Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

I don't believe you


Jodie.Lynne

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I’m aware of this, and of this in the general sense. But, I asked of how society sees this of today, in the past tense. Ashamed!! Don’t you think, we of today, look back at this and feel ashamed of our thinking? I would think, even then, there are those who saw it as wrong and felt helpless in changing it. I would think it was the thinking, (the seeing it as wrong and wanting to change it) or we wouldn’t have the people who went about in trying (and succeeding in my opinion) in changing it) Obviously, the way I see it, it’s changed, because how it was brought to the attention of how wrong it was. 

I would think, as a whole mindset, we are ashamed of how it was looked and played out at the time. 

If one is into self-flagellation. Myself, I don't borrow grief or guilt from history. I've enough of my own sins to account for. Those of others, past present or future, are between them and their maker.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Well, if she had a better lawyer.

From Einstein to Tiger Woods. I have to say I just don't understand the behaviour myself. I wonder if they thought like Walker and Hab and justified the unjustifiable through appeals to authority? 

They didn't have to justify or appeal to anyone, 'though Dickens did try clear his conscience, publicly, with his gratuitous lies.  He was within the bounds of law and society to do what he did with his "chattel".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

They didn't have to justify or appeal to anyone, 'though Dickens did try clear his conscience, publicly, with his gratuitous lies.  He was within the bounds of law and society to do what he did with his "chattel".

But they did to have to justify and or atone for it for themselves which illustrates the point I have been floundering to make. Regardless of the societal acceptance of the practice, be it slavery or spousal abuse, the individual in his core knows it is wrong even if only because he knows he wouldnt want to be on the receiving end.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

But they did to have to justify and or atone for it for themselves which illustrates the point I have been floundering to make. Regardless of the societal acceptance of the practice, be it slavery or spousal abuse, the individual in his core knows it is wrong even if only because he knows he wouldnt want to be on the receiving end.

 

I wouldn't know. I can't climb inside their heads and know how they thought about such things. One might assume Dickens knew he was betraying a trust and his marriage vows, sinned before the eyes of God and man, but that's only speculation. He may have had his head so far up his backside, he just didn't care and too far up the social ladder to be held accountable.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Of course he is not, but neither was a man who forced his wife to have sex with him, when  this was not just normal, but expected and agreed upon by both parties in their marriage contract  

My point was that future people will see him, you, and even me, as evil barbarians, just as you see people from  the past 

Please produce the actual marriage contract that states that a man has the right to rape his wife?

 

Granted rape was not easily prosecuted especially, in the context of marriage, ( yet there were 4 cases ) to posit Rape was not even thought of as wrong is an oversight on your part, for reasons only known to you. 

And, there were convictions as early as 1859 often for indecent assault, (about 31 percent served 6 months) so to posit that Rape was not even thought of as a punishable violent crime is a failure on your part. 

Not accepted, not held personally accountable, and not easily prosecuted are not the same thing. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3828543?read-now=1&seq=4#metadata_info_tab_contents

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

I wouldn't know. I can't climb inside their heads and know how they thought about such things. One might assume Dickens knew he was betraying a trust and his marriage vows, sinned before the eyes of God and man, but that's only speculation. He may have had his head so far up his backside, he just didn't care and too far up the social ladder to be held accountable.

There truly are despicable people throughout history who will exploit others and use status or authority or loop holes in the law to avoid accountability.

Despite the extreme difficulty in prosecuting rape it was considered a serious offense. 

 

“Between 1859 and 1880 -256 cases were brought before Grand juries in Kent, England  28% for Rape and 57% for indecent assault, 15% no indictment at all.” 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3828543?read-now=1&seq=4#metadata_info_tab_contents

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I’m aware of this, and of this in the general sense. But, I asked of how society sees this of today, in the past tense. Ashamed!! Don’t you think, we of today, look back at this and feel ashamed of our thinking? I would think, even then, there are those who saw it as wrong and felt helpless in changing it. I would think it was the thinking, (the seeing it as wrong and wanting to change it) or we wouldn’t have the people who went about in trying (and succeeding in my opinion) in changing it) Obviously, the way I see it, it’s changed, because how it was brought to the attention of how wrong it was. 

