 |
| Er, not so much. |
Sometimes this job is just too easy. Sometimes I don’t have to even bother to check in on my favorite manosphere sites to find hair-raisingly awful quotes to feature here. Sometimes the Boobz are thoughtful enough to leave them in the comments here.
Take this quote from resident MGTOWer Cold, who currently seems to be spending more time on this blog than I am, comparing rape and child support. (You don’t think these two items are actually in any way comparable? Clearly you do not understand Boob Logic.)
In response to commenter Amused, who pointed out that “being ordered to support a child you've fathered isn't the same as being pinned down and penetrated against your will,” Cold responded:
Exactly, it's much, much worse. The latter lasts for some number of minutes, the former for at least 18 years. Given the choice it would be a no-brainer for me, and I think a very large number of men agree with me on this.
Setting aside the appalling trivialization of rape as something that’s over in “some number of minutes,” what does this say about Cold’s attitudes towards children? Paying a couple of hundred buck a month to pay for some of the expenses for a child you fathered – your own flesh and blood – is worse than being raped?
If Cold ever becomes a father, through circumstances which are frankly too horrible to imagine, I feel safe in saying that he will not be winning any “father of the year” awards.
I can just imagine the following scenario, some 11 or so years into the future:
EXTERIOR, MOVIE THEATER
Cold’s 10-year-old son: Happy Father’s day, daddy! I’m so glad we’re going to see Toy Story 5! I love Woody!
Cold: Yeah, so does your whore mom, if you know what I mean.
Son: Huh?
Cold: When you get older, you’ll understand. Did I mention that you mom’s a whore? One, please!
Son: Um, daddy, why did you buy only one ticket?
Cold: It’s for me. Get your own. You get enough of my money as it is. I stick my dick in your mom for two fucking minutes, and I’m screwed for life. It’s worse than rape!
Son: Um, daddy, I don’t have any money. I’m ten.
Cold: Well, you should have thought of that when you were a sperm!
Son: When I was a what?
Cold: I’m going in. See you in two hours.
Son: Dad? What am I supposed to do now?
Cold: Not my problem! I’m Going Galt! I’m Going My Own Way! You were a MISTAKE!
Son quietly sobs
Cold: Hey, when we get back to your mom’s place later, remind me to tell her she’s a filthy whore.
And … scene!
(By the way, Cold actually does claim to be going Galt, if self-admitted tax evasion counts.)
--
If you enjoyed 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.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Now there's a movie I'd see. I bet it would be better than Sucker Punch.
ReplyDeleteWow those MRA's are crazy Boobz. I heard one of them once compared children to "invaders" and said that it was okay to KILL your children if they interfered with your "liberty".
ReplyDeleteOh wait, that wasn't a MRA. That was a tenured feminist professor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
The argument makes sense if you consider that many MRA type dudes don't see much in the way of self-identification beyond their own monetary value. Hurt my wallet, hurt me.
ReplyDeleteHey Yandie! I didn't know you read Manboobz. Small world. :)
ReplyDeleteBilly Ray-- Well, I sure as fuck have the right to remove an unwanted presence from my own personal body. Bodily autonomy is inviolable. You have a right to an abortion the same as you have the right to not donate one of your kidneys-- even though you don't need it, it would save a life, and it is way less strenuous than a pregnancy.
Uhm, what is GALT?
ReplyDeleteScarecrow, I think you mean "Who is John Galt?"
ReplyDeleteIt's from a book some lady wrote.
Galt is a company in Arizona that does payday loans (or did until that law expired.)
ReplyDelete"Going Galt" is removing your productive capacity from society in the hopes this will lead it to topple and be replaced with a society more to your liking, based on Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
ReplyDelete@billy, I suspect you have never read Jarvis-Thomson's actual paper. It is available online in full here http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm
ReplyDeleteI tell you what, this gentleman has colored my perception of all Phoenix Wright cosplayers.
ReplyDeleteBasically, going Galt is the adult version of going home and taking your ball with you. Only less effective.
ReplyDeleteBut David, you "cherry picked" that quote!
ReplyDeleteHey Oz, yeah, I'm a new reader :-)
ReplyDeleteThis is a shameful article David Futrelle. You have literally called this man a poor father, a lout, loser and scum of the earth in a fictional future conversation.
ReplyDeleteBravo, well done. Be sure to twitter all your friends to show them the how fair and equal they'll be treated.
Cold was the one who said supporting children is rape. David just imagined the comedy that would come from such a belief.
ReplyDeleteYandie, stick around! This place is the best for stress-relieving screaming-at-teh-st00pids.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of--
NWOslave, he just said that child support is worse than rape. That's right: he said that paying a couple hundred a month is worse than a crime that makes some women have flashbacks and intimacy issues and nightmares and sobbing YEARS later. Rape is the ultimate dehumanization, and the lack of empathy it takes to not get that shows that he is a lout, loser and scum of the earth-- no mocking required.
Oh I also like how he misses that you cannot choose to be raped over paying support. If you choose it is no longer rape.
ReplyDeleteWhat he's saying is he would prostitute himself to get out of paying support. And frankly, most people's prostitution price is probably lower than the sum total of 18 years of child support.
No he didn't Sandy, he maliciously attacked someone who did NOT say supporting children is rape. I've read what he said. He said it was as bad as rape, as in being financially raped while being denied the "right" to equal custody, instead of the "right" to pay for a child or be incarcerated.
ReplyDeleteTell me the Bradley Ammendment if fair.
ReplyDeleteA veteran of the first Gulf War who was captured in Kuwait in 1990 and spent nearly five months as an Iraqi hostage being arrested the night after his release for not paying child support while he was a hostage.
In other words right now there may be US soldiers in Afganistan as captives. They risk death and their reward is if his wife divorces him while captive he will be incarcerated if he escapes alive.
A Virginia man required to pay retroactive child support even though DNA tests proved that he could not have been the father.
"The 1986 Bradley Amendment to Title IV-D forbids any reduction of arrearage or retroactive reduction for any reason, ever. This reinforces the approach that inability to pay is no excuse. Needless to say, there are endless stories of men who are now crushed by a debt they will never be able to pay because they were:
In a coma
In jail
Medically incapacitated
Lost their job
Under the Bradley Ammendment there is no excuse not to pay, tell me how this is "fair?"
