Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

forte

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    879
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by forte

  1. It is easy to sit in an armchair and judge a situation that we will never have to deal with, but people on some of these drugs are insanely strong and can be nearly impossible to stop.  Even ramming his car into a tree and being hit by a car and being tased did not stop him.  If that man had reached the policeman (whose backup was not quite there) he would have hurt or killed him with physical force or by grabbing his gun. Or he could have hurt anyone in the area, especially if he got the gun and was armed.  I think the policeman tried his best with patience and waited till the last second.  It is clear that he did not want to shoot him. 

    Why is his being Black is an issue here?  The policeman was also Black.   The issue is that he was totally out of his mind on drugs and was a danger to anyone in the vicinity.  He chose to take drugs and to drive a car in that messed up state - on a busy freeway.  The outcome could have been far worse.

  2. 41 minutes ago, Silas said:

    It is actually a myth that white settlers in North America deliberately spread diseases through methods such as smallpox-infected blankets

    The germ theory of medicine did not appear until the 1870s (Louis Pasteur, Joseph Lister, etc.), and the common person had no knowledge of how smallpox was spread, or even how it worked. Surgeons operated without masks up until the 1890s.

     

     

    No one in their right mind would have knowingly handled smallpox infected blankets.  There was no basic concept of aseptic technique and the infected blankets would have wiped everyone out before they were able to distribute them.  I don't know how this myth started but it persists even though there is no logical basis for it. 

  3. 33 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

    That is true except for inheritance. Although the Government does not recognize the marriage, under US law, you can leave inheritance to anyone you want. So if he followed the Islamic rules regarding inheritance, she would be entitled to it, and US law would not 'dis-entitle' her to it. 

    Good point, I am glad you mentioned this.  Yes, what you have stated is true if there is a will.  In the west, in your will, you can leave everything to your cat if you want - and people have!  

    However, if there is no will, the court determines inheritance base on closest family tie.  A second wife would not be considered "family", but her children proven to be fathered by her husband would be in the running.  

    I don't know about US laws, but in Canada, the husband's work accumulated pension, if he dies, will automatically go to the first wife and when she dies, the payments end. Even if the husband divorces his first wife, based on how many years he was married to her, half of his pension accumulated through those years will automatically go to her and not the second wife. The first wife can sign an affidavit stating that she relinquishes the right to half of his pension - which is occasionally done in divorce settlements, if for some reason it benefits her. In that case, the husband retains his full pension, but when he dies, it does not go to the second wife as he cannot will it to her.  It ends. A responsible thing to do would be to set up some kind of insurance benefit for the second wife so that she is covered financially if he dies.

    The most important thing in all this is that you need to have a will addressing assets over which you have control. It is especially important to have a will if you have multiple wives that are dependent on you. I am sure wills and insurance policies are the last thing on the mind of a young couple, but maybe that is something that needs to be more formally addressed by those officiating at the the marriage or perhaps in pre-marriage guidance sessions.

  4. 1 hour ago, King said:

    This is beyond pathetic, too bad men tend to do this a lot.  Unfortunately it looks like you will join the endless list of mothers with children just abandoned by their fathers.  There are actually a lot of support groups and government programs for single mothers. 

    His family probably will have a huge issue with you being a foreigner, not muslim, the fact that they were not informed etc.  It also could be that he himself is just not that invested in raising this kid.  If his family is the main roadblock and you feel he on some level cares for his unborn child then you should push him again to tell his family, it is a bit tricky but some families when faced with such situations do come around.  If he himself seems totally disinterested in the child then you should just move on.  If you have a supportive family it will help tremendously and your kid should still grow up in a loving environment.

    This guy needs to be held accountable. Too many men get the "oh well" pass.  That is why it is such a huge problem. 

  5. 50 minutes ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

    Except, if the grandparents are likely to throw out their son, how likely is it that they would want a relationship with the kid? If the OP has no interest in reconciling things with the man for the sake of a long-term relationship or marriage, then it's not her problem. If the secret does eventually come out, that's between him and his parents; he made his decisions and he needs to live with them. 