I would think, as a whole mindset, we are ashamed of how it was looked and played out at the tie. 

This is a valid point, just in our lifetime we have “everyone did it” behaviors that at the time were frowned upon by some and not practiced at all and some who looked the other way and some practiced and advocated by many.

Corporal punishment to children, Slavery, Discrimination towards our LBGT communities etc, etc. 

My grandmother existed before my mother and she didn’t use corporal punishment on her kids or me. 

A lot of it is the willingness to challenge status quo, some just won’t. Minds do change that is a good thing. 

So what does one mean by acceptable, it clearly depends on who we  are talking about. 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Granted, reading Hammie’s link, reminds me of the ‘injustice’ of how women are treated, and especially in marriage, it has been for years the way society has saw it. I’m reminded of a case that occurred In my own state.  And despite the police ignoring her and her cries for help, because she was married to him, doesn’t make it right. I don’t think it’s a consensus that what went on, like the example in Hammie’s link, that was right as well. A loving spouse, would not see it as right, I really don’t think. 

I have been under the observation (in various ways) that marriage in the past, (and probably still now in some areas) was more of a confidence, and a way to solidify ties with families, even nations. Love had nothing to do with it, from how I understand it. So, women pretty much had no say in the matter. 

I really cannot understand how some, in their beliefs and such, can say they love and were taught to love, everyone, and view mistreatment to some as normal. I really cannot understand this. 

It even gets worse I can’t wrap my head around hitting a small defenseless child as the main stay of raising them. 

The child has been taught it deserves this kind of treatment, and therefore becomes indifferent to harm towards others in general. 

I regularly read older people on FB who post things about how a good flogging never hurt anyone. Sheesh. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I've taken some time to ponder the last few pages of this thread and where it has lead us. Abortion, slavery, marital rape, and I think someone mentioned euthanasia as well.

So for it seems that there are two camps.

One that says that certain actions are moral or immoral, always and forever.

And one camp that says that things are moral until someone labels them as immoral, or illegal.

Is that the gist of the argument?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/04/2019 at 2:37 PM, jmccr8 said:

The lot of agricultural slaves (vincti) was probably one of the worst as they were usually housed in barrack buildings (ergastula) in poor, prison-like conditions and often kept in chains. Pompeii has revealed such work gangs chained together in death as they were in life. Other skeletal remains from Pompeii have also revealed the chronic arthritis and distortion of limbs that could only have been produced by extreme overwork and malnutrition

Hi Walker

This is one of the reasons that I ask people if they read the links that are posted.:lol:

Not sure what you think better, safer, and more comfortable means but this ain't it.:lol:

jmccr8

That evokes the feelings after observing foreign construction workers in Dubai. Buses arriving and departing every eight hours back and forth between site and dorm.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/04/2019 at 5:44 PM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Hammer

I mentioned in an earlier post about a pimp that abused his girls, he would recruit them young and keep them intimidated by both sexually and physically abusing them and these types of acts in any setting are deplorable which is why I reached out to help them.

jmccr8

You can find the audio book for Iceberg Slim's Pimp on YouTube. An insight in developing needs for needs based development.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

They didn't have to justify or appeal to anyone, 'though Dickens did try clear his conscience, publicly, with his gratuitous lies.  He was within the bounds of law and society to do what he did with his "chattel".

Not to anyone of influence at the time. I think that's more because the oppressed now well outnumber oppressors. Quite frankly though, I see the POTUS in a similar light myself. Talking about grabbing married women on the you know what strikes me as zero respect for the people he is supposed to looking after  but such bad behaviour is brushed aside quite quickly and easily. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You can find the audio book for Iceberg Slim's Pimp on YouTube. An insight in developing needs for needs based development.

Hi Golden Duck

Thanks, I will take a look at it. I no longer live in that city as I moved to be here for my grand-daughter and left everyone I knew behind, basically never said goodbye or where I was going so I haven't spoken to anyone besides a 2 relatives in a decade and left a death notice on my facebook account so that people wouldn't waste time trying to contact me.