"Exactly, it's much, much worse."
ReplyDeleteHe clearly said paying child support was worse then rape.
Rape is the ultimate dehumanization
ReplyDeleteI always thought genocide or murder was, but live and learn. I guess we can't all be smart like feminists. Is it any wonder 3 in 4 women avoid feminism like the plague?
he is a lout, loser and scum of the earth-- no mocking required.
Oh the irony! I'm sure the feminists will defend her or at best silently condone this hypocrisy, but then most feminists live in a perpetual echo chamber - they never, ever question one of their own.
Shine on, you nutty feminists, shine on.
Under current no fault divorce a woman who commits adultery is able to divorce her husband and retain child custody. Is this fair?
ReplyDeleteUnder current divorce law a woman gets default child custody, as can be seen by the fact that a man has to "fight" for equal custody. He will lose 83% of the time. Is this fair?
Under current no fault divorce if a man "contests" this atrocity he has to pay for both his lawyer and hers only to lose and be horribly in debt. Is this fair?
I'm sorry, wrong link. Here it is.
ReplyDeleteWas it a question of fairness? I thought the debate was whether it's comparable to rape.
ReplyDeleteFair? No. Should the custody and support laws need work so as not to be biased based on gender but focus more on who is actually a more fit parent? Heck yes.
Does the financial hardships endured by some men (because there are many men who are cool with their financial obligations toward their children) warrant this hyperbolic comparison to a very real, very traumatic violation of ones' physical and emotional self? I'm thinkin' no. Not so much.
As you sit there in all your smug, righteous superiority, right now there are men in prison whose only crime was losing their jobs in a depressed economy. Because as the Bradley Ammendment states, there is NO excuse not to pay.
ReplyDeleteLet me elaborate on the fate of these 10s, if not 100s of thousands of men. They lose their drivers license, they go to prison for an average of 6 months, the State continues to pay their exwives while they are in prison, (on average $200.00 a week). When they are released from prison they will be $5600.00 in debt, no drivers license, jobless, penniless and a criminal record. All for the crime of being poor. And the best part is, their own taxes paid for their incarceration. Maybe they'll even get raped for real while in prison. Why don't you wish that on cold, hehe, wouldn't that be funny.
Talk to me again about the equality of feminist jurisprudence, when you can explain to me how what I've just written is "fair."
traumatic violation of ones' physical and emotional self?
ReplyDeleteLike becoming a father against your consent, losing your child, and then having to send a check each month to a woman you hate and a child who hates you? That lasts for far longer, and it's enough to drive many men to suicide. One feminist claimed that the abuse of the family court system is completely the man's fault for "sticking his junk in a woman he didn't trust" and not getting a vasectomy. Some of the feminists here actually defended that statement and claimed it was self-evident to anyone except MRAs.
@Yandie: "The argument makes sense if you consider that many MRA type dudes don't see much in the way of self-identification beyond their own monetary value. Hurt my wallet, hurt me."
ReplyDeleteI love it.
Hurt my wallet, hurt me.
An anti-slogan to fling at the greedheads of the Earth.
Pithy and to the point.
@ estring
ReplyDeletemass rape can be part of a genocide.
Re: the Bradley Amendment:
ReplyDeletePlease provide the names of these guys or STFU. The Wikipedia article is poorly sourced. It's based on a letter some guy wrote to a Congressional committee, which provided no names nor cited any actual cases.
What's annoying is that I agree with you! Custody should be equal between men and women, and if you're broke you shouldn't have to pay child support (unless the woman is broke-er, of course). I just don't think it's as bad as rape, is all.
ReplyDeleteMr. String: Fine. Rape is AN ultimate dehumanization. Happy?
Also, there's some bare facts of biology here, i.e., men cannot get pregnant. Until the development of a male birth control pill, using condoms EVERY TIME and choosing to date women who would choose abortion if they got pregnant is the only path for a man who fears pregnancy.
And I bet if you asked most of those 3 of 4 women whether they wanted to work a job, not be sexually harassed, have good body image, not be raped, etc., they would support it. Feminism has an image problem, not an issues problem.
Please also see a recent post on Pandagon, in which Amanda Marcotte decries jailing people for failure to pay child support.
ReplyDeleteNo...Yandie, Goddess of Pickles. Men are not "cool" with their obligations. They want equal custody but that is DENIED by feminist LAW. By LAW their obligation is to pay while being DENIED equal custody or they go to JAIL.
ReplyDeleteSo you see, Goddess. Men are NOT "cool" with that, they have a gun to their head.
I do think it's silly and counterproductive to send parents to jail for not paying child support. Child support is supposed to be in the best interests of the child, and having a parent in jail certainly isn't in the child's best interests.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that doesn't mean that child support is unfair by its nature; nor does it mean that it's as terrible a crime as rape or even assault.
Pregnancy is a biological function Ozymandias, A woman does not perform anything "extra" to achieve pregnancy. Women don't even know they're pregnant unless they miss their period. Most don't even realize it for months. She didn't have to do anything to achieve pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteTell me is abortion as terrible a crime as rape when a father is denied the right to a live child?
ReplyDeleteOh yes Lady Victoria von Syrus...sending a man to prison for being poor is "silly." Oh how harsh your words, tone it down a little.
ReplyDeleteThere are many "deadbeat moms" too. Although I prefer to label them with a more accurate, and correct, term: "poor moms".
ReplyDeleteI have custody of my child. I am a single father and the mother has paid child support a total of one time. She paid $30 and owes over $8,000. I bought half an outfit with the money the mother has provided over the last 5 years.
Many men incorrectly labeled as "deadbeat dads" are really just "poor dads". Think about it, let's say you make $100 a week doing odd jobs, or whatever, and the custodial parent makes $1,000 a week. You are ordered to pay $400 a month in child support. Are you going to be homeless and hungry and cold and live in dangerous bum camps so that you can pay all the money you earn so as to not be a "deadbeat"?
It is awfully feminist to have the best interests of the child when determining custody...*goes back to reading about this guy*
ReplyDeleteDrewski: I agree! That sucks! It's just... not worse than rape.
ReplyDeleteNWOslave: You don't have the right to a live child. It's my body. I have to live here, dude. If I don't want a kid in there, I don't have to have one. You don't have a say.
