are married to men who are fearful of having their lives destroyed, their children taken from them and their assets squandered. They give in to wives, hoping to make them happy. Nothing irritates a wife more than her husband overtly trying to make her happy."

That gave me a nice laugh. What a wife needs is husband who will make her miserable.

Owlman wrote:

hedge wrote:From the comments section:

"The second amplifies why women are unhappier in marriage. They are married to men who are fearful of having their lives destroyed, their children taken from them and their assets squandered. They give in to wives, hoping to make them happy. Nothing irritates a wife more than her husband overtly trying to make her happy."

That gave me a nice laugh. What a wife needs is husband who will make her miserable.

I'm not sure that ANY of you actually know what a wife really needs, particularly if that comment made you laugh.

Owlman wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:No sir. Family law most certainly was NOT always that way. You are making the grand mistake for confusing divorce with unilateral divorce (the leverage used to create threatpoint.) Take away the unilateral part from divorce, and you have no threatpoint.

Bullcrap IB. Family law has always picked winners and losers in this country. The fact that it is a little different now

I stopped reading right there. And you should have stopped WRITING right there. There is no point writing anything else because you yourself admit that it is a little different right now.

How is it so different? The difference IS the threatpoint.

Unilateral divorce was created for women to keep the man in line. If he does not make her happy she can BREAK the marriage contract at any time for any reason (or no reason) and go to people like you (if you are a family law attorney) and extract cash and prizes from the husband. That's the law. And it wasn't always this way.

I don't want to hear about winners or losers. And I don't want to hear about any more incidents from you about men who murder family members as a reason to support current divorce laws. The fact that those men are evil does not mean that ALL men are. Marriage is a contract that is easier to break (at any moment) than a car lease contract. That is a fact. And the fact that it can be done unilaterally truly creates the threatpoint. The fact that there IS threatpoint means that there isn't really any contract at all (which is why people throw such large extravagant weddings in the $25,000+ range, to make it feel like they are actually doing something.)

Owlman wrote:As for threatpoint, it is a term art that has no meaning, is made up by some blogger who not only is wrong in the way he discusses the law, he doesn't understand the law at all. He sounds like a bitter divorced man (who probably ended up with a lot more money than the woman and child he left)

Dalrock is a happily married man who loves marriage, loves his wife, loves his children, and hates the divorce meat grinder system that has created threatpoint. He has very accurately described why we have unilateral divorce. The best thing you did was to NOT disagree with his premise.

When feminists come to him (a happily married man) and ask him WHY he is so enraged with divorce theft and unilateral divorce (since he is happy) his standard response is the following:

The question is not why am I angry about unilateral divorce. The question is instead, why aren't YOU angry about it?

Because here is the kicker Owl, all the feminists that post on his blog and do like what YOU just did (you cited examples of murderers while feminists cite examples of men who profited from unilateral divorce to show that both sides can do it) not ONE of them are willing to elect legislators to change the divorce laws back to remove unilateral divorce. They are perfectly fine keeping a necessary evil going because they know (deep down) that giving women the power in marriage (through threatpoint) is to them a MORAL GOOD for society....

...that is where the feminism has taken us. And you have swallowed it down with all your blue pills.

Owlman wrote:And by the way, it is not unilateral divorce. It's no-fault divorce. A party for years could get a divorce for cause.

Unilateral divorce is the threatpoint. And why? Because either party can exit the contract and the other party can do nothing to stop it. All they can do is delay it by fighting it but the marriage will end. That is half of the "threat."

The other half of the "threat" is the cash and prizes. Before, if you wanted to leave a marriage that the other person wanted to keep, you left with nothing but the clothes on your back. You don't get the kids, the house, or any money. You walk away with nothing. Now a woman can keep the house, get the kids, collect alimony (for life) and child support.

THUS you have threatpoint. So if you say "I do" you damn well better keep her happy for life or she may invoke her threat.

No-fault-divorce means that you don't have to show (to a judge) just cause for breaking the marriage. You want out, and your wife wants out, that is it, you are out. Nobody's fault as there was no adultery, no abuse, no addictions, nothing. But prior to being able to do that unilaterally the judge could prevent the divorce if one member in the marriage (either the husband or the wife) wasn't willing to end the marriage. It is the unilateral part that really creates a meaningful threat thus destroying the contact of marriage.

Owl, I'll close with this, the result of threatpoint.

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/03 ... -a-strike/

A strike can be negotiated with; offer them a bit more and they’ll get back to work. Better yet, offer a few of them a side deal and break the cohesion. True strikes require moral or legal force to avoid this sort of peeling off. The problem for the modern West is far worse. What we are seeing isn’t men throwing a collective temper tantrum, noble or otherwise. What we are seeing is men responding to incentives. Even worse, inertia has delayed the response to incentives, which means much more adjustment is likely on the way.

Why "man up" and get married if there is nothing in it for you? Might as well live in your parent's basement, wake up a noon, smoke weed all day, play video games and surf porn until 2AM. That is where we are at now....

"I don't want to hear about winners or losers."

Considering which side of that conversation you inevitably occupy, I can understand your feelings about this...

"The other half of the "threat" is the cash and prizes. Before, if you wanted to leave a marriage that the other person wanted to keep, you left with nothing but the clothes on your back. You don't get the kids, the house, or any money. You walk away with nothing. Now a woman can keep the house, get the kids, collect alimony (for life) and child support."

You act like the old law was the same for both sides, but it wasn't. The man could get divorced and still keep half of the marital assets and pay half of earnings to her if he instigated the divorce. The wife got nothing if they instigated. It is a level playing field now.

BTW, great commercial by Guinness during half-time of the World Cup with the reserved table and beer.

We are Threatpoint and we are the Four Horseman of Musical Death. Voted Band #1 at Stuarts Smokehouse 3/14/2014!!

Red-neck, racist teabaggers had enough....not waiting for the MSM to tell their story.


[youtube]J9ixOsjut3E[/youtube]