Motive Means Nothing; or The Church of Feelings
If I gave $20,000 to an orphanage because I wanted orphans to be happy, a bunch of orphans would be happy and everyone would agree that I’m a fucking great guy.
If I gave $20,000 to an orphanage because I burned one to the ground when I was twelve and I feel guilty as shit about it, a bunch of orphans would be happy and everyone would agree that I’m a fucking great guy.
Welcome to the real world.
Motives don’t mean shit to orphans. Motives don’t mean shit to anyone. In fact, motives only mean something to those of us who have the luxury of falling vagina-first into money and never having to use our brains for anything but a hobby.
Those of us are called women, and those of us need to fuck off my website.
The reason it’s called a “man’s world” and not a “woman’s world” — or a “getting pregnant is as important as nuclear power and calculus world” — is because men understand that silly things like “intentions” don’t get you anywhere in this world.
If it was a “woman’s world”, intentions would get you everywhere. You could drive to the store on a gallon of “really wanting some Popsicles.” A world of intent is the she-topia of the modern woman. Not a single reason or consequence for anything, and especially no genitals.
With no genitals, women could walk around in the tightest little sweaters they wanted while still “not intending” to attract the occasional harmless grope. Big fucking deal. Someone grabbed your boobs. It’s not like you’re using them for anything.
Puppies grow up, unprotected sex won’t keep your hair from falling out, and intentions don’t mean shit. The sooner women realize the world doesn’t work the way they think it does, the sooner we can all stop paying for frivolous workplace harassment lawsuits.
It’s frivolous for women to be working. Therefore, it’s frivolous for there to be workplace harassment lawsuits.
The Church of Feelings
No religion cares about women because women all have their own religion. It’s called the Church of Feelings, and services start the moment a woman wakes up.
However a woman feels about something, that’s the way she remembers it happening. Women’s realities work in reverse. If a woman feels bad about wrecking the bumper on her SUV, then she didn’t mean to do it and history fucked up by not getting the memo. If a woman “tried her best”, then whatever it took fucked up by being too hard. If you disagree, it’s your fault for not remembering it properly. And if any of that sounds bitchy, then that’s your fault too because the woman who said it didn’t mean to sound like a bitch.
The world doesn’t care how you meant to act or how much money you meant to make. The world doesn’t care if you didn’t mean to fail.
Men enjoy failure. We enjoy being tested and we enjoy improving because of it. Sports are proof of this. Sports, inventions, sex, business, rock ‘n’ roll, climbing Everest, and every other thing in the entire fucking world are proof of this.
Men enjoy failure. It’s just too bad we’re not built for it.
Related Articles:
January 17th, 2008 at 6:25 am - IP Man-Hash: 829be8a41e45b
Woman’s key motive for anything? A man did it so I can do it too.
-Solomon
January 17th, 2008 at 7:35 am - IP Man-Hash: 134c8b1d4eada
rule 34 man… rule 34
January 17th, 2008 at 7:36 am - IP Man-Hash: eeb32e3dc6874
Motive=$$$$$$$$$
January 17th, 2008 at 8:04 am - IP Man-Hash: 829be8a41e45b
Thanks Mike I stand corrected.
-Solomon
January 17th, 2008 at 10:00 am - IP Man-Hash: f78d821cb12a8
“Harassment accusations should be a matter of public record. This would make it possible to maintain lists of women with a history of making such charges for the benefit of employers and, far more importantly, potential suitors. Women might eventually reacquaint themselves with the old-fashioned idea that they have a reputation to protect.”
—from Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power
January 17th, 2008 at 4:35 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
There should be a federal public registrar for all gun owners as well. They should be obliged to register the weapons they have in possession and only entrust them to other people with valid permits.
Information like the CCW permit holders’ list used to belong to public record.
- DJ Tiesto - In The Dark
January 17th, 2008 at 8:02 pm - IP Man-Hash: fe637a8b73246
why? what purpose would that serve… a registry of all women that make complaints so you can see if they make excessive amounts of complaints seeing that 50% of rape cases are false, the majority of harrasement cases will also be false. The more complaints by one person, the more likely they are faking
registering gun owners does not have that effect. The effect you are looking for in respect to firearms would be to register all gun incidents, which would show who it a liability due to the number of incidents they have.