Not only is pregnancy insanely dangerous (look up "health risks of pregnancy" if you don't believe me), that also has nothing to do with my argument. It doesn't matter if pregnancy is as painless and harmless as taking a piss. Men can't get pregnant, so they have no say in pregnancies that happen in, you know, SOMEONE ELSE'S FUCKING BODY.
Elizabeth... Was that supposed to prove some kind of purity of intention about how feminists are so about childrens welfare?
ReplyDeleteTry looking up the stats on infantcide and child neglect that cuts across all financial boundaries. Surely you know 80% of these crimes are commited by women. Wheres that good old maternal instinct?
Men can't get pregnant, so they have no say in pregnancies that happen in, you know, SOMEONE ELSE'S FUCKING BODY.
ReplyDeleteSounds reasonable, but if men don't (and shouldn't really) control a woman's body, why do women feel the need to control a man's body? Going to jail for being poor is completely and utterly controlling one's body, is it not?
Agreed that jailing over non-support is a stupid tactic that doesn't help anyone, and does more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how support is calculated in the U.S. but here it's based on taxable income, so the situation Drewski describes ($400 a month on $100 a week income) while not unheard of, seems to happen a lot less.
I will concede that there should be much more level playing field when it comes to custody negotiations. There should also be more room for divorced parents (those ones, mothers AND fathers, who can see beyond their anger and think about the child's best interests) to negotiate custody/support arrangements without being penalized from a legal standpoint.
I've seen situations such as the one Drewski described, and yes.. it's fucking bullshit.
Here's the thing.. There are custodial mothers getting fucked over by non-custodial fathers who don't pay support, quit jobs and work under the table to get out of paying support (here, with the income based tables) nor are they interested in more access to their children, even when it's offered.
There are custodial fathers with non-custodial mothers pulling the same bullshit.
There are non-custodial fathers working their asses off to pay exhorbitant child support fees and are still denied access to their children because of the bias in custody laws.
Although I don't hear about non-custodial mothers being denied access to their children, I wouldn't be surprised if it happens as well.
The system does not encourage civil mediation (in this case I mean civil as 'Hey, let's not act like fucking babies about this' as opposed to civil in a legal sense) in support and custody cases. Yeah, that's a big problem.
But child support itself being inherently evil? It's based on an idea that both parents are obligated towards a child's upbringing. It's a fucked up system that decided that the mother's obligation is to raising the child where the fathers is a solely financial obligation.
"Like becoming a father against your consent, losing your child ..."
ReplyDeleteWait wait wait wait wait. So you didn't want it, but now that it's in the world, it better damn well be yours? And don't try to backtrack and say that these are two separate scenarios when the full sentence clearly shows that this is a linear progression of events.
This is something I've seen multiple times and always bugs me. The guy "didn't want to be a father," but then when the kid is born he's pissed to fuck that he doesn't get sole custody. Because none of this is about the little human being that needs to be loved and cared for or even "father's rights." It's all just about ME ME ME ME ME MY COCK ME ME ME ME ME and sticking it to that bitch who made herself get pregnant after I blew my load in her.
@Ozymandias, it is not "your" body, it never was.
ReplyDeleteThe instant of conception the zygote travels down the fallopian tube for about 5 days and connects itself to the uterine wall. It is separate; it always was and still is. It is connected to a womans body much like an IV bag is connected to a person during an operation. No one would ever say that bag of solution is, “part” of their body, it is simply connected to them, and it is separate.
There is no one alive was not a zygote, fetus, ect. If a fetus was, “part” of a womans body it would always remain, “part’ of a womans body. Your arm is part of your body, it always was, and barring an unforeseen accident it always will be, a fetus was always separate. A mans seed fertilized the egg; it is; “part” of his body as well, yet it is separate. When a child is born it is equal, “parts” of a man and woman, yet it is separate because it always was.
When a woman contemplates an abortion one day and changes her mind the next, does the status of that fetus change from dead to living by conscious choice? Did it change from being an, “unwanted” dead, disposable fetus to, “my baby” by conscious design? The most abhorrent manifestation of modern society is the denial of rights to the completely helpless and totally innocent unborn child. The right to simply live.
Right now you are part of your mothers and fathers body, can they now kill you? Tell me when does that seperate being finally have a "right" to live? Today it's a "fetus", tommorow, "my baby" the next a "fetus" again. Back and forth all on a womans whim. Tell me, are you God that YOU created life from nothing? It is not "your" life to give or take it never was, that child was always seperate, the culmination of a man and a womans genes. The hypocrisy staggers the imagination.
It can't exist without her, and could potentially kill her. I'd say these things make it, if not part of the body, then a parasite. Just as one can choose to have a tumor removed or not, one chooses to carry it to term.
ReplyDeleteYes Johnny...Its a fucking parasite. If thats the case it always was and always will be a parasite. Tell me Johnny, are you a fucking parasite?
ReplyDeleteOk, let me get this straight. In a hypothetical future where my vas deferens re-canalize and I become a father as a result, and somehow also develop a severe case of whore Tourette's that compels me to use the word in every other sentence, I will pay money to see a kid's movie by myself???
ReplyDeleteI also had no idea you only spend 15-20 minutes a day on this. Obviously that figure can't include the time you spend lurking around on MRA forums.
NWO, so you're outraged that men have to pay child support ... but you also think you should have the right to force women to carry a fetus to term. All right then.
ReplyDeleteDo your feelings about zygotes carry over to your feelings about sperm and/or eggs?
NWOSlave, you're so right! That's why I always refer to abortion as an eviction. After all, this separate human being which has its own rights is perfectly free to pursue its interests... just somewhere outside of my body. If it can't survive outside my uterus, well, that's not my problem. It is a separate human being after all.
ReplyDelete[/sarcasm]
Seriously though, yes. The only thing which transforms a blastula or a fetus into an "unborn baby" is the eager anticipation of a willing mother. She has the power to create it or kill it. If she doesn't want it then it's just a fetus. If she does then it's a baby. It is rather god-like isn't it? Hence all the womb envy.
NWO, it's interesting that you think the state of matter cannot change in the way it's perceived, treated, etc., based on its circumstances and relation to other things.
