Saturday, April 23, 2011

On The Spearhead, demanding child support is a "provocation," and beating a woman's face in is "justice."

A little over a week ago, a Florida man in the midst of a divorce hearing, apparently upset that he would have to pay child support, reportedly snapped and brutally attacked his wife, leaving her, as one account of the incident notes, “with two black eyes, broken facial bones and split lips.” (You can see the extent of her injuries here.) He’s now being held on felony battery charges. The woman had previously tried to get a restraining order against her husband, but apparently couldn’t convince the court he was dangerous enough to warrant it.


On The Spearhead, sadly but unsurprisingly, it’s the alleged attacker, Paul Gonzalez, who is getting the sympathy. W.F. Price, the site’s head honcho, weighed in on the subject yesterday. In his mind, apparently, the demand that Gonzalez actually provide some financial support for his two children was a provocation of sorts, which led him, as a Marine veteran, to “react ... as warriors sometimes do in response to provocation — violently.”


At this point, we know very few details about the case. But that didn’t stop Price from opining confidently on what he imagines are injustices perpetrated against the poor alleged attacker:

What likely happened in that courtroom is that Gonzalez, representing himself, got the shaft. … We don’t know what the child support order was, but it was probably pretty hefty (as usual), and the visitation quite meager. Add to that the fact that his wife was already living with another man, despite having so recently given birth to Mr. Gonzalez’s daughter, and the situation must have seemed absolutely upside-down to the former marine. It was upside down. His wife is obviously a little tramp who has no problem swinging from one dick to another even while raising two babies, and there she was about to get rewarded with an upgrade in lifestyle while the chump father loses his kids and wallet. That’s why Mr. Gonzalez lost it. 

Price does acknowledge, in a cursory way, that “beating your wife is always a bad idea” -- though he seems less bothered by the beating than by the fact that in this case the divorcing wife “gets to go on camera making herself out to be a poor, innocent little victim. I highly doubt this woman is innocent.”



The commenters to Price’s article rallied around the alleged attacker. In a comment that got three times as many upvotes as downvotes from Spearhead readers, Greyghost celebrated Gonzalez as something of a hero:



I need to send that guy a prison christmas package. He was getting screwed and struck out. To bad he never heard of the spearhead. If about 10 to 15 percent of crapped on fathers did this kind of thing with some murders mixed in there the talk about fathers would sound a lot like the talk when the subject is islam.



 Piercedhead offered this take:



Gonzalez may well have been overwhelmed by the realization that being innocent of all his wife’s false accusations made little difference to this fate – he still got treated as if he was worthless. In that case, might as well match the penalty with the appropriate deed… 

If the courts won’t dispense justice, someone else will – it’s a law of nature.


That’s right: bashing a woman’s face in is a kind of “justice.” Naturally enough, this being The Spearhead, this comment garnered (at last count) 56 upvotes from readers, and only 2 downvotes. 

Mananon, meanwhile, suggested that the alleged attack had:

something to do with a warrior’s instinct for dignified self-reliance. … Strip a man of his dignity and what else is there left?


DCM, even more bluntly, described Gonzalez as:


a brave man and a hero. 

There will be more and more of these incidents and it will be a long time before women are seen as responsible for them — which they are. …

It will be men who can’t take it any more who will ignite change.


Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) -- yes, that's how he writes his name -- took it a step further, saying that: 

the only bit I feel sorry about is that he did not arrange to have someone else kill her such that his chances of being caught were minimal. By doing this in the middle of the court he will be put in a cage for a long, long time. And he does not deserve to be there. HE is the VICTIM.

Every one of these quotes, with the exception of Nolan’s, garnered at least a dozen upvotes from Spearhead readers. (Nolan's comment so far has gotten no upvotes or downvotes.)

What sort of comment on this case will get you downvoted by the Spearheaders? One like this:

Wow! Nothing justifies violence. I wonder who will care for the baby while the mother recovers. Or doesn’t that matter? 

What a coward. Mad at the judge, goes after a woman. 

Actually advocating murder, no sweat. Suggesting that violence is wrong and worrying about the welfare of the children, outrageous!




--

If you liked this post, would you kindly use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

310 comments:

  1. God this shit makes me feel sick.

    We don’t know what the child support order was, but it was probably pretty hefty (as usual), and the visitation quite meager

    If the visitation was meager, I daresay that's reasonable given that he's the kind of guy who's prone to snap and beat the shit out of women. "Don't call me violent or I'll beat you up" is usually the province of kindergartners, guys.

    Actually advocating murder, no sweat. Suggesting that violence is wrong and worrying about the welfare of the children, outrageous!

    What pisses me off is that they moan about visitation but clearly don't care about the welfare of the child. That's not what visitation is about for them. It's all about stroking the man's ego and giving him ownership of the fruit of his penis.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can't even look at that poor woman's face. That's just horrific.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's brutal. I decided to take the picture down and replace it with a link to the picture in the first paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  4. yes, that's how he writes his name

    Probably a "sovereign citizen."

    ReplyDelete
  5. I hope this isn't what MRAs mean when they desire the right to strike back at a woman in self defence.

    Reverse the genders in the case and you'd likely have them spewing out stuff like "Its revealing that women are so comfortable in their dominance over men that, in the rare case when they don't get their way, they snap and respond with violence. If a man were to do the same he'd be locked up and put on death row instantly."

    *grak* I feel sick just writing a parody...

    ReplyDelete
  6. From the Spearhead article: Gonzales was not an abuser until he attacked his wife in front of the court

    I think there's a joke along similar lines. There's this Scotsman in a bar, recounting all his accomplishments, ending with "But fuck one sheep..."

    Spearhead again: Here she is blubbering in front of the camera.

    Interesting characterization of a woman describing the fractured face split lip, and two black eyes that her ex-husband gave her: Blubbering. Interesting. I can't really think of any reason outside of naked, comprehensive hatred for women that one would choose to characterize an injured woman's communication as "blubbering," but maybe that's me.

    Strip a man of his dignity and what else is there left?

    Oh right. I forgot that in MRAland, being responsible for the financial needs of one's small children = loss of dignity. Vomit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So much for >insert various MRA types who post here<'s theory that getting a restraining order is as simple as just showing up at court.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Also, M.Bouffant, Peter Nolan is a sovereign citizen who peddles the paperwork that shows up in court sometimes from people who should know better.

    Based on his comments, I have a feeling he is going to be spending some serious time in prison or will be suicided by cop. Especially since he says he will beat the **** out of any woman who fails to follow his exact orders despite his refusal to follow anyone else's.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This may be a case of PTSD which does cause people to react like this. It's very difficult to control and is a possible reason for this behaviour. They do mention "marine veteran".

    The MRAs have suddenly got a raging hard on for the army. It's the whole "if there was a war on, I would be on the frontlines myself" mentality.

    Except there is a war going on as we speak. I don't see them posting from Afghanistan.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm waiting for NWO to start claiming that he's posting from a battlefield in Iraq...no Afghanistan...no LIBYA!! He's posting from Libya!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. The only thing that keeps me from freaking out when I see people say shit like this is the reassurance that the Spearhead dwellers are, by and large, a group of insecure petty minded man children who satisfy their broken emotional needs by venting harmlessly into the internet. I hope.

    ReplyDelete
  12. They do have the internets. And a fair few soldiers get the "Dear John/Jane" treatment when they get home.

    And I agree, it's not a nice thing to do to any soldier but since when have people done nice things.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ugh. People are just sick. Really? Advocate murder?! REALLY?!

    That poor woman. I hope that man goes to jail for a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This isn't a case of PTSD. It's a case of a guy who didn't want to pay child support and didn't want to adhere to a visitation schedule as he informed the judge just before he went on the attack. If he would do this in front of a judge, I wonder what kind of abuse he dished out behind closed doors?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why does it not surprise me that they're sticking up for the gutless shitebag waste-of-skin coward who did this kind of damage to a woman? He even had to blindside her on top of everything else. This worthless fuck is probably twice her size but these maggots are cheering him like he took on an MMA fighter and won.

    ReplyDelete
  16. PTSD sufferers can not want to pay child support too. The rage and complete disregard for social backlash is pretty par for course in military PTSD.

    It's unacceptable behaviour (PTSD sufferers will tell you that) but it explains it. There is very little support from the military in the USA to PTSD sufferers and indeed negligible screening. This may have been avoided had he been given help as his behaviour to lead to a divorce may have had to do with the disorder as well.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think that a lot of the divorces and broken homes that soldiers returning from combat experience are due in part to changing perceptions of violence and warfare itself. In ancient times, it was considered an honor to be part of a soldier's family. Nowadays, it is a source of shame. Like, "Oh, did you know? My hubby kills people for a living."

    Honestly, who would want to tell that to all their friends these days? When did that happen, I wonder? Is it all this technology, perhaps? Have we made war so dehumanizing and distant that the very concept of honorable warfare has been lost to mankind?

    Regardless, those more martial-minded times were very difficult for man and woman alike, taking a grim toll on both. I find it quite ironic that a bunch of sheltered adolescents in adult bodies would use the head of a spear as their logo. Do they truly desire for a return to the use of sharp, hand-held implements in war and in hunting game?

    Now there's a thought. Why don't we have these guys do something uplifting, like donning loincloths and going around spearing boars, deer and lions and crap? Work out the kinks, you know? Because honestly, I can't think of any reason for a fellow man to write so much literal crap other than sheer boredom.

    If MRAs want men to be tops, why do they sit on their asses complaining all day like a bunch of sissies instead of getting out there and doing all these things that we men are allegedly supposed to be better at?

    How are you gonna "show dem wimminz how 2 lead an ideal lyfe" if all you can do is congratulate a bunch of degenerate, abusive fucks like Mr. Gonzalez there?

    Oh, I forgot. MRA's apparently don't really concern themselves with winning over women to their cause. They act as if we're supposed to sympathize with them, when they don't show any sympathy to anyone besides members of their own sex. In many ways, some of the more radical elements of feminism are similar.

    That's why I subscribe to neither. I'm a humanist. I believe in whatever policy that provides the most utility and personal enjoyment to all members of the species, not just one sex.

    In fact, I don't even believe in the concepts of objective morality, sympathy, compassion or following one's gut. I place personal utility and the strict avoidance of infringing upon the utility of another first and foremost.

    Interesting concept, huh? Basically, it works like this. Work towards your own fulfillment and self-interest, but don't screw over other people to get it. Kinda like the golden rule. Do unto others, and all that.

    I combine this creed with a subjective understanding of morality. Basically, no moral position is any more valid than any other. Take the scenario in this article, for example. It's a no-win situation. She took him for all he was worth, and he beat the crap out of her. They were both completely full of it, if you ask me. Neither was technically more or less right than the other. When you start adding up wrongdoings like that to try and determine which one is more of a crook, you start to realize the failings of our current system. Wouldn't it have been nicer if the two of them had mutually agreed to respect the utility and well-being of the other?

    But then the question becomes how do you enforce it?

    ReplyDelete
  18. You see, nature is full of unfair bullcrap just like this. Case in point, animal rights activists. They share many of the same strains as both the men's rights activists and women's rights activists. All three bid that we show sympathy and compassion for what the opposition holds to be a lesser being. Why? What good reason would we have? Would we do it out of the goodness of our hearts? Are humans even capable of such a thing?

    That same kind of moral panic/gut-feeling/intuition-driven bullcrap has been responsible for everything from witch hunts to the outlawing of recreational pharmaceuticals. Humanity simply can't come up with any valid reason for why some things simply should not be done. We just use the same old tired platitudes like "because it's wrong". What the hell does that mean? What are wright and wrong, exactly, if not totally subjective? See, because I'm pretty sure Mr. Gonzalez didn't think he was in the wrong when he beat that poor lady silly.

    It would make much more sense to say that they infringed on each other's utility. That they violated the golden rule. Would she have liked it if she had to pay child support to him instead? Probably not. Would he have liked it if his ex beat him silly instead of the reverse? Almost definitely not.

    And don't say consensus makes it wrong, because consensus does not objectivity make. This is the same reason why I think that the idea of "just wars" is bunk. While you're at it, the whole idea of money is bunk too.

    Just wars are bunk because there's no such thing as justice in a world where you have things like VX gas, Nuclear Weapons, human experimentation, et cetera. It's only the will of one against the will of another. There's no justice there.

    Currency is bunk because it wouldn't exist if humans didn't exist. It is not a law of nature. It is not directly linked to the total entropy of our universe. It is just a reflection of our own irrational gut-feelings. Our "trust" in others. I could form a country and start printing my own fiat money and then say I have a million dollars. God knows the Fed does it all the time.

    If humans are to prosper, we must abandon notions of traditional morality, eliminate dominance hierarchies and strive for technologies that will grant us a post-scarcity society where men and women can be truly equal once and for all. No more worrying about alimony, child support or taxes when all the work's done by robots. What's that, you say? Such a change would lead to vast unemployment and poverty? Hooey! Nobody would have to work anymore. Currency would be totally abolished, in fact!

    Uhh... I think I've been reading too much Iain Banks. Well, not like that's a bad thing, I guess.

    But seriously, if you look ahead - like WAY far ahead - the technology to create a post-scarcity utopia is definitely on the table. It's simply a matter of making it there alive and having the wisdom to use it correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm waiting for NWO to start claiming that he's posting from a battlefield in Iraq...no Afghanistan...no LIBYA!! He's posting from Libya!!

    Simone, your comment clearly indicates that you don't Support Our Troops, which goes to show how hateful feminists are. Also, too, nothing goes better with MREs than MRAs.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Y'know, Paul Gonzalez may have PTSD, or not. If he does, as a fellow PTSD sufferer, I hope he gets help. And either way, of course the government doesn't provide enough help for its military, and of course the things that people in the military (including his ex-wife) see in war are awful, but of course having PTSD does not excuse away the act of beating another human being to a pulp.

    But seriously, that's kind of beside the point. What the fuck explains the absolutely inhuman, heartless reactions of W.F. Price and the Spearhead commenters?

    ReplyDelete
  21. FWIW, she was also a Marine, something that no one on the Spearhead seems to have picked up on.

    (OF course, if they had, I'm sure they would be claiming that the fact that she couldn't defend herself from this attack means that women are weak and shouldn't be Marines in the first place. In fact, he completely caught her by surprise from behind and knocked her out with his first punch.)

    http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Ex-Marine-Beats-Wife-During-Divorce-Hearing-in-Judges-Chambers-119974124.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. But seriously, that's kind of beside the point. What the fuck explains the absolutely inhuman, heartless reactions of W.F. Price and the Spearhead commenters?

    Douchebaggery. But we already knew that.

    ReplyDelete
  23. In before incredibly circular, unrelated-to-the-post argument with an MRA about "Criticizing MRAs is so meaniepants of you, now let's never even acknowledge it when anyone says anything about the substance of those criticisms" starts!

    But yeah, this is horrible. It's just... it's not even about the man, as usual. It's not really about his child support payments or visitation. It's 90% about the woman and how horrible she was (that TRAMP, living with someone else after separating from her husband--what a filthy, uh, one-timer!) and how good it was that she got beaten. The emphasis on punishing women seems to WAY outweigh the emphasis on making things better for men.

    It's hard to respect MRA as a rights movement when they say (and when other parts of it don't criticize) things that are horrifyingly aggressive about removing women's rights, and barely at all about expanding men's.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It is basically a big conspiracy theory. Men never actually do anything wrong, and women are always out to get men. Therefore, if a man snaps and beats his wife in front of a judge, the man must of had a good reason; it couldn't possibly be that the man is crazy, or suffering from PTSD, or whatever. Whatever MRAs make up to support their presupposition is a side matter, one which only accentuates how low they will sink to try to justify their presupposition. Its pathetic, really.

    ReplyDelete
  25. THASF, how do you know she was taking him for a ride? Because he beat her up?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I don't think it will be too long before Bill Price and the MRM starts to get credit for promoting violence against women, men (to them, 'manginas', cops, and even family court judges on the-spearhead. In this article alone, there are some atrocious statements...

    From The dude:
    "Honestly, I don’t know why more men don’t have their ex wives assassinated. It would be much better for them, plus they could make sure they have an alibi."

    And of course, one of their most popular members, Peter Nolan, who says:
    "The only bit I feel sorry about is that he did not arrange to have someone else kill her such that his chances of being caught were minimal."

    and this:

    "Welcome to your future. Once men like this realise that to do what they did will only land them in jail and they coolly and rationally decide to kill their tormenters in a way that they will not get caught? You are going to see a flood of dead women."

    And Peter Nolan has, several times, provided precise ways of murder to the MRA's on that board, such as this advice in a recent spearhead article 'The High Road':

    "Who are they going to rely in when pissed off men kill a few white knights to let them know that it is no longer acceptable to men to white knight? It’s going to happen. I can feel it in my bones. George Sodini is going to look like a kindergarten kid compared to what’s going to happen when real men who are real pissed off eventually decide they have had enough and do it in a well planned way. A way in which they will get away with it. Try these on for size. How hard is it for any man to figure out things like this.

    1. Place poisonous gas canisters into a mall. Detonate at a busy period. 80%+ will be women. The men will mostly be manginas.
    2. Poison the water supply in girls schools, police stations, guvment buildings. Full of women and manginas.
    3. Make false 911 DV calls and then shoot the cops with a long range high powered rifles. If enough men did this no cop would answer a 911 DV call ever again. There is no way to protect a cop from a high powered sporting rifle at night. None.

    Do any of you here realise just how easy it is to ANY of these things?"

    Murder rhetoric can be found going back to 2009 on the-spearhead.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "THASF, how do you know she was taking him for a ride? Because he beat her up?"

    Because she was already with another guy before the checks started rolling in, that's how I know.

    That still doesn't give him - or anyone else - the right to use violence in response.

    Excuse me if I take the middle-of-the-road approach; these two are both kind of sleazy, repellent personalities, if you ask me.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Currency is bunk because it wouldn't exist if humans didn't exist. It is not a law of nature.

    Beaver dams are bunk because they wouldn't exist if beavers didn't exist. Beehives are bunk because they wouldn't exist if bees didn't exist. Horse poop is bunk because it wouldn't exist if horses didn't exist.

