WomanSavers.com Forum / MEN'S AREA / wife

You are demanding evidence of you EXPLICITLY SAYING what I accuse you of because you can‘t stand the fact that I have shown how you have IMPLIED it. It‘s not about what you SAY in so many words, but what you IMPLY with other words and thus come to the same final belief.

""If a man OR woman has been cheated on but doesn‘t want to leave...I‘m not going to shove divorce down their throats now am I? "

The only reason a man would go to counselling is if he believed he is at fault or that his wife can change and will never cheat again. Since other women on this board have said these men, ‘it‘s not your fault‘ and even congratulated them for leaving, it means they know that divorce can be a smart and dignifying thing for a man.

However since you admit that you think men should go to counselling even if they want to, you are admitting to sending a brainwashed, tricked man into a minefield where he will only continue to be lied to. You are unwilling to try to argue him out of it by pointing out things like...

1. it‘s his fault because he didn‘t show her love and  he can win her back if he tries harder.

Which is bull**** because if she really loved him she wouldn‘t have cheated on him in the first place and instead come to him and been honest.

In other words, the fact that you refuse to even consider counselling these brainwashed foolish men out of their illusion just proves my point. That you think counselling is preferable to divorce.

" asked you to show me where I‘ve said counselling is preferable to divorce in ANY of my posts"

You didn‘t say it explicitly. You implied it by other arguments because your other choices of words leave this to be the only possible conclusion or end or final interpretation.

Why go looking for evidence when I have it in front of me.

You either refuse to acknowledge this feminist hypocrisy of yours or you really can‘t see it that women must run from cheaters and take him to the cleaners, but not men.  I don‘t care. The point is you do it and I have just proven it.

Oh and by the way. Here‘s a little hint for rules of philosophy and debate. Ad hominems such as, "You are just hateful" and "go buy a sex doll since you are secretly in love with women but can‘t admit it" aren‘t actual counterarguments. Your choice of weapon in a debate speaks volumes.

Oh f*ck Drew...your issues are worse than I thought!!

Where have I implied it???? Your paranoia and misogyny knows no bounds....I bet you have a blog somewhere like that bloke who went into the gym and shot all the women...is there ANYTHING nice about women in your opinion??

I‘d ask if you are a homosexual, only that would be an insult to gay men everywhere...but seriously...do you actually like women?

George Sodini was a punk and on the MRA board I‘m from, I‘ve ran head on into guys who were pretty close to excusing his behavior. I‘ve even been accused of being a feminist by some of them at times.

The facts about George Sodini.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1263.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2M5upVNlEw

Second of all, you imply counselling is better than divorce when you say you won‘t object to a man going to counselling if he wants to. No matter what. That means, even if you know that it‘s not his fault his wife cheated and that she will never change and will only try to blame him for what she did. If he‘s comfortable in the illusion, you will let him walk into a minefield to be lied to and likely cuckolded again. If you don‘t like what I say, then change your use of words and stop using words that imply what I say they do because...they actually do.

As I said before, your choice of weapon, in this case, ad hominem attacks, speaks a lot about you. Not very highly of course, but it still speaks a lot about you. Your calling me gay (ad hominem) and bringing up George Sodini (red herring) makes you look bad in terms of debate skills. It shows you are avoiding what I have pointed out and what you can‘t admit. And that is, what you really believe given what other words you have used. You said you won‘t force a divorce on a man who wants counselling instead. In other words, you are willing to let idiot cuckolds who think everything is their fault, be deceived again.

Seeing as how you obviously wouldn‘t let brainwashed women be tricked like you would allow brainwashed men, your double standard has been exposed and it bothers you that I was able to do so. That is why you insult me and you bring up George Sodini and play psychologist at the expense of playing the debater.

"In fairness Drew...thats a load of bollox!"

I‘m sure you will explain why in the next sentence or two.

"You say I imply that counselling is better than divorce because I don‘t object to a man going to counselling if he wants to???""

Yep. That is something you objected to me saying because it was apparently wrong of me to say that you implied it just because you didn‘t say it explicitly.

"Eh...why would I object? If a bloke wants to go to counselling...who the f*ck am I to tell him not too?"

In other words, I was right when I said that you would be willing to send a brainwashed cuckolded into a sham of a counselling session with a cheating wife who will never change. You will never counsel him out of it. Yet I know that you would never tell a women to sacrifice her pride and dignity like that. As I said, you are pissed that I caught you saying what you initially denied saying. Now you have to admit it and that bothers you that a heterosexual man is going to use logic against you. I assume because you have been wrong by a heterosexual man in the past like many women on here.

I used to be at a stage where I nearly hated all women. But I realized feminism wasn‘t the problem. I‘m what you call a conspiracy theorist and I take Henry Makow‘s view about how feminism was a weapon used by the global NWO elite to turn women against men and get them so upset to the point that they would willingly let good men get harmed by say unfair laws regarding divorce settlements, paternity fraud, etc. As I have said in one long topic about nice guys, women weren‘t totally unjustified in complaining about some of the **** men did. As I have said before, I look at my own sex and sometimes I wonder how the hell you ladies can even pair up with or marry men sometimes. Putting women back in the kitchen and taking away their rights won‘t make things better for the good guys. Changing the laws to protect them from bad things I just mentioned above will make good men want to marry women more. This is what hardcore feminists refuse to understand or accept. They don‘t care. No heterosexual man is good and no man should be a father anyway since all they do is abuse their kids.

"Counselling...divorce, both are legitimate and viable solutions to a marriage gone bad. If someone wants to give counselling a try...hell go ahead...if someone prefers to head straight for the divorce courts...hell go ahead...its not my marriage on the rocks...who am I to judge? And more to the point...who are you to judge?"