ReplyDeleteCold, I should apologize. You've never referred to women as whores.
ReplyDeleteOh, wait:
http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35279&view=findpost&p=563827
And if you've spent no more than 15 minutes a day here over the last couple of days you are the fastest reader and/or typist in the world.
That's right: he said that paying a couple hundred a month is worse than a crime that makes some women have flashbacks and intimacy issues and nightmares and sobbing YEARS later. Rape is the ultimate dehumanization, and the lack of empathy it takes to not get that shows that he is a lout, loser and scum of the earth-- no mocking required.
ReplyDeleteActually I was sexually abused as a child and raped as an adult, and I will state unequivocally that if forced to choose between being forcibly sodomized once or put on the hook for child support for 18 years, I will choose the sodomy. Calling me a "lout, loser, and scum of the earth" for that premise demonstrates a profound lack of empathy on your part.
The child support amount isn't the same for everyone; if it's only $200 a month then that's because the man in question makes a very low income. It's indexed in such a way that whatever the amount is it represents a substantial amount of the man's work hours, and in that sense is like part-time slavery. Even worse is that, as NWOslave pointed out, men get sent to jail if they are unable to pay due to circumstances beyond their control. While in jail, they may be raped many times while the prison guards turn their backs and have a good laugh about it. They may also be sexually exploited by the prison guards themselves.
Oh I did spend more than 15 minutes here on Sunday, but that wasn't a normal day. I was stuck in a very boring situation for hours with only my cell phone and netbook for entertainment.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I referred to women who engage in transactional sex as whores. Does the mother in this hypothetical future scenario sell herself by the hour?
I love it---meaning it just proves everything about MRAs---how they prove the point of the post to be true when they compare writing a check to getting violated, and also are in favor of forcing women to bear an unwanted child in their body for nine months---which they declare is no big deal, 'she doesn't have to do anything extra.' Yeah, asshole, let's see how you feel after somebody shoves a watermelon up your dick all the way till it's in your abdonmen, then wait nine months to get rid of it.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's assuming that the asshole even pays any child support whatsoever.
Huh. Still no cites, I see.
From the Nolo Press website:
ReplyDeleteNo state now requires that a child be awarded to the mother without regard to the fitness of both parents. Most states require their courts to determine custody on the basis of what's in the children's best interests, without regard to the parent's gender.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/child-custody-faq-29054-3.html
Calling me a "lout, loser, and scum of the earth" for that premise demonstrates a profound lack of empathy on your part.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, Cold, it wasn't Dave who called you that. It was NWOSlave who asserted that Dave "literally" called you those names when, in fact, Dave did not--at least not in this post.
Oh I also like how he misses that you cannot choose to be raped over paying support. If you choose it is no longer rape.
ReplyDeleteIs that so? So what you're saying is that if you were held at knifepoint and forced to choose between vaginal or anal penetration, neither one would be rape because you chose it? That's pretty sick.
What he's saying is he would prostitute himself to get out of paying support.
That's not what I'm saying, however men who are forced to pay child support are actually in a situation of reverse prostitution. If they lose their jobs and the court refuses to recognize that fact and makes them continue paying, they have to find some way to come up with that money to avoid being sent to jail and possibly raped, so they are basically in a situation of paying not to be raped.
And frankly, most people's prostitution price is probably lower than the sum total of 18 years of child support.
Hence why the choice would be a no-brainer.
NWO:
ReplyDeleteUnder current no fault divorce a woman who commits adultery is able to divorce her husband and retain child custody. Is this fair?
Considering that whether one commits adultery has absolutely nothing to do with parenting ability, I'd say the answer must be yes.
Under current divorce law a woman gets default child custody, as can be seen by the fact that a man has to "fight" for equal custody. He will lose 83% of the time. Is this fair?
Citation? In California, joint legal custody is presumed unless a court orders otherwise. I deal with many parents in the course of my work who are separated, divorced, or never married. In the absence of a custody order, joint legal custody is the default.
By your comments, may I assume that you are against no-fault divorce? What alternative system would you suggest?
Duh. He wants women drawn, quartered, and hung----after they deliver his children. Who's going to raise them, I don't know, because Cold despises women so much and has about as much compassion as a snake, so he certainly couldn't do it.
ReplyDeleteDavid with this post "YOU have hit a new low in offensive stupidity".
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"It is connected to a womans body much like an IV bag is connected to a person during an operation. No one would ever say that bag of solution is, “part” of their body, it is simply connected to them, and it is separate."
ReplyDeleteNo, you festering cock pustule of an idiot, it is NOT like an IV bag. IV bags don't draw sustenance from the person they're attached to. Also, if the IV bag is jeopardizing the health of the person hooked up to them, usually someone REMOVES IT.
"Festering Cock Pustule" would be a good name for a punk band.
ReplyDeleteI tell you what, this gentleman has colored my perception of all Phoenix Wright cosplayers.
ReplyDeleteObjection!
A woman has the right to decide what happens to her body. If she wants to get a tattoo, she can get a tattoo. If she wants to dye her hair or shave her head or cut her foot off in tribal ritual, she can do all these things. If she wants to dance with that guy, kiss the other guy, fuck the guy in the corner and avoid the guy on the sidewalk, she has the right to do all these things. If an egg of hers fertilizes, she has the right to decide what happens to it - she could decide to let it mature into a baby, or decide that she doesn't want a pregnancy and terminate. In all these cases, it is her body and her own choice.
ReplyDeleteWhy do some people have such a hard time comprehending this?
Lady Victoria, the real boggler is "why is it that the same people who want to use the coercive power of the State to force women to carry pregnancies to term are almost always the same people who rail endlessly about the evils of powerful government?".
ReplyDelete"Is that so? So what you're saying is that if you were held at knifepoint and forced to choose between vaginal or anal penetration, neither one would be rape because you chose it? That's pretty sick."
ReplyDeleteNo, that is sex under threat so severe it removes your choice, which is rape. In that case you don't have a real choice.
Choosing to have sex with someone in exchange for forgiveness of a debt is just prostitution.
