18410
Post by: filbert
I guess there is a funny side to it but honestly? It's pretty pathetic. Just be a grown up and move on....
121
Post by: Relapse
 filbert wrote:I guess there is a funny side to it but honestly? It's pretty pathetic. Just be a grown up and move on....
I could understand the reaction if his wife is the bitch he makes her out to be. It's a lot better than other actions he might have taken.
18410
Post by: filbert
Relapse wrote: filbert wrote:I guess there is a funny side to it but honestly? It's pretty pathetic. Just be a grown up and move on....
I could understand the reaction if his wife is the bitch he makes her out to be. It's a lot better than other actions he might have taken.
Well I suppose but my reaction is that it just makes the guy out to be petty and vindictive. Why drag yourself down to that level? It's like the kid bursting the football so that no-one can play with it.
Edit: I should say the precision of his cutting is impressive however.
20983
Post by: Ratius
Funnier that he shows what one can actually cut in half. I'd have thought the car was difficult.....he got a really cleancut 
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Yeah, that half car would be awesome as decoration. Looks like he is getting quite a good price for it as well, considering the fact that it is a really old car and that half of it is missing. You could buy a complete car for that price.
The descriptions of the items at e-bay are pure comedy gold.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
You haven't lived till you go through a divorce LOL
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
He claims that his wife has left him for a younger colleague. That sort of thing tends to cause upset.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Can tell people who never been divorce before already hehe
She gets HALF and if married over ten years she get HALF you retirement pay
20983
Post by: Ratius
Thats in the US Jih.
In Ireland, she gets the kids, the house, the car, the mortgage and your 40k collection.
Can I come live in your Nuke-Bunker?
j/king
50512
Post by: Jihadin
 Ratius wrote:Thats in the US Jih.
In Ireland, she gets the kids, the house, the car, the mortgage and your 40k collection.
Can I come live in your Nuke-Bunker?
j/king
I need help burying a 40 ft container into the hillside.......
20983
Post by: Ratius
Stock us up Baby 
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
 Jihadin wrote: Ratius wrote:Thats in the US Jih.
In Ireland, she gets the kids, the house, the car, the mortgage and your 40k collection.
Can I come live in your Nuke-Bunker?
j/king
I need help burying a 40 ft container into the hillside.......
I got nothing going on this weekend. Will their be punch and pie?
20983
Post by: Ratius
Nah, just Jameson and RedHeads 
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I be a bad influence on some of you all.
Killian Reds and BBQ
When I BBQ
Chicken Pork Steaks
I do not half ass group BBQ's 
16387
Post by: Manchu
filbert wrote:I should say the precision of his cutting is impressive however.
He is German, after all.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Relapse wrote: filbert wrote:I guess there is a funny side to it but honestly? It's pretty pathetic. Just be a grown up and move on....
I could understand the reaction if his wife is the bitch he makes her out to be. It's a lot better than other actions he might have taken.
Actually it would be taken as a statement that she is, justified or not.
This is a great FU move. As for the things sawn in half, its only some token items, and possibly thus he can part with.
It opens up a legal dilemma. The things he is selling as art is 'his half' poetically, not legally. Is she is still entitled to half the proceeds?
And no its not stupid. The items on ebay at the moment are original works of art. The half laptop for instance could go straight into an art gallery, and frankly it deserves a place in the Tate, more so than a lot of the stuff actually there. If Tracy Emin did this and called the pieces 'the divorce setlement' you know they would be worth five figure sums. This is rthe same, but 100% real.
121
Post by: Relapse
I'd say it depends on the circumstances of the marriage. If, although not likely, she was totally at fault by being a bitch and running around on him and finally shacking up with some other guy, I applaud his approach.
5534
Post by: dogma
You support the destruction of his own property? That seems like an "If I can't have it, she can't either!" approach.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
What would you do if your wife cheated on you? Wouldn't you be angry?
121
Post by: Relapse
 dogma wrote:You support the destruction of his own property? That seems like an "If I can't have it, she can't either!" approach.
He's making money on the stuff and might find himself a new career as an angry artist. 