    I don't see why she has to involve herself with people she doesn't know, and have to go through the arduous process of explaining to them how their son defied them. There's no upside to telling them, and the only possible downside is that the child may not have a relationship with the father or his family but, like I said, if the father is himself unwilling to participate in the child's life and the grandparents are willing to throw the father out of the house, I don't imagine they would want a relationship with the child, or that it would be a very good relationship even if they did. And, of course, if the child was born out of wedlock, that just makes it much worse.

    It is not about the glowing heap of a coward.  It is about the child, an innocent child. Children have rights; they are human; they have the right to be treated with respect and dignity.  They should not be cast aside like an unwanted of some animal  litter, with numerous apologists supporting the toss so as to not cause discomfort...  If the father's family choose not to have anything to do with the child, that is on them and potentially a great loss.  At least the mom tried, and she needs to try.  Too many children in the west have few to no connections to families; they deserve better, a lot better.  I work with kids who would have a lot easier road and much better chance at an optimistic future if they had just basic acceptance and love from their families.  A sense of belonging is a basic need.  When dads take off, too often there is a whole extended family cut out of a child's life - it is like losing a part of them - a valuable part.  This extended family may be responsible and welcome a connection with their grandchild and look to the future, or they may embrace an intolerant backwoods culture and reject him or her out of hand.  That child will become an adult and he or she will have a lot of questions for mom and perhaps will go looking for the family they never got to know.  Mom will need to assure him that she realized that that was important and that she respected his rights and tried.

  6. If you remain child focused, it is clear what to do.   You need to tell his parents.  Your child deserves the opportunity to be connected to his or her grandparents and the grandparents deserve to know that they have a grandchild and they deserve the opportunity to be part of the child's life.  At this point, you are the only one that can make that happen, or not happen.   The grandparent/grandchild relationship should not be contingent on the decision of the father, who has made it clear that he is more concerned about his own issues than the needs of the baby.  Always do what is in the best interest of the baby, every other consideration  is very much secondary.

  7. This is a common issue.  Redirect your mothers comments about why you need to be with her, to when you are planning on coming.  So you could thank her for her concern around whatever it is that she comes up with as a problem that would be solved if you lived there. And then, to shorten the calls with her over unending pressure, validate what she says (in other words, that you hear her so she won't repeat endlessly) and say I have to go, but we can talk further when I see you on Wednesday evening (for example).  Always end with the note where and when you will see her next.  It changes the focus of the convo to what you are going to be doing not what you are not doing.  She is left with the concrete anticipation of when she will see you next which is very powerful and calming.  It takes a little perseverance on your part, at first, but allows you to fully, but gently, take control of the situation.

  8. Talk to your husband about adoption.  Find out what his anxieties he has about adoption and then find resources in your community to allay those fears.  If you make it really clear that is what you want to do, he will most likely go along with it.   I cant believe that he would agree for you to divorce him rather than to adopt a child. If he does have a problem with exploring this option, then that would be closer to a reason to divorce.  He needs to acknowledge that he is to be part of the solution to his infertility.  

    And if the OP were a man, we would all be telling him to get another wife, either a replacement or an addition, and that his wife would have to learn how to deal with it.  So her comments that women do not have the options that a man has are  valid.

     

  9. 58 minutes ago, Hameedeh said:

    @forte Thank you for the book recommendation on BPD. However, we don't know her Mother and that lady could have PTSD or something else. Clearly, she is not treating her daughter properly.  

    You are most welcome!

    My apologies, perhaps I was not very clear as I wrote that very fast while working.

    The strategies outlined in the book are to deal with symptoms of BPD or other disorders or issues that demonstrate similar presentations.  That would include a number of disorders including, as you mentioned, PTSD, as well as destructive mood disorder swings, etc.  They are kind, caring, and easy to implement.  These strategies are taught to family members who live with those who have mental health challenges.  They address the behaviours that significantly impact family members.  When one person in a family is afflicted, everyone is adversely affected.  Relationships suffer, communication can be non existent and abusive, controlling behaviours emerge out of desperation. The Walking on Eggshells book explains the individual behaviours and how to address them in clear easy to read terms.  In Canada, this is one publication that is frequently recommended to family members by community mental health teams because it is easy to implement. The information given helps to establish a healthier dynamic in the family, one from which the OP could greatly benefit. 