NWO slave,
ReplyDeleteactually most women do realize something is off before they miss their period. It's not normal to be nauseous 24/7 for weeks. It's also not normal to be so tired getting out of bed is difficult. Fatigue and morning sickness usually start very soon after an embryo implants into the uterine wall. The reason most women don't actually know 100% for sure and because they aren't sure don't share that information with very many people is because they can't take the pregnancy tests until a week or so before their missed period and even then the tests aren't always accurate.
And seriously cold, you can either see that distinction and are being deliberately obstinate or you are very stupid.
ReplyDeleteNWO, May I suggest that you read Jarvis-Thomson's paper (linked provided above)? It specifically addresses the issue in depth. A link to an actual philosophy of ethics paper on the issue of "if a fetus is a person, is abortion permissible" has already been helpfully provided by me earlier on this thread.
ReplyDelete@Captain Bathrobe, yeah, I think it is clear by this point that MRAs do not understand the legal system at all.
On the numbers-it is actually hard to get statistical data on disputed custody cases. Most child custody cases are not disputed, so numbers of actual custody are not a good guide to see how such cases result in disputes. What information we have suggests that, overall, joint custody is most prevelantly granted and when sole custody is granted, men and women win at approximately equal rates (in most districts, some lawyers report favorship one way or the other in some districts).
@ Yandie, one issue in the US is that it is rarely the mother compelling such support in cases where the father is actually poor. US welfare policy often forces women to file for it or to lose/not be permitted to get welfare benefits. Reducing welfare payments was one of the purposes of implimenting the Bradley Amendment. Though it is worth noting that the Bradley Amendment does contain exeptions for physical imposibility to support or change in circumstances, it just makes notification of the court of such circumstances the duty of the party, rather than the state. It means the party has to pro-actively assert such a defense when the situation occurs, not that there is no defense whatsoever.
@Drewski, some non-custodial parents who do not pay have legitimate reasons. Others are lazy, drug addicted, have the means but just do not want to pay, work under the table, leave the state and work (trying to enforce orders across states is difficult). That applies to both men and women. I have seen both myself.
@NWO, your estimated six month debt numbers are higher than what the census reports as an average yearly payment, by over a thousand dollars. Census says that average child support owed was 4,320 a year and average paid was 2,820, at least for the US (http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf).
@Dave...I assume you can read, I said quite clearly equal custody/no child support.
ReplyDeleteDid you say "force" a woman to abort? Oh I'm so sorry is that person "unwanted?" Well make it go away Big Daddy Guv and clear my concience while you're at it.
Any arguement in favor of abortion is ludicrous, like @SallyStrange..."After all, this separate human being which has its own rights is perfectly free to pursue its interests...just somewhere outside of my body." So Sally can a child survive on it's own after birth? Yes thats it just walk away afterwards, that little bastard is on it's own.
Or how about...@Johnny, again..."NWO, it's interesting that you think the state of matter cannot change in the way it's perceived, treated, etc., based on its circumstances and relation to other things." The only "state" it changes from is living to dead. That is the only two states a person can be.
There is no arguement that can change the fact that the result/product of a successful abortion is a dead person. Isn't strange how every few years feminists want to move the "definition" of when life begins. So when does a "new" life begin? 20 weeks? 24 weeks? 30 weeks? 36 weeks? How about a week before delivery? Or would that upset your sensibilities?
Oh yes, before anyone says it, I always advocate that a man must also own up to his responsibilities, by having equal custody. It's called accountability.
ReplyDelete@Captain Bathrobe...You quote california legislation? You must be kidding. Tell me, if this so called legislation grants "default" equal custody, why, when the question of custody is arrises does the child "always" reside with the mother (by default) during the case? Doesn't the father therefore have to "fight" for equal custody? And then spend countless dollars only to lose.
ReplyDelete@DarkSideCat...Oh, theres a paper discussing "when" a fetus is considered a new and seperate life. Well had I known there was a "paper" to set me straight I would've just accepted this brilliant finding without question.
ReplyDeleteLuckily you weren't aborted otherwise you wouldn't have been able to illuminate me with this beautiful wisdom of the ages.
@SallyStrange...I had to quote this..."Seriously though, yes. The only thing which transforms a blastula or a fetus into an "unborn baby" is the eager anticipation of a willing mother. She has the power to create it or kill it. If she doesn't want it then it's just a fetus. If she does then it's a baby. It is rather god-like isn't it? Hence all the womb envy."
ReplyDelete"eager anticipation" If thats the case just "will" the fetus dead. I mean with out your concious approval won't it just dissapear?
A god-like quality? A biological function has now turned into god-like has it? Tell me when someone murders a non-aborted person is this also a god-like quality? Shall we change the title of mother to God?
NWO, I'm really sorry, but I'm going to have to all-caps here.
ReplyDeleteIT'S NOT ABOUT WHEN IT'S A NEW LIFE.
NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THAT.
JARVIS-THOMPSON'S PREMISE IS THAT FETUSES ARE ALIVE.
PEOPLE STILL HAVE A RIGHT TO CONTROL THEIR OWN FUCKING BODIES EVEN IF THERE IS A LIFE INSIDE IT, BECAUSE YOUR BODILY AUTONOMY IS INVIOLABLE EVEN TO SAVE A LIFE.
@NWO, you clearly did not read the paper, because that is not what I claimed it does or what it does. It grants, for the sake of argument, the notion that the fetus is a person and looks at the logical repercussions of such a position in regards to abortion.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this argument "if you had been aborted..." is a ridiculously bad one. My parents met at a navy party. But for navy parties, I would not exist, therefore, by your logic, I should always support and do my best to throw navy parties. Also, I should make women miscarry their first pregnancy, because, but for my mother's miscarriage, I would likely not have been born. But for the brutal oppression of the northern Irish by the British and the Scotts, my father would not have been born (his father was an immigrant), therefore, I should support that oppression, right? This game is fun, isn't it?
I also want to point out that "life" is not the correct moral standard for this discussion, but rather "personhood". Tumors are alive, the thousands of bacteria you kill when you swallow are alive, urine contains living human cells, plants are alive, ants are alive, roaches are alive... We do not care morally for all life. We care morally about persons.
This brings to mind a post I read recently on that whackadoodle Paul Elam's site titled Rape is not Special and Neither are You where the writer states...
ReplyDelete"If you're the victim of a rape in the real world, you'll get over it."
