tami-chan Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 This is really disturbing. Some people actually advocate killing. My goodness, really? You would give up everything you have because somebody cheated on you? LOL..wow...I mean...grow a backbone, buy some self esteem and dump the cheater and replace her with someone better! C'mon, she's just one person...if you really believe you are better than her-then be better than her.
Kari Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 I saw this story on the television the other night. It breaks my heart to see that there are people who could do such things. I would never be able to harm an innocent child. It's even more frighting to me as that story is from my area!
Taramere Posted May 17, 2011 Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) You can read here part of the testimony from a woman in the province of Quebec who cheated on her husband, and her husband on a ultimate act of revenge decided to kill their 2 children aged 5 and 3, while himself attempting to kill himself (and missed). He is on trial for the murder of his 2 children. It is a heartwrenching story http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hKDXzRlxWeLBWK9Mf7vDQooLoA-g?docId=6765696 Awful story. I think there are some people who are so high up on the narcissism scale that they regard their family members as objects. Extensions of themselves rather than as people in their own right. Possessions they are entitled to abuse or even kill. nothing is civil at all about the evil commited by adulterers, esp totally unremorseful ones. Convicted felons are more acceptable to me than adulterers; at least the police or I can shoot them So your perception of how acceptable/unacceptable behaviour is relates whether or not you feel able to exert some control in the situation. You, and others like you, believe criminal law should be developed...not to be proportionate and objective, but to accommodate your personal anxieties and frustrations about not being able to control other adults' sexual behaviour. If you start defining sex as a crime because of the impact that two consenting adults having sex in private has on a third party, then that opens up a path towards sex outside of marriage being criminalised. As happens in some countries, but I think most people in the West regard that as a primitive, oppressive system which panders to unhealthy control freakery. You cannot criminalise every piece of human behaviour that causes you emotional pain. The correct response is to either terminate your relationship with the deceitful person - or, if neither of you want that to happen, to try to come to terms with the deceit, and work out rules and boundaries to minimise the chance of it occurring again. Edited May 17, 2011 by Taramere
John Michael Kane Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 I got ya. Of course you know for a fact she was neglectful as a parent, right? Obviously she was if she cheated on her husband and went out clubbing instead of being mature. and thus that totally JUSTIFIES the BS murdering his kids. I love the double standard...nay...the hypocrisy ! No one is trying to justify what he did. That's only you. I am not the one justifying murder, but we know who does ! That's so funny.
luvbun80 Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 What a terrible story. And I must say, the prospect that anyone would even attempt to compare the selfish pursuit of pleasure at the detriment of others' feelings, and the savage murdering of 2 innocent children, is chilling to say the least.
John Michael Kane Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 What a terrible story. And I must say, the prospect that anyone would even attempt to compare the selfish pursuit of pleasure at the detriment of others' feelings, Oh yea it's a selfish "pleasure" alright. Along with the sick deception, possibilities of child paternity fraud, and risks of diseases that can eat up one's genitals.
Darren Taylor Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 Oh yea it's a selfish "pleasure" alright. Along with the sick deception, possibilities of child paternity fraud, and risks of diseases that can eat up one's genitals. Way to purposely remove this part of the post to push your agenda: nd the savage murdering of 2 innocent children, is chilling to say the least.
tami-chan Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 Obviously she was if she cheated on her husband and went out clubbing instead of being mature. Oh yes, of course because she was not allowed to socialize with her friends! How dare she leave those kids alone in the house fending for themselves... No one is trying to justify what he did. That's only you. Oh? how did I do that? ..you need to just stop dex, you are not making sense, bud.
John Michael Kane Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 Oh yes, of course because she was not allowed to socialize with her friends! How dare she leave those kids alone in the house fending for themselves... Exactly! See? You're getting it! Oh? how did I do that? ..you need to just stop dex, you are not making sense, bud. Neither are you, "bud".
