“The 90 day rule proposed rests on at least two flawed assumptions:
murder/suicide is a bad thing and”
We’re social animals. Maybe your suicide is none of my business, but murder is. Someone is a threat to a fellow member of my species. I should do what i can to limit needless harm.
Ideally, I would also limit any irrational suicides, while supporting rational ones…
“that anyone (in this case the courts) can interfere with a man’s private affairs for any reason.”
But if it’s murder, it’s not a private affair. It’s an attack on another person you fuckwit.
“Before I proceed with my points, I acknowledge of such the intent of such a rule is to reduce human suffering. Laudable but ineffectual.”
If i can stop you from committing murder and being punished for it, I have effectively reduced suffering.
“Trading murder/suicide for a two-step process to drive a man to suicide only helps the woman.”
Okay? And?
You’re both members of my gene pool, my species. I would want to keep you both alive, but only one of you is a threat to the other.
“Also, imposing such a rule implies that some men should follow it because it is a rule.”
Um, yeah, that’s why it’s a rule, not a suggestion. I mean, the first ten Amendments are not the Bill Of We’d Like You To Think About…
“Nobody — no cop, no judge, no president — should be afforded any legitimacy in interfering with a man’s family affairs.”
Completely wrong, once your ‘affair’ affects another human being.
“Conceding that to any degree is tantamount to self-imposed slavery.”
A bit overdramatic. But, hey, if the only way to keep you from killing your wife is a collar, I’ll rivit it right in place.
“At this point, loving fathers and devoted husbands are suited up and in the starting lineup of Team Vagina.”
Where as you would concentrate on the cocks, I take it?
Fuck off.
“In essence, a murder/suicide is a BOGO for our side. Why would we want to stop it?”
I don’t care if YOU want to stop it. The rest of us do. And your objections are noted, weighed, measured and found wanting.