    I pretty much picked that part of your comments arbitrarily. If I were to take the time to address all of your pretentious bloviating I wouldn't make it to work Monday.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Here is the FBI's tip page for those interested in reporting Mr. Nolan.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You do not have any information beyond her having a boyfriend and he beat her up.

    You have no idea when their marriage fell apart and when either one moved out. You have no idea when she decided to start dating this new guy-if she even was actually dating him (the reporter could have easily assumed the guy was her boyfriend without even asking.) You have no idea what the award was, how much she asked for, what Florida's laws are governing child support.

    Not only that but obviously the checks were not rolling in since that was the day the judge issued the order for child support.

    So to claim someone is being taken for a ride lacking all of that information and equating it with his beating her up shows me you obviously only are saying you despise someone using violence because you know what our reaction would be if you admitted you thought she deserved it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @Elizabeth,

    Good idea, but Peter Nolan lives in Germany. Bill Price, the person who publishes this garbage, lives in Seattle, WA. It is my understanding that Peter Nolan is on some watchlists already. As he should be.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Christine WE, this is how these jokers work.

    They are, in the main, privileged little whiny fuckers whose only contribution to their glorious struggle against the misandrist oppressors is to cheerlead murderers like Sodini and talk a bunch of shit. They have all these ideas about what should be done with all us "white knights" and "manginas" but when it comes down to it they're counting on some other guy to go off the deep end and do their dirty work for them. They're all sitting around double-dog daring each other to become terrorists, all hoping someone else is going to be the one to pick up the gun. They crank up the impotent anger until some crapsack like Sodini acts on it and then they hope the rest of us get scared by it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "1. Place poisonous gas canisters into a mall. Detonate at a busy period. 80%+ will be women. The men will mostly be manginas.
    2. Poison the water supply in girls schools, police stations, guvment buildings. Full of women and manginas.
    3. Make false 911 DV calls and then shoot the cops with a long range high powered rifles. If enough men did this no cop would answer a 911 DV call ever again. There is no way to protect a cop from a high powered sporting rifle at night. None."

    I was laughing at that nonsense the other day. What infantile drivel. None of those sound like a good idea, even if you're a hardcore MRA type. Even if you're a genuine terrorist.

    I mean, if you use even a little common sense, you'd realize that the perp would get caught about five out of six times. Not to mention, somebody stupid enough to actually spell out such plans is not smart enough to pull it off without getting caught. No way. Honestly, that is about the level of intelligence that I would expect from those morons.

    It's like those guys just sit around reading Paladin Press books and stroking each other's egos and nothing else. That's actually kind of pitiful.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Beaver dams are bunk because they wouldn't exist if beavers didn't exist. Beehives are bunk because they wouldn't exist if bees didn't exist. Horse poop is bunk because it wouldn't exist if horses didn't exist."

    Ahh, but there's a difference. As intelligent beings, humans have the power of choice. The use of currency as a store of value is not nearly as inevitable for humans as an instinctual action performed by an animal that doesn't know any better. It's certainly not as inevitable as defecation.

    I think I should re-phrase my statement. You see, money does not have inherent value.

    A beaver's dams are a form of artificial habitat. They have inherent value.

    Beehives produce honey and nourish the bees' young. They have inherent value.

    Even animal feces can be used as fertilizer. It has inherent value.

    What can you say about a piece of paper with Ben Franklin's face on it? It's just paper!

    "I pretty much picked that part of your comments arbitrarily. If I were to take the time to address all of your pretentious bloviating I wouldn't make it to work Monday."

    Fine. I'll give you the short version:

    1. Many of the common laws found in human society are based on illogical gut-feeling and have nothing to do with any actual material gain or harm that a person receives. Case in point, censorship laws that define "obscene speech". Who do these laws protect and why? Who has a right to define what is obscene? Consensus does not make something obscene. Even if you got everyone on Earth to agree that something was obscene, it wouldn't be. Why? Because the property of being obscene is not a real value of any given thing. Water is wet, fire is hot, this book is obscene. Which of those three describes a real, intrinsic value? This is the same reason why currency is just a trick. Just a psychological game. It has no intrinsic value either. So, why do people fight over it?

    2. People should follow the golden rule and show each other respect at all times. The aim should always be to come to an agreement that is mutually beneficial for all parties.

    3. There is no such thing as moral objectivity, only moral relativity. The existence of objective morals would imply the existence of a priori knowledge. We know this to be false, because if you eliminate all conscious and sapient observers (i.e. by exterminating the human species), no such knowledge exists. In other words, it is not possible for a human being to justify themselves morally to anyone. It's all in your head. Religion is an example of mankind trying to turn our subjective morals into objective morals by ascribing them to a pre-eminent, all-powerful being with no beginning and no end. This, however, opens the way to tyranny. Manipulate religion, and you manipulate the masses as well. It would be better if mankind could find a way to structure our society around mutualist principles. Eliminate the class system and meaningless hierarchies. God to Government to Man to Woman to Child. Everything runs in a straight line from top to bottom. So what do you do? You level the playing field. You try and find a new meaning for mankind to exist in the absence of a divine purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thasf:

    I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on free will. Our thoughts stem from our brains, which are completely governed by the laws of physics and chemistry. Whence then comes the power of choice?

    I'd posit that, for the same reason humans insist that we have free will over our actions, we create constructs like currency and obcenity laws. Value may not be inherent in a piece of paper, but it is still there because it represent value to us humans. Thus it is still important, and that is why people care about the value, and why people fight over it. Saying this value doesn't matter amounts to the same rationale people use to dismiss relativistic morals (morality isn't inherent in this universe, therefore it is meaningless).

    I haven't thought about this too much, so feel free to clarify your position or criticize mine. I'd be interested in continuing this discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Shorter MRA:

    The assailant is the real victim here!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Eoghan:

    I'm not sure that works. David here isn't in tears on the matter, nor bemoaning the country's return to marxism, communism, godlessness and Islam. :)

    Perhaps you'd like to point to the original article that you find contradicts the OP?

    ReplyDelete
  38. hope you are enjoying being the glen beck and fox news followers of the gender debate.

    Except for that whole "deliberately defrauding the audience" thing.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hrm.. has Eoghan's comment disappeared? I appear to have gone insane...

    ReplyDelete
  40. You're not crazy! I saw it too!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yeah, I deleted it. I have banned a tiny number of commenters; Eoghan is one of them. Unfortunately, blogger doesn't actually let you ban people, so I delete his comments whenever he shows up.

    ReplyDelete
  42. David, for added lulz, instead of deleting the comments, change them to "I like pie!" Though I suppose blogger won't let you do that, either.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Agreed with Johnny. :P

    Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "You do not have any information beyond her having a boyfriend and he beat her up."

    You're right. I only have rumors to go on. I thought this entire site was about discussing all the malevolent hearsay from MRA blogs? ;)

    "Not only that but obviously the checks were not rolling in since that was the day the judge issued the order for child support."

    Sorry about that. As a consequence of my Washington-ese, I have a tendency to mix up tense a bit. What I should have said was before the checks start rolling in, not started.

    "So to claim someone is being taken for a ride lacking all of that information and equating it with his beating her up shows me you obviously only are saying you despise someone using violence because you know what our reaction would be if you admitted you thought she deserved it."

    You're implying that's how I feel. No, I don't think that she deserved that. I don't think that anyone deserves that bullshit from anybody.

    Trust me, I could go into detail about my abusive, sexist dad, or my sister who died of leukemia ten years ago, or any other number of things, but I won't. I'll spare you that nonsense. All 3,100 words of it. I cut and pasted it into MS Word when I decided it was getting too long and much too depressing.

    Rest assured - or not-so-assured - I've seen this kind of violent shit first-hand. I suppose it's only human for me to try and seek out balancing factors. To try and find a reason for it. Honestly, there is no excuse for this sort of behavior. I'm sorry if you thought that was what I was trying to say.

    I do have a tendency to say things that sound a little cold and impartial, I know. That's just how I am. It drives a lot of people away. Sometimes, I tell myself that they just don't want to hear about the cold, harsh realities of our world. That they want to keep deluding themselves. But even that is a form of self-delusion on my part.

    That's why I keep my mouth shut most of the time. Better than making a fool of myself.

    @Kirby: An interesting hypothesis. So, you say that free will itself is a sort of a spiritual, non-material aspect of humans?

    I've thought of this potential before; about the hard problem of consciousness. Some people take that even further. For example, if the human brain is capable of formulating ideas about things that technically don't exist - for example, picturing a symbol for a numeric function that normal mathematics simply cannot parse - could the brain itself be said to run on non-mathematical principles? Could it be that consciousness itself is a result of a physical law that science does not yet understand? Hmm. I believe that these secrets will be revealed in due time. When computers are powerful enough. When scientists can model a human brain in a virtual space and get it to function like one, if such a thing is even possible.

    ReplyDelete
  45. It's MORE pathetic that he was a Marine, and JUSTICE, if that even comes close to a proper spin on this, would be that guy going after the JUDGE or the bailiffs, but no. That pathetic cowardly piece of shit beats her. He had kids, he can pay for them. I knew these people in MRA did nto want father's rights, they want ABUSERS rights and to never be questioned like in yesteryear when men ruled and abused without consequence. THAT is what they want. Trigger warning on this article.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Nietzsche spoke of the death of god and the rise of nihilism, but many people misinterpreted his intent. His intent was not to praise the nihilists; in fact, he was merely observing the fact that science had removed moral authority from the divine, and that it therefore fell upon a tangible sapient being to take the place of religion and provide their own moral authority. An "Ubermensch", or "Overman", who - through charisma, culture and sheer force-of-will - would lay down the law. Well, we all know how that turned out, don't we? Nietzsche would likely have been horrified had he lived to see what incredible depravity his ideas had inspired.

    But the problem's still there. How exactly does one go about setting rules for others if they have no real moral authority to do so? What recourse does anyone have? If nothing has any intrinsic value, does that mean that life, government, society and civilization are all utterly meaningless? Should humanity go hide in a corner and just quietly die?

    My proposed solution is a simple one. Humans should live for life itself. In fact, I believe that a loss of intrinsic value in all things is liberating, because then the question becomes how to give things value the proper way; by grounding them in physical law.

    Personally, I think our currency would make a whole lot more sense if it were tied to something. Like energy production/usage. Ever hear of the Technocracy movement? I think they had the right idea. Scientists and engineers in the lead, organizing society in such a way so that little is wasted and none are left wanting. A world where the dollar and the joule were the same thing. Currency actually tied to the entropy of the universe instead of having an imaginary, indefinite value. Wouldn't that be interesting?

    ReplyDelete
  47. And this asshole at the spearhead equating this with self reliance and dignity? He doesn't have dignity because a big bad court gave his children justice? What a pathetic sociopath piece of shit this man is, the one beating that defenseless woman to a pulp, and the ones at the spearhead. As far as I'm concerned the FBI should watch all those nutjobs over there and their daily actions of 'dignity' preservation. Lunatics. There is no rad fem place on earth you would find something this crazed and imbalanced and dangerous. I mean even prostitutes abused from birth and time and time again by Johns and the system are not given this type of rhetorical back slapping and warning to the rest of society.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "JUSTICE, if that even comes close to a proper spin on this, would be that guy going after the JUDGE or the bailiffs"

    I thought about that, but no. He was way too much of a yellow-bellied shitbag to think of something like that. Plus, if he has half a brain - which I sincerely doubt, given his former profession of choice - he probably reasoned that they'd end up stopping him sooner if he did that. They'd probably have tased him in about two seconds.

    This is a shame, though. I tend to have quite a bit of respect for Marines. They're almost always an upgrade from the Army as far as personal integrity and combat ability goes. What this man did disrespected the corps.

    ReplyDelete
  49. @THASF

    You misunderstand. I'm saying the very opposite, that there is no non-material aspect. My point was that if you do not believe free choice exists, then free choice is simply an illusion that people use, a construct just like morality and currency. By saying that free will is inherently valuable but currency is not, you hold a contradictory position. (Basically, if beaver damns are inherently valuable for providing a habitat for beavers, then currency is inherently valuable for providing a method of transaction for humans.)

    I'm almost certain, though I cannot prove it, that the appearance of free will is a direct product of consciousness, and consciousness is an emergant property of a complex brain tied to the senses. This is because after generations of searching we haven't found the slightest bit of evidence to believe otherwise, and have found countless pieces of evidence suggesting we live in a natural universe. However, the concept of free will, just like morality, is a useful one that aids conscious beings, so we use them.

    Here's something to think about though. You say that it is impossible for someone to justify themselves morally to another. Why? Sure, we don't have an absolute authority to look to, but that doesn't solve the morality problem anyway (see Euthephro's dilemma). It should be clear that morality only holds any meaning for conscious beings. It shouldn't be such a big leap to then say that the goal of a moral system is to aid the survival of concious beings, and the Golden rule (in one form or another) is one good aspect of this. I would say this is a justification for a "relative" morality, though its about as objective (meaning not dependant on any one being's views) as you can get.

    Bah, this turned out rambly... Ah well.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @boobootube

    How on earth would going after the Judge in this case be considered JUSTICE?

    @THASF

    The point of currency is to provide an easy means of exchanging services and products in society. A way of saying that X ammount of time or Y item can be exchanged for Z service. How is tying currency to entropy (which honestly I have no idea what you are talking about) any less arbitrary than simply saying Y item is worth W dollars?

    In short, the point of currency is not to assign an arbitrary value to an item, but to provide a shortcut for a bartering system. What the currency is based on, theoretically, has no impact on this.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Ahh, I see. You hold a position of strict materialism similar to my own.

    I like your idea about the source of free will, but I think people get hung up on the semantic meaning of free will itself sometimes. What is free will? Is it merely the ability to choose between good and bad, or the ability to choose between two positions of equal value that may not necessarily be positive or negative, just different?

    For example, let us say I exercise my free will and choose to pick up a pencil from my desk. I could pick it up with my right hand or my left. No choice is morally-superior. Yet, I could say have exercised my free will by choosing between one or the other.

    Or have I? Under nihilism, no action or any given thing has any intrinsic value at all.

    Therefore, free will cannot exist, because one cannot choose between two things of equal intrinsic value. Which is to say, when one chooses between two worthless things with no intrinsic value whatsoever, they have not exercised the power of choice. The choice itself becomes a non-choice. What a bizarre paradox!

    My theory is that the human brain is primarily concerned with symbolism, and that we assign different symbolic meanings to things in order to give them value and provide ourselves with the illusion of choice. But then, you start running into huge problems, like which symbols take precedence over other, similar symbols.

    I look at a tree, and I say it should be called a "gree" instead. I get into an argument with the guy next to me. He says it should be called a tree, as always. I keep insisting on using the new terminology. Who is "right?"

    This conflict is the root of all art, language, mathematics, politics, economics... pretty much every subjective experience the human body is capable of interpreting and reading back out.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "The point of currency is to provide an easy means of exchanging services and products in society. A way of saying that X ammount of time or Y item can be exchanged for Z service. How is tying currency to entropy (which honestly I have no idea what you are talking about) any less arbitrary than simply saying Y item is worth W dollars?"

    The problem with this system is that it is not inflation-proof. As I said before, I could start printing money and call myself rich. But then, I'd get in trouble. The government does it all the time. Why don't they get in trouble too?

    The problem is one of money supply. How do you have enough of a given currency to carry out the complex transactions that take place in modern free-market economies? The gold standard put a hard limit on the amount of currency that you can have at any given time.

    However, once you transition to fiat currency, you're essentially working in a system of totally arbitrary value. Your money is only worth as much as someone says it is, and what value is their say, anyway?

    The people in charge of regulating a fiat currency could, in theory, say that a given country has "infinibucks", or that a one-dollar note is redeemable for one of Jupiter's moons. A fiat currency is, by its very nature, an indefinite currency. The only thing that keeps it stable is trust and consensus between leading economists and the proletariat that uses the currency.

    By linking your currency to the total entropy of the universe (i.e. "One dollar is worth x amount of joules of actual mechanical energy") you make your currency finite instead of infinite, because there isn't an infinite amount of energy in the universe.

    Oh, but a counter-claim to that would likely be that we can't stamp an infinite number of coins or print an infinite number of bills. A valid claim indeed. However, what about electronic banking? I'm sure someone could fit a googolplex or even an infinity symbol in there somewhere. A lot of people use debit cards that aren't actually physically redeemable for anything, these days.

    "In short, the point of currency is not to assign an arbitrary value to an item, but to provide a shortcut for a bartering system. What the currency is based on, theoretically, has no impact on this."

    You're right. Normally, it wouldn't. That is, if currency were used for bartering for goods all the time. However, what if the intangible fiat money itself is the good being bartered, or some property of that money? What if agreements regarding that money are the thing being traded? What about stock options or hedge funds? What about derivatives?

    If you haven't already seen this skit, you should. I found it rather... illuminating.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "I look at a tree, and I say it should be called a "gree" instead. I get into an argument with the guy next to me. He says it should be called a tree, as always. I keep insisting on using the new terminology. Who is "right?""

    Well, for the moment, if you try to call it a 'gree,' no one will know what you're talking about. Then, you must decide which is more important: your right to call it what you want, or for other people to understand what you're saying.

    If instead of tree, you came up with a new word for something that either didn't have a word for it, or had a word that most people didn't recognize as a word, you might have better luck convincing people to call it what you want to call it.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Well, for the moment, if you try to call it a 'gree,' no one will know what you're talking about. Then, you must decide which is more important: your right to call it what you want, or for other people to understand what you're saying."

    You speak of consensus. Naturally, because a large majority would disagree with me on a change made to the English language, my point of view in such a debate could be said to be an example of arguing over semantic definitions. However, as I said earlier, consensus does not equal objectivity. Once again, as is typical in my thought experiments, I must kill off the majority of the human population and pretend that they don't exist for a moment.

