Man sues wife for being ugly
- Thread starter rockytopva
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Then makeup is fraudulent as well, as well as me coloring the gray in my beard.
Fraud is a legal term, deception is a moral term. Sometimes they don't co-incide.
Fraud is a legal term, deception is a moral term. Sometimes they don't co-incide.
Makeup is an accepted convention and practice despite our agreement towards it or not. Radically altering your appearance to seduce one into marrying you, a marital contract, when that person given the revelation of the deceit and would not enter into the contract, i.e. that is fraud.
No difference between the two, still alterations to appear as one does not naturally. One is permanent and one is not. But aren't we tilting at windmills? I don't think the guy should have won the case in the first place.
Makeup is not generally recognized or misperceived as a permanent feature of one's appearance and my opinion is that in most cases women should not bewearing it. A lot of men prefer a natural look including myself and so I guess to a small extent I can see it as being deceptive. However, a permanent alteration to one's appearance with the express purpose of deceiving and drawing one into forming a contract they would not otherwise make is not only deceptive but also fraudulent.
Apples to oranges. You KNOW when a person is wearing make-up. There is no way to know the extent of surgery a person has had unless they tell you.
Kenny Rogers has nothing to do with any of this. We're not talking about side-by-side comparisons here but a woman who presented herself with an appearance that is not hers without the benefit of her husband being aware. Nancy Pelosi and Kenny are irrelevant because we're familiar with their appearances pre-surgery.
Gypsy was the one who said, "There is no way to know the extent of surgery a person has had unless they tell you" and I showed them demonstrable proof they were wrong (Kenny Rodgers).
Read within the context of what he was speaking to, you only showed that you will resort to red herrings to obscure the issue. If you were to meet someone out of the blue on the street, you would not be able to tell in every case what that person had had done to alter their appearance and in this particular case there was no indication she had done anything. Kenny's permanent look of exasperation should be a tip off to anyone, even to those who don't know him at all, that he has had work done but not every case is as simple as that. Without a before and after look at the individual whether or not someone would be able to guess is not what the court was considering in this case. The simple facts were that she altered her appearance, failed to disclose this and had an individual enter into a contract with her that upon disclosing the facts he would not have entered into this contract. I would think this is the clearest cut case of fraud that there could be. The Chinese court ruled correctly on this.
Maybe to the letter of the law, but not to the spirit, since both were guilty of the sin of vanity.
We're dividing God's law from man's law here. Man's law holds this to be an act of fraud. God's law, you say shows that they are both vain but two wrongs still do not make a right out of what she did.
EDIT: And if it was vain wouldn't he only be concerned with her appearance skin deep? Maybe he discovered she was ugly on the inside and is why he divorced her. That doesn't seem very vain to me.
You are arguing from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) since the article does not mention about any "inner" ugliness on her part. A fallacious assertion on your part and therefore invalid.
That's funny you should say that because you've been obscuring the issue for over half a page now. It's not fallacious any more than your surmisal that he is vain is fallacious. You have no information from which to gather that and I'm rebutting you by saying that perhaps your conclusion is incorrect. What you are doing is acting ridiculous and emotional and how such an unstable and illogical person could be given any sort of authority over Christians is repugnant.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
beautiful people are not guaranteed to have beautiful children. Ugly people often produce attractive children. This whole discussion is absurd.
Similar threads