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Relapse wrote:
I'd say it depends on the circumstances of the marriage. If, although not likely, she was totally at fault by being a bitch and running around on him and finally shacking up with some other guy, I applaud his approach.
What if he was abusive and aggressive towards her first though? Would that excuse her? It's a bit hard to pin down the truth here when you've only a hint at his side of the story.
28305
Post by: Talizvar
Typically this would be destroying or devaluing / defacing the property so he would be on the hook for fair market value of half the undamaged product. Physically cutting "his half" and possibly selling it for more is putting me into analysis paralysis.
She is entitled to the half of her belongings, her life right or wrong. He is entitled to his. In the end, he will be required before a judge to ensure however the entire property is sold fair market value or full art piece sale half must be given whichever is higher.
Personally, cutting the stuff would have been a therapeutic distraction.
121
Post by: Relapse
 Howard A Treesong wrote:Relapse wrote:
I'd say it depends on the circumstances of the marriage. If, although not likely, she was totally at fault by being a bitch and running around on him and finally shacking up with some other guy, I applaud his approach.
What if he was abusive and aggressive towards her first though? Would that excuse her? It's a bit hard to pin down the truth here when you've only a hint at his side of the story.
I agree, he could have been a total bastard that she couldn't handle anymore. That's why I said it's not likely she was the sole reason the divorce happened. That being said I think that people of the world the posters here on Dakka are, we seen divorces with all the degrees of fault on either side happen. At least I know. I have.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Relapse wrote: Howard A Treesong wrote:Relapse wrote: I'd say it depends on the circumstances of the marriage. If, although not likely, she was totally at fault by being a bitch and running around on him and finally shacking up with some other guy, I applaud his approach.
What if he was abusive and aggressive towards her first though? Would that excuse her? It's a bit hard to pin down the truth here when you've only a hint at his side of the story.
I agree, he could have been a total bastard that she couldn't handle anymore. That's why I said it's not likely she was the sole reason the divorce happened. That being said I think that people of the world the posters here on Dakka are, we seen divorces with all the degrees of fault on either side happen. At least I know. I have.
The guy himself makes it clear (in the video and ebay descriptions) that his wife cheated on him with a younger guy with a better job. Though of course that does not take away the possibility of the guy himself also being a total bastard, but cheating is never acceptable.
50446
Post by: Piston Honda
Someday, somewhere one of these things will be called art and sell for millions.
28305
Post by: Talizvar
 Piston Honda wrote:Someday, somewhere one of these things will be called art and sell for millions.
Only "his" complete half set... my head hurts.
5534
Post by: dogma
I would consider my divorce options without destroying property I might gain in the divorce, especially as that action would almost certainly make the divorce settlement less favorable for me. It would play into the narrative that I was angry and abusive all along, causing my spouse to cheat.
Relapse wrote:
He's making money on the stuff and might find himself a new career as an angry artist.
Sure, because there are plenty of misogynistic people who will reflexively support his cause.
91
Post by: Hordini
I don't know why so many grown adults seem to have such difficulty parting ways. It's not that difficult to have a successful divorce, but for whatever reason a lot of people feel the urge to be needlessly vindictive. It's disgusting, and doubly so if children are involved.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Just be happy it was 12 years and not 12 years and some kids. You never have to see this person again in your life. Why destroy everything you have because of it?
121
Post by: Relapse
dogma wrote:
I would consider my divorce options without destroying property I might gain in the divorce, especially as that action would almost certainly make the divorce settlement less favorable for me. It would play into the narrative that I was angry and abusive all along, causing my spouse to cheat.
Relapse wrote:
He's making money on the stuff and might find himself a new career as an angry artist.
Sure, because there are plenty of misogynistic people who will reflexively support his cause.
I'm sure he doesn't care about the type of people giving him money for this, but just the fact he's racking up some nice coin while letting off steam. In all truth, the woman might be better off without him if he's the type that goes to this extreme.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dreadwinter wrote:Just be happy it was 12 years and not 12 years and some kids. You never have to see this person again in your life. Why destroy everything you have because of it?