  10.  

    OP's living situation:

    "Do you feel manipulated, controlled, or lied to? Are you the focus of intense, violent, and irrational rages? Do you feel as though you are constantly trying to avoid confrontation?"

    The quote on the first line above is some of what it is like to live with someone who demonstrates Borderline Personalty attributes (there are a few different 'flavours').  The more you give in, the more challenging their behaviour gets as you are emotionally bled dry and your own basic functioning becomes a sought after dream.  That is, their behaviours become increasingly controlling to the point where you doubt your own sanity and often develop your own acquired disorders. The person with BPD just spirals out of control and the person living with them who tries to "calm" them just gets sucked into their vortex. Not helpful for either party.

    Stop Walking on Eggshells: Taking Your Life Back 

    https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B004DNXGFQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1  An oldie but a goodie.

    This is an easy to read, very straight forward lay person's book to and will really help with people who have to live with people who have been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and those who haven't been diagnosed but definitely could pass the smell test (talking about mom here) or partially share some of the symptoms.  It gives you guidance as to what to do. That is, how to view your situation, how to react to it and sometimes even what scripts to say if needed.  And it works.  It gives you the confidence and emotional "permission" to react to these controlling and attention seeking behaviours in a way that is most healthy for yourself and for your loved one. You can flip through the book and find the situation you are experiencing and it gives step by step guidance.  And no, I am not getting royalties!  

  11. 4 minutes ago, realizm said:

    Well before you go on trying to prove me as a stereotypical and average racist guy, let me give you this very concrete exemple based on personal experience. 

    We went on a group trip for a friends' wedding. This group included me, my wife and kid - all shia muslims but looking white (racist?). We went all country, even crossed borders dealing with the military, without getting too much attention. On the other side, our group included three of my friends (respectively African, West Indies, Asian), and all were taken selfies with during the night of the wedding by fellow guests. 

    Bottom line, there are some countries I would not recommend a black friend to visit, even though they may be great countries. Just like I implied in my initial post to Marbles.

    I do not call that generalising or being stereotypical, I just call that common sense versus politically overcorrectness.

    I was not trying to call you racist as I said the commentary was stereotypical.  You referred to race not culture.  I was trying to help you understand. There are definitely countries that you should be careful in travelling.  It is usually based in politics though or the color of your passport not the color of your skin.

  12. 7 minutes ago, realizm said:

     

     

    Either there is something beyond my level of English which is usually good enough, either you guys completely misunderstood my point.

    What I mean is that Serbia is a country where you feel good and welcome, except if you are dark skinned, because that is not usual there and thus you may often feel as an attraction.

    Nothing to do with crime rate or safety, I wonder why you even brought that up. 

    You make an unnecessary negative stereotype of a race.  I tried to show you how it was negative (racist) by giving a different racial stereotype.  Hence the dark skinned people being associated with crime etc.  It was an example of a negative racial stereotype to help you understand.  You actually just repeated in this post the same stereotypical assumption that if you are dark, the pale people will not warm and welcome you because they are pale which is an assumption and negative stereotype.  Negative stereotypes based on race are racist.

  13. On 4/7/2018 at 10:17 AM, forte said:

    For pale complexion people though, it is a very warm and beautiful country.

    It is akin to saying "For darker skinned people though, it is a very safe and crime free country."  

    On 4/8/2018 at 9:36 AM, realizm said:

    :salam:

    How is using the words "pale complexion" being racist ? 

    A negative generalization about a race is racism. 

  14. She is planning on suing the hospital and I think she has a very good case.  The man had just been discharged (he was known to the hospital) and had been harassing and accosting other patients and people in the hallways (demonstrated mental state) and security had called the police (so security was aware).  He should not have been around other people, but kept isolated with security until they came.  Everyone was put at risk.  Don't think the ethnic attack route would go very far as he was harassing anyone around him. The hospital liability route is pretty clear cut - it definitely appears that the hospital was negligent.

×
×
  • Create New...