The city I grew up in populated many other places in different provinces so I knew good people that were willing to help because they left back home because of crime, bigotry and opportunity I stayed home and grew with the city and knew a lot of people in several circles of life including the heads and soldiers of all of the organized groups but never aligned with any of them even though they had all tried to recruit me because of those contacts. I always walked alone and never asked anyone to back me but had a bit of a rep for fighting and some herbal multi level marketing which is legal now but not part my life anymore. Still to this day I always carry a knife and  keep a handy assortment of tools for my trade(construction) in my vehicle and still walk alone.

jmccr8

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

As i said; this is  your usual tactic when proven wrong on a factual basis 

And this be yours. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Not to anyone of influence at the time. I think that's more because the oppressed now well outnumber oppressors. Quite frankly though, I see the POTUS in a similar light myself. Talking about grabbing married women on the you know what strikes me as zero respect for the people he is supposed to looking after  but such bad behaviour is brushed aside quite quickly and easily. 

Bill Clinton set the stage for that. Enough with politics here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sherapy said:

This is a valid point, just in our lifetime we have “everyone did it” behaviors that at the time were frowned upon by some and not practiced at all and some who looked the other way and some practiced and advocated by many.

Corporal punishment to children, Slavery, Discrimination towards our LBGT communities etc, etc. 

My grandmother existed before my mother and she didn’t use corporal punishment on her kids or me. 

A lot of it is the willingness to challenge status quo, some just won’t. Minds do change that is a good thing. 

So what does one mean by acceptable, it clearly depends on who we  are talking about. 

 

 

I often feel and reflect on those before us, who did rise up, (with the risks and dangers involved) to cut the path of a better life for our generations. I think about the women before us, who went through hell, to get the rest of us, out of it for then, now, and the future. I think, it is considered unanimously and generally bad, (rape, abuse, discrimination) of it is something that eventually has one, then more, than the majority, to scream and act and say 'enough'. 

I consider these behaviors acted and directed towed women in the past, as always as bad, because women have risen to try to stop it. the enduring couldn't last, and something had to be done. I will always be proud, impressed, awed, and thankful for their strength and sacrifices. Hell, my own mother's endurance, strength, and fight. :yes:  I think, it's a tribute for us, and our daughters, to continue on. 

This kind of reminds me of lyrics from a Shania Twain song. I'd rather die on my feet, then live on my knees.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sherapy said:
14 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Granted, reading Hammie’s link, reminds me of the ‘injustice’ of how women are treated, and especially in marriage, it has been for years the way society has saw it. I’m reminded of a case that occurred In my own state.  And despite the police ignoring her and her cries for help, because she was married to him, doesn’t make it right. I don’t think it’s a consensus that what went on, like the example in Hammie’s link, that was right as well. A loving spouse, would not see it as right, I really don’t think. 

I have been under the observation (in various ways) that marriage in the past, (and probably still now in some areas) was more of a confidence, and a way to solidify ties with families, even nations. Love had nothing to do with it, from how I understand it. So, women pretty much had no say in the matter. 

I really cannot understand how some, in their beliefs and such, can say they love and were taught to love, everyone, and view mistreatment to some as normal. I really cannot understand this. 

It even gets worse I can’t wrap my head around hitting a small defenseless child as the main stay of raising them. 

The child has been taught it deserves this kind of treatment, and therefore becomes indifferent to harm towards others in general. 

I regularly read older people on FB who post things about how a good flogging never hurt anyone. Sheesh.

Yet, (from reading the same thing from different older people myself) I find myself observing how 'damaged' they seem. *shrugs* 

I always heard the old saying, when punishing a child, this is going to hurt me more than you. As someone who loves her children, (and this is punishment that would normally be non-physical) I really didn't want to hurt them at all, (but had to punish them) To be violent to a child, pretty much getting your anger out on them, how horrifying is one, who does that?!?!

I know, I have seen the difference of those who were abused, neglected, hurt, growing up, and those who were raised with the right non-violent discipline, and see how you're right, Sheri. :yes:  People who were violently punished growing up, might say they weren't affected from it, need to see them from other's point of views. It's usually something totally different, then they actually believe of themselves. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

So I've taken some time to ponder the last few pages of this thread and where it has lead us. Abortion, slavery, marital rape, and I think someone mentioned euthanasia as well.

So for it seems that there are two camps.

One that says that certain actions are moral or immoral, always and forever.

And one camp that says that things are moral until someone labels them as immoral, or illegal.

Is that the gist of the argument?

I think, that's pretty much it. Though, I am :no: at the thought there is a 'camp' of the thinking of it's moral when one sees fits. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I never did see the J-Lo movie, but I do remember “Sleeping With The Enemy” with Julia Roberts. I sometimes remember scenes from that movie, and reflect on that. What gets me, is how the marriage occurred in the first place. The appearance of a wonderful suitor, who turns once the marriage has started. I often have wondered how they do start, but with a lot of years of public and religious ‘urging, suggesting, and pushing’, there is a lot of ‘fakeness’ That occurs to get there. I never really saw my parents in such a situation, ( I feel fortunately) and my hubby, is the example for me as a perfect gentleman. That being said, I have seen examples of marital abuse, and it has me :o  

I cannot forget hearing the sounds next door, (in military housing, where the houses were like town houses, and walls were what separated the hoes) in the master bedroom of a woman screaming and the sounds of fists hitting flesh. Another time, while out for my favorite thing, walks, walking past a couple, who were tending to their yard, the husband yelling and ordering his wife to do things. And, it horrifys me. (I’m wondering if I spelled that correctly) Anyhow, for all of some of talk about pushing marriage, and love, and what one has to do within it and what love to them is, how can you abuse the one you love?!?!? When a man expects his wife to vow to obey him, is he really loving her? 

Rape, to me from how I understand it, is violence!!! It’s a horrible act, From what I got from this page:

Unlawful, and violent. Violence. 

A true loving spouse would never be violent to another, would they?! Right?!?! Whether the laws said it was allowed or not, doesn’t make it a good law. If you look At varying laws that are probably still considered legal, (but ignored)  you would wonder why were these laws made in the first place. There were probably reasons, but probably in my book, very stupid reasons. I don’t think, even if they were created, doesn’t make them right, even then. 

From my secular raised observations, for all this talk of love your neighbor and just have ‘love’, doesn’t seem to coincide with the behavior of those spewing such talk. Any society that is being felt to need to subjegate people for their success, isn’t a society that should survive in the first place. A healthy strong society, is a society that doesn’t depend on the subjugation of others, but is independent of that and is successful of the equal respect and teamwork of everybody. 

Someone who loves someone, doesn’t consider them someone to hurt if they don’t get their way. How can one love and expect they need to force themselves on someone at the same time. Rape is violence, is always considered as violence, no matter what the frame of mind was. It’s still violence. You don’t love a spouse you show violence on. That’s not a healthy and strong marriage. That’s a marriage that is a lie. 

I think, on top of knowing that rape legally expected in marriage was wrong and making it illegal, I think the majority of people knew in their consciousness it was wrong and feel shamed that was part of their history. 

Just because something was ‘alright’ to do at the time, doesn’t make it right at any time. 

The very thought, that some considered it as normal and alright, because it was in the laws, disgusts me. :angry: 

very true  especially today 

BUT No we do not know that most peole thought 'rape or slavery was wrong. Why would the y ? 

How and why do YOU "know" it is wrong? Only because your society teaches you that it is. 

if your society teaches you that these things are right and normal then   there is NO way for you to form an  opposite opinion except  where you have direct experience or can observe the effects (and can have empathy for other people not of your own family, tribe or group  ) But even then they may be see as normal. There have been cultures where being a good thief or a good killer were regarded as necessary skills, and a person's reputation in the tribe or group depended on then.  

So no, people don't get this because they are trapped within the paradigm of their own beliefs from their own cultures, but humans  do NOT innately know that things  like  violence rape or murder are "wrong"  Those ideas and concepts  have first to be established intellectually, and then taught to the  young.  There is no innate right or wrong, and thus no innate sense, within humans, of right or wrong

There is no " normal", good or evil, outside of that which we as humans choose to believe is good or evil. 

As a reader I guess you have read "lord of the files", which examines and explains this very well. 