    Let's say that there are only two sentient beings in the entire universe. Therefore, a consensus is impossible to achieve, because one will always hold only exactly half of the vote. Now, let us say that these two beings are arguing about which word should be used to describe a physical object or principle. One posits one word as the solution, while the other one posits another. They cannot agree with each other. Which one is objectively right? Which symbol is more valuable than the other? Eventually, either party will have to cave in, or they will have to agree to disagree.

    This whole concept of "disagreeing about definitions of things" is behind a HUGE number of human behavioral patterns. It may even be the foundation of much of human psychology. As I said before, I believe the human brain is primarily concerned with symbolism; that it is an engine for generating and processing symbols.

    This even applies to the topic at hand. You see, we're arguing about how to define this man's actions in a non-real, metaphysical context. It's simple and easy to say that "what he did was wrong". It's more difficult to describe what I believe actually happened.

    Because right and wrong are merely figments of the human imagination, what he actually did was deny her personal autonomy and the use of her body by hospitalizing her.

    This goes against my strict utilitarianism; by doing this thing, he has achieved a sub-optimal end. He has done more harm than good. He took pleasure at her displeasure, rather than finding a solution that would have provided pleasure to both and improved their well-being. He played a zero-sum game rather than increasing the value of the entire system.

    What he did was not inherently wrong, as actions have no inherent a priori moral value. However, it was incorrect from my perspective, where utility for all subjects in a given system is the thing that one should always strive for. Naturally, this is also a subjective point of view.

    Heh, I'm sure that must sound robotic and unnatural to you. True, true. It's easier to just frame things using appeals to reason and gut-feeling rather than appeals to utility. But it just doesn't sit well with me, for some reason. Just like calling trees "grees" doesn't sit well with me either. What irony, that the very irrational gut-feeling that I so despise would dictate my ability to try and distance myself from it. Another paradox.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Do we really have to re-derive semiotics and the nature of existence before we can say that beating a woman because you don't want to pay child support is wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Basically, even coming from a frame of mind such as my own where right and wrong are meaningless, it is still not a "good" thing to infringe upon another human being like this.

    What I'm essentially trying to say - in as few words as possible - is that even when circumstance technically forbids the realization of an ideal, the goal should be to bend reality until instant gratification for all participants is achieved. Not just a choice few. All.

    Sounds reasonable, no?

    ReplyDelete
  57. If the deadbeat doesn't want to financially support his children, he should sign all rights away.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "Do we really have to re-derive semiotics and the nature of existence before we can say that beating a woman because you don't want to pay child support is wrong?"

    Well, when you put it that way...

    Oh, but come on! Isn't this philosophical banter fun? If you ask me, it sure is a heck of a lot more fun than simply moping about over the misfortune of others, even if this is a touchy subject. I mean, hell. There's a lot more suffering and bloodshed where that came from. This is Earth, not some two-bit massage parlor.

    Honestly, most people don't even want to dwell on such things for very long, lest they become paralyzed by their own self-loathing. That's one of the reasons why I think we men are often so keen on dismissing such news out of hand; we fear being mired in complete and total despair, unable to move or act. So, we say "fuck it" and move on.

    If it looks callous and cold, that's because it is callous and cold. Honestly, stuff like this doesn't even bother me anymore. Not when I've seen photos of people blown in frickin' half from anti-aircraft gun fire. I'm completely desensitized, like a machine.

    Sometimes, though, you've just got to slow down and ponder why things are the way the are. That's what I do.

    Heck, I'm not sticking up for the guy, if that's what you're thinking. I'm not totally sympathetic to either of them, in fact. Then again, the way I see it, if he was willing to haul off and hit her like that, she probably had good reason to divorce him. And, to be honest, I don't quite get the indignation from the MRA camp. So he beat her up. So what? What does that prove? That violence is the solution to all your problems?

    And here I thought MRAs were always the first ones to complain about "rising rates of violence and aggression in the female population". Oh, so it's okay if a man hits a woman who "provoked" him, but a woman who hits a man who "provoked" her is a bitch/whore/slut/pejorative/whatever? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't applaud a man for a violent act while condemning a woman for doing the same thing. That's just hypocrisy.

    See, that's the problem with objective morality. It always devolves into hypocritical double-standard bullshit that does naught but prove its own subjectivity.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "Therefore, free will cannot exist, because one cannot choose between two things of equal intrinsic value." This is patently false. See "Burridan's Ass" (ass as in donkey, to head off some of you pervs who read this blog ;) ).

    Also, you fail on the issue of a priori proofs. Some things are a priori and true, 1+1=2, for example. You assertion that something must be proven a priori to be objectively true also begins to fall into "truth is relative" territory.

    You also fall into the common fool moral relativist trap. While some systems of relativism are not silly on their face, many followers love to talk about what humanity or others "should" do. But that is invoking a moral standard. When you suggest I ought to do a thing because that thing is better, you invoke some sort of moral objecitive standard to do so. You can't really say something like "tyranny is bad" until you have defined bad, which takes you right back to defining a moral standard.

    "One posits one word as the solution, while the other one posits another. They cannot agree with each other. Which one is objectively right? Which symbol is more valuable than the other? Eventually, either party will have to cave in, or they will have to agree to disagree." As a matter of linguistics, this is false. We have these things called "synonyms". Both natural and computer languages are capable of defining the same object in different terms.

    Besides, your larger point still fails even exempting that obvious falsehood. Again, with Burridan's Ass, we can and do make choices between equivalent objects. Such a choice would be morally neutral. Think about ph levels as a comparison. Some things are acidic, some alkaline, some neutral. Some choices are good, some bad, some neutral. It can also be the case that making a neutral choice better increases utility than no choice at all. The legal concept of malum prohibitum actually reflects this idea well. Think about driving on one side of the road or another. Left or right, it is rather arbitrary which a society chooses and it is not evident that picking one is better than picking the other. However, having people drive on one side decreases traffic accidents and increases people's ability to get where they want to go. So, a society should pick a side, even though the choice is arbitrary and neutral. However, it is well worth noting that malum prohibtum does not expand across cultures. It is not bad to drive on the left side of the road in France but the right in the US. Neither culture is more evil than the other due to this. However, it is still bad to drive on the left in the US, because that decreases the utility of US roads. Whereas malum in se (bad in itself) acts work in a different way. Slavery might be one example. A culture cannot arbitrarily elect slavery over nonslavery without decreasing utility and we can say that cultures with slavery are worse than those without. See how that works?

    It is worth noting that langauge about rights does in practice tend to be justified with utilitarian explanations. Rights format fits relatively well into rule utilitarianist systems. So, when we invoke a "right to bodily autonomy", we often do mean that it increases utility for people to have bodily autonomy as a rule. While there are ethical theories where one can assert that someone has a right to something which is wrong under rule utilitarianism, as a practical matter, this is not an argument you see much. People who invoke, for example, a "right to bear arms" generally will give some theory about self protection, deterrence of aggression, etc. when questioned about the existence of such a right. Most rights language works to express a percieved or actual conflict between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "It would make much more sense to say that they infringed on each other's utility. That they violated the golden rule. Would she have liked it if she had to pay child support to him instead? Probably not."

    This makes no sense. How is Scott-Gonzalez "infringing" on her ex-husband's "utility" by seeking child support? They have two child. Those child need support. It would make more sense to say the children are "infringing on his utility" by existing.

    So he doesn't want to pay child support? So what? How is that relevant to the two children, both under the age of five? Are you advocating child abandonment once it become inconvenient to pay for them?

    ReplyDelete
  61. "This is patently false. See "Burridan's Ass"."

    The point that they were trying to illustrate with that metaphor was different from my own.

    Basically, all things being equal, they were trying to say that the donkey wouldn't be able to choose between one thing or the other. The classic "fish or cut bait" scenario.

    On the other hand, my own paradox was that - no matter the choice eventually made - choosing between two things made inherently equal by the nihilistic principle that nothing has intrinsic value is the same as making no choice. In this, I was trying to illustrate how nihilism generates paradoxical events when you try and apply conventional logic to it.

    "Also, you fail on the issue of a priori proofs. Some things are a priori and true, 1+1=2, for example. You assertion that something must be proven a priori to be objectively true also begins to fall into "truth is relative" territory."

    But it is. Because truths can only be formulated in a living mind, and I feel that the living mind is the very seat of subjective experience. Of course, that should be taken with a grain of salt, just like anything else I've said.

    "You also fall into the common fool moral relativist trap. While some systems of relativism are not silly on their face, many followers love to talk about what humanity or others "should" do. But that is invoking a moral standard."

    And I realize this fully. Yet, at the same time, I argue that it is possible for one's views to remain totally subjective even if they appear to be making objective statements. Just because someone declares something to be objective does not make it so. To me, the only objective truths are ones which are self-evident without prior knowledge, or even sapient beings to acknowledge them.

    Or, are even those subjective? I suppose they could be, in a roundabout way.

    Humanity's own bias towards our qualitative experiences plays a huge role, here. For example, we perceive fire as "hot". Another species might have nerve endings that perceive fire as "cold". Is it hot or is it cold?

    Also, your 1+1=2 example relies on a system of symbols that I hold to be entirely subjective. I could argue that 2=3 or any other seemingly-nonsensical mathematical formulation. Even though the facts of the matter seem unambiguous because of their everyday usage in a formal setting, the symbols themselves that we use to make our cases present a certain degree of ambiguity.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "Think about driving on one side of the road or another. Left or right, it is rather arbitrary which a society chooses and it is not evident that picking one is better than picking the other. However, having people drive on one side decreases traffic accidents and increases people's ability to get where they want to go."

    But it might be evident that driving on one side of the road causes fewer accidents than driving on the other. Humans are either left or right-handed, and more people are right-handed than left-handed, so there may indeed be some measurable statistical difference introduced by our uneven biological factors, no matter how small.

    "People who invoke, for example, a "right to bear arms" generally will give some theory about self protection, deterrence of aggression, etc. when questioned about the existence of such a right. Most rights language works to express a perceived or actual conflict between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism."

    Very true, but under a strict utilitarian system, there should technically be no need for defensive arms, because one who commits an act of aggression would be doing it while knowing that they're reducing the utility of the whole species taken as an average, including themselves (they should not want to be incarcerated). However, I am fully cognizant of the fact that such an approach does not preclude the possibility that one would commit a violent act. It merely encourages them not to, and some people need more than simple encouragement.

    Of course, the problem with moral relativism is that it's very hard to set things in stone and tell people what should and should not be done without contradicting oneself. Relativists can only safely make observations and not concrete claims, or so it would seem. In fact, it's arguable that the essence of moral relativism is that it reduces all claims - including my own - to mere suggestions, none more valid than any other.

    If I recall, one philosopher formulated an argument against subjectivism thusly: "subjectivism is false. If you say that it is true, you cease to be a subjectivist."

    Of course, that too is subjective, and so forth.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "So he doesn't want to pay child support? So what? How is that relevant to the two children, both under the age of five? Are you advocating child abandonment once it become inconvenient to pay for them?"

    No, because that would infringe upon the utility of the children. Plus, who says that the children are infringing upon the utility of the father? Children are all potential providers of value.

    If a mother wants out of an abusive relationship, that's one thing, but if she's depriving her kids of contact with their biological father, then that's another thing entirely. What incentive will men have to get married if they fear being separated from their kids whether he leaves his wife or his wife leaves him? How is that fair? Do the kids have any say in it at all?

    This is one of the reasons why I think patronymic naming conventions are bullshit. They give men the impression that we own our kids, when that's obviously not the case. People should have multiple given names and a "clan name" that they don't use, just to keep them from in-breeding. Preferably something numeric, just to be sure.

    Personally, I feel that it's contemptible that parents try and treat their kids like property. Children are not vases and floor lamps. They are not inanimate objects for people to fight over. Children are a resource, and they need to be carefully cultivated as such. If their biological parents are incompetent, perhaps they should be raised by someone else?

    See, this is why I advocated a post-scarcity society. It's because patronymic naming conventions, inheritance, child support and parental feelings of entitlement to their children are all related to concepts of material wealth. Eliminate wealth, and you eliminate the need for many aspects of the nuclear family.

    All besides one; the need for parents to connect with their children and raise them in a way that doesn't obstruct them from achieving success in their own lives. That sure simplifies things, doesn't it? Wouldn't it be nice if people put kids first?

    See, I'm going to be one of those adults that's always championing the rights of the kids. I'm not going to turn into one of those bitter old fucks that growl about "kids these days". I'll always stick up for the kids. You know why? Because I was one. We all were.

    And, to be honest, I still am one at heart. The optimism. The naivete. It's still all there. Or, at least I wish it was, sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  64. THASF, I was not mistaking your tone.

    You are making the two actions equal when the actions are completely unequal just based on the limited information before us.

    She has a new guy in her life and was asking her ex to support his children.

    He put her in the hospital by beating her in front of a judge, her lawyer and all the other personal who were there that day.

    Unless you think the appropriate response is to hit someone until you have to be tased off of them when they seek child support for the children in common and date someone other then you, there is no possible way these are equal nor could you even make it equal.

    So it was not your tone that was cold-it was your view of it being that she was wrong and deserve it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. You are conflating two separate issues of fathers rights for those who are not hitting their spouses and the ones who are.

    A man who hits his wife should get custody or she should give him access to her so he can keep hitting her? How is that even an arguable position?

    ReplyDelete
  66. "In ancient times, it was considered an honor to be part of a soldier's family."

    Don't waste good iron for nails or good men for soldiers. -ancient proverb

    ReplyDelete
  67. "Do we really have to re-derive semiotics and the nature of existence before we can say that beating a woman because you don't want to pay child support is wrong?"

    Apparently so.

    Jesus fucking christ. So many different ways to handwave basic being a decent fucking human being.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Goddamit, this fucking thing ate another comment.

    To everybody making excuses for this loser, I've got PTSD, and I'm a veteran, and I've seen these assholes at first hand. They think that now they've got carte blanche to act out every grudge, every hatred, every little Fox News fantasy they ever had. PTSD makes you vulnerable. In many cases it makes you fearful. This guy was a scumbag before he went wherever. He came to the Marines Pre-fucked. People forget that service members don't come out of nowhere, they come from the house next door.

    Look up Richard Corcoran. He was one of a gang or rich white boys who cornered a developmentally disabled girl in a basement after years of harassing her and other girls, literally making her eat shit, and probably committing other rapes which they got away with. The town backed up the rich white rapists, and the harassment the victim's family went through was so vile that they gave up after the first trial convicted the first batch of rapists.

    Corcoran was the son of a police detective. I hope his daddy wasn't a sex crimes detective.

    Anyway, Richie joined the Army, with the full knowledge of the Army but without issuing a warning to his female coworkers or the civilianis in Afghanistan. I've served beside guys like this and they're a horror in every way possible.

    Anyway, Corcoran's wife sensibly decided to leave him, at which point he tried to murder both her and her new boyfriend. He succeeded only in killing himself, leaving unanswered the question of whether or not he told people that he gathered up to twenty big young guys in a basement to assault one young woman with a whiffle bat.

    Too many male veterans think that if they claim PTSD they can beat and rape women to their heart's content. I know of at least one case where the guy claimed his PTSD made him stick his penis into lots of different women after threats of violence and harm. That particular symptom does not appear in any list of PTSD symptoms that I'm aware of. You don't see women doing this.

    ReplyDelete
  69. This "Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c)" is apparently known in Australia for being a complete quackpot. He has a web site, and a forum, parts of it variously dedicated to the Spearhead, David Icke (!) and "Femi-Nazism" (!!), as well as other topics which presumably appeal to "Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c)".

    ReplyDelete
  70. Jesus Fucking Christ, THASF just loves to hear himself talk, does he? And he's not talking about this case, except to insinuate shit about the wife. Niiiiiiiiiiiiiice. So leaving the marriage makes that beating okay?

    ReplyDelete
  71. @THASF "But it might be evident that driving on one side of the road..." So fucking what? That is just a technical attack on the hypothetical, not an argument against the theory. If you could actually demonstrate difference greater than the harm caused in shifting systems, you have just suggested it is malum in se to pick the less optimal side.

    "Very true, but under a strict utilitarian system, there should technically be no need for defensive arms..." This is false. Or, at least, it has not been demonstrated to be true. Nothing in utilitarianism (wtf do you mean by "strict utilitarianism"? Rule utilitarianism? Act utilitarianism?) suggests that people cannot engage in bad actions. Nor does utilitarianism necessitate that for a specific individual, the specific situation will be optimized. Utilitarianism looks at the whole, so it could be the case that instead of 100 utility for one and 0 for another, the utilitarian picks a result of 60 for both. Note how the 100 person could selfishly want the first option and desire to act badly, minimizing overall utility.

    You also clearly do not understand Burridans ass, as it does demonstrate that making an arbitrary or neutral choice can be better than making no choice at all. If the ass chooses either pile of hay, it gets to eat that pile. If it chooses neither, it starves. The principle of sufficient reason fails, and your silly notion that an arbitrary choice is equivalent to no choice also fails.

    In addition, you are confusing linguistics with metaphysics. The fact that natural language is often ambiguous does not demonstrate that the objects it seeks to name only exist in relative terms. Changing the linguistic goalposts does not alter the objects being named, it merely changes what sounds you use to refer to them. So, you cannot really argue that 2=3. You can merely change the meanings of those symbols so that 3=3 but you call one of the threes something else. Of course, as you do not think you can demonstrate anything, one wonders why you both to speak or argue at all...

    As to the nuclear family and marriage, I am pretty much with Engels on those subjects. However, that in no way makes it okay to violently attack people whenever you are not given your own way. If anything, you clearly demonstrate at that point that your ex and the child are better off not being in contact with you and that you are a danger to others in your society.

    ReplyDelete
  72. The MRM is known as the "abuser's lobby" to those in the justice system and other criminal professionals and you don't have to read their websites for very long to figure out why.

    ReplyDelete
  73. THASF, You aren't the first person who has ever been let into the hallowed halls of PHIL101. We've contemplated this sort of mindblowing stuff before. You don't seem intellectual. You seem like a jackass. I pray to god you're either 19 or high. Either way, there are philosophy forums where you can talk yourself to death.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Seriously, THASF, stick to the topic or STFU. And no, you don't need to post endless shit about "utility" or "post-scarcity society" to make your point. You really, really don't. This is really really tiresome to everyone but you.