"Being raped doesn't make you a special person, and in fact, unpleasant, as unwanted sex is, it’s not actually that big a deal. Even if the rape is a particularly brutal and violent event – if the victim of a rape isn't physically crippled in the event, they'll recover..."
It's not surprising to hear a statement like this from an MRA. We already know they have no empathy for others, especially women.
NWO thinks a fetus is more human than the woman it feeds off of. Boy, doesn't that say everything?
ReplyDelete@SallyStrange...I had to quote this..."Seriously though, yes. The only thing which transforms a blastula or a fetus into an "unborn baby" is the eager anticipation of a willing mother. She has the power to create it or kill it. If she doesn't want it then it's just a fetus. If she does then it's a baby. It is rather god-like isn't it? Hence all the womb envy."
ReplyDelete"eager anticipation" If thats the case just "will" the fetus dead. I mean with out your concious approval won't it just dissapear?
A god-like quality? A biological function has now turned into god-like has it? Tell me when someone murders a non-aborted person is this also a god-like quality? Shall we change the title of mother to God?
Geez NWO, I didn’t think you were especially stupid. Is this really so hard to understand? Basically I am agreeing with you, that yes, it is the whim of the pregnant woman that determines a fetus’ status as “baby”, that is, a human being with personhood status that deserves to be protected. Why? For the simple reason that only she is capable of protecting the fetus until it becomes an actual born person. A pregnant woman has the power of life or death. She creates the fetus and she can destroy it. That is rather god-like, don’t you think? Well, maybe you don’t, I don’t know. To me it seems that way.
I mean, technically speaking, there’s no such thing as an “unborn baby.” Scientifically, it’s a fetus right up until the cord is cut. What determines whether a fetus gets defined as a baby? The willingness of the pregnant woman to gestate and birth that baby. If she doesn’t want it, AND she has access to legal abortion, then it never gets to be a baby. Creation or destruction? It’s up to the pregnant woman and no one else, unless you are willing to live in an autocratic state in which the government assumes that god-like power of creation.
And then there’s this…
Any arguement in favor of abortion is ludicrous, like @SallyStrange..."After all, this separate human being which has its own rights is perfectly free to pursue its interests...just somewhere outside of my body." So Sally can a child survive on it's own after birth? Yes thats it just walk away afterwards, that little bastard is on it's own.
Well, assuming that I didn’t want the baby in the first place, and only went through the agony of giving birth because I didn’t have the option of terminating my pregnancy early on, then yes: I might just walk away from the kid. Why is that so surprising? Now it’s on you, collective you, the people who told me I wasn’t qualified to determine whether to have an abortion or not, to take care of the kid. I hope you’re down with raising taxes.
Contrast that with a fetus, at least in the first two trimesters, which CANNOT be cared for by anyone but the pregnant woman. No matter how much you might wish to take that fetus away from that fickle, flighty female and gestate it yourself, it is a physical impossibility. Unless you have some secret patent-pending plans for a working artificial womb? I’d love to hear about that. So would the Nobel Committee.
Cold:
ReplyDeleteActually I was sexually abused as a child and raped as an adult, and I will state unequivocally that if forced to choose between being forcibly sodomized once or put on the hook for child support for 18 years, I will choose the sodomy. Calling me a "lout, loser, and scum of the earth" for that premise demonstrates a profound lack of empathy on your part.
Nah, I think I'll just call you a damn dirty liar.
"Hey kid version of Cold, I'm a time traveling rapist here to fulfill a bargain made by your future self. I'm going to forcibly sodomize you, but trust me, you'll thank me for this later when you don't have to cough up some money every month to support some kid who is just as innocent as you are now--or at least, as innocent as you were a few minutes ago."
Cold is either somewhere on the clinical psychopathy scale, or just lying his ass off.
@Captain Bathrobe...You quote california legislation? You must be kidding. Tell me, if this so called legislation grants "default" equal custody, why, when the question of custody is arrises does the child "always" reside with the mother (by default) during the case? Doesn't the father therefore have to "fight" for equal custody? And then spend countless dollars only to lose.
ReplyDeleteIn the absence of a court order to the contrary, legal custody is presumed to be joint. I didn't speak to the issue of when custody is disputed, but that fact that joint custody is the default in CA in the absence of a court order is pretty much common knowledge among those of us who work in social services. Also, you're confusing legal custody (the right to make decisions for children regarding health care, education, etc.) with physical custody (the right to have the child reside with you). They are two different issues.
Sally,
ReplyDeleteMy last comment got eaten, so I'm writing the short version.
1: Mentally ill people don't like being raped any more than neurotypicals, but it happens to them a lot more. You might want to rethink your "psychopathy" remark.
2: Rape victims have the right to interpret their experience for themselves, including deciding how big of a deal it was. Someone who feels traumatized of course has the right to their feelings, but some rape victims report the expectations to *appear* traumatized as one of the worse parts of the experience.
Criticize Cold for making an insensitive comparison to advance an ugly agenda, but don't call him a liar.
Orion: Although I agree with almost everything you've said -- including your comment about the pressure that rape victims experience to appear traumatized -- I have to say that I took Sally's comment to mean that Cold was being disingenuous. Disingenuousness isn't the same as lying but it's pretty damned close.
ReplyDeleteThe subject of rape is problematic for many reasons, one of which, encapsulated by this discussion, is that for a misogynist, this subject engenders two contradictory pressures. On the one hand, there is the constant attempt to trivialize rape, because in the eyes of a misogynist, women shouldn't have autonomy over their own bodies anyway, while women's desires and feelings do not matter. On the other hand, rape has to remain a horrific experience because if you trivialize it TOO much, it stops being perceived as a serious threat by women, and its effectiveness in circumscribing women's behavior, controlling women's sexuality and punishing women's social transgressions evaporates; hence comparing everything to rape and the social expectation that rape victims fulfill the role of damaged goods.
Cold follows that paradigm, of course, at once trivializing rape and exaggerating the burden of supporting one's own children. It is noteworthy, however, that it's easy to say "I'd rather be raped" if one is part of a group that's at a low risk for rape outside of prison and one that isn't customarily subjected to rape as a way to stigmatize and "destroy". It's an inflammatory figure of speech, more than anything else.