Very true. I've seen where the parents try to use the kids as weapons or spies against the former spouse. Not pretty.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
 Iron_Captain wrote:Relapse wrote: Howard A Treesong wrote:Relapse wrote:
I'd say it depends on the circumstances of the marriage. If, although not likely, she was totally at fault by being a bitch and running around on him and finally shacking up with some other guy, I applaud his approach.
What if he was abusive and aggressive towards her first though? Would that excuse her? It's a bit hard to pin down the truth here when you've only a hint at his side of the story.
I agree, he could have been a total bastard that she couldn't handle anymore. That's why I said it's not likely she was the sole reason the divorce happened. That being said I think that people of the world the posters here on Dakka are, we seen divorces with all the degrees of fault on either side happen. At least I know. I have.
The guy himself makes it clear (in the video and ebay descriptions) that his wife cheated on him with a younger guy with a better job.
Though of course that does not take away the possibility of the guy himself also being a total bastard, but cheating is never acceptable.
And it's possible that his definition of cheating (which I have known many people use) was "she started seeing someone after we had separateed but before our divorce was final".
A friend of mines wife cheated on him, properly cheated. It was wrong, they got divorced, but he managed to do it with good grace and humour. But then neither of them tried to shaft the other one in the divorce and just split what they had amicably.
92104
Post by: r_squared
It's good to know there are so many level headed, rational people around to point out other people's faults on the internet. Otherwise, how would we know when we are wrong?
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
A link to someone being a cock was posted. What should we do? All go "oh ye, that's so cool". It's not like we went looking for it. He posted it for all to see, someone linked to it on here. You might have a point if this was a tabloid paper that had secretly filmed someone, but you can't expect people to not have opinions on something publicly posted on the Internet. People have opinions. This is an open forum. That's how the internet works.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Ratius wrote:Thats in the US Jih.
In Ireland, she gets the kids, the house, the car, the mortgage and your 40k collection.
What Jihadin is saying is that in the US, she gets half your money, pretty much for life (if you been married more than 10 years, it's "alimony")
Plus, if you have kids, many judges will simply give them to her, even if she is a proven crackhead. She'll get the house, the car or half the cars if there are more than one. However, she won't get the mortgage for the house, that's on you still.
91
Post by: Hordini
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:Plus, if you have kids, many judges will simply give them to her, even if she is a proven crackhead.
I'm not sure about the other part, but this part is absolutely untrue. The only time this happens is if the father is either completely unaware of his rights (and basically erroneously believes that the mother will automatically get the children and there is nothing he can do about it) or decides to not pursue custody. If the father wants either shared custody or generous visitation privileges, as long as he is not going to fail a drug test and isn't a felon or have other charges like domestic violence or child abuse, there isn't really a way for the mother to prevent that. Fathers have some very significant rights. The problem is people spread misinformation like this and then fathers just assume there is nothing they can do to keep the judge from simply "giving" the children to the mother, which is absolutely false.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
 Hordini wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote:Plus, if you have kids, many judges will simply give them to her, even if she is a proven crackhead.
I'm not sure about the other part, but this part is absolutely untrue. The only time this happens is if the father is either completely unaware of his rights (and basically erroneously believes that the mother will automatically get the children and there is nothing he can do about it) or decides to not pursue custody. If the father wants either shared custody or generous visitation privileges, as long as he is not going to fail a drug test and isn't a felon or have other charges like domestic violence or child abuse, there isn't really a way for the mother to prevent that. Fathers have some very significant rights. The problem is people spread misinformation like this and then fathers just assume there is nothing they can do to keep the judge from simply "giving" the children to the mother, which is absolutely false.
I used to think that about the system. My mother has always had sole custody. My fathers family tried to tell me for years that it was because of the judge and not my fathers fault, to get me to want to be in my fathers life. He didn't want to be in mine though, which complicated things. So eventually I gave up and then so did his family, they told me he gave up custody of me voluntarily.
I also have a cousin who has full custody of his son because his ex-wife is a crackhead. Women are not as favored as you think, most times when a man loses custody it is because he is a drug abuser or doesn't know what is going on.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ever been divorce?
Judge is going to lean towards the mother of a custody battle unless she is proven unfit to be a mother.