    To give you a little bit of an incentive here, I may start deleting comments of yours that are long dissertations about whatever the fuck that have only a tangential relationship to the topic at hand.

    ReplyDelete
  75. @Talkstorie Well WE have, but we're WOMEN and esp FEMINISTS, higher education is reversed only for us xD It's proof of the higher male brain functions that they're able to put this together WITHOUT any books or classes and only a used copy of the Matrix (new copies are reserved for Femidemic institutions of higher golddigging, I can't say nemore about this on a public forum...). If men had OUR education, they wouldn't just be in charge of the planet, they'd be in charge of existence itself, they'd have reshaped all life in the universe to be monogendered, and that is why the feminist conspiracy must persist in keeping men from philosophy courses *nods*

    ReplyDelete
  76. Gods, this made me cry. And, an aside... ginmar, I think you are wonderful. Just the bees knees. :3

    ReplyDelete
  77. It makes me sick to see those bullies rushing to defend a psychopath like that. That is how domestic violence works. The abuser beats the woman and then explains how she "made him do it". The MRM works the same way; they say any violence their members commit is everyone else's fault.

    At least it happened in front of many witnesses in that courthouse so people would finally believe her and so she could get prompt medical attention. I hope that poor woman never takes him back.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Seriously, THASF, stick to the topic or STFU. And no, you don't need to post endless shit about "utility" or "post-scarcity society" to make your point. You really, really don't. This is really really tiresome to everyone but you.

    Srsly. If you want to spout long-winded dissertations that nobody else wants to read, get a blog. That was my motivation, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "Unless you think the appropriate response is to hit someone until you have to be tased off of them when they seek child support for the children in common and date someone other then you, there is no possible way these are equal nor could you even make it equal."

    I never said their actions were equal. I was merely implying that they were possibly being unfair with each other, not that he had a right to hit her, or that what she did was a crime in and of itself. Honestly, I don't know these people. I can't judge their respective characters, can I?

    "You are conflating two separate issues of fathers rights for those who are not hitting their spouses and the ones who are.

    A man who hits his wife should get custody or she should give him access to her so he can keep hitting her? How is that even an arguable position?"

    No. This idiot flew off the handle and had a temper tantrum, and this was the result. Honestly, if this guy's making abuse into a new habit of his, then piss on him.

    That doesn't change the fact that those kids are gonna be messed up in the head because their parents couldn't get along.

    "You also clearly do not understand Burridans ass, as it does demonstrate that making an arbitrary or neutral choice can be better than making no choice at all."

    Yes, but it does so in a closed system where time is a factor. The paradox stipulates an interval where the ass arrives at an impasse and then eventually makes a choice.

    "If the ass chooses either pile of hay, it gets to eat that pile. If it chooses neither, it starves. The principle of sufficient reason fails, and your silly notion that an arbitrary choice is equivalent to no choice also fails."

    No, not just an arbitrary choice. An arbitrary choice between two things rendered completely identical/equivalent to each other. See, even in the case of the ass choosing between two identical piles of hay, it is technically still making a choice. It can choose the left pile or the right pile. But what if the ass is forced to make a choice instantaneously and the piles of hay exist only as non-orientable concepts? Is it possible to effectively distinguish between them, in such a case? It might, if we use symbols. We can say that you've got pile 1 and pile 2, and you're making a choice between them. But then, what if the symbols themselves that we use to define the separate piles are rendered equivalent as well?

    I was merely making the observation that if all choices are rendered meaningless through nihilism, there cannot be any free will in the conventional sense. This is a problem with nihilism, not with free will. I was using it to illustrate how flawed nihilism is.

    "Jesus Fucking Christ, THASF just loves to hear himself talk, does he? And he's not talking about this case, except to insinuate shit about the wife. Niiiiiiiiiiiiiice. So leaving the marriage makes that beating okay?"

    What else is there to talk about? How can I impugn his motives when they're so clear-cut? This Gonzalez guy is obviously a complete asshole, but I've had my buttons pushed before and I know how it feels for a man to lose all control. It's not exciting or fun. It's scary as hell, and if you have a lick of conscience, you tend to feel deeply ashamed about it afterward. I sincerely doubt this guy has anything resembling a conscience, so fuck him.

    For the record, by "losing control", I mean all those times where my dad started freakin' hitting my mom for NOTHING, and I tried to intervene on her behalf, usually putting bruises on all of us in the process. Do you think I like it when a man abuses his wife? Fuck, no!

    All I was saying was that neither of these parents upheld their duty to their children to get along. To find some way to make things work. That's what makes me sad about all this bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "THASF, You aren't the first person who has ever been let into the hallowed halls of PHIL101. We've contemplated this sort of mindblowing stuff before. You don't seem intellectual. You seem like a jackass. I pray to god you're either 19 or high. Either way, there are philosophy forums where you can talk yourself to death."

    20 and sober, though sometimes I wish I weren't so sober. If I seem like a jackass, that's because I am a jackass. When I try holding a conversation with people face-to-face, I inevitably start a one-sided monologue about the defense industry and recent progress in the fields of computers and materials science and all the little things that such advancements should make possible.

    They invariably give me a funny look like I'm some kind of maniac, and then they go straight back to talking about their sexual conquests, which I find to be just as repellent as they find me and my interests. Like, who gives a shit about who you fucked most recently and how you did it? The stuff I'm talking about is humanity's future!

    "Seriously, THASF, stick to the topic or STFU. And no, you don't need to post endless shit about "utility" or "post-scarcity society" to make your point. You really, really don't. This is really really tiresome to everyone but you."

    How is it possible for humans to be truly equal in a society that assesses people differently based on their education and their ability to output physical labor or intellectual products over a given time span? How is it possible for the sexes to be equal in a society that treats women as though they are cripples?

    So, I looked for a better answer. I arrived at post-scarcity economies, transhumanism and utilitarianism. Get rid of money, so nobody has to be the breadwinner. Improve the body, so that everyone is equal. Destroy conventional morality, so that nobody is right or wrong in the conventional sense. Now, it's a given that such a system is going to have drawbacks of its own, but hey. Sure sounds better than what we've got now, at least.

    "Srsly. If you want to spout long-winded dissertations that nobody else wants to read, get a blog. That was my motivation, anyway."

    You know what? I've considered doing just that.

    I mean, I've been typing like a thousand words an hour of semi-meaningful debate. If I were writing books, I could have done a NaNoWriMo novel in less than a week. That freaks even me out.

    I've got all this text in my head, just screaming for cathartic release.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Then write a blog so we do not have to put up with your pretentious blathering here.

    Especially since you seem to be viewing any woman who does anything that does not allow a male full access to her regardless of the level of violence as being in the wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Just so you all know, sexism really bothers me on a deep and personal level. I don't think you people realize why I'm such a profoundly disturbed individual, anyhow.

    How about I tell you a story?

    How about the one time where I used to have a sister who was a certifiable genius who self-tested and aced the SATs at sixteen, but died of leukemia at age 19 back in '01? I was eleven years old at the time.

    My sis started bruising up spontaneously from nothing at all. There hadn't been any fights or arguments or anything. We'd all been getting along great. Two months after she was diagnosed, and then she was gone. Just like that. Didn't even have a chance to say goodbye to someone who I felt was one of the most brilliant minds the world ever saw.

    Y'know, I remember asking her if she ever planned on starting a family with someone. I wasn't really thinking of the ramifications. I was a pre-teen kid, so I was more concerned with how cute her kids would look than how responsible her husband would be. She came back with a resounding "no". I now know why. It's because marriage is bullshit, that's why.

    Women expect men to give them all their frickin' money in exchange for being sex slaves with no dignity and no humanity. Men expect women to bury their egos and turn into picture-perfect porcelain dolls that they can admire and fuck whenever they want. What's equal about that? Nothing.

    My sis had talent. Her works were museum-worthy. She did realistic drawings in conte crayon and clay sculptures that would blow your freakin' mind. Why should she have yielded one inch of that amazing talent in order to become some ungrateful prick's private fuck toy? To be used, discarded and forgotten like so many women before her? To give herself over to a man, and yet have men as a whole talking behind her back about her sex as though her accomplishments and her talents didn't mean anything at all?

    Fuck that! Fuck it, fuck it, fuck it with a capital F! I am OUTRAGED at the very notion of such a thing!

    ReplyDelete
  83. "Especially since you seem to be viewing any woman who does anything that does not allow a male full access to her regardless of the level of violence as being in the wrong."

    He's in the wrong for the same exact reason. He did not allow her full access to him, because he acted like a dick and screwed up their marriage.

    See? This is the problem with feminism. We all strive for equality - a noble goal, that much is certain.

    But then, we engage in self-defeating tactics, like defining a woman in unequal terms to her husband, as though she were his property. By doing this, we are denying her free will and enforcing patriarchal assertions.

    Is it wrong to suggest that they both made mistakes of their own somewhere down the line if they ended up in such a situation? They're not children. They're grown-ups, and sometimes grown-ups have to make grown-up decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  84. "I've got all this text in my head, just screaming for cathartic release."

    Please go to wordpress.com, and get yourself a blog. Now. Believe me it's not that hard. I did it.

    "Women expect men to give them all their frickin' money in exchange for being sex slaves with no dignity and no humanity."

    then:
    "To give herself over to a man, and yet have men as a whole talking behind her back about her sex as though her accomplishments and her talents didn't mean anything at all?"

    Jeezus Haploid Christ.

    Please, I'm begging you. Go now, and get yourself a freaking blog. It'll be good for us. I mean for YOU! Good for you. And that's what we all really want.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I know it seems like a contradiction, but my point was that women are being socialized to have a low self-esteem, unlike my sister who esteemed herself very highly and would not kowtow to such nonsense.

    In a way, she suffered greatly for it. She endured ridicule and attempts and manipulation by her peers, who obviously saw her as some sort of anomaly. This placed a lot of stress on her.

    That's pretty messed up. She left a household with an abusive dad to hang out with other folks, and they gave her the same fucking abusive treatment. What the fuck? Are women prisoners of their own bodies? Is there nowhere they can go where they're given the proper appreciation and respect that they deserve?

    Fuck, that gives me the creeps. I don't fucking get it. I'm just as confused as everyone else is. That's why I'm trying to work this stuff out.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Look, *THASF*, we don't care about your entire life story. Force-feeding it down our throats isn't going to make us care any more. In fact, it will only make us care less.

    ReplyDelete
  87. "THASF, no one likes a tweaker."

    You're absolutely right. Nobody likes little ol' me, because I'm an obsessive-compulsive loser that sounds like he's perpetually high on something and looks like death warmed over. Yay.

    One time, my co-workers gave me a hard time about a mess I made in a work space. So, to compensate, I voluntarily cleaned EVERYTHING until it sparkled, well beyond what was necessary. They kept telling me "aw, shucks. You don't have to do that".

    But I did. Because that's who I am.

    ReplyDelete
  88. And the official victim blaming has begun. No, THASF, it is not fair to assume that if one person gets beaten up by another that the victim did something to earn it. Grown ups making grown up decisions do not violently attack their exes when things do not go their own way. Then you start the whinging about "why didn't she just leave" except this woman did exactly that, she left this out of control asshat and then was attacked (which happens often, women are often killed and severely injured trying to leave or after they have left).

    ReplyDelete
  89. THASF: WORK THINGS OUT with a therapist. Start a fucking blog. Shit. This post is NOT ABOUT YOU. Get it? And, please, PLEASE start smoking pot. It just might mellow you the fuck out.

    ReplyDelete
  90. "Look, *THASF*, we don't care about your entire life story. Force-feeding it down our throats isn't going to make us care any more. In fact, it will only make us care less."

    You can't deny that my life's story contains anecdotal accounts that may be relevant to the issue at large. Even if it seems like I'm only playing at sympathy, you've got to look at the actual meaning and content there.

    My sister was a very real sufferer of physical and verbal oppression. I saw it happen before my very eyes, and there was nothing I could do to stop it. I couldn't change the system to save her.

    How would that make you feel? How would you like to be in my shoes? I actually fucking cry over this shit. I'm crying right now. Is that so strange? Are boys not supposed to cry?

    ReplyDelete
  91. 20 and sober,

    Off by a year. I must be slipping.

    THASF, listen, I'm a woman with Asperger's syndrome. It took me a long time to get the hang of staying on topic not blathering on about my interests. It's harder for some people than others, but it can be done. It's entirely possible you have a neurological disorder that requires extra effort in this area. I deeply sympathize. In any case, you really should see a therapist. And get your own blog. Not necessarily in that order.

    ReplyDelete
  92. "And the official victim blaming has begun. No, THASF, it is not fair to assume that if one person gets beaten up by another that the victim did something to earn it."

    Well, all along I've been stating that I believe that it's wrong to deny another individual their personal utility. Also, I'm not assuming anything. I've just heard some rumors. One blog poster said he knew these two, and said that "she was a mental abuser and she used the kids as leverage".

    Probably MRA slander from someone who doesn't even know them at all, but you never know. I'm not saying one should assume that fault rests with the victim. I'm saying that - in the interest of fairness to all parties - one should always take the possibility of equal fault into account in any exchange between two human beings that leaves one side in a bad way. We would be hypocrites otherwise.

    Nevertheless, nothing she could have done would merit a response like this. He acted like a moron, and I honestly hope they put him away for a while.

    "Grown ups making grown up decisions do not violently attack their exes when things do not go their own way. Then you start the whinging about "why didn't she just leave" except this woman did exactly that, she left this out of control asshat and then was attacked (which happens often, women are often killed and severely injured trying to leave or after they have left)."

    But then, was she in the right to leave him for another man? Men have feelings of abandonment too, you know.

    I think she was, and this incident proved it. Nevertheless, such a judgment may not apply if this was a one-time outburst and she had been pushing his buttons and working him into a frenzy for years beforehand. Once again, I don't know these people and I can't say either way.

    Hell, a woman in his shoes would probably have lashed out with an equal degree of violence, and she would be just as unjustified as he was in doing so.

    To make a long story short, I disagree with both the feminist bloggers and the MRAs. I don't think that the rights of one take precedence over the rights of the other. Not hers, and definitely not his.

    But you see, there's an issue with my point of view that introduces what appears to be a bias towards males. That's because I'm framing it in what we call a phallogocentric system. If we start defining rights, we soon realize that when we construct dichotomies like "he has a right to her body or he doesn't have a right to her body" or "he should have access to her body or he shouldn't have access to her body", we're objectifying the very concept of womanhood. How revolting indeed.

    In a phallogocentric system, the construct of marriage automatically constitutes the granting of rights to the male and the surrendering of rights by the female. Divorce then automatically constitutes the loss of rights and privileges by the male and the regaining of rights by the female.

    I think that this is an inherently dehumanizing logical construction, and it's one of the reasons why I'm so deeply angered at how humans operate in dominance hierarchies (i.e. "One must give a command, and the other must submit/obey."). Even if you flip the genders, the dichotomy of submission and dominance still exists. It's like the world is one big BDSM orgy or something.

    Why can't we have real equality? Tell me what needs to be done, and let's all do it together in unison as a species.

    ReplyDelete
  93. "
    THASF, listen, I'm a woman with Asperger's syndrome. It took me a long time to get the hang of staying on topic not blathering on about my interests. It's harder for some people than others, but it can be done. It's entirely possible you have a neurological disorder that requires extra effort in this area. I deeply sympathize. In any case, you really should see a therapist. And get your own blog. Not necessarily in that order."

    I don't know how to say this, but a few months ago, I had this horrible ringing in my ears and got a panic attack. I felt like I was having a stroke or something. For the past year, I've tended to spoonerize my writing a lot. I can be typing along just fine, and all of a sudden, I'll transplant a letter from a following word to a preceding one. Like, I'll type "inequality sucks" and it comes out as "sinequality ucks" or something equally-bizarre.

    I guess one of the reasons why I'm writing so much crap like this is because I'm paranoid about losing my ability to write coherently. I'm trying to exercise my brain so I don't go totally go bonkers.

    Christ, I need to ditch this crap go for a walk or something. Get a breath of fresh air.

    ReplyDelete
  94. THASF, please click this link.

    http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/

    *ahem*
    At the Kurzweilai.net forums, you will find many people willing and able to discuss transhumanism, post-scarcity, and related questions of ethics and philosophy. People who are interested in these things from all over the world! Who are willing to discuss these things at all hours of the day and/or night! It's a great place. Please go and say hello to them!

    ReplyDelete
  95. I've had panic attacks and moments of aphasia myself, it's very disconcerting. But even if you are in crisis, especially if you are in crisis, this isn't the time and it isn't the place for what you're doing. You're only disturbing strangers on a blog. Go lie down. Do some focusing exercises like counting. That may help more than a walk. Then don't come back. Go write in a personal journal if you feel you must express yourself. Or find an on topic discussion at a transhumanist or post-scarcity site. Then contact someone who can give you guidance. A psychological hotline in your area would be a good place to start.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Thasf: Just so you know.. not agreeing w/ nebody doesn't make you right, or smart... it makes you that kid in high school who thinks "I hate the geeks and the cheerleaders" makes them unique >_>;; The thing is, I know what you're saying makes a lot of sense to you, but ... you're completely misunderstanding what's going on and feminism in general. You talk about everybody else's lack of self awareness, but you won't actually acknowledge your own biases :( And those biases and assumptions are shaping the way you see things. As much as you talk about everybody else being stuck in a social construct, you are too, more so than you think you are and more so than you think the ppl you're talking to are. :( The problem is that you're fighting a world that is not what you think it is, and b/c of that you're punching at shadows. You're not offending nebody, but they're confused why you keep saying "I GOT YOU GOOD" when you're punching at thin air :( You dun have to believe me, I know you prolly wun, secure in your knowledge of being the only true objective person. But... if you are who you say you are, and what's important to you is what you say it is, at least plz listen :) If not, then you can keep punching away but you will never get what you rly want, which is equality, b/c you're attacking structures and systems that aren't there :( I never comment here... and I'm not interested in a fight.. there's no point... and I appreciate your life story :) But I'm commenting just cuz something about you twinges me, like it twinges Zhinxy... we've been there.. or at least I have... I get it :( So I just want to tell you.. put the kb down and just think about it ok? :) Listen too... like ppl here have listened to you :) If they're wrong, they'll be wrong tomorrow and the next day and the next day too... but just... listen :)

    Also if things are as bad as you're saying in terms of keeping yourself together (as I said, I've been there... I'm thankfully alive now, but I've been there :( ) plz dun ignore those things. :( Plz :(

    ReplyDelete
  97. That should be Talkstorie not Zhinxy... >_>;; her dual identities aren't a sekrit tho so it's ok :) just used to calling her Zhinxy :)

    ReplyDelete
  98. Ami, you are a lot more civil toward THASF than I would be, and you've made some good points. Good job.