Mentally ill people don't like being raped any more than neurotypicals, but it happens to them a lot more. You might want to rethink your "psychopathy" remark.
ReplyDeleteDo you mean "psychopathy" (sociopathy, Anti Social Personality Disorder) or psychosis (schizophrenia, etc.)? Because those are two different things. I would imagine that that latter are more likely to be assaulted than the former, though I could be wrong.
Hey, you know what else only lasts a few minutes? Water boarding.
ReplyDeleteBut, really, water boarding can't be that bad. It's not really hurting anyone, it's just making the victim feel like they're drowning! I mean, what's a little water? Seriously, anybody traumatized by it is just a wimpy wimp and a liar. Didn't they ever play the dunking game as a child?
/sarcasm
If I went around making those arguments, it'd be fair to assume I didn't know the first thing about water boarding.
Look, I'm definitely not Cold's biggest fan, but in this case I have to ask, is it really ethical to be dismissing his claims of previous rape/sexual abuse like this? I'm not an expert on rape, and one thing I'm not sure of is how it can affect a person's mind and outlook, especially for a guy. It's possible his "trivialization" of rape is his way of dealing with it, or 'owning' it, or...I dunno. I'm just saying we should refute what he's saying, not his personal experiences. Lay all the scorn on him you want for saying something that's just plain wrong, but you're essentially accusing him of "falsely crying rape." If that's such a bad thing for so many women who've been raped, I imagine it's not much better for a man. I think it's more ethical to stand up for somebody who's in that position, even if that somebody is Cold, or any other MRA like him, for that matter.
ReplyDeleteCaptain,
ReplyDeleteI too wondered if Sally meant "psychosis" rather than "psychopathy." It's true that psychopathy poses a different set of problems than other mental illnesses, since psychopaths often commit crimes, while schizophrenics or depressives are more likely to be victims. That said, a fair number of psychopaths do end up in prison or involuntarily hospitalized, both of which can be dangerous situations.
But regardless of how much violence is actually directed at psychopaths, I'm still troubled by the comment's dehumanization. For psychopaths in the classic "serial killer" mold, I can't bring myself to care overmuch, but people are beginning to talk about a sociopathy spectrum, where psychopathic traits are part of the explanation for the behaviors of some reasonably decent people.
Orion:
ReplyDeleteOK, fair enough.
If I went around making those arguments, it'd be fair to assume I didn't know the first thing about water boarding.
ReplyDeleteIt's very telling from the arguments I have heard that none of you know the first thing about being put on the hook for child support for a child that you never, ever wanted and which might not even actually be yours. Admittedly I haven't experienced this either, but at least I have actually talked with men who have, some of whom have used rape as a metaphor in their description of what it's like. Of course, forced sodomy is also what may very well await them if they are ever unable to pay due to economic circumstances beyond their control.
ReplyDeleteNo, that is sex under threat so severe it removes your choice, which is rape. In that case you don't have a real choice.
Choosing to have sex with someone in exchange for forgiveness of a debt is just prostitution.
You are stupidly over-analyzing the scenario. The scenario is one where a man is forced to choose between being raped once, or put on the hook for child support for 18 years. It's not a realistic scenario nor is it meant to be. I can tell that you have either never played that old campfire game of "which would you rather..." or you were kicked out of that game for annoying your fellow campers with your foolish over-analysis of the scenarios.
Amused,
ReplyDeleteIs it above your abilities to address my actual points instead of making a ludicrous strawman and attacking that instead?
Right, and if he chooses to have sex in exchange for no child support, then it is not rape. He cannot choose to be raped.
ReplyDeleteNah, I think I'll just call you a damn dirty liar.
ReplyDeleteHow incredibly empathetic of you.
"Hey kid version of Cold, I'm a time traveling rapist here to fulfill a bargain made by your future self. I'm going to forcibly sodomize you, but trust me, you'll thank me for this later when you don't have to cough up some money every month to support some kid who is just as innocent as you are now--or at least, as innocent as you were a few minutes ago."
If some mad scientist with a time machine offered to go back in time and save me from being sexually abused as a child, at the price of also sending someone to jump me and forcibly sodomize me at some point in the near future, I'd make that trade because it's preferable to what happened to me all those years ago.
Cold is either somewhere on the clinical psychopathy scale, or just lying his ass off.
Why do you present that as an either/or scenario? Psychopaths have no problem lying about things. I wasn't, however, aware of any kind of scale for that condition.
What I' m saying is, you can never play "would you rather" with "rape" because once you have the choice (I would rather. . .) you are no longer being raped.
ReplyDeleteAnd like I said above, if there is no real choice (would you like rape, death, or rape?) then it is rape.
Actually I should add, at least one of the men to whom I talked about paying child support considers himself to have been "raped by deception" by the woman to whom he has to pay the money. He says that she told him she was completely barren, but as it turns out she was not only perfectly fertile but was actually taking fertility drugs. I'm inclined to agree with his assessment.
ReplyDeleteSandy,
ReplyDeleteIf that's true then my earlier scenario about having to choose between forced vaginal or anal penetration cannot result in rape either way according to your twisted logic.
I apologize for dehumanizing mentally ill people with my words. It was poorly spoken of me. I just meant to say that Cold's comments reveal a severe break from any sense of empathy, for himself or anyone else. I think either option--that he really was raped, and is now dismissing the experience as something that only lasted a few minutes (I mean, his current behavior by itself is testimony that the effects have been far more long-lasting than he's willing to admit to himself), or that he's lying about having been raped, reveals that he doesn't relate to himself or others in a, well, neurotypical way. By "neurotypical" I mean able to feel empathy. Both for himself and others. I am unfamiliar with the terminology, please forgive my awkwardness.
ReplyDeleteActually since he claims he was sexually assaulted as a child and an adult, his absolute hatred of false accusers makes even less sense.
ReplyDeleteFalse accusers make people less likely to believe genuine victims. How does that not make sense?
ReplyDeleteOh and Sally, you haven't exactly been demonstrating much empathy yourself. As far as my mental status goes, I have never been diagnosed with any kind of psychosis and as far as psychological testing goes I am either neurotypical or capable of pretending to be neurotypical so convincingly that I can fool trained professionals.