Windsurf66 Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 Awful story. I think there are some people who are so high up on the narcissism scale that they regard their family members as objects. Extensions of themselves rather than as people in their own right. Possessions they are entitled to abuse or even kill. So your perception of how acceptable/unacceptable behaviour is relates whether or not you feel able to exert some control in the situation. You, and others like you, believe criminal law should be developed...not to be proportionate and objective, but to accommodate your personal anxieties and frustrations about not being able to control other adults' sexual behaviour. If you start defining sex as a crime because of the impact that two consenting adults having sex in private has on a third party, then that opens up a path towards sex outside of marriage being criminalised. As happens in some countries, but I think most people in the West regard that as a primitive, oppressive system which panders to unhealthy control freakery. You cannot criminalise every piece of human behaviour that causes you emotional pain. The correct response is to either terminate your relationship with the deceitful person - or, if neither of you want that to happen, to try to come to terms with the deceit, and work out rules and boundaries to minimise the chance of it occurring again. Not really u are way out of point...its not about personal control, its abt the severe damage that cheaters cause....and about my personal preferences that i would rather deal with a felon than a cheater..... "You cannot..." , "The correct response..." by the way, are you God, Jesus, Buddha or the devil, gracing Loveshack to tell people what is right and what is correct? if you are, prove it to me
Windsurf66 Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 of the bolded above. I hope you do, good luck!!!! Thanks. But i don't really need luck, don't believe in it
Taramere Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) Not really u are way out of point...its not about personal control, its abt the severe damage that cheaters cause....and about my personal preferences that i would rather deal with a felon than a cheater..... "You cannot..." , "The correct response..." by the way, are you God, Jesus, Buddha or the devil, gracing Loveshack to tell people what is right and what is correct? if you are, prove it to me No. The law tells us what is right and correct. I'm not God, Jesus, Buddha or the devil...but I have some understanding of how and why Western criminal law has evolved in the way it has. The way for me to prove that to you would be to have an in depth discussion about jurisprudence. To participate in such a discussion, you would have to be capable of shifting away from your emotional stance towards a rational position. What you're indicating with your posts is that you're only really interested in how you feel about the business of marital infidelity versus criminal behaviour. In other words, looking at the issue in a measured and rational way is not as appealing as it is to be locked in a dramatic "cheaters make me feel worse than criminals do" stance. It's good to be a human being who feels things....but not to the point where rationality and a sense of proportion is lost completely. People who have been betrayed by a partner sometimes lose control of their feelings. Occasionally that loss of control is fuelled by, and in turn fuels, the kind of tragically disordered and potentially violent mindset that this thread discusses. Rationality is a good antidote to the development of destructive emotions, but you can't force people to employ it. Edited May 18, 2011 by Taramere
TMCM Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) Obviously she was if she cheated on her husband and went out clubbing instead of being mature. How do we know he wasn't a cheater as well? Maybe he was a frustrated chump with women and felt jealousy that his wife had sexual value and he didn't. No one is trying to justify what he did. That's only you.:rolleyes Then why not show us your moral indignation with regards to his murdering of his innocent children? Edited May 18, 2011 by TMCM eta
nyrias Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 This is a perfect example of why disclosure may not be the best policy 100% of the time. If she ran away with the kids, may be they would still be alive. Surely it would have been a mess, and her husband would be mightily hurt. But at least the children would still be alive. And yes, I am placing their lives MORE importantly than the hurt this A is bringing.
TMCM Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 This is a perfect example of why disclosure may not be the best policy 100% of the time. If she ran away with the kids, may be they would still be alive. Surely it would have been a mess, and her husband would be mightily hurt. But at least the children would still be alive. IF she knew beforehand that her H was a violent man then she should have thought twice about engaging in something as dangerous as an affair. The safer route would have been for her to file for divorce, leave with the children and request a restraining order against him. But once again, he is solely responsible for HIS OWN monstrous actions And yes, I am placing their lives MORE importantly than the hurt this A is bringing. Agree 100%
ladydesigner Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 IF she knew beforehand that her H was a violent man then she should have thought twice about engaging in something as dangerous as an affair. The safer route would have been for her to file for divorce, leave with the children and request a restraining order against him. But once again, he is solely responsible for HIS OWN monstrous actions Agree 100% Even men who were never violent before can become violent upon hearing of an A. There is no guarantee. I agree with nyrias.