    Back on topic: Oh, The Spearhead, home of shrill, insecure misogynists since...I dunno, forever? Looks like forever to me.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Wow, this is very...different.

    THASF, I sympathize with your having problems, but that doesn't mean we and this blog are here to help you deal with them. You need to find a more appropriate venue for that and restrict your posts here to things that are actually relevant.

    And, lest you are unaware, there is nothing particularly smart or compelling about your philosophical views. Materialist utilitarianism just screams "most obviously intuitive views in my high school philosophy class." You're welcome to believe it to your heart's content, but you're not going to impress, or even interest, very many people.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Jesus Fuckin' Christ, THASF, what in the fuck of shit is WRONG WITH YOU?! Shut the fuck up already. Christ, you were told twenty comments and about twenty thousand selfish, self-indulgent, victim-blaming words ago to shut up and stick to the goddamned topic, which is the fact that MRAs see beating a woman as the appropriate response to anything tht's not servile obedience. And you just want to whine about yourself. Get your own fucking blog already.

    I have an acquaintance like this, who, when he does something wrong, mysteriously manages to change the subject to how bad he feels and how you---the person harmed by his character flaws and arrogance---should make him feel better and not mention restitution. I suspect he has done this to many, many people, but his status as a white guy enables him to get away with it. I see something of this in MRAs ability--indeed, obsession---with making everything about them. When they hit women, they probably complain that the bitch bruised their hand, and deserves to be arrested and punished for it.

    Also, Blogger sucks MRA balls, because it keeps telling me it can't comply with my fucking request, then I hit the back button and find out I've been signed in and can now post a comment. Which luckily I saved. Suck my tampon, Blogger or Wordpress or whatever the hell this is.

    ReplyDelete
  101. All right, after reading this thread I'm definitely going to 4chan.

    ReplyDelete
  102. "You're welcome to believe it to your heart's content, but you're not going to impress, or even interest, very many people."

    Oh, so you're saying that humans are doomed to be emotional beings rather than rational ones by virtue of our biology? That we will forever be prone to the violent, childish outbursts like the one Mr. Gonzalez had?

    God, I hope that's not true.

    As far as high school philosophy goes, you give me too much credit. I'm a home-schooled kid who basically self-studied after the tenth grade. All my philosophical musings, no matter how trite (the school of Kantianism pretty much covered everything I just discussed) are derived from simple observation and integration of facts, like the way an old-school autodidact would do it. I was never exposed to the peer pressure or socialization forces present in a public school setting, so it's only a given that my perspective would seem totally alien to someone who has.

    I mean, knowledge has to come from somewhere, doesn't it? If you think about it, we may have schools and universities and the like now, but what about during Aristotle's time? Or before that? Who was the first teacher, and who did they learn from? The first teacher was necessarily an autodidact, because there was nobody around to teach them.

    I basically read some encyclopedias, observed how people interacted with each other, and started making my case in the hopes that I could provoke an intelligent debate on the matter. I'm sorry if I have trouble expressing my views in a way that doesn't come across as distasteful or pessimistic.

    You see, I'm not interested in getting people to believe what I'm saying and take it as an incontrovertible fact, but the exact opposite. By making these outlandish and controversial statements, I hope to incite others to question their own beliefs. To question everything they see. To exercise the power of skepticism frequently and heartily in all things. That's all I really want.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Jesus, and THASF just proved me right by appropriating his sister's pain to be about him.

    ReplyDelete
  104. THASF, you're not even trying. Now you're just actively being insulting.

    ReplyDelete
  105. "Jesus Fuckin' Christ, THASF, what in the fuck of shit is WRONG WITH YOU?! Shut the fuck up already. Christ, you were told twenty comments and about twenty thousand selfish, self-indulgent, victim-blaming words ago to shut up and stick to the goddamned topic, which is the fact that MRAs see beating a woman as the appropriate response to anything tht's not servile obedience. And you just want to whine about yourself. Get your own fucking blog already."

    I'm not a victim-blamer. Under my utilitarian theories, the whole concept of victimization doesn't exist; only a loss of utility for the whole. By striking his ex, that man reduced not only her utility, but his own as well. Actually, he reduced the utility of the entire species.

    By inviting retaliation from the authorities, some - like those sneering philistines over at the Spearhead - might argue that he victimized only himself, using profoundly perverse, mutated versions of the same rules of classical, objective morality that most people subscribe to.

    Do you now see why I am disgusted with the current system of ethics that our species operates on? You may not realize it, but I'm essentially on the same page that you are. I believe that "men" like Mr. Gonzalez don't DESERVE to be treated like victims.

    "Also, Blogger sucks MRA balls, because it keeps telling me it can't comply with my fucking request, then I hit the back button and find out I've been signed in and can now post a comment. Which luckily I saved. Suck my tampon, Blogger or Wordpress or whatever the hell this is."

    Do you have your browser set up to clear cookies or keep them? When you post with an account selected from the drop-down, it wants to go through a little gateway where it gives an error while simultaneously baking a cookie/session for the browser to use. I've never really seen any site that does this other than Blogger. Just to be sure, I copy everything I write into the clipboard before posting it.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Oh for god's sake. You aren't shocking us. You aren't making us question our beliefs. We've encountered homeschooled people before. You aren't an alien being. I was a bookworm, aspie, and autodidact myself. Hell, I've read a lot of Iain Banks. None of this stuff is really that out there.

    It's not that you come off as distasteful or pessimistic. It's that you're frequently off topic, bizarrely personal, and ridiculously psuedo-intellectual.

    Look, I'm done here. Please go to the forums I linked above to discuss transhumanism, ethics, philosophy, and politics with people who have similar interests. You won't get the satisfaction of being the only person talking about these things while everybody else goes on about trivialities, but you will learn some things about topics that interest you, and maybe, heaven forfend, make some friends.

    Now get out of here.

    I'm going to 4chan with Captain Bathrobe...

    ReplyDelete
  107. On the moral question: Causing harm to another human being is wrong. It is wrong to use violence to harm people.

    I don't get why people are condemning this woman for having a boyfriend and looking for child support at the same time. If she did not seek child support, then she'd be a vicious leech forcing her boyfriend to pay for another man's children. There's just no way for her to win, is there?

    And I think that, as messed up as the kids might be from the divorce, having a dad this violent and unpredictable and with such poor judgment would screw them up more in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  108. "Jesus, and THASF just proved me right by appropriating his sister's pain to be about him."

    Appropriating my sister's pain to be about me? Oh, so you're acting like she's some kind of saint, and I'm some kind of crippled, defective little monster who lived in her shadow? How typical.

    My sister was gifted, but she wasn't always nice. Hell, one time when I was six and banging on pots and pans with spoons for the fun of it, she got pissed at the racket I was making and threw a spoon at me. It hit me right in the face and gave me a black eye.

    When I was a little older, she was a super-puritan about EVERYTHING.

    If I picked up a video game magazine in a bookstore, she'd pluck it from my fingers and screen it for violent or sexual content before allowing me to read it.

    She would even sit behind me during movies and make animal-like shrieks to drown out curse words. She was very good at making animal noises. Her impression of a velociraptor from Jurassic Park was spot-on. I would sometimes joke that she reminded me of one.

    I don't think you have a right to say that I "appropriated my sister's pain". Her pain is my pain. We were siblings. We didn't always get along, but we were very close. Now, all that's left is the regret. Heck, I hardly even remember the good times anymore.

    Everywhere I look, it's just shit, shit, shit.

    Sheesh, the way people talk, you'd think I was insane or needed therapy or something. My counter to that would be a simple one; how is it POSSIBLE for someone to remain sane when they're surrounded by assholes on all sides? When even the little guy on the street - either through ignorance or malevolence - aids and abets wars and corporate excesses?

    How is it possible for someone to stay sane when they realize that George Orwell's worst nightmares are a reality in China, where men and women work their fucking fingers to the bone for pennies an hour? Where female infants are murdered because they won't pass on the family name? Where they had to install suicide nets around the company dorms at a Foxconn plant to keep workers from escaping this fucked-up world? Where political dissidents get killed and have their organs harvested and sold to westerners who need a transplant after fucking up their livers by overindulging in expensive liquor that the poor, young Chinese man or woman whose liver they're stealing would never be able to afford?

    All to supply America with mountains of CHEAP. PLASTIC. CRAP.

    How can anyone call themselves sane in an insane world? The way I see it, YOU'RE the selfish, indulgent, and pretentious ones if you can't see how fucked-up everything is!

    ReplyDelete
  109. "Look, I'm done here. Please go to the forums I linked above to discuss transhumanism, ethics, philosophy, and politics with people who have similar interests. You won't get the satisfaction of being the only person talking about these things while everybody else goes on about trivialities, but you will learn some things about topics that interest you, and maybe, heaven forfend, make some friends."

    Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. Also, thanks for being polite and understanding how difficult it is to have a brain that's as fucked-up as mine is. A brain that makes me do and say self-centered crap. Trust me, I'm not someone to be envied. I'm so deep in my own fantasies about how the world works that I don't even have a fucking clue. I can't even frame a debate without putting myself and my own experiences on a pedestal, because I don't personally know about anyone else and their own traumatic experiences.

    Some people say I have a big head like I have a big ego or something, but my head actually is PHYSICALLY huge. 24 and a half inches in circumference. I wonder if I have hydrocephaly or something?

    I also have a jaw that clicks due to some kind of TMJ-like disorder. When I was younger, I had perpetual throbbing pain in my temples due to pinched nerves in my jaw. I had my wisdom teeth out recently because they were causing me pain and my jaw just wasn't big enough. Plus, I'm a massive hypochondriac who's stressed out about my mental and physical condition all the frickin' time, even if I'm probably fine and it's all in my damn fool head.

    I don't need enemies. I'm my own worst enemy, believe me. I just wish I had some friends, sometimes. Just someone to talk to. That's all.

    Been fun, guys. I'm out.

    ReplyDelete
  110. @THASF

    ...Dude.

    You're using real life examples of messed up stuff, and then concluding that the entire world just as messed up in order to make yourself look better. That's not being intelligent or enlightened, that's being insanely pessimistic.

    Seeing and recognizing fucked up events/subjects is one thing, crowing self-righteously about how one is above it all is another. If you see the fucked up things that occur in this planet, you could do more than play "armchair philosopher", you could ACTUALLY WORK TO PROMOTE SOME POSITIVE CAUSES. Donate to an organization, open the door for someone when they're about to walk into a store/cafe, do some volunteer work, write a letter and send it to a magazine or something.

    Digital Soapboxes do not a difference make. It's easy to philosophize, it's harder to take action, but you know what? The latter is rewarding, the latter is puffery.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Opps, I meant, "The latter is rewarding, the former is puffery." Being angry and staying up late at night does that to one's grammar.

    ReplyDelete
  112. God, you're disgusting, THASF. And you sure do want to whine about how mean people are to you when you're not even close to getting their meaning. Not to mention the fact that it's not about you.

    David, I'd say leave everything he's written so far up, but delete everything after this point. He refuses to listen, or change, or do anything but whine about how we just don't grasp what a truly special snowflake he really is.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I know I said I'd quit, but I have to respond to these points:

    "Donate to an organization,"

    Ever hear of a thing called corruption? What guarantee would I have that my money wouldn't end up in the hands of an African warlord and be used to further their campaigns of rape and genocide?

    Check this out:

    Ethiopia: Donors Should Investigate Misuse of Aid Money

    African corruption is a crime against humanity

    Why Foreign Aid Is Hurting Africa

    See what I mean? It's stuff like this that makes me want to headdesk so hard that I turn my Unicomp-made copy of an IBM Model M into a pile of rubble.

    "open the door for someone when they're about to walk into a store/cafe,"

    I always hold the door for people.

    "do some volunteer work,"

    I would, but my mother wouldn't approve of such a thing. She was always going on about how "Good Samaritans are always the first ones to get killed," and other such brilliant Aesop's fables.

    In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.

    Honestly, I remember a few years back when I was riding in the car with her, and I pointed out all the trash alongside the highway and said "hey, maybe we should get a few trash bags some road flares and some traffic vests and clean that up? Make things a little prettier around here."

    You know what she said? She said that "there are other people who do that, you don't need to put yourself out like that. You'd probably get arrested anyway". Christ almighty. If everyone thought like that, then nothing would get done!

    "write a letter and send it to a magazine or something."

    What magazine? Reader's Digest, or something? I'd probably get some smart-ass, dismissive response from the editors for expressing my views. That is, if they printed them at all, which I sincerely doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  114. THASF, best of luck finding a better forum to talk about what you want to talk about, and getting some help for your issues. I mean that.

    But we're moving on here. Please, everyone, don't post or reply to off-topic stuff; I'll delete it if/when I see it, but at this point responding to it doesn't help either.

    ReplyDelete
  115. THASF really has trouble with simple instructions, doesn't he? How many times did we tell him "Stop telling us stories about your personal life" and how many stories about his personal life did he keep piling on?

    Oh, so you're saying that humans are doomed to be emotional beings rather than rational ones by virtue of our biology? That we will forever be prone to the violent, childish outbursts like the one Mr. Gonzalez had?

    God, I hope that's not true.


    Does anyone have any idea where this came from? I said I wasn't impressed that he was a materialist utilitarian, and he replied with...this? He thinks that if you're not a materialist utilitarian, you're, I guess, some kind of biological-determinist nihilist? Seriously, I'm looking for any kind of clue here.

    It's a dead giveaway that he's spouting philosophical terminologies without understanding what he or anyone else is saying.

    ReplyDelete
  116. derived from simple observation and integration of facts, like the way an old-school autodidact would do it. I was never exposed to the peer pressure or socialization forces present in a public school setting, so it's only a given that my perspective would seem totally alien to someone who has.

    No. Just no. You don't seem alien. You seem puerile and simplistic. Want to know why we don't learn like old-school autodidacts anymore? Because actual old-school autodidacts already thought of everything you'll ever come up with on your own. Same reason we have math books instead of expecting everyone to derive calculus (pun!) from first principles. Everything you've said has been picked apart ad nauseam for hundreds of years.

    At best, you're going to trumpet well-known ideas as though they were brilliant innovations. At worst, you're going to cling to obviously fallacious and debunked ideas because you don't know any better.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Oh--sorry, David. I was composing this post and hadn't refreshed the page. (I won't post the last bit, where I pointed out that nothing he's said resembles Kant even a little bit. Please don't delete my previous posts, though. I spent time on those.)

    BTW, your blog really does eat long posts.

    ReplyDelete
  118. By "covered", I meant Kantianism criticizedutilitarianism... ahh, never mind. Forget I said any of that crap. Back on topic, then.

    The Gonzalez family is just one broken family out of many. Both the MRAs and the anti-MRAs have their scopes set a little too narrow; I think we all need to look at the bigger picture, here. This problem is the result of feelings of personal entitlement that men and women equally share. Neither this man nor his ex seem to understand the concept of self-sacrifice for the sake of the greater good. That's just my humble opinion.

    Hell, I'm sounding like one of WH40K's Tau, aren't I? FOR THE GREATER GOOD, and all that.

    ReplyDelete
  119. OK, that was actually on topic. Good for you.

    Except you're still equating what the two of them did as though it was equal. How is the woman being entitled for wanting the father to help support her children? And how does the woman not getting child support help anyone? It gives more money to someone abusive and irresponsible, and leaves her kids without support. By sheer numbers, that's three people getting hurt and only one gaining anything.

    And no. You sound like Hot Fuzz.

    ReplyDelete
  120. As far as the photo goes, I find it kind of interesting that everyone's focusing on the (admittedly horrific) extent of her injuries.

    But what about him? Upon close inspection of his facial features, I can't help but notice how remarkably similar he looks to me. Similar eyes, similar head shape, similar jaw, similar mouth. The dead stare. The cyanosis of the lips.

    Similar everything. Trust me, this isn't some kind of narcissism thing, because I don't see that degree of similarity very often.

    I mean, look at his crooked jaw. Maybe he had temporomandibular joint-related headaches growing up? Maybe his anger-management issues are a result of pinched nerves and perpetual stress as a result of these genetic/growth defects?

    If true, that's pitiful. Honestly, I think a lot of folks - men and women alike - are wandering around out there with latent, undiagnosed systemic illnesses that negatively affect their quality of life and turn them into abusive, hateful fucks when they grow older. Kind of sets up an argument for the virtues of eugenics, huh? Like, maybe we shouldn't be breeding people who are going to grow up to be mentally, physically and emotionally-defective?

    It's still no excuse for violence.

    ReplyDelete
  121. "Except you're still equating what the two of them did as though it was equal. How is the woman being entitled for wanting the father to help support her children? And how does the woman not getting child support help anyone? It gives more money to someone abusive and irresponsible, and leaves her kids without support. By sheer numbers, that's three people getting hurt and only one gaining anything."

    Well, there are multiple stages to this problem.

    First off, these two individuals - Paul and Catherine - decided to marry.

    Second, they decided to have kids.

    Third, one or both of them decided to divorce.

    Fourth, she arrived at the Broward County courthouse for a divorce hearing, and he flew off the handle and beat the crap out of her in the judge's chambers. In this, he was totally out of line; this we can all agree on.