Persons with CCW would very very rarely be on that list since statistically they are the most unlikely people to have an incident.
I have no idea what your problem with firearms are since as a woman you need to protect yourself from “oppressive men” and since a rape can happen in 5 minutes and the average police response time is 15, a CCW and a snubbie could be the difference between you explaining a bullet hole in a rapist to a cop, or you lying naked abused in a puddle of his filth and your blood.
Your emotional looking at a gun and seeing an apperation of evil instead of a tool, and the idea that you should not protect yourself but let the police is detremental to yourself and society
Police are not required nor organized to prevent crime, they are there only to apprehend those that commit it for judgement and possible punishment if they don’t find a loophole.
Hence the term it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 but you are too busy forcing your irrational fear of an inert hunk of metal to worry about the rights of your fellow man.*
*yes I know I said man and you are a woman, man used in this context means HUMAN therefore sticking human or people in here or in compound words such as mailman is redundant, bastardization of the english language, attention whorish, and sexist.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:44 pm - IP Man-Hash: bf1f8818f8ec7
My 2nd and 4th Amendments tend to disagree.
That was apples and oranges, anyway. A more reasonable parallel would be to suggest registering those who make repeated threats of violence with firearms (or any other weapon). In fact, I do believe that is public record.
Do you not agree with the original premise that there needs to be some deterrent to a woman’s slandering? And are you really a woman? If so, then please forget that I have even addressed you.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:50 am - IP Man-Hash: 3b87498627ba8
Gun ownership has nothing to do with Dick’s article. It’s a derailer. Like women themselves…
January 18th, 2008 at 10:58 am - IP Man-Hash: b065e2c6595b0
You know who also cares more about intentions? Democrats. No wonder they get more female voters.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:23 am - IP Man-Hash: 720a12647a390
As the old saying goes:
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
January 18th, 2008 at 12:31 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3b5e7b8bea94f
Go see Aliens vs Predator II. It has aliens exploding from chests, decapitaions, kick ass nuclear explosions and a full-fledged battle between soldiers and aliens and the former gets owned. It is the manliest film since The 300
P Coderch
January 18th, 2008 at 12:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3b5e7b8bea94f
Oh, I frogot to mention that a blonde bo=imbo bitch gets impalled by the Predator and that’s the best part of the film.
P Coderch
January 18th, 2008 at 2:54 pm - IP Man-Hash: d9438fe1c6108
Bingo. We have a winner.
Welcome to the site, mansicle.
The rise of the modern Liberal-Authoritarian Democratic Party tracks very nicely with the 19th Amendment.
The redefinition of “liberal” from meaning pro-individual rights, pro-free-markets into something that means “a powerful nanny state to protect us economically” tracks that perfectly as well.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with being a man and a Democrat. Many good men are. See James Webb for one.
@MeanInGreen, TruthSayer, Me - yep.
-wolfe
January 18th, 2008 at 4:33 pm - IP Man-Hash: fd5cd69179bd1
No one cares about intentions? Tell that to the law. If you kill someone because you’re duck-hunting and then your gun accidentally goes off and shoots your friend, then you can be liable for manslaughter.
If you hunt down your friend and shoot him while he’s on his knees begging for mercy, you’re on the hook for murder. You might be facing the death penalty.
The result is the same: your friend is dead because of a bullet. The penalties , however, are drastically different. And the different treatment of manslaughter and murder goes way back to a time when only men wrote the laws.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote, Even a dog can tell the difference between being stumbled upon and being kicked. Too bad you can’t, Dick.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pm - IP Man-Hash: 1a67b52da3c37
Hey thats enough to make me want to go see it right there.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:08 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0a379370a5fd8
Damn, you took a left at Albuquerque right there Awoman, and never came back.
Intentions = Womanly Bullshit, and has nothing do with ME, but with the Jury/Lawyers involved who get paid to fuck around.
I intend to think bad things of your complex approach to something very simple. “Did he kill the man?” “yep?” “Okay, go to jail, do not pass go”.
