Really? Well we don't really do that anymore now do we? More to the point, since you are an attorney you already know the following:DooKSucks wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:17 pmYou need to be involuntarily committed.innocentbystander wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 1:28 pmJordan Peterson nails it in his "marriage is self-imposed slavery" argument, best argument for ending no-fault-divorce I have ever heard.
You want your kids to wind up like you? 50+ years old and divorced with no continuity of narrative?Jordan Peterson wrote:If the possibility of divorce is open, that makes you free. Yeah, you want to be free eh? Really? So you can't predict anything, that is what you are after? Its a vow. And it says look I know that you are trouble. Me too. So we wont leave (each other.) No matter what happens. Well that is a hell of a vow but that's why its a vow. That is why you take in front of a bunch of people. Its supposed to be a sacred act. What's the alternative? Everything is mutable and changeable at any moment. Well go ahead, live your life like that and see what your life is like when you are 50. Jesus, its dismal. Two or three divorces. Your family is fragmented. You've got no continuity of narrative. And its not good for the kids.
Yeah rat, women are property of their husbands. That is why the father gives his daughter to the son-in-law in the wedding ceremony, its a transfer of ownership. And you know what? Only a feminist woman would NOT want to be her husband's property. And you know why? Because men like things. And generally speaking, men take great care of things that they own. So a woman who wants to be treated special, she really wants her husband to own her. That is what makes her special. I have actually worked with women who openly admitted to me (after giving it careful thought) that they like being OWNED by their husbands.
What do you call a woman that a man just "rents", rat?
Antifa is deadly dangerous. How many antifa were involuntarily committed after they burned down buildings and city blocks? None. And if anyone had tried to have them institutionalized, would you have defended their mayhem and violence? I'll bet you would have if their check was large enough.See if your intention was to have me committed, you should have kept me in Wisconsin where the arrest record, the video tape, the eye witness accounts of my inappropriate behavior would have jurisdictional relevance. I have no criminal record in state of New York and the crucial, determining criteria for involuntary commitment is danger. Is the defendant a danger to himself or others? Now you think you got the horses for that? Because the last place you want to see me is in court.
DS, not only are you a shitty person for busting up marriages, you aren't even smart enough about the law to know that without playing the "danger" card, you'll never have me (or anyone) committed involuntarily. Saying wives should be the property of their husbands (something that even some women agree with) is dangerous to no one. You are the one who is making the threat. That means the only person who is dangerous here, is you.
Practice another form of law counsellor. I don't care which one, anything other than what you are doing now. I don't care if you start chasing ambulances. Stop destroying marriages, you shit sucking vampire.