    Those are the only stages we can identify. There may be more. Is it not rational to say that - during any of the aforementioned stages - both parties could have, at varying times, shown degrees of self-interest that were detrimental to their marriage and neglectful of the well-being of their children?

    ReplyDelete
  122. I'm not saying that he shouldn't have to pay child support. He should. It's the law, and it's what's best for the kids in this circumstance.

    What I'm saying is that they both showed poor judgment when they chose to put their own personal comfort ahead of raising their kids properly.

    Though, in retrospect, who would want those kids to be raised by an abusive fuck like this? Here's hoping her new man isn't such a dick, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Isn't it weird how every one of these threads ends up having a target that everyone else dogpiles on? I was there a couple of times, NWO, THASF... well, I guess it keeps things interesting, otherwise you'd just have a bunch of people agreeing with each other and the whole thing would die after 10-20 comments.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Agreed, Ion. It's very weird that every one of these threads ends up with someone rambling at 3 comments per 1 comment made by everyone else, virtually none of which manage to A) present a coherent argument, or generally B) present any coherence at all.

    ReplyDelete
  125. "Kind of sets up an argument for the virtues of eugenics, huh? Like, maybe we shouldn't be breeding people who are going to grow up to be mentally, physically and emotionally-defective?"

    Wow, that is morally repulsive. It is also factually inaccurate. People with mental illnesses, including people with psychosis, are not more likely to commit violent crimes. Your asinine theories about criminality and head shape were debunked about a century ago. Attitudes like yours are extremely harmful to the wellbeing of people with disabilities. They also do not decrease crime. The opposite, in fact, because they tend to be used as excuses to reduce deterence of perfectly deterable individuals.

    ReplyDelete
  126. "Wow, that is morally repulsive. It is also factually inaccurate."

    Hence why I used the terms "kind of" and "maybe". Perhaps there are futuristic alternatives to primitive, immoral eugenics, like in-utero gene therapy, pharmaceuticals or cybernetic augmentations?

    Note that by cybernetics, I don't necessarily mean stuff like super-powered robo-prosthetics that let you jump ten stories or any of that Hollywood nonsense. I mean something like a small spinal implant that modulates the nervous system, controlling stress hormone releases and preventing paresthesia-like conditions or unexplained, continuous pain/headaches, et cetera.

    I mean, what about conditions like harlequin ichthyosis or treacher-collins syndrome? Can you honestly say that some of these kinds of congenital disorders shouldn't be eliminated from the populace by any means necessary in order to minimize suffering?

    I mean, I just don't get it. Where did this guy learn to hit women like that? What lowered his moral and intellectual inhibitions to the point where he would stoop to such savagery? Is it because he's a Marine? Is it because they taught him to be a killer? Is that it?

    I mean, honestly. Where do these people go wrong? Why can't we find that negative stimulus and eliminate it once and for all?

    ReplyDelete
  127. "Your asinine theories about criminality and head shape were debunked about a century ago."

    I wasn't talking about phrenology or anything like that. Rather, I was merely suggesting that the presence of certain phenotypical traits in this individual may be an indicator for growth disorders that may lead to constant physical pain and depression later in one's life. That doesn't make them criminals automatically, of course, but it may be a contributing factor when combined with the stress of modern life.

    It is a fact that people with certain ethnic backgrounds are more prone to certain genetic diseases and abnormalities. Disorders like sickle cell anemia and thalassemia have higher affected populations in people of African or Asian descent, respectively. Similarly, I believe that there's a whole host of genetic disorders that may be specific to people of Hispanic or Caucasian descent.

    Now, keep in mind that I'm not proposing genocide or euthanasia or such evil, radical measures as those. Genetic screening combined with voluntary sterilization may be the only "good" eugenics regime possible. It would be even better if we could correct abnormalities during the gestational process.

    For instance, I have astigmatic eyes. Without corrective eyewear, I can barely read one of those high-contrast green and white road signs when it's six feet in front of my face. Lots and lots of people have this condition, so I'm hardly unique. Can you honestly say that we wouldn't have been better off if medical science had some way to prevent it before we were even born?

    Sorry, I guess I'm getting off-topic again. I just wish there was some way to explain all the barbarity that goes on in the world. For the record, there isn't. Just human nature, I guess. I mean, think about it. How would a human explain our barbarous nature to an alien race? For that matter, how would a parasite that eats the tongues of fish like Cymothoa Exigua justify its existence to us?

    See, this is why I hate terms like "disgusting" or "morally repulsive". They imply that a universal standard of repulsiveness exists and that all things should adhere to it. There isn't. We made it up, based on our irrational gut-feelings. Nature is cruel that way.

    One time when someone tried getting all theological with me, I pointed out things like parasitic worms and insect-killing fungi. I said "are those god's creations too?"

    The guy actually tried pulling that whole "Those exist because god cursed the earth/They're the invention of the devil!" thing.

    It was this sort of illogical recourse to conventional "feel-good" notions of morality that made me come to embrace utilitarianism as the ideal. It's because systems of ethics based on gut-feelings about right and wrong do not meet the scientific criteria for falsifiability.

    Of course, this is the part where most would insist that "humans are emotional creatures, so we need to take our precious feelings into account".

    Yes, sadly. Humans are emotional creatures. That's why a grown man flipped out and beat his ex half to death right in the middle of a goddamn courthouse. :(

    Is it wrong to ask for humans to exercise a little logic? A little reason?

    ReplyDelete
  128. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/philosopher.htm

    ReplyDelete
  129. David, don't be afraid to wield the banhammer. The banhammer is your friend.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Here's another thought, THASF: What if the blue I see, is, like, not the blue you see? What if we both just *call* it "blue" but if I saw through your eyes it'd really be, like, green?

    Duuuuuude.

    ReplyDelete
  131. "I mean, I just don't get it. Where did this guy learn to hit women like that? What lowered his moral and intellectual inhibitions to the point where he would stoop to such savagery? Is it because he's a Marine? Is it because they taught him to be a killer? Is that it?"

    It's called the Patriarchy. Under such a system, men and women are socialized to believe that men are simply better than women by virtue of the fact that they are men. Ever hear about the experiment where children were told that people with a certain eye color were superior? That is how sexism and racism start.

    A boy is told that men are just 'naturally' more aggressive, that they can't help it. He is taught that it is women's job to 'tame the beast' within him, that is it women's job to always be nice and understanding, because, of course, women are just much better at that sort of thing.

    Since now the responsibility for a man's behavior and actions is dependent on a woman, it becomes her fault when he lashes out. Or, if he doesn't have a wife or girlfriend, it becomes all of womanity's fault for not being willing to take care of him.

    Now, if you really want to increase your understanding of the matter instead of just blathering about how mind-boggling it is, trying googling 'Feminism 101.'

    ReplyDelete
  132. @Darkside Cat

    Psychosis by definition is an uncontrollable altered state. People can commit violent crime under it but it cannot be charged. A Psychiatric patient knocking out a nurse is not going to be charged. It's not a crime due to mental state. However psychotic states and paranoid states do cause people to commit more violent crimes. The important thing to realise about "crazy people" is that they think they are sane. The logic of their thoughts generally is solid EXCEPT for one crucial bit.

    A simple explanation for THASF?

    The army is not a place for inculcating young men with a balanced world view in the hopes of turning them into productive members of society.

    You learn how to kill and how to follow orders. When you go to a war, you practice how to kill and how to follow orders. Only it's not the way how it's supposed to be. It's a lot more yelling and screaming. The enemy often is shooting back at you and no one cares if you crap yourself in fear (oh yes. No one shows that bit in a war movie.)

    Soon you are jumping at shadows. Often you will come under fire and you cannot do anything because you have no orders and no support. So you just sit there getting shot at with no one to lash out against. At some point something breaks inside you. You fear everything. But you are trained to fight fear with rage so it doesn't show.

    When you go back home you still are stuck in this mentality where when you are placed outside a comfort zones you wish to physically lash out, because that is all you know. Because all your problems could be solved by punching them before this.

    It's very hard to control without therapy and without medications. PTSD is the leading cause for divorces and break ups post service. It is also the cause of suicide in many soldiers post war. A lot of abuse is due to this. It's the sufferer's fault because you can control it. It's a case of willpower. But willpower is in short supply when you are a PTSD sufferer. Addictive behaviour is common.

    Or alternatively he could be a giant abusive arsehole... I would say test him for PTSD and get him the help he needs if he has it. Parole should be linked to his progress as a PTSD sufferer. No parole if he is just a giant berk who hits women.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Amnesia...

    The army trains you to solve your problems through force. When you serve in a combat zone you are placed under incredible stress.

    You are taught in training to obey order and handle a weapon. No one tells you about "what it's like". War is chaotic and no one really follows any rules. No one tells you about "how you will be so scared you will actually lose bowel control". Or how someone will shoot your friend in the leg solely to have him lying there injured so your unit cannot move (you cannot leave him behind). Sometimes you don't have orders to engage despite being under fire and you have to just sit there and hope that amongst all the bullets labelled "to whomsoever it may concern" there isn't one with your name on it.

    Something breaks inside you and you respond to threats with violence. Because that is what you are trained to do. And it's a fine way to be in the army since your discipline ensures that you only lash out against the enemy.

    The problem is this mentality is now hardwired. You think like that because it is how combat PTSD works. Your response to fear and stress is violence. Oh there are actual physical changes such as excess testosterone and adrenaline. Clouds your judgement and makes you have wild mood swings. It's why you get therapy and drugs to control them.

    Not a Patriarchy, just a fact of life. Not everything has to be about male dominated societies. Women who served also respond violently and since men have a lower tolerance for this in relationships they often leave. Women Combat PTSD sufferers are "complete loners" who live in little bubbles of anger.

    That being said this is the most likely reason for this occurrence. It could be that the man is a raging dick. The Raging Dick option is always a good call. It doesn't have to be patriarchy so much as "the guy is an arsehole".

    ReplyDelete
  134. And thus THASF dismisses the woman's injuries once again to focus on the poor widdle wife beater, speculating that maybe he came from the planet MOngo and thus suffered space sickness and she shouldn't have provoked him. Or something. But he's not that different from our resident MRAs; they find men fascinating, but women are just punching bags with vaginas. She must have done something to make him pissed off, because to assholes like Ion---who sees only a dogpile on poor widdle dipshit---all guys get the benefit of the doubt.

    These guys always trust other guys. They value other guys. They hate women. Why don't they just fuck one another and leave the rest of us alone?

    ReplyDelete
  135. Avicenna, will you quit with the bullshit? You're making excuses for this asshole too and in the process revealing that you get all your information about the military and PTSD from Viet Nam era war movies and fuck only knows what else.

    Excess testosterone? Anything but to blame the guy himself, I guess. Jeez. Some guys are just desperate to justify one guy attacking a woman. You're one of them. It's vile.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Here's another thought, THASF: What if the blue I see, is, like, not the blue you see? What if we both just *call* it "blue" but if I saw through your eyes it'd really be, like, green?

    Duuuuuude.


    Dude, that just blew my mind. I'm freaking out here! Pass the Cheetos.

    ReplyDelete
  137. assholes like Ion

    ginmar, are you angry all the time because you got your legs blown off in the war, like Lieutenant Dan? Just wondering.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Ginmar...

    1. It's not an excuse. Most combat PTSD sufferers would not accept it as an excuse and seek to correct their aggressive behaviour. Therapy and Drugs. Uncontrolled behaviour turns into this. I do not accept it as an excuse.

    2. You can check with PTSD forums and literature. Combat rather than bog standard. There is a difference.

    3. This is the internet. Anything I say is completely unprovable. I could be a bored housewife in Guadalcanal not a british medical student in India. You could secretly be a contributer to In Mala Fide playing a silly joke. You have already dismissed information that is sensible as "from the movies". Any proof I give is equally dismissable.

    4. Quick question. If I were for example... Someone with experience with the disorder in question would that change your mind about how things work.

    5. If not then go for it. He is evil and and is evil because he is part of the Patriarchy rather than "he is a stupid violent berk who has not sought help for a problem and has not been provided with adequate support regarding the problem".

    Oh. And PTSD is not an excuse. It's a reason. PTSD related violence is punished as normal because PTSD is controllable with drugs and therapy. Most combat PTSD sufferers have coping mechanisms to deal with anger and rage ranging from drinking heavily to hardcore gardening and binge eating.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Seriously, Avicenna? Although I couldn't agree more that lack of treatment and even recognition of PTSD is a major problem in the U.S. military, your insistence that PTSD fully explains this asshole's actions is starting to bother me. You seem to be diagnosing him from a few lines in an article. You don't have enough access to or information about Gonzalez to say specifically what the cause of his violence is.

    Here is an alternative explanation. From my personal experience, I have noticed that a tiny but noticeable minority of people who enter the military (join the police force, become prison guards or border patrol officers, etc.) do so because they think it will give them a good outlet for their already-existing rage. They want to fire weapons at people. They want to exert force. They want to dominate.

    Now, I have absolutely no way of knowing whether Paul Gonzalez was predisposed to violence before serving at war, just as I have no idea whether he would have been a person who was able to control his violent emotions but for untreated PTSD. I bet you don't either. I say it's probably best not to play armchair psychiatrist, since we just don't have any information that would lead to a correct conclusion about Gonzalez' inner life. Claiming it's PTSD when we don't know what happened just seems to be a distraction from his heinous and violent acts, which, sadly, we do know actually happened.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Avicenna, what I care about is the fact that you're making excuses for a wife-beating asshole and you're using PTSD as an excuse. You're doing so in a very predictable way which means I couldn't give less of a shit about what or whom you claim you are. You're proving yourself to be a wife-beating apologist, and there's really nothing else to say.

    ReplyDelete
  141. My guess is that Paul Gonzalez was a mean bully, and he attacked his wife because she was small and an easy target. Bullies don't like to fight someone of equal or greater strength, because they're afraid of losing. I have no idea if PTSD played a part in his actions.

    If there is something psychologically wrong with him to cause him to be violent, then he needs to get help and work on it. No woman should feel obligated to endure his abuse or feel responsible for fixing him.

    The mra's continually whine about the end of "marriage 1.0" or traditional marriage. They are mourning the fact that there are now consequences for beating their wives. They are against no fault divorce because they want it to be hard for women to divorce men like them. Paul Gonzalez is probably like any other abusive man. He just happened to show his true colors in a courthouse full of people.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Has anyone hear read "Where there is no Doctor?"

    It is a pretty great book, and the subject matter is pretty much exactly what the title says. It is a guide and an education tool for village health workers and volunteers. There is a great chapter about the causes of disease with a picto-graphic at the beginning.

    In the middle is a sick, malnourished child, surrounded by concerned adults of various professions. The doctor says the child is ill because of a bacterial infection and exacerbated by malnutrition. The NGO worker says the child is ill because there is no adequate clean water supply in the village. The teacher says the child is ill because the mother hasn't been taught how to properly treat diarrhea. The politician says the sickness is due to the fact that no one in the government is willing to spend funds improving a poor mountain village. & Etc. The conclusion is, "There are many factors that cause disease, and that preventative care is better than emergency care."

    That is what the more linear and logical discussions here brought to mind. The MRA says he beat because he was backed into a corner. Or because she was "pushing his buttons". The feminist says he hits women because that is how society taught him to express his emotions. Was this how his father treated his mother? Did PTSD have an effect on his behavior? Did it matter that his ex-wife had found a new man? Maybe he got a speeding ticket on the way to the court house that morning. We don't know any of these details.

    We don't know what combination of factors led to *this* act of abuse. But we *do* know a lot about how abuse starts, and how it is perpetuated. Cases like this can only help our understanding of DV if we learn about what actually happened, not by throwing out wild-ass guesses and extrapolating from there.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Every now and again, the internet provides us with the perfect case study of why Mr. Rogers should not be taken literally.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Thanks, Kestra. At this point we know almost nothing about this case. The various speculations tell us a lot more about the speculators than they do about the case itself.

    ReplyDelete
  145. @Kestra:

    We don't know what combination of factors led to *this* act of abuse. But we *do* know a lot about how abuse starts, and how it is perpetuated. Cases like this can only help our understanding of DV if we learn about what actually happened, not by throwing out wild-ass guesses and extrapolating from there.

    I completely agree. The Devil, as always, is in the details.

    ReplyDelete
  146. What, you mean this isn't a multiple choice test? We can pick more than one answer?

    ReplyDelete
  147. David: Have you finally started deleting THASF's posts? It's like he's got a checklist of irrelevant topics he needs to cover.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Yeah, how come we're looking for a complicated excuse when there's a simple one staring us in the face? He's a wife beater, he's an asshole, and let's face it---the Marines aren't noted for their forward thinking with regards toward women, though some areas are improving. Any group that's overwhelmingly male is going to be a swamp of misogyny.

    He's a typical wife beater. Don't get distracted by extraneous details, and don't let him off the hook.

    ReplyDelete
  149. There is no excuse or reasons to beat up someone Eoghan. Writing to the public also breaks his right to remain silent and everything he said would be held against him.

    ReplyDelete
  150. "Any group that's overwhelmingly male is going to be a swamp of misogyny."

    Uh, no, that's not actually true.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Ginmar.

    Seriously?

    1. Read any post I have made on my own blog. None of them encourage the things you have accused me of.

    2. Where did I say PTSD is an excuse? I keep repeating and you keep ignoring this. NO PTSD SUFFERER IS ALLOWED TO USE PTSD AS AN EXCUSE FOR ANYTHING. It's self destructive since if you do use it you can use it to justify anything. Not one. I suggest you try http://combat.ptsdforum.org/ if you would like to have a look at literature on the matter.

    3. Untreated... PTSD can cause this. Poor judgement when angry and a high level of "not giving a crap about what happens to yourself" is par for the course.

    No one is letting him of the hook. But if it's PTSD the sentence should provide benefits for therapy and improvement. Parole should be linked to that.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Really, David? Ever been the lone female in an Army comapny or at a security company where male mores dominate? Where you're the lone woman out of twenty men? YOu really want to argue that? Ever had a sex change and posted as a woman on a website that's not explicitly labeled for women?