Situational Justice does not mean every situation and all Justice.
Emotional bullshit such as “intentions” make NOT for a good Justice/Law.
THAT should be proven by how fucked up it IS right now…….
Only a woman would delve into the deep and wide of a sociopath, when a man would simply kill him and make the world a better place. Understanding Intentional Bullshit is me standing oustide staring at a pile of cow shit and remarking it is warm.
It makes nothing better, it proves nothing, it advances nothing.
Enough of this weak stupidity, THAT is why women fail.
A man commits the murder, the man dies for the crime.
I need not understand WHY he intended to do it, after all it does make sense to NOT fix a quickly fixed problem. BAM! Problem solved…..and only $1.50 for the bullet.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:03 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0484bf1246f02
The death penalty is the most hypocritical thing that man has ever evented.
Seriously, it’s another reason why America is the land of the idiots.
‘You killed someone, so we’ll kill you’. Murdering the murderer = hypocrite.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:25 pm - IP Man-Hash: 55548152be297
@ Awoman. How womanly and stupid to use ‘Intentions’. I’m guessing that should be taken into account to get a woman off the hook because it wasn’t ‘murder’ it was ’self-defence’. It wasn’t prostitution, it was ‘dating’. It wasn’t assault it was ‘a heated discussion’.
I wish more women got the electric chair. Maybe they’d take responsibility for shit here and there.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:38 pm - IP Man-Hash: bf1f8818f8ec7
Ms. Ray, there is a difference between ‘initiatory violence’ and ‘retaliatory violence’. ‘Murder’ is unlawful. Killing someone in self defense, or as a punishment for their crime of murder, is called ‘Justice’ - something America was once famous for upholding.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0484bf1246f02
Wait a second, I thought this whole post was about how ‘motive means nothing’. In other words, according to Dick, killing is killing, no matter what the intention, be it revenge or not.
That reply was just a massive contradiction of this post.
According to you if a murderer is put to death, then the person who performed the execution should be killed too.
Then the person who killed the executioner should be killed as well, and then the executioners killer will be killed and so on… that’s your view of ‘Justice’.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:11 pm - IP Man-Hash: bf1f8818f8ec7
There was no contradiction, just your misuse of certain words.
‘Killing’ is ‘killing’.
‘Murder’ is different from ‘killing’.
All murder is killing but not all killing is murder. I’m not talking about ‘why’ something happened, I’m talking about ‘what’ happened. If what happened was murder, then it’s okay (by law, and my own personal morals) to kill the murderer. That might make the executioner a ‘killer’ but ‘killing’ is not a crime. Murder is a crime. If you can’t separate those two terms in your mind then we have nothing further to discuss.
Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary before you address me again, Ms. Ray.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:27 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0484bf1246f02
Fine then, I’ll rephrase.
You can’t say don’t commit ‘homocide’ and then commit it yourself.
It’s still a contradiction to the post though as when it comes down to it, motive is what seperates ‘murder’ from ‘killing’. The execution is done in retaliation. Revenge. That’s a motive.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:32 pm - IP Man-Hash: 55548152be297
Revenge kicks ass and revenge is Manly. That’s all I got to say about that. If someone smacks your date on the ass and you punch him in the face and knock out some of his teeth, I don’t know about you but that’s my type of Manly… then again your date me not be worth the effort.
Maybe it’s manlier if someone attempts to steal your wallet and kick his ass. Yeah that would be worth the effort.
- Sgt. Reyes
January 18th, 2008 at 7:39 pm - IP Man-Hash: 720a12647a390
@Sgt. Reyes:
That would all depend on whether your date was a lady or a skank, heheh
January 18th, 2008 at 7:49 pm - IP Man-Hash: 55548152be297
Yes that would be a MAJOR contributing factor. LOL!
January 18th, 2008 at 7:49 pm - IP Man-Hash: bf1f8818f8ec7
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant ‘homicide’. Homicide is also murder. It’s unlawful killing.
The death penalty was not intended to prove that killing is wrong. Killing is not always wrong. The death penalty is there to show people that killing someone unlawfully won’t go without the severest punishment. It is a deterrent at worst and a service of Justice at best.