Edit
and the reverse can happen to the father to
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Jihadin wrote:Ever been divorce?
Judge is going to lean towards the mother of a custody battle unless she is proven unfit to be a mother.
My mother has been through 4 while I was a child between the ages of 6 and 20 and I can say that is not true. She has joint custody of my four other siblings with their fathers. She may not have been the best mother in the world, but she was far from a crackhead. She wanted full custody of all of her children and could not get it, no matter how hard she tried.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Dreadwinter wrote: Jihadin wrote:Ever been divorce?
Judge is going to lean towards the mother of a custody battle unless she is proven unfit to be a mother.
My mother has been through 4 while I was a child between the ages of 6 and 20 and I can say that is not true. She has joint custody of my four other siblings with their fathers. She may not have been the best mother in the world, but she was far from a crackhead. She wanted full custody of all of her children and could not get it, no matter how hard she tried.
Did not see my edit?
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
I did, after I posted that.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Ratius wrote:Thats in the US Jih.
In Ireland, she gets the kids, the house, the car, the mortgage and your 40k collection.
What Jihadin is saying is that in the US, she gets half your money, pretty much for life (if you been married more than 10 years, it's "alimony")
Plus, if you have kids, many judges will simply give them to her, even if she is a proven crackhead. She'll get the house, the car or half the cars if there are more than one. However, she won't get the mortgage for the house, that's on you still.
Only in Barbarian states. In states with proper laws, she gets half the community property.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Jihadin wrote:Ever been divorce?
Judge is going to lean towards the mother of a custody battle unless she is proven unfit to be a mother.
One of my soldiers in Germany went through a divorce with his wife. The unit would not grant him any leave, emergency or otherwise, to take care of proceedings in person. So he was forced to do everything via mail, email, and phone. He told his lawyer explicitly that he wanted partial custody or more. This was due to the fact that he had the police reports showing that his wife had been arrested while high on, and in possession of drugs like Cocaine and Heroine.
Not only did he not get any custody, he gets no visitation rights, AND somehow, in the state of Michigan they count ALL army pay for the purposes of child support (as in, they were using his COLA, any housing allowance, which was removed due to him living in the barracks, and food allowance, which was also deducted due to eating in the chow hall), we had our JAG people, as well as the brigade commander fighting for this dude, and in the end the judge basically said, "that's my ruling and that's final"
So, while I have not personally been through divorce, I have known enough people who have and have come to the belief that it really comes down to jurisdiction and the crap-shoot of who your judge is.
5534
Post by: dogma
Relapse wrote:
I'm sure he doesn't care about the type of people giving him money for this, but just the fact he's racking up some nice coin while letting off steam. In all truth, the woman might be better off without him if he's the type that goes to this extreme.
Of course he doesn't care, he's a an irrational man who probably has anger issues. The issue I have is that lots of people reflexively defended the guy because of some perverted sense of men's rights.
121
Post by: Relapse
dogma wrote:Relapse wrote:
I'm sure he doesn't care about the type of people giving him money for this, but just the fact he's racking up some nice coin while letting off steam. In all truth, the woman might be better off without him if he's the type that goes to this extreme.
Of course he doesn't care, he's a an irrational man who probably has anger issues. The issue I have is that lots of people reflexively defended the guy because of some perverted sense of men's rights.
I think there was an unspoken caveat, though, that the support was conditional on if the woman was totaly in the wrong. I don't really believe any of the people posting here are blindly supporting the guy, right or wrong. It's just that from a far distance, there is an element of comedy in his reaction. Up close, the humor most probably isn't there, but we aren't up close.
5534
Post by: dogma
Relapse wrote:
I think there was an unspoken caveat, though, that the support was conditional on if the woman was totaly in the wrong.
But many people gave financial support before they could have full knowledge of the case, and even more people gave spoken support before they had full knowledge; yourself included.
Relapse wrote:It's just that from a far distance, there is an element of comedy in his reaction.
Sure, if you're a misogynist.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
I don't think you have to be a misogynyst to laugh at a grown man throwing a temper tantrum.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
If the divorce was fully due to her cheating and he chose this way to go through with it, more power to him! She quite literally got half the stuff. She can do what she wants with her halves, he chose to sell his. Sounds pretty darn fair to me.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
With that line of reasoning, he has effectively destroyed her personal property and she should be compensated for it, by him.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Nah, her side of it is still in the same condition it was in.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Dreadwinter wrote:With that line of reasoning, he has effectively destroyed her personal property and she should be compensated for it, by him.
Only if the divorce was already completed and the property divided by the time he cut things up.
5534
Post by: dogma
Dreadwinter wrote:I don't think you have to be a misogynyst to laugh at a grown man throwing a temper tantrum.
A fair point.
Iron_Captain wrote:
Only if the divorce was already completed and the property divided by the time he cut things up.
If destroyed before that it was their mutual property and, as the guy destroyed it, he should be forced to compensate his soon to be former spouse.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
dogma wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:I don't think you have to be a misogynyst to laugh at a grown man throwing a temper tantrum.
A fair point.
Iron_Captain wrote:
Only if the divorce was already completed and the property divided by the time he cut things up.
If destroyed before that it was their mutual property and, as the guy destroyed it, he should be forced to compensate his soon to be former spouse.
Again, why? She quite literally got half of everything. She got half the TV and half the radio: as opposed to her getting the TV and he gets the radio. This is the most literal breakdown of "she gets half my stuff". Honestly, it's like some of you guys have no sense of humor or respect for this man's literalness. He's essentially the real life Drax the Destroyer.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Maybe we just have more respect for a persons property than his right to do something absurdly childish and immature.
5534
Post by: dogma
 timetowaste85 wrote:
Again, why? She quite literally got half of everything. She got half the TV and half the radio: as opposed to her getting the TV and he gets the radio.
She didn't get half the value of anything. All of the relevant property was destroyed by a childish man who will only recoup his losses because childish men like to support each other.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Dreadwinter wrote:With that line of reasoning, he has effectively destroyed her personal property and she should be compensated for it, by him.
Not if you consider the stance that he is taking a judge's word quite literally. And in my own limited experience, German tends to be quite a literal language, it is the language afterall, that gave us a word like "schadenfreud", and no other language that I know of has a singular word to describe that situation that schadenfreud does.
121
Post by: Relapse
dogma wrote:Relapse wrote:
I think there was an unspoken caveat, though, that the support was conditional on if the woman was totaly in the wrong.
But many people gave financial support before they could have full knowledge of the case, and even more people gave spoken support before they had full knowledge; yourself included.
Relapse wrote:It's just that from a far distance, there is an element of comedy in his reaction.
Sure, if you're a misogynist.
You are taking what I said far out of context even though I clarified my point in several posts. I know you are far smarter than that.
93655
Post by: Buttery Commissar
I'm now curious to see if they had a dog together.
...I'll get my coat.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Unfortunately...
Na just kidding....
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
If they did, I'm sure the neighbors briefly mistook them for having a cat
5534
Post by: dogma
Relapse wrote:
You are taking what I said far out of context even though I clarified my point in several posts. I know you are far smarter than that.
Would this...
Relapse wrote:
I could understand the reaction if his wife is the bitch he makes her out to be. It's a lot better than other actions he might have taken.
...be the context you are speaking of?
121
Post by: Relapse
dogma wrote:Relapse wrote:
You are taking what I said far out of context even though I clarified my point in several posts. I know you are far smarter than that.
Would this...
Relapse wrote:
I could understand the reaction if his wife is the bitch he makes her out to be. It's a lot better than other actions he might have taken.
...be the context you are speaking of?
Yes, with the key word In there being "if", since I don't know what happened in their marriage and break up. I also wrote this:
"In all truth, the woman might be better off without him if he's the type that goes to this extreme"
For whatever reason you seem to wish to argue about this from the position it's all his fault as though you know the couple. If you do, then please enlighten the rest of us on the full circumstances and remove all doubt from our minds to the degree you seem to posess.
You are extremely sensitive on this and if the story touched an unpleasant nerve or personal memory for you, then I am sorry.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Dreadwinter wrote:With that line of reasoning, he has effectively destroyed her personal property and she should be compensated for it, by him.