You seem to have no problem judging bad men and warning women about them. Hence your double standard. I find it hard to believe you would recommend that a woman take back a cheating husband if she didn‘t have to even if she wanted counselling. You would tell her to dump his ass, get a few bucks from him and find a better guy. I would too. If you wouldn‘t though...if you would willingly send her into a counselling session where her ****wad of a husband tries to blame his choices on her, then I would ask where the **** is your sisterhood?

"Drew...in your little paranoid world...anything could be implicated from anything...your a freaking nutcase!!!"

Not so. Words have meanings. Some different words have similar meanings. That is why you can imlpy something without explicitly saying another thing. That‘s how the language works. Semantics and syntax rule at the end of the day.

"And...on the subject of calling you gay...I never called you gay...I wrote that I was going to ask if you were...but changed my mind as I felt it would insult gay people everywhere to suggest that someone so paranoid and angry as you would be anything akin to them."

So do you call men who don‘t agree with you and expose your double standards gay to insult them even though you don‘t have a problem with gays? Or do you not like gays either and that is why you use it in a derogatory tone against another guy who‘s disagreeing with you? "What are you? A fag?" If you didn‘t hate homosexuals, then why would you talk that way?

"By the way, the fact that you would consider it an insult to be called homosexual speaks volumes...what the f*ck is wrong with homosexuals?"

Your the one who considers it an insult since you use it as a slur. Which could mean you yourself look down upon gays. Otherwise, why use it as a slur? If someone calls me gay, they‘re wrong. I will tell them. Plain and simple. If they don‘t believe me, I don‘t care. No skin off my back.

P.S.
Ad hominems are fallacies, not proper responses/refutations.

StephanieG.

That was a very nice post from you. Logical and straight forward too.

If I was to completely write off womansavers as ****, then I‘d be overlooking the more sane people like you. I‘m not one to preach to a choir only. I like to respond to people I don‘t agree with. I believe in debate and persuasion with ideas. That and I‘m here for the cuckolded niceguys who are so foolish and brainwashed as to think counselling will make her not cheat anymore because maybe he can apologize for driving her away as her cheating is his fault.  

hi drew..we never talked before. nice to meet you.

i didnt know this was a debate site.

Finally, somebody said it.  That was simply fantastic.  Many kudos and many thanks to you. 

That really made my day, knowing there was someone, a woman, who was aware enough to notice a double standard here, humble enough to refrain from exploiting it and ethical enough to actually point it out.  Women like you are difficult to find.

I‘m going to have to ask you again to back up your misogynistic rant with some facts...

"In other words, I was right when I said that you would be willing to send a brainwashed cuckolded into a sham of a counselling session with a cheating wife who will never change."

Where did I say I would be willing to "send a brainwashed cuckolded in a sham of a counselling session with a cheating wife who will never change?

Drew...nobody has any authority here...we can‘t "Send" people to counselling from this site...we can only give our opinion about it...If someone comes here (man or woman) about a marriage gone bad...I‘d normally suggest both options...UNLESS the cheated on Man OR Woman has endured physical or mental abuse...if that the case I‘ll usually say DUMP! Again though Drew...thats an opinion...I have no authority here to force anyone to do anything they don‘t want to do.

"You seem to have no problem judging bad men and warning women about them. Hence your double standard."

How is it a double standard when I also have no problem judging bad men and warning women about them? 

And as to the rest of your rant....its boring and cyclical...I have no interest in it...All I‘m interested in here is seeing YOU prove to ME that I have the double-standard that you accuse me of having...prove it, adequately through anything I‘ve posted here...and we‘ll have something to talk about.

Like the either stupid or cunning woman you are, you admittedly ignore my post and then refuse to accept the deductive logic I have illustrated. Let me summarize again for you by quoting the relevant excerpt.

"Eh...why would I object? If a bloke wants to go to counselling...who the f*ck am I to tell him not too?"

In other words, I was right when I said that you would be willing to send a brainwashed cuckolded into a sham of a counselling session with a cheating wife who will never change. You will never counsel him out of it.


Your silence equals your assent. It‘s that simple. You don‘t have to say something explicitly all the time to get your point across. Duh.

drew...this just a observation i guess. i was never ever good at debating and i dont really know debate rules. i noticed though that in your recent posts where you continue your debate that part of what you say really seems like about demeaning the person you are debating with.

i cant tell if that is really what you want to do or if your just angry or something but that is how it comes across to me.

yeah...i think i understand. thanks drew

i just think women have different experiences or see things different than men. i dont think there really is a right answer.

I‘m loving this!!

"In other words, I was right when I said that you would be willing to send a brainwashed cuckolded into a sham of a counselling session with a cheating wife who will never change. You will never counsel him out of it."

My silence usually means I couldn‘t give a ****...however, your arguments are too easy to take apart, so this doesn‘t require much effort..

Let me repeat...we can‘t "send" people to counselling here...we can recommend it...please show where I have recommended that a man should go to counselling with his wife who has cheated on him.

You seem to be saying, that because I haven‘t disagreed when someone has said they wanted to go to counselling...that this means I‘m "Sending" them to counselling...whoa their milly...thats quite a leap of the imagination!!

You should be able to go through everything I‘ve ever posted here...if I‘ve ever recommended it...please point that out...this will settle this once and for all.

Your failure to do this basically means your accusations don‘t stand up...if you have nothing definitive to prove your point then don‘t bother, you‘ll just be further annihilated here...its too easy!