    C'mon, let's go. I really need to hear a guy tell me what it's like being the only woman in a huge group of guys, or,say, one of six percent women in the Marines? WAnt to ask Kathy Sierra what it's like being a woman in a male-dominated group? REALLY?

    ReplyDelete
  153. Why in the fuck should I read your blog, Avicenna? You're acting like this guy is a special snowflake and that the context of PTSD--which he hasn't been diagnosed with---should over-ride the far more obvious context of wife beating and sexism. We don't know what he did as a Marine. He could have folded cots for his tour for Christ's sake.

    And you seem to think that if you don't say, "I'm making excuses for him," then that's all it takes to not make excuses for him.

    ReplyDelete
  154. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_id=14783

    And look up Biting Beaver. Or ask any female blogger what it's like being a known female blogger. Biting Beaver had a condom break and wrote about her trials in getting EC; when denied it, she had to have an abortion, and male harassers drove her off line by finding out where she lived, letting her abusive ex know where she was, and making credible threats. Melissa McEwan had people show up in her doorway. I've had men boast about how it was my fault that I didn't protect myself better. Men in groups. And that's to nothing of men in groups of institutionalized male power.

    http://kateharding.net/2008/09/24/from-the-archives-on-being-a-no-name-blogger-using-her-real-name/

    ReplyDelete
  155. Ginmar-

    Unless you expect the judge to send this guy to prison for the rest of his life regardless of his constitutional rights or protections (in other words, I am asking if you think he does not get to have a trial, sentencing hearing, etc...), he will have a chance to ask the judge to consider factors like PTSD.

    I have no idea if that is what Avicenna is getting at but it is something that could be brought up during sentencing.

    ReplyDelete
  156. No. I am pointing out a mechanism for abuse that is well catalogued amongst army personnel. PTSD sufferers have long histories of spousal abuse both mental and physical. When provided with help the sufferer virtually stops (It does require the spouse to have some patience in terms of the verbal abuse which may continue since it is easy to yell at someone.)

    SO you would rather he be "violent for no reason" than "Violent for an actual reason"? Uncurable rather than possible to cure?

    ReplyDelete
  157. Elizabeth, did I say that? Gee, that would be a big NO wouldn't it?

    Avicenna keeps arguing and arguing that PTSD made the guy react like a typical MRA and that it's PTSD not the fact that he's an abusive shit that made him beat her up. I know of at least one case where the soldier in question argued that PTSD made him commit rape, which is downright odd, because rape is not part of one's duties as a soldier, so it's not an action he'd develop as a reflex. And seeing as how this guy who beat up his wife did not face custody hearings while on patrol in the Marines---if he had that kind of MOS, that is----then beating her up is not some kind of flashback or reflex action. He's pissed and he's making excuses afterward, which is what Avicenna is helping him do.

    ReplyDelete
  158. And in looking over three pages of Google results, I see that PTSD has not come up. So our friends the MRAs and the apologists here have brought this up. We don't know what he did as a Marine, we don't know where he served, and at this point there's absolutely no evidence that he has PTSD, so shut the fuck up about PTSD and stop making excuses for this wife-beating asshole at the expense of veterans who have to fight off real PTSD.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Avicenna, I'm saying that as you're the only one who thinks our Poor Widdle Asshole has PTSD, it's bullshit. And you have no source for those claims about how PTSD makes men abuse women, but isn't that a great excuse for men? How cool! It's just so convenient that it lets men off the hook for crimes that men typically commit in vastly higher numbers than women do, in war or peace, as civilians or soldiers.

    Making up a claim that he could suffer from PTSD when there's no evidence of it is, in fact, pathetically making excuses for him. He's an asshole. He chose to be an asshole. Are you going to defend every wife beater, too?

    ReplyDelete
  160. I know of one where the guy drove his car to the middle of a scenic view, started a petrol driven chainsaw and rolled up the windows and listened to music till he died.

    I suggest you go read what other PTSD sufferers have to say. If this man has PTSD he has to be pitied and given help rather than be treated with the condescension that you have heaped on him.

    Oh and this is the 3rd time. PTSD is not an excuse for anything. No one who has it will give it as an excuse. Untreated however it can go into situations like this.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Avicenna, I suggest that you don't assume that ginmar is stupid and knows nothing about PTSD. Seriously. Sometimes people are wrong, you are being wrong right now, stop digging.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Avicenna thinks it is likely it is PTSD and he is clearly saying it is not an excuse. He also said it could very well be "This is an abusive jerk who likes to beat up women."

    And apparently he is not the only one who thinks that it is possible. Another
    Even the VA thinks it is a plausible that intimate partner violence is a result of PTSD.

    Our view of this is PURE speculation at this point. We have no idea about anything going on in their relationship-all we know is he hit her and should be prosecuted for it.

    ReplyDelete
  163. God, you're a fucking morn. YOu keep making excuses, then saying you're not making an excuse. The action you perform determines how your actions are defined, not the excuses you make for yourself. Dumb shit. And by the way? Using an example of a guy killing himself does not extrapolate to a guy attacking a woman the way guys do the world over.
    There's no evidence whatsoever he has PTSD. Speculating that he has and that's why he attacked his es is making an excuse in itself. It is the action, not your denials that matter.

    Christ, if I stick pine needles all over my fucking cat it doesn't make her a goddamned Christmas tree, and you can whine all you want that you're not making excuses, but you're arguing that an animal that quacks, flies, and has feathers is an elephant.

    ReplyDelete
  164. So your argument comes from:
    1. a family website that turned into some sort of cottage industry, based on whatever she pulled off of Dr. Phil or whatever;
    2. Somebody who cites 'studies' but does not actually identify any one;
    3. and the VA, which in the past thirty five years has demonstrated a complete inability to effectively treat and diagnose PTSD in female soldiers as well as many male soldiers, preferring to rate them with less costly illnesses that require smaller budgetary outlays.

    Wow. I'm convinced.

    I have a news flash for you. Just because some soldier self reports that his PTSD made him beat his wife and rape somebody, it doesn't mean he's being honest. It might mean he's an opportunist.

    When it comes to crimes against women, men will make up and use just about any excuse--and some women are eager to buy into those excuses. PTSD is just the latest excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  165. ....and at least two of the sources the VA cites are twenty years old, and two are books that look like the sort of thing that get pitched to the VA by authors and others. As somebody who's experienced the VA's tender care, here's a dirty little secret: much of va care is stuff that's marketed at the VA by contractors, who pitch stuff that might help. It can take the place of actual help. For example, one time I was in a therapy group that got pitched a book called "Ten Days To Better Self Esteem." What does that have to do with the particular vets in that group? Nothing. It was all about sales. So were the leather art kits, the craft kits, all that shit. None of it was geared for women. It was all contractor-driven.

    The stuff the VA's peddling is self reporting. So they're asking abusers if PTSD made them do it, and shockingly enough, the abusers are seizing that big huge opportunity---much like Avicenna here---and grabbing it for all its worth.

    ReplyDelete
  166. So those who have PTSD do not act out violently with anyone ever? Or is it just when the guy hits a women that we ignore the fact the guy may have PTSD?

    This guy may be the classic abuser or maybe he just snapped. WE DO NOT KNOW. Avicenna's point it could be PTSD is just as possible as your point that this is just a case of a classic abuser. The judge is going to be the one hearing the evidence and determining which sentence is appropriate-not us.

    What we do know is he hit his ex-wife and should be prosecuted. That is ALL we know.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Although where I think we all agree is that MRAs are generally a bunch of reactionary idiots who think that hitting a woman is a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Any group that's overwhelmingly male is going to be a swamp of misogyny.

    I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. This may very well be true for some groups of men. It may also be true that when you get a large group of men together, some of these men will have internalized misogynistic attitudes from society at large.

    But you can't look at a group of, say, ten or twenty men and just *assume* that they're all going to be misogynists because they are men.

    If we're looking at a group with particular entry requirements that favor men, such as the Catholic priesthood or U.S. Armed Forces, I think you might have a point. Being a member of a No Girls Allowed club makes you think that it's right and proper for no girls to be allowed to join.

    But I've been around places where I've been outnumbered by the men, and yet I somehow felt accepted and valued by my male friends.

    ReplyDelete
  169. It baffles me when dudes complain about having to pay child support, and getting limited access to their kid in the same breath.

    It's like, you clearly don't care enough about the child to voluntarily give him or her as much material support as you can muster. If the kid doesn't mean that much to you, why do you want to spend time with him or her?

    I get the impression that in these contentious cases, a lot of dudes are using access as a lever of control, to assert their dominance over their child and their ex.

    ReplyDelete
  170. But I've been around places where I've been outnumbered by the men, and yet I somehow felt accepted and valued by my male friends.

    Yes, but Ginmar is not talking about groups where the men simply happen to outnumber the women; she's talking about groups where the group dynamic itself is overwhelmingly male-dominated. Such as, well, the armed forces, or sports, or law enforcement, or the business world, or politics, or the Catholic priesthood, or or or or...yeah. Those "No Girls Allowed clubs" that you mentioned are what she is talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  171. That's not what she said. She said "any group that's overwhelmingly male," not "any group that favors male contributions over female contributions." She's implying that there's something inherent about maleness that fosters misogyny, and that this misogyny is exacerbated when men gather in large groups.

    There are plenty of groups which happen to be 'overwhelmingly male,' but manage to treat women like human beings.

    ReplyDelete
  172. She's implying that there's something inherent about maleness that fosters misogyny, and that this misogyny is exacerbated when men gather in large groups.

    Replace "inherent" with "taught from a very young age", and you are quite accurate.

    Male human here, who grew up with progressive, feminist parents. And even so, I had to spend a lot of time and effort rooting out and purging misogynist ideas and messages from my psyche. Because there's just so much of it in the culture at large. You're soaking in it. We're all soaking in it.

    Sure, there are some particularly progressive groups that have a visible membership, or leadership, which is mostly male, and are concerned about this and trying to ameliorate it. For instance, the atheist movement. But let's be honest, such groups are the exception, not the rule.

    ReplyDelete
  173. God, you're a fucking morn.

    I don't see how being a Lurian barfly has any bearing on this argument...

    ReplyDelete
  174. Jeez, gin, I am well aware that there are many male-dominated groups that are. as you say, "swamps of misogyny." Especially, obviously, if these groups have traditionally been all-male, or are full of guys who have "traditional" mindsets, or where there's a premium placed on "macho" behavior and/or attitudes. And yes, group dynamics can bring out and/or accentuate the misogyny that is already there.

    And I'm certainly aware that there are lots of vicious misogynists online.

    Why the fuck do you think I started this blog?

    But it's one thing to say "there's a fuckload of misogyny out there" -- there is -- and another to say, as you did, that "any" mostly male group is going to be rife with misogyny, simply because it's full of guys. That's just bullshit.

    There are actually a lot of guys out there who are, you know, not misogynist assholes. If these guys assemble into a group, they don't suddenly become misogynist assholes.

    ReplyDelete
  175. What is wrong with blogger? Sometimes you don't even get time to copy the bloody comment, then the site tells you, "We are unable to comoply with your request" only to turn back and find that you're signed in and can comment.

    So tell me Elizabeth are you trying to be obtuse or do you study and take lessons? Because never in my fucking life have I been accused of being subtle and yet you can't seem to get it through whatever you're using as a brain that 'possibility' does not equal 'proven fact.'

    For example, this fucker's name is a proven fact. It's also a proven fact that he beat up his ex very badly. It's a proven fact that he's an asshole. What's not proven is much beyond that. There is no reason to so much as speculate that this asshole has PTSD except somebody wants to make excuses for him. That would be you, because there's no way to go from me saying something as blunt as this, "He's a wife beater who beat up his wife in front of witnesses and it's stupid to guess that he has PTSD," to you being a passive aggressive little conclusion jumper with this:

    So those who have PTSD do not act out violently with anyone ever? Or is it just when the guy hits a women that we ignore the fact the guy may have PTSD?

    Did I EVER SO MUCH AS HINT AT THAT?

    Seriously, Elizabeth, are you that godddamned dishonest? Or are you just some manipulative shit who's stupid and has a stupid argument? It could fall either way.

    This fucker might just as well be pregnant based on the rigorous standard of apologism that both you and Avicenna have applied, which apparently is based on the idea that neither one of you wants to admit that sometimes a spade is a spade.

    No news article has mentioned PTSD so it's just you and the MRAS who want to believe that What's his face is a poor, tormented, PTSD-suffering asshole. Nothing. Zippo. Zero. It's pure speculation on your part, and it's stupid beyond belief. And it blames his wife beating on factors outside his control, poor baby. Why, he's really a victim here, too! Awwwwwwwwwwwwww....

    Also, Flewellyn's right about male groups being dominated by male culture. It doesn't necessarily have to be militaristic, however. Some age groups and demographics are militantly misogynist. Look at Gawker media, where hatred for women is rampant, even amongst people who say they're women themselves. I guess if they think they're one of the guys the guys won't turn on them.

    And if you write about certain topics in general, and some big sites get wind up, you have to moderate the hell out of comments, as the MRAs here are all too typical of your basic troll.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Marissa, I don't think abusive men actually want to win custody of their children. You're right. If they cared so much, they'd want to pay child support. They just want to get at the mother where it hurts the worst--the children.

    Those men know that caring moms will fight to the death to protect their children, and that trying to win custody will either hurt her or compel her to return to the abusive relationship. If the man has enough money for a good lawyer, he can financially hurt her by dragging her to court over and over to fight for custody. It's called abuse by court. The worst tragedy is when family courts actually give custody of the children to the abusive spouse. You can google "abuse by court", "courageous kids' network", and "the Liz Library" to learn a lot about the dark side of fathers' rights groups.

    After Paul Gonzalez gets out of prison, he could try to drag the woman back to court to fight for custody. However, his extreme public attack of her will hopefully ensure that no court will allow him unsupervised access to the children.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Gee, David, you're awfully touchy for somebody who lets MRAs tee off on your female commenters pretty much at will, with the caveat that if they make rape threats that---and that alone----is out of bounds. And that's why women are reluctant to come here and more reluctant to hit any of those 'like' buttons.

    And apparently you didn't look at a single link I posted. I think I and any other woman who's been blogging for a while and enduring shit gets to be kind of blunt. Yuu might not like it, but you're not the one living through it, are you? Being called a mangina doesn't really compare to men threatening to come to your house and rape you and kill you----and then they boast that they have your address. And then the same threat arrives in the mail.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Ginmar, David has every right to be touchy when responding to your comment about any large group of men being a swamp of misogyny. You're implying that when he goes out with his buddies, they transform into raving misogynists.

    If an MRA here said that any overwhelmingly female group was a swamp of vapidity and selfishness, you'd be angry at him for saying that, and you'd be perfectly justified in that anger. Some women are vapid and selfish; some men are misogynists. But that doesn't mean they all are, and it's unfair to characterize them so.

    Men are not the enemy.

    ReplyDelete
  179. "And thus THASF dismisses the woman's injuries once again to focus on the poor widdle wife beater, speculating that maybe he came from the planet MOngo and thus suffered space sickness and she shouldn't have provoked him. Or something. But he's not that different from our resident MRAs; they find men fascinating, but women are just punching bags with vaginas. She must have done something to make him pissed off, because to assholes like Ion---who sees only a dogpile on poor widdle dipshit---all guys get the benefit of the doubt."

    Whoah, whoah. I never said anything like that. Wow, you sure have a tendency to read a whole lot of meaning into things that just isn't there. I mean, I do that too, but not to this extent.

    If you saw a male basketball player on the front of a box of Wheaties, you'd probably say that it's there because the patriarchy put it there. That sort of base hostility does nothing but discredit one's own position.

    Just because someone's trying to identify a source of a problem in a person, that doesn't mean that they're trying to make excuses for them. Heck, I'm making the guy out to be a genetic-defective with anger issues, and that still upsets you somehow. Should I analyze his ex, too? Should I try and find fault in her instead?

    Look, ginmar. I tend to identify as a bit of a feminist. Plain and simple. I don't believe that making excuses for women and treating them like they have the intellectual capacity of a child is going to have an emancipatory effect. You act like it's always the man's fault when a marriage ends up ruined. That kind of thinking actually robs women of power and influence.

    By taking into account the possibility that Christine and Paul both had an equal hand in setting up the conditions that led to their divorce, my intent was not to make excuses for her husband, but to recognize her status as an intelligent adult with the equal responsibility to make their marriage work.

    "David: Have you finally started deleting THASF's posts? It's like he's got a checklist of irrelevant topics he needs to cover."

    Well, that's just it. See, I say something, and then someone else says something in response which pulls the topic further away from the actual subject, and then I feel obligated to respond to them in detail about my views on the matter, which pulls it even further away.

    And yet, somehow I always end up blamed, just for trying to be comprehensive and cover everything to everyone's satisfaction. Like, seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  180. but to recognize her status as an intelligent adult with the equal responsibility to make their marriage work.

    You basically just said that a woman has an equal responsibility to not get beaten by her husband.

    ReplyDelete
  181. THASF,
    First of all I am a child of divorce whose parents were in and out of court every other year for the duration of my childhood because they couldn't get along, follow custody agreements, pay child support etc. I am not messed up in the head because of it. What has messed me up is my abusive mother.
    second, here is the rebuttal to your humanism bullshit
    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/feminism-101-feminism-and-humanism.html
    third, how about this, if I throw a brick (which you claim doesn't actually exist) at your head I bet you anything you're still going to duck because even though you won't admit it you know very well that the brick exists. Your argument is a logical fallacy and you need to either stop or just go away and act out your belief that nothing actually exists.

    ReplyDelete
  182. You basically just said that a woman has an equal responsibility to not get beaten by her husband.

    Well, no. That's not what I meant. I've said time and time again that he was completely out of line, and I make no excuses for his misbehavior.

    What I'm saying is that his actions were the culmination of a failed marriage that could only have existed had both of them learned to cooperate. Both. Him too.

    Beating someone up is obviously not the same thing as cooperation.

    Of course, the essence of the position held by the MRAs is that "she refused to cooperate with him, so she provoked him to violent action".

