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 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.