‘Hypocritical’ would be to say that you must abide by these laws but I do not. (America’s current government is full of hypocrisy, I agree, but America is more than just our government)
You are alone in seeing the contradiction in that.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:56 pm - IP Man-Hash: e24370fe2bb3c
Although I agree with all of your other posts, I find myself in disagreeing with this.
I am in favor of the death penalty, especially if the person has comitted a henious crime.
We would waste money on providing a cell and food for a person (man or woman) that has done wrong. An example is Jeffery Dahmer. Now, he caused much suffering, along with doing sick acts with the bodies and corpses, and having him in live in prison after commiting these crimes is a waste of money.
It isn’t quite retaliation, more rather a way of dealing with criminals that allows us to keep them from further being societies problem.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:17 pm - IP Man-Hash: 720a12647a390
@Hilary:
While it comes as no surprise that you agree with baseless insults, and cheer someone who who opposes this MRG simply for the fact they oppose it (that’s just to be expected from an active feminist such as yourself), even though I agree with your assessment of the death penalty, I have to point out that your example of Dahmer is a poor one. He was summarily executed by a co-prisoner about 14 years ago, and is no burden on your prison/tax system any longer.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:40 pm - IP Man-Hash: e24370fe2bb3c
Towards Zardoz
True, true. That was a poor example.
A better example would be a more recent horrible crime.
Though not official yet, two men killed 3 women, a mother and two daughters, raping, beating, then burning them to death. They each had numerous accounts of criminal acts, and may get the death penalty.
I believe that they should get the death penalty, for they obviously have no regrets and are a threat and waste to society.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:57 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0a379370a5fd8
Hilary has it right. They should be executed, forth-with.
However, I have a teenage girl or 15 in mind for chucking their babies on the trash heap.
ALL should be equal in this case.
January 19th, 2008 at 2:18 am - IP Man-Hash: df8a37f402a4d
There are women murdering husbands these days and doing no time.
“Whosoever spills the blood of the innocent should have their blood spilt also.” Thou shalt not kill(Murder was the original meaning) That was not a man-made law.
January 19th, 2008 at 3:31 am - IP Man-Hash: bf1f8818f8ec7
All laws are man-made. You keep believing, I’ll keep evolving.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:11 am - IP Man-Hash: fd5cd69179bd1
A guy who kills someone (or some people) because his car spun out of control on a patch of black ice is not as culpable as the Boston Strangler or Son of Sam.
Why is this so hard to understand?
There’ s a big difference between accidents and purposeful acts. And they should be treated differently.
If someone accidentally steps on your foot at a crowded bar and says sorry, you’ll probably excuse it. If someone goes out of his way to step on your foot and then says sorry in a sarcastic tone, you’ll probably react treat those two situations differently. As well you should.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:36 am - IP Man-Hash: 0facc02199a67
Awoman. What you are describing is common sense.
However, what happens in reality is quite the opposite.
A man has consensual sex with a 15 year old girl and he does serious jail time with the threat of anal penetration from violent criminals.
A woman has consensual sex with a 15 year old boy and there are tons of rationalizations similar to what you are describing in your post to explain her actions.
A man shoots his wife for leaving him, taking the kids and slapping him with huge payments and he is a monster destined for life or the chair.
A woman shoots her husband for whatever reason and scads of psychiatrists are explaining why her humanity forced her to do it and she walks free after a short stay in an uncrowded mental facility.
A man goes homeless due to bad decisions/circumstances and he is a bum, a loser and less likely to get any sympathy.
A woman goes homeless for any reason and the church rallies to support her, people pitch in and find her the resources she needs.
These are just examples but you get my drift.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:46 pm - IP Man-Hash: fd5cd69179bd1
detached-
I’m sure there are examples to support some of what you said, but all I can think of is the adage that if all you’ve got is a hammer, everything’s a nail.
Anecdotal evidence is unreliable. Show me some cold facts-from an unbiased source (not from “studies” done by the Men’s Right Network or We-Hate-Women Center or whatever). And I’ll listen.
But just throwing out random things isn’t convincing.
Oh, and incidentally, shooting your wife for leaving you-even if she takes the kids- is *not* justifiable. It is violent and unreasonable.
January 19th, 2008 at 12:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: fd5cd69179bd1
You’re in the service. If you shoot a terrorist in Iraq, you get praised. If you shoot your pizza delivery man because he’s 15 minutes late, you go to jail.
In each case, a man dies because you shot him. You should know more than most people on this forum that there is a time and a place to use a gun and a time and place to refrain from shooting.
January 19th, 2008 at 2:07 pm - IP Man-Hash: eeb32e3dc6874
Awoman I think you missed the point of what Detached was trying to say. I don’t think he needs to find unbiased sources to back up his argument in that post. You and I both know what he said in that post was true. Those are common things we hear of over and over every day.
I find it odd that the part of the husband shooting the wife struck a cord and you felt the need to address it. On the other hand you didn’t mention her shooting him.
January 19th, 2008 at 2:41 pm - IP Man-Hash: 388d4a7a25ab0
Once again, Dick has proven just how much of a dick he really is.
January 19th, 2008 at 3:16 pm - IP Man-Hash: 55548152be297
So what the fuck does that have to do with ‘Intentions’? I wouldn’t shoot anybody for the fuck of it. I shoot overseas because I’m ordered to not because I ‘intend’ to slow a terrorist down. I intend to kill him.
January 19th, 2008 at 3:16 pm - IP Man-Hash: 720a12647a390
Do you have a rational basis for this opinion, or it rather just another pointless “feeling” that you felt need to express, hmm?
January 19th, 2008 at 3:40 pm - IP Man-Hash: 1e08d05b14a8a
“Ray”, this site is for men only, so fuck off.
January 19th, 2008 at 3:44 pm - IP Man-Hash: 1e08d05b14a8a
Shooting a woman because she’s trying to steal your house and half your income is entirely justifiable. It’s self defense.
There are probably bad reasons for shooting a woman, but I can’t think of any.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:06 pm - IP Man-Hash: df8a37f402a4d
Feelings are a lot like Brain Farts.. Nothing more can be expected from the splitarses. Women/Girls just say anything at all
January 20th, 2008 at 10:27 am - IP Man-Hash: fd5cd69179bd1
No. I don’t know that what he said was true. I mean, I’m sure that there are examples out there, but I sincerely doubt that those are the rules and not the exceptions. I’m waiting for hard evidence that those examples are the rules.
It reminds me of that joke about the kid who was born with no eye so he bought a wood eye. He goes to the prom, looks around, and doesn’t see anyone he would feel comfortable asking to dance. Finally he sees a girl with a peg leg and asks her to dance. Delighted, she says, “Would I? Would I?”
He runs from her, shouting, “Peg leg! Peg leg!”
If you looking for examples where a certain group is treated unfairly, you’ll find them. That doesn’t mean the discrimination is universal.
Beyond that, he didn’t give a real example of why a woman would shot her husband. If a woman shots her husband because he didn’t take the trash out, that is sick and wrong and she should be punished. If she shoots him because he’s trying to bash her head in with a hammer and he’s six inches away with hammer in hand and has already taken swipes at her screaming he’s going to kill her, then it’s justifiable.
The pathetic excuse given for shooting a wife did strike a cord with me. Violence-especially killing-should be a last resort, and there’s nothing in the excuse he gave that couldn’t be resolved in a court of law.
January 20th, 2008 at 10:36 am - IP Man-Hash: fd5cd69179bd1
@anchorite.
Killing a woman because she’s divorcing you is wrong. Really, really wrong.
Self-defense is invoked when you are trying to physically save your life from an immediate danger that could cause seriously bodily harm.
That’s all I’m going to say about it to you because I don’t like discussing things with people whose moral compass is so completely out of whack.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:54 am - IP Man-Hash: 1834017c3a358
Women always think self-defense is wrong, if it’s a man defending himself against a woman.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:36 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0a379370a5fd8
Score -137 there Awoman.
Fight- To beat the shit out of an opponent.
Female Fight- To whine until opposition stops.
Not even the same ballfield.