    The essence of the position held by the anti-MRAs is that "she really had no choice but to divorce him, because he was going to be an abuser anyway".

    Do you notice something here? Both of those arguments treat her as though she's a child. As if she had no real control over the situation at all. As if this turn of events were inevitable. That's not very flattering at all, if you ask me. It's actually rather upsetting.

    ReplyDelete
  183. @avicenna, you have the wrong definition of psychosis. And, there have been hundreds of studies on the issue of mental illness and crime, all with consistent results-that mental illness does not increase likelihood to commit crime. It is not even close to a decent predictive factor. The only way that you can even get to a predictive factor from psychotic disorder to higher rates of crime is if you fail to control for substance abuse (which psychotics have a higher rates), but, even then, psychotic addicts do not commit violence at higher rates than addicts without mental illness.

    @Elizabeth, there is no constitutional right to an insanity defense. Not every state in the US has such a defense (and, contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of mentally ill people are legally sane under these statutes at most or all times). Proof that the defendent has PTSD IS NOT proof of legal insanity-that is a much stricter standard. Most states that do not have an insanity defense allow evidence of mental illness to combat the mens rea element, but it is still somewhat shaky legal ground as to whether or not they are constitutionally required to do so. It is also worth noting that being found not guilty by reason of insanity generally does involve imprisonment for decades or for life. What happens after someone is found not guilty by reason of insanity is criminal committment, either until the person can prove that they are no longer a danger or, even harder, that they are no longer mentally ill. It is not true that these defendents serve less time and, for anything less than a murder or treason charge, being not guilty by reason of insanity usually means doing more, not less, time (just in a mental institution rather than a jail). For a felony assault, in most jurisdictions, only a fool lawyer would recommend such a defense (this is true for attempted murder in general as well). Giving your client 30 years locked up instead of 5 is a bad fucking move, particularly for indigent clients, who often go to state run institutions as bad or worse than prisons. Despite popular culture mythology to the contrary, these defense in the US are hard to win and not really useful for much short of a murder charge, and even then best done with a defendent who can pay for a private institution over a public one (unless it is a death penalty case-in which case, horrible abusive mental institution may be preferred to death).

    @THASF, read my entire comment before opening your fool mouth. The very next sentence addressed harm. And, no, I absolutely disagree that we should use "any means necessary" to eliminate people and their offspring because they have a certain diagnosis. Of course, determining what is a "problem" and what is an "illness" and what is not is a topic with massive historical and cross cultural variance. Does being queer count? Does having aspergers count? Does being deaf count? Does being a little person count? Not all people with disabilities are filled with self hate, and even less would be if we did not purposefully arrange our societies so as to exclude them. The issue you completely ignore is societal discrimination, which is something that can be remedied. You know what, I am a person with disabilities and I do not think my life is of less value than yours, and I would not seek a "cure" for many of my conditions even if offered. You do not get to make those evaluations for others and when you suggest that certain groups should self sterilize, you set up a social standard calling for hatred and discrimination. You also blatantly ignore the issues of beneficial linked traits (carriers of sickle cell, for example, are highly resistent or immune to malaria). So please, go fuck yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  184. And with "Men are not the enemy" Lady Victoria shows how she's reading tons of shit into the man-hating feminazi's words. I mean, look at here. David lets all kinds of guys get away with all kinds of shit. I've pointed out numerous cases where misogyny flourishes and where women have been driven off the web. But you? "Men are not the enemy" is just the thing a comfy person says. David wants to get offended? Yeah, well, you know, if he gets more offended at that than the sheer amounts of bullshit the MRAs dish out then he's not really in a position to argue.

    The standard argument is that we need to tolerate bullshit abusive comments by MRAs to 'show what they're really like.' What that means, is kick up the clicks and get the blogger some attention. And, gee, men and certain women find that very easy to ignore because they've got some insulation from it. Must be rough.

    ReplyDelete
  185. I tend to identify as a bit of a feminist.

    Well, stop.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Ginmar, is there a particular reason you are lashing out at those of us who you know very well are not anti-women today?

    DSC-I thought I was being clear it was about sentencing that the issue of PTSD may be brought up. AZ allows for hearings on mitigating circumstances under ARS 13-701(E) and (G).

    ReplyDelete
  187. ginmar said... "Gee, David, you're awfully touchy for somebody who lets MRAs tee off on your female commenters pretty much at will, with the caveat that if they make rape threats that---and that alone----is out of bounds. And that's why women are reluctant to come here and more reluctant to hit any of those 'like' buttons."

    So you speak for all woman now? I think some of the other women here will be surprised to hear that.

    In any case, a couple of things:

    I don't censor misogynists posting here for two reasons:

    1) I don't like censoring anyone, even if I violently disagree with them. As for namecalling, well, sometimes I call people names, and so do others on my side, so it would be a tad hypocritical to censor my opponents for doing that too. If insults turn into abuse, I delete posts and ban people.

    Ironically, the person spewing the most obnoxious insults towards a female commenter in this thread is, well, you, in your comments to Elizabeth.

    2) The second reason I don't censor misogynist comments is basically the same reason I quote misogynist comments on this blog in the first place: generally speaking, when misogynists talk, they make themselves look worse, not better. They give feminists more ammunition.

    This point is actually related to why I said something in response to your comment about "any" group of mostly men being misogynistic: Not only do I think that's wrong; I think it gives MRAS ammunition to use against feminism.

    And again, my saying that men in groups aren't inherently misogynistic is in no way the same as saying that women online don't get harassed. They do get harassed, all the time, much more often than men do. There are a lot of hateful misogynist assholes online. "A lot," though, is not the same as "most" or "all."

    ReplyDelete
  188. I say "men are not the enemy" because it is the truth. We are not at war with an entire gender, and we should not approach an entire gender with an adversarial mindset.

    The enemy are patriarchists, traditionalists, abusers, sexists, chauvinists, misogynists, racists, bigots and homophobes. It is true that many of those people are also men, but we should keep in mind that women can be just as supportive of the patriarchy as men are; and men can be very supportive of feminism. David has explained his rationale for having relaxed standards of comments, and, well, it's his blog and he can set the standard how he wishes. If you wish a place with stricter moderation, go there.

    ReplyDelete
  189. And @THASF:

    You still don't get it. You're basically saying that each party has an equal responsibility to make a marriage work. In most cases, this is a valid statement to make. HOWEVER!!! If a woman is married to an abuser, you're basically arguing that it's up to her to make sure she doesn't get hit. You know who else makes those kinds of excuses? Abusers. "Honey, you know I love you and I don't want to hit you, but it just makes me so mad when you don't have dinner ready on time that I lose my temper and can't control myself."

    And I doubt that this woman went into the marriage knowing he was going to abuse her. The thing with abusers is that it's pretty hard to pick up that they're abusers right off the bat. They tend to be charismatic and outgoing, and invest a lot of energy early into the relationship by appearing to be the perfect boyfriend. It's only when she's well and truly hooked that the abusive part comes out, and it usually doesn't get physical until he's already broken down her self-esteem and isolated her from friends and family. And then after he hits her, he's extremely apologetic and takes pains to demonstrate how sorry he is that he hit her. She, because she loves him, wants to forgive him and believe his sincerity, so she stays around and the cycle of abuse continues.

    So, yeah, it's totally her fault for not being a mindreader and having enough precognition to know he was going to end up hitting her.

    You're also implying that the dissolution of a marriage is something to be avoided. Divorce can be painful, but sometimes the best thing for everyone is for the marriage to end. And sometimes it's not 'both parties' who are equally at fault. If a woman finds herself married to an abuser, the best thing she can do for herself and her children is to get the fuck out - which is precisely what this woman did, and her leaving him enraged this man so much that he felt the need to punish her with violence.

    ReplyDelete
  190. A few thoughts:

    The possibility of PTSD being a factor should not be discounted just because, even though I think the diagnosis is more often than not a reflection of the way our society attaches different values to experiences that are comparably traumatic. And PTSD does not take care of the insanity defense. Although legal standards for proving temporary insanity differ among states, they are invariably narrow; thus, the defense is rarely invoked and incredibly rarely succeeds. Still, this is an issue that's not irrelevant, so I see no harm in discussing it.

    When a marriage breaks down, both parties are usually to blame. However, this does not mean they are equally to blame. The flipside of hypothesizing that Gozalez lashed out because he suffered from PTSD is having to acknowledge that if this is so, then PTSD probably fueled prior violent behavior that brought about the divorce in the first place. A spouse's PTSD and resultant violent tendencies put a person in a very difficult position, especially when children are involved: leave, and you are a bad wife because you haven't done all you can to help your husband through it; stay, and you are a bad mother because you are endangering your children by carrying on with a "bad boy", plus you are to blame for your own beatings because you should have left. In other words, while I will accept, generally, that usually both spouses contribute to a divorce, I cannot accept, on these facts, that the wife is equally, or even comparably, to blame for the breakdown of the marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  191. "@THASF, read my entire comment before opening your fool mouth. The very next sentence addressed harm. And, no, I absolutely disagree that we should use "any means necessary" to eliminate people and their offspring because they have a certain diagnosis."

    First of all, yes, I read the entire comment. Secondly, I never said anything about eliminating people and their offspring. Voluntary self-sterilization is the most radical measure that I proposed. I was talking about eliminating the genetic diseases that people carry and pass on to their offspring. There are theoretical methods of doing this that would allow for one to preserve the offspring, such as the use of in-utero gene therapy.

    Whether you think it's ethical or not, science will advance until mankind feels it necessary to use its technology to engineer a "perfect" human. It's not a question of if, only when. When they do that, who's to say that they won't mandate that everyone uses such technology to improve their own offspring?

    "Does being queer count? Does having aspergers count? Does being deaf count? Does being a little person count?"

    If those are caused by a genetic illness, then yes. If they're acquired during a person's lifespan, then no.

    "Not all people with disabilities are filled with self hate, and even less would be if we did not purposefully arrange our societies so as to exclude them. The issue you completely ignore is societal discrimination, which is something that can be remedied."

    There is a baseline standard for humanity and our mental and physical faculties. Discrimination against people with disabilities only exists because those disabilities:

    1. May make them physically-unattractive.

    2. Can potentially be inherited by their offspring.

    3. May prevent them from being effective in the workplace, making them dependent upon others for survival.

    Should I stop wearing glasses because I can't see very well without them? Should I take off my glasses and "identify" with actual blind people? No. The glasses are there to correct something that's wrong with me. To bring me in line with the "base standard" for humanity. That is a form of discrimination, if you want to put it that way.

    I hate it when people yell "discrimination!", as though we shouldn't be drawing a line somewhere. The power to discriminate - to sort the wheat from the chaff - is only human. Should we not discriminate against violent idiots like this Gonzalez fellow? Should we just let anything and everything slide? What about when Angela Merkel said that multi-culturalism in Germany has failed? Was that too much "discrimination" for you?

    You may hate me for being so blunt, and you have every right to.

    "You do not get to make those evaluations for others and when you suggest that certain groups should self sterilize, you set up a social standard calling for hatred and discrimination."

    I wasn't suggesting that "certain groups" should self-sterilize. I was merely saying that different ethnic groups have different distributions of specific genetic disorders, which would affect the treatment plan. I also suggested that genetic screening protocols be enacted for all individuals, regardless of ethnicity.

    "You also blatantly ignore the issues of beneficial linked traits (carriers of sickle cell, for example, are highly resistent or immune to malaria)."

    With such mutations, the good is outweighed by the bad. With sickle cell disorder, red blood cells get stuck in one's blood vessels, and that can cause any number of complications. An adaptation like sickle cell anemia will be pointless when mankind has eliminated malaria by replacing the mosquitos in the environment with genetically-modified ones that are resistant to the malaria parasite.

    ReplyDelete
  192. @Lady Victoria
    Agreed on all points. I just want to add that I do get incredibly tired of the MRAs and misogynists who flood this blog. They do it on pretty much all prominent feminist blogs, because they can't stand the thought of women voicing their thoughts without a male chaperone. Some feminist blogs choose to make themselves into feminist-only spaces and ban the misogynists.

    David has chosen not to make his blog such a space, and I respect that. Yes, the misogynists get tiresome, but it's still worth coming here to read David's posts and many of the commenters in this community.

    On the other hand, I recognize that I'm enjoying a whole heap of male privilege when I say I merely find the misogynists here "tiresome." As a man, I don't have to worry about what violence others might perpetrate on me for daring to own my own body and mind.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Well, stop.

    Why?

    And again, my saying that men in groups aren't inherently misogynistic is in no way the same as saying that women online don't get harassed. They do get harassed, all the time, much more often than men do. There are a lot of hateful misogynist assholes online. "A lot," though, is not the same as "most" or "all."

    This is very true, Dave. Out of sheer curiosity, I've played as a female avatar in several video games and either muted my voice chat or used text-only chat, and just let other players make whatever assumptions they wanted about my sex.

    You wouldn't believe how many times I heard people scream "KILL THAT [insert derogatory term for the female anatomy here]" whenever I was on the verge of winning a game. I've also seen and heard plenty of individuals making rude, sexist remarks towards actual female players during many a Halo match.

    I mean, video games in general are hostile to women and ethnic minorities. There have even been (WARNING: LINKED VIDEO CONTAINS HATEFUL SPEECH)studies pertaining to this.

    ReplyDelete
  194. @Lady Victoria von Syrus

    Bravo. You're right on all counts. It isn't possible for one to tell when one is going to be an abuser. Christine most likely couldn't tell if this Paul was going to end up like this before she married him, so she couldn't have made any character judgments either way.

    As they say, hindsight is 20/20. It's easy for us to go on about what they "should have" done when we already know the outcome.

    Of course, I believe you fall into a bit of a common trap when you suggest that only men can be abusers. Men and women are both quite capable of abusive behavior. However, I wholeheartedly admit that men dole out the lion's share of completely unjustified violence. So then, it becomes a question of how to prevent it.

    See, I take a stone soup approach to debating things. I start with provocative questions, and I end up with something fruitful to integrate into my own worldview and help me gain a more complete picture of the greater whole.

    I try and take after the example of Socrates whenever possible. He was in the business of being controversial, because it made people think. It made people question things. It made them look more fervently for answers to pressing problems instead of sitting on their laurels. That's why I offered myself up to be the sacrificial lamb in this debate. To be the OPFOR. It's because I wanted to hear what everyone else had to say on these matters, not because I necessarily feel strongly about what I say.

    Chameleon-like, I have the amazing ability to play devil's advocate in virtually any argument without having any personal investment whatsoever in anything that I say.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Of course, I believe you fall into a bit of a common trap when you suggest that only men can be abusers

    I forget which comment thread it is on this blog, but it was a fairly long one, when I discussed the possibility of female abusers with Tit for Tat. In fact, there were two such threads on this blog. Go into the archives and read them if you have the time. I was talking about male on female abuse because that's what the initial post and ensuing discussion was about. And I also hate it when men try and bring up abusive women IN A THREAD ABOUT ABUSIVE MEN. It's distracting at best and disruptive at worst.

    Also, Socrates also did not start teaching in the Socratic method until he was fairly old and had accumulated a lifetime of wisdom. Consider that the next time you want to try and feel special by asking 'provocative questions,' and consider that you might not in fact be a brilliant philosopher, but just an annoying ass.

    I personally find it more beneficial to me when I do argue about things I care about with people I disagree with. I gain insight, sharpen my rhetoric and am forced to put my values into actual words, rather than feelings. And sometimes, I end up changing my mind entirely. That's one of the reasons I like this blog so much, because of the opportunity to do just that.

    ReplyDelete
  196. Elizabeth: Oh, because at least three people are patronizing me? You, lady Von "Men are not the enemy," and some dipshit who wants to blame the wife for her husband beating her and doing it at such great length it crashed my browser.

    This is on top of the fact that the conversation is still dominated by idiots who have apparently decided out of nowhere that this dude must have PTSD.

    And David, I see you're doing something very patriarchal: you're ignoring the very assholishness you permit but bitching when at least one feminist bites back, in this case me. YOu can't have it both ways. You can't let the MRAs run free, and then bitch at me for being pissed about it.

    So you speak for all woman now? I think some of the other women here will be surprised to hear that.

    What is it with you and a few other people? Did I SAY that? Answer the question, David, did I? No, what I did was I pointed out to you---as did Flewellyn---what it's like for an awful lot of women, but you got your widdle feewings hurt over something you had to reach for. And now this statement, which is so classic for guys who are usually anti-feminist. It's funny hearing it from supposed allies. So your argument is that women never face harassment ever online, at all, and that all groups of men are hunky dory and wonderful? That groups of men never enforce a culture that encourages the harassment and ostracism of women, at best? Or do you just want to be an asshole and ask me bullshit questions like Elizabeth and Lady Vonwhat's her face that indicate stunning bad faith?

    So, let's recap: You ignoring the background of this issue and sniping at me, and as a matter of fact, bitching at me more than at the MRAs.

    And a bunch of people who are theorizing that this woman beating scumbag has PTSD, based on nothing more than wishful and longwinded thinking, and that training in the military invariably produces violent people. It's also a subtle jab against people with mental illness, as if mental illness makes people violent when in fact it tends to make them culnerable to it.

    All this is fine with you except for me objecting to the bullshit, at which point you demand if I'm speaking for all women, while apparenlty it's totally okay for you to speak for all men. That's one standard for you and one standard for me.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Of course you like Socrates, THASF, because you are a eugenicist ass and Socrates also was of the opinion that the poor and enslaved were born morally inferior (Protagoras, in fine form, gave him a smack down on that one).

    Skin color, after all, is genetic too, THASF. My being a queer aspie is no more evil than my being born with a certain skin tone. You have decided to pick out certain parts of human variation and presume that they are deserving of massive social discrimination and are inferior without justifying your position. Asking why someone you specifically and purposefully exclude from education, employment, etc. is not meeting the goals you have set for those areas is absurd. Of course, being a victim of discrimination, having some people think you are ugly (ever looked at issues with societal standards of beauty and black women's social status in regards to attractiveness? Cross cultural differences?), and having children like yourself are the great and horrible crimes you think must be stopped.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis