Woman runs over philandering husband.

[Skanky Burns]

There is a reason people don't act out what they think though.

If I acted out even half of my fantasies...

[devilmunchkin]

exactly

[orange]

Originally posted by devilmunchkin
it's not a crime...but i think she did what everyone THINKS about doing when they've been cheated on

absolutely

[orange]

Originally posted by Frogger
Legally, perjury only occurs under oath.

I know that. But having criminal laws against lying in any form opens up the debate for criminal law against lying in this case.

And fraud is a deception practiced to get unlawful gain. So if I lie and say that I've never slept with another woman to get married to a rich woman, then I've committed fraud.

Yes, but "unlawful gain" is a grey area in my opinion.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by orange


I know that. But having criminal laws against lying in any form opens up the debate for criminal law against lying in this case.

Not at all. There are a few simple rules:

don't lie in court
don't lie to the police
don't lie to get someone to give you money

[orange]

how are they any different then 'don't lie to prolong a marriage for your own benefit'?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're kidding right?

[orange]

so defend your position, Imran.

[Tiamat]

Her mistake was going after the husband. She should have gone after the other woman

[orange]

that is to say: if someone can be legally in trouble for lying under oath, to an officer of the law, to obtain money, why is it 'ridiculous' to question why it is not legally wrong to lie about to a partner in a marriage contract? In other words: why does the act become so incredibly different in terms of punishment between dealing with oaths, police, or money then when dealing with a civil contract between two people? I know what the existing difference is, I want you to defend the theoretical difference between the two.

[KrazyHorse]

Orange, your arguments here are almost as spurious as floyd's are on economics.

[orange]

and you have yet to show why. You've scoffed, ignored, rolled your eyes, and said 'whatever' but as of yet you really haven't made much of an argument.

Invitation stands.

[KrazyHorse]

Orange, here's the thing: you've invited me to explain why there's a qualitative difference between lying in a courtroom under oath and lying to your wife about whether or not you're plugging the maid.

The difference is there, it's obvious, and it's completely inexplicable to someone who chooses not to see it.

It's like trying to explain to Floyd why there's a difference between charging him taxes to give to the poor and letting poor people steal his wallet.

That's why I compared you two.

[KrazyHorse]

Now please explain why it's okay to jail somebody for cheating on his wife, but not because he called in sick in order to go fishing.

[orange]

I still don't see the philosophical difference between lying in one instance and lying in another. Both are 'wrong'. Now, if Clinton lies under oath about his sex life, which I support since it's none of anyone's damn business, but gets impeached for it...why is that a crime whereas lying to a spouse whom with you have a 'contract' based on fidelity is not? Ok, so this becomes grounds for a divorce...so what?

I don't think the difference is 'obvious'. I think there are differences, but the root crime is the same. There are circumstances that I can think of where lying under oath would be 'permissable' or forgivable, but I can't think of many, if any times where cheating on a spouse could be forgivable when it is an expressed part of your marriage to that person that you will be faithful and exclusive.

I understand why you compared me to Floyd, and to be honest I'm not 100% serious about this...but am I upset that cheating on a spouse is regarded as just something that happens and that should be accepted - you bet!