Morality- Doing what is right, irregardless of how hard it is (like honor).
Female Morality- Doing what is right AS LONG AS it isn’t hard. (addendum- Contains more whining)
Killing a Female who is Divorcing you? Only a woman wouldn’t get WHY that would happen. And only a female would say it “wasn’t that bad an act”.
Of course not, they are not the ones losing their LIVES to a skank taking your paychecks and kids.
Please, don’t speak of Divorces ever again, you know obviously not of what you speak. I grant that you are a woman and wouldn’t see the REAL forest because of the trees, and that is why Divorce, Marriage and Speaking should be off-limits to you. YOUR simplicity shows why women are not good leaders.
‘Wrong’ is when I punch you in the face for the hell of it. Then again ‘Right’ is punching you in the face when you act like a man and try to fight me like one. ‘Wrong’ is thinking you are somehow my equal in the arena of ANY game, especially life, and ‘Right’ is me only putting someone weaker out of my way so normal shit can get done.
No, killing, like philosophy, is a Mans-Area ONLY type of thing.
We invented it, please leave it to the experts to take care of it.
MY moral compass is easy: You do stupid shit, you must pay for it.
I don’t need the law to protect ME, little girl. I am, after all, the one that created it. The ‘Law’ was always intended for the weaker, NOT the stronger. If only you dumbass women ever really did understand that the Law is designed for after the killings, and not pro-active, would women understand how great men are, because WE hold OURSELVES in abeyance BEFORE we kill you for running your mouth.
Actually, part of the most physical violence you are seeing now against women is because men are fed up with the bullshit of the so-called Law stepping where not wanted, so they ratchet up the anger machine and do what they can PRIOR to the Law stepping in.
In other words, women fucked up the Law Game, and changed the rules, so now men fuck those women up BEFORE the Law steps in to do anything.
Do I blame them? Hell no. How about I took away YOUR rights to take a shit on a Sunday at 2PM without me being present. SAME EXACT THING.
You would simply go break the law to get it done, and when you were tired of it enough, you would beat the fuck out of the ONE person who was 15 foot away who happens to be a representative of those SAME assholes that fucked it all up…………..
Killing- REAL world definition. Getting tired of someone and putting them in a hole permanent like. Creating worm-food. Pre-dates whoring, simply because you had to kill someone before you could go whoring………..
Murder- REAL world defintion. Sneaking up on some asshole and making them sleep with the fishes. They never saw it coming. Pre-dates killing, because that is the only way women will shut the fuck up, you have to sneak up on them first……………..
January 20th, 2008 at 12:46 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0a379370a5fd8
Oops. Let me clarify:
“Killing” as defined by gender.
Women- Killings are “wrong”. Of course, they didn’t invent, don’t do it, and when they do, fuck it up because they are too weak to understand the usefullness of a………killer……….tool. If I didn’t kill, YOU would still be a third class citizen, right behind my dog.
Men- Something to do when you get really pissed off. Righteous type of pissed. World-Changing type of pissed. Killing is the great equalizer. All men understand that all women don’t get killing, but then again, the cow I kill for steaks doesn’t get it either.
Is killing right? Easy, did the situation need it? Was it worth it? Does the world smell better? Did it “equalize” the problem, or make it go away?
Nothing harder than that.
Having Killers and Killing is like bread and air ladies. If you didn’t have them, and didn’t need them, your lazy ass would be sitting on muddy riverbank somewhere with 14 kids, living in a hut bitching about how a bunch of bastards who went out “killing” to stop the other bastards from “killing” YOU………..
As always, a history book and the ability to UNDERSTAND (not just read) would stop your stupidity from re-occuring. However, as it might be pointed out, the stupid only keep doing stupid things because they won’t learn, and won’t look at the History of Being Stupid……..
January 20th, 2008 at 1:17 pm - IP Man-Hash: fd5cd69179bd1
Only a weakling would fail to understand the difference between life and money.
Your victim mentality limits you, more than you realize. Well, that and your utter stupidity.
But, as with the other psycho who thinks that’s okay to kill a woman who divorces him, I have no interest in continuing this discussion further.