Ps i agree with and support every principle and point you make here, but we have to remember that humans have been driven by sex and violence for hundreds of thousands of years, since we were apes on the plains of Africa.  The modern concept  of amore, or romantic love for a partner, rather than eros or lust, or the desire to reproduce ,   seems to be very modern, possibly only 1000 years old, or so.  The concept of platonic or brotherly love is a little bit older 

Ive argued for a long time that, to advance, humans must overcome their base biological drivers and learn to discipline themselves to use our intellectual drivers like love  altruism compassion etc 

 

here is a humorous take on it 

https://markmanson.net/romantic-love

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Oh I recognize those realities. My point is that if you took any of those husbands and physically dominated them their first thought wouldnt have been "im weaker so this is how its supposed to be" it would have been "damn this sucks".

I guess I feel like the argument Walker is making while being based on human nature is also negated by human nature.

I feel like im not communicating effectively here.....maybe ill give it another go in a little bit LOL

How do you know this? 

every part of society and thus the way a child was raised to think was based on the rights and power of different classes and especially on the significance of material,  personal, wealth and power From the divine right of kings down to the rights of men over womnand adults over children and to the punishments for stealing a loaf of bread or a handkerchief 

By the Victorian age and especially the late Victorian age  this was beginning to change for many reasons The slave trade was opposed  and overcome in Britain,   in large  part by people who believed that the bible said all men were equal and so slavery was wrong 

However that is only within the last 200 yeas.

Before that such concepts  were almost universally accepted as right, moral and normal it is how human beings saw themselves and their society How could, or would, anyone come to think any different, when not exposed to differing ideas or values either in their society or in literature (for those few who could read) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yeah, don't board a sinking ship with out a life jacket. Wives were chattel at the beginning of the Victorian Age. 

And remnants of that dependent status  remained, in law, even when i was married in 1976. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr Walker said:

And remnants of that dependent status  remained, in law, even when i was married in 1976. 

We'd never have guessed.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Bill Clinton set the stage for that. Enough with politics here.

Rather than politics specifically, more a boys club. Those who take advantage don't give it up easily and support each other. The meek have a voice now, which has changed things in general for the better. But the mentality persists. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Well, if she had a better lawyer.

From Einstein to Tiger Woods. I have to say I just don't understand the behaviour myself. I wonder if they thought like Walker and Hab and justified the unjustifiable through appeals to authority? 

Foul

Ive explained my relationship with my wife and my attitude to women.It is based on love and respect,  honour and duty. 

Ive never raised my hand or voice to a woman or treated one with less than total respect   Ie never cheated on one, or broken any promise to one. That is how i was raised, very definitely and clearly  by my own parents who treated each other with nothing less than total love and respect  and honour   if you combine the marriages of my parents, and those of my wife, they totalled  over 120 years  My wife and i are up to 43 years and aiming to match our parents.  Successful marriages  require many things in the modern era but love, respect, equality, and friendship, are still important 

 If you choose to disbelieve that, fair enough but please don't post directly opposite points of view  and attribute them to me  

Justified is the wrong word.

Are you justified in thinking eating meat is ok or keeping animals as pets is fine? No; you don't need any justification. So far both are generally accepted as normal behaviour although a societal change is occurring so justification is not needed.    

My point is that values and moralities  actually change, and are not fixed.

What is seen as evil, horrendous and immoral now, was NOT seen as such, then.

  In reverse; steal a small amount of property and you could be executed or sent to Australia  for 7 or 14 years But forcing your wife to have sex, or beating your kids, was perfectly acceptable.  After all the y (boys more than girls)  were beaten by everyone, from  their teachers and  clergy,  and older school children,  to the police, as part of making them "better"  children, and toughening them up for adult life.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

I wouldn't know. I can't climb inside their heads and know how they thought about such things. One might assume Dickens knew he was betraying a trust and his marriage vows, sinned before the eyes of God and man, but that's only speculation. He may have had his head so far up his backside, he just didn't care and too far up the social ladder to be held accountable.

We do have a couple of posters here who do just let their brain vomit on their keyboard. I saw Walker post yesterday that a man who raped his wife before laws protected women was not evil. 

That's the mindset. If it doesnt directly land you in jail, it's OK. I have little doubt that men existed in that time frame who respected and loved their partners and would find forcing another against their will, and hurting them for personal gratification is ajways evil, regardless of laws or lack of them. Its not ignorance, its evil. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.