DufenSchmertz Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 The court hasn't ruled yet on whether he was criminally responsible due to insanity. They may find he was insane so therefore not criminally responsible. His act was horrendous, all acknowledge that--but it's not really the point. The mother had to know this man was seriously disturbed. She had to also know how her infidelity may have made that disturbance even worse. Yet she went out partying and looking for men. No, not an excuse for murder, but she was clearly deliberately rubbing his face in her "sexual freedom." This is the story of a seriously disturbed man and a selfish woman who pushed him too far.
nyrias Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 IF she knew beforehand that her H was a violent man then she should have thought twice about engaging in something as dangerous as an affair. The safer route would have been for her to file for divorce, leave with the children and request a restraining order against him. But once again, he is solely responsible for HIS OWN monstrous actions Agree 100% Well, the fact that he is solely responsible is small comfort for DEAD KIDS. In this particular case, assigning blame is secondary to the awful consequences. And my point still stands. AFTER the A happened, it is still BETTER for her not to tell her H. At that point, keeping those kids safe is more important than blaming her, or asking what might have been if there is a time machine. In fact, the desirability of events are like this: no affair > affair with no disclosure, and no dead kids > what happened.
John Michael Kane Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 Way to purposely remove this part of the post to push your agenda: Not to push my own agenda, but to remove part of something that is irrelevant. Sorry I didn't know it was against the law to remove part of a post on the internet. I'm so sorry.
John Michael Kane Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 How do we know he wasn't a cheater as well? Hey we only judge on what we know. If it comes out in the future that he was a cheater also, it doesn't really matter. Both him and her are already evil and sick people IMO. Maybe he was a frustrated chump with women and felt jealousy that his wife had sexual value and he didn't.You're using useless semantics just to have an argument. Anyone can get laid. Doesn't change the fact that she's a tramp who doesn't care about her kids, just like he didn't when he killed them. Then why not show us your moral indignation with regards to his murdering of his innocent children?I already said the man was wrong, but trying to put this whole situation on him is bold. She has a very big part in this also. If it were me I'd put both of them in prison.
ladydesigner Posted May 18, 2011 Posted May 18, 2011 I can't believe that children being killed is even being compared to the wrongdoing of cheating. :sick:
TMCM Posted May 19, 2011 Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) You're using useless semantics just to have an argument. The pot calling the kettle black? I already said the man was wrong, but trying to put this whole situation on him is bold. She has a very big part in this also. If it were me I'd put both of them in prison. Funny that you seem to use the same logic from the cheater's handbook. Using her actions to justify his. Edited May 19, 2011 by TMCM eta
Untouchable_Fire Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 No, not asking that...how about reading the other poster's comment? Maybe you will understand the context. Of course they are both bad things. Nobody is saying they are not and yes, adulterers are punished by society..nowhere near as severe, of course. But what kind of punishment do you think should be meted out to adulterers? I mean, in the grand scheme of things it is only one person who broke a vow. People can move on, if they choose to-if they have enough faith in themselves. Those kids are dead-there is no moving on or forging a new life for them... I don't really care what he has to say. Fact is that these two butthole parents should have adjoining prison cells for 2 years... then she should get out and he should receive a lethal injection! Not punishing adulterers is STUPID. Every other type of fraud is punishable in court. Every other type of business contract is enforceable. Marriage is just a retarded business contract. This is really disturbing. Some people actually advocate killing. My goodness, really? You would give up everything you have because somebody cheated on you? LOL..wow...I mean...grow a backbone, buy some self esteem and dump the cheater and replace her with someone better! C'mon, she's just one person...if you really believe you are better than her-then be better than her. Self esteem is expensive when your busy paying the cheater 65% of your income for Alimony and Child support. Killing the children is not an acceptable way of dealing with it though.
John Michael Kane Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 The pot calling the kettle black? Cool. Funny that you seem to use the same logic from the cheater's handbook. Using her actions to justify his. No I'm not, you're point is just moot. I already said both of them are crazy. You're the one using the tactic to justify her behavior.
TMCM Posted May 21, 2011 Posted May 21, 2011 You're the one using the tactic to justify her behavior. Your insistence on bringing up her infidelity and equating it with his actions proves otherwise.
Recommended Posts