Exactly. Further, in the US if this occurred:
1. She should get a TRO
2. The court would go after him for not following judgements.
3. He probably just lost custody of any kids he had, with at best limited and supervised visitation.
This is the behavior of someone who is dangerous and off his rocker. Automatically Appended Next Post: Iron_Captain wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:With that line of reasoning, he has effectively destroyed her personal property and she should be compensated for it, by him.
Only if the divorce was already completed and the property divided by the time he cut things up.
Exactly. Automatically Appended Next Post: timetowaste85 wrote: dogma wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:I don't think you have to be a misogynyst to laugh at a grown man throwing a temper tantrum.
A fair point.
Iron_Captain wrote:
Only if the divorce was already completed and the property divided by the time he cut things up.
If destroyed before that it was their mutual property and, as the guy destroyed it, he should be forced to compensate his soon to be former spouse.
Again, why? She quite literally got half of everything. She got half the TV and half the radio: as opposed to her getting the TV and he gets the radio. This is the most literal breakdown of "she gets half my stuff". Honestly, it's like some of you guys have no sense of humor or respect for this man's literalness. He's essentially the real life Drax the Destroyer.
You don't really understand the concept of community property or court ordered division of assets do you boy? He has destroyed the value of the property.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
17897
Post by: Thargrim
In the modern world and the way we live nowadays, I see absolutely no reason to even get married. Cause you know its not gonna end well. If you like someone, why not just be together?
We human creatures always have to slap a label or title on something Or pressure others into doing whats considered the norm.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Because da wimminz are tricksy and tricks us don't they precious!
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 Thargrim wrote:In the modern world and the way we live nowadays, I see absolutely no reason to even get married. Cause you know its not gonna end well. If you like someone, why not just be together?
1. recent surveys/studies show that divorce rates are down (in the US at least)... so if we assume that the "til death do we part" thing is more literal than ever... yeah, 100% of marriages are not going to end well, because someone inevitably dies. I have read articles suggesting that in other parts of the world, such as Germany, divorce rates are down but at the same time, marriage rates have plummeted as they don't have as much reason to do so.
2. In the US tax system, there are plenty of reasons to be officially married, otherwise SS couples wouldn't be fighting so hard for recognition as being married.
I would say that many of the couples who get married today, do so for the right reasons, as opposed to "family pressured us to 'settle down' and get married". I suspect it was actually the religious older generation of family members that caused some folks to get married due to it being the "norm". Now, I think that many people are getting married because they WANT to, not because grandma wants "pure" grandchildren.
5534
Post by: dogma
Relapse wrote:
For whatever reason you seem to wish to argue about this from the position it's all his fault as though you know the couple.
I've never argued from the position that the divorce was entirely his fault, I merely contended that he might be partially at fault. As in any romantic breakup blame can usually be laid at the feet of both individuals. However his actions during that breakup were incredibly stupid and only garnered support for misogynistic reasons.
Relapse wrote:
You are extremely sensitive on this and if the story touched an unpleasant nerve or personal memory for you, then I am sorry.
I dislike reflexive misogyny and dislike it even more when it is displayed in cultural groups that are historically hostile towards women. Dakka is very good at being accepting, but gaming culture is still very much a man's world.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Who here been through a nasty divorce?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Does being sued 47 times by the ex, stalked by the ex, and advised that everyone should be armed at all times until he dies count?
34390
Post by: whembly
Not a nasty divorce... but, I've been through a divorce.
I could've been  10 ways to Sunday due to how unfavorable men (and fathers) are viewed.
Of which, No Faults divorce can be really, really bad for men.
121
Post by: Relapse
 Frazzled wrote:
Does being sued 47 times by the ex, stalked by the ex, and advised that everyone should be armed at all times until he dies count?
Holy crap! You've been through that?
47598
Post by: motyak
Relapse wrote: Frazzled wrote:
Does being sued 47 times by the ex, stalked by the ex, and advised that everyone should be armed at all times until he dies count?
Holy crap! You've been through that?
To be fair, the ex was the Lab he had before he went weiner dog crazy, so you can understand why he would have been hurt.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Lab? I thought it was a Chihuahua.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Good thing he not going back to the lab
We be all screwed n the head if he goes back to the lab
This is Frazz dammit
Frazz and a lab
NO GO AT THIS STATION!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Relapse wrote: Frazzled wrote:
Does being sued 47 times by the ex, stalked by the ex, and advised that everyone should be armed at all times until he dies count?
Holy crap! You've been through that?
yep. $200k legal fees
5470
Post by: sebster
Thargrim wrote:In the modern world and the way we live nowadays, I see absolutely no reason to even get married. Cause you know its not gonna end well. If you like someone, why not just be together? We human creatures always have to slap a label or title on something Or pressure others into doing whats considered the norm.
If two people are planning on raising children together and buying a house etc, then it kind of makes sense to make a commitment to each other that you will put in a whole lot of work to make this work - when you've got two kids under 5 and a mortgage you don't want your partner bailing just because you've had a tough month. And once you’re making that commitment, and you add in the romance factor, then for a lot of people it makes sense to make that commitment publically, declaring it in front of your friends and family. That doesn't mean it works out everytime, of course. But the rate of success is actually improving, and arguably never actually dropped (some interesting work has shown that divorce rates were fairly constant throughout the 20th century, once you factor in people living longer and therefore having longer to get divorced).
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 sebster wrote:
That doesn't mean it works out everytime, of course. But the rate of success is actually improving, and arguably never actually dropped (some interesting work has shown that divorce rates were fairly constant throughout the 20th century, once you factor in people living longer and therefore having longer to get divorced).
IIRC, there was a bit of a "spike" in the US divorce rate from about 2003-2009 or so... coincidentally, that was at the height of the US being engaged in a multiple front "war". I do know, from my time in the military, by way of ridiculous and waste-of-time training, that the military is well above US national average for divorce rates, but they were seeing that rate improve a bit around 2011-2012 time frame.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Draw down phase as the "back then" US trained Iraqi Forces took over a US Unit AOR.
Afterwards what happened to Iraq military is a damn shamed
121
Post by: Relapse
Frazzled wrote:Relapse wrote: Frazzled wrote:
Does being sued 47 times by the ex, stalked by the ex, and advised that everyone should be armed at all times until he dies count?
Holy crap! You've been through that?
yep. $200k legal fees
Damn, son! I don't even have anything to say to that except it sounds like you were well rid of her.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I received my divorce paperwork on deployment
Was not a good tour for the Insurgents that year
5470
Post by: sebster
Ensis Ferrae wrote:IIRC, there was a bit of a "spike" in the US divorce rate from about 2003-2009 or so... coincidentally, that was at the height of the US being engaged in a multiple front "war". I do know, from my time in the military, by way of ridiculous and waste-of-time training, that the military is well above US national average for divorce rates, but they were seeing that rate improve a bit around 2011-2012 time frame.
Interesting, I can see how overseas deployment would play a role. How many troops did the US have overseas at its peak deployment?
Another factor is that those were also more prosperous years (not great, but better than the recessions bookending that period). Divorce rates are reasonably closely tied to economic prosperity, but not in the way people think - while poor finances can lead to individual marriage breakdowns, in general divorce is actually higher when the economy is doing well. Basically if things are going well and people feel financially secure they're more likely to feel comfortable that they can get by on a single income.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
Jihadin wrote:I received my divorce paperwork on deployment
Was not a good tour for the Insurgents that year
And that my friends, is the ultimate Dear John letter. She had timing down to a fine art. I can imagine you married life . *jihadin bites into a twinkie and his ex enters at that precise moment* "Pick up that coconut now! , goodammit I just finished hoovering." Ah, the memories.
65162
Post by: TheDraconicLord
dogma wrote:
Relapse wrote:It's just that from a far distance, there is an element of comedy in his reaction.
Sure, if you're a misogynist.
Out of curiosity, what exactly is misognystic here? Misogyny is the hatred or distrust of women, correct?
The dude just seems like a genuinely pissed off guy that's hurt after being cheated on by both his wife and a colleague. I'm certain he now hates a certain woman, but that's it.
Hell, his solution for his anger isn't even hurting anyone, so kudos for that.
5534
Post by: dogma
 TheDraconicLord wrote:
Out of curiosity, what exactly is misognystic here? Misogyny is the hatred or distrust of women, correct?
Yes, the reflexive support for the guy is where the misogyny comes in.
Technically he's hurting himself and former spouse by destroying either their, or her, property.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
dogma wrote: TheDraconicLord wrote:
Out of curiosity, what exactly is misognystic here? Misogyny is the hatred or distrust of women, correct?
Yes, the reflexive support for the guy is where the misogyny comes in.
So empathy for a member of your own sex now translates to misogyny????
What praytell do you call womens' all men are bastards sessions?
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Bullockist wrote: dogma wrote: TheDraconicLord wrote:
Out of curiosity, what exactly is misognystic here? Misogyny is the hatred or distrust of women, correct?
Yes, the reflexive support for the guy is where the misogyny comes in.
So empathy for a member of your own sex now translates to misogyny????
What praytell do you call womens' all men are bastards sessions?
Mansplanation teach ins.
47598
Post by: motyak
Bullockist wrote: dogma wrote: TheDraconicLord wrote:
Out of curiosity, what exactly is misognystic here? Misogyny is the hatred or distrust of women, correct?
Yes, the reflexive support for the guy is where the misogyny comes in.
So empathy for a member of your own sex now translates to misogyny????
What praytell do you call womens' all men are bastards sessions?
Did they, in this example you are talking of, couple that with destroying half of his stuff so that when he comes home everything of value is broken, with half of that broken stuff sold and it all over social media and the internet? Because if not, then relevance is an issue...
50512
Post by: Jihadin
This sort of action is not new in the world. Everyone knows this right? Just seems some of you all sound "shocked"
221
Post by: Frazzled
Jihadin wrote:This sort of action is not new in the world. Everyone knows this right? Just seems some of you all sound "shocked"
Well of course.
(images of Jihadin calling in an A-10 on his ex-wife's stuff)
In the words of the immortal bard: FREEEEEEEEEEEM!
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
dogma wrote: TheDraconicLord wrote:
Out of curiosity, what exactly is misognystic here? Misogyny is the hatred or distrust of women, correct?
Yes, the reflexive support for the guy is where the misogyny comes in.
Technically he's hurting himself and former spouse by destroying either their, or her, property.
So...I find it amusing that he took a very literal view on "she gets half of the stuff"...and in Dogma's world, that makes me a mysogonistic, woman hating a-hole. Riiiiiiight...grow up, Dogma. I'd have been amused in the exact same way if gender roles had been reversed and he cheated and she sawed the stuff in half. The bigger question is if your reaction would be different if their roles were reversed. Would you cheer her, after hurling accusations at him in this thread? If so, that makes you a disgusting hypocrite. Or would you be exactly as offended if she sawed the stuff in half. Just make sure your reaction is equally fair to both people.
5534
Post by: dogma
timetowaste85 wrote:The bigger question is if your reaction would be different if their roles were reversed. Would you cheer her, after hurling accusations at him in this thread? If so, that makes you a disgusting hypocrite. Or would you be exactly as offended if she sawed the stuff in half. Just make sure your reaction is equally fair to both people.
I'm not really offended by his actions, I think they were stupid and petty but beyond that I really don't care. What annoys me is all the people who jumped to his defense in large part because he is a man. I would also be annoyed if someone reflexively jumped to woman's defense in a similar situation.
Childish misandry.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
I don't jump to his defense due to him being a man. I just generally think the entirety of the human race sucks, so when stupid things like this happen, I choose to laugh at it instead of getting butthurt. It's much easier this way.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Wonder if she took half of what was on the mantle
39188
Post by: Bullockist
In that case, I'm perfectly fine with your statement. Equality is a wonderful thing. That said I do hate the mis- words being thrown round like verbal confetti.
121
Post by: Relapse
Too funny! Kind of like the ad where the cement truck driver fills the car with cement.
|
|