Being capable of fooling a psychologist doesn't speak much for anyones mental health. Psychologists can really only help people who want to be helped, and so they tend to assume that people seeking help will be honest about their condition.
ReplyDeleteThis is actually a big problem with psychologists, if you ask me. I went to a number of talk therapists who were useless because my need to pretend all is well--which they should have been helping me overcome--prevented them from noticing that I had a problem at all.
@cold, in your scenario with the fertility drugs, he consented to sex (without actual or implied threat if he did not have sex). Therefore, he was not raped. Is the scenario you describe a sucky one? Yes.Is it rape? No. What the woman did in that case was not okay, but it was also not rape. Is it gender specific? No. Men lie to partners and sabotage birth control as well. Women are not exempted from child support on those grounds either. It is a fair standard.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the notion of "rape by deception" either. Let me give an analogous case that makes this more clear. Let us say that person A and person B see each other in a restaurant, find each other very attractive, and head directly to a hotel where they both agree to all of the sex that they have. Not rape. Now, does it become rape if A is a neo-nazi and finds out B is a Jewish because A would not have had sex with B had A known that fact? No, it does not.
Your scenario is completely different since neither of them asked each other about their backgrounds. In the case of my friend, he was explicitly told that she was barren and his consent was procured through that lie. If what she did isn't rape, then it also shouldn't be considered rape if a man, after agreeing to wear a condom, distracts the woman at the moment of insertion as he removes the condom and penetrates her without it.
ReplyDeleteApparently not in Sweden.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you are in favor of throwing women who make false accusations in prison for seven years or more (for something that had no actual conviction of rape charges so it is unclear what sentence the guy would have gotten), it will scare the people who are raped that they to will go to prison if the police do not believe them.
"False accusers make people less likely to believe genuine victims. How does that not make sense?"
ReplyDeleteRapists make people less likely to trust men who aren't rapists. Nevertheless, you would object to people assuming you to be a rapist simply because you are male. People who falsely accuse rape victims of making false claims make people less likely to believe genuine victims of false accusations -- or would you say it's not fair to postulate something like that? Also, the fact that genuine victims are branded as "false accusers" any time a defendant is acquitted -- despite the well-known fact that an acquittal isn't proof of innocence -- casts a lot of doubt on claims that false rape accusations are such a huge problem that we might as well legalize rape. Finally relying on a "study" that is unverifiable (because the author would not identify the town where the study was supposedly done) and deeply flawed on its face (due to the admission that rape complainants were unethically pressured to withdraw their complaints, and the author never deigned to interview any of them) proves yet again, that the brouhaha over false accusations is little more than good old pro-rape apologetics. "Women are lying bitches, so there is no such thing as rape even if there is." I mean, what else is new?
"Amused,
Is it above your abilities to address my actual points instead of making a ludicrous strawman and attacking that instead?"
I'm not attacking a "ludicrous strawman" -- I'm attacking your ludicrous values and your obvious hypocrisy. Saying that paying child support is worse than rape isn't a "point" that can be addressed; rather, it's an expression of your personal belief that rape is nothing because it only lasts for a few minutes and is merely unpleasant, and anyway, fuck women. The probable reason, as I've pointed out earlier, is that because you are not nearly as likely to be raped as a woman, you don't identify with rape victims, but you do identify with non-custodial fathers -- in other words, you do indeed lack empathy. This is what you believe, and it would be ludicrous indeed for anyone to insist that you believe something else. You could just as easily have stated that paying child support is worse than the Holocaust (which took less than 18 years, and anyway, being gassed only takes 15 minutes or so, 30 at most), or that it's worse than cancer (less than 18 years as well), or that it's worse than, I don't know, being burned with acid or something. You believe what you believe, end of story. Personally, the idea of not supporting one's child (even an unintended child) while demanding power over that child is unfathomable to me, but again -- that's simply a matter of a difference in values, not "points". Nothing that you've said here is even remotely convincing or even intriguing, and so it's not something that needs to be addressed as if it has merit. Instead, it reveals yet again the ugly truth about your character -- and what I've said is merely an observation. And who cares what impression you make on "trained professionals"? I, for one, don't believe in pathologizing something just because I find it abhorrent. Not every ugly character flaw deserves a diagnosis.
How much prison time should men who falsely accuse women of false rape claims get? Just wondering.
ReplyDeleteHe said that a person who files a false police report deserves whatever sentence that the person falsely accused would get (despite there not being an actual sentence to determine this from) up to the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteI find it quite telling of the thought process of feminists that my simple question was not answered.
ReplyDeleteIt's not right to control a female's body. But why is it then that females wish to control a man's body?
Most of the women on here have commented they think the idea of throwing someone in jail for not paying child support is both counterproductive and unfair.
ReplyDeleteBut you cannot say that it is females wishing to control the man's body because most women are not in charge of state legislatures that create the laws that end in men being tossed into jail for contempt of court.
And I have yet to hear of any with a majority female state legislature.
ReplyDeleteEven in Arizona where we are surprisingly progressive when it comes to electing women.
"He said that a person who files a false police report deserves whatever sentence that the person falsely accused would get (despite there not being an actual sentence to determine this from) up to the death penalty."
ReplyDeleteThis raises all kids of practical issues, of course. For one thing, anyone who files a police report would have to be given some form of Miranda warnings, to advise her that anything she says can and will be used against her in a court of law and that she is entitled to have an attorney present. The use of lie detectors on rape complainants should be made totally illegal, since every rape complainant would be a potential defendant in a criminal prosecution. And no recantation would be admissible in court unless Miranda rules are scrupulously observed.
Also, if the defendant in rape case claims, in his defense, that the sex was consensual, isn't he accusing the victim of a false rape claim? So if he gets convicted of the rape, isn't that also automatically a conviction for falsely accusing someone of a crime, namely, a false rape accusation? So his sentence would be doubled?
DrewskiDaMan: "I find it quite telling of the thought process of feminists that my simple question was not answered.
It's not right to control a female's body. But why is it then that females wish to control a man's body?"
Why is it that you drown innocent puppies?
We don't have to answer a question that's rhetorical and patently dishonest on its face. "Females" don't control men's bodies. Your reproductive choices aren't under attack. You are free to use birth control or to get a vasectomy without fear that the pharmacist will sabotage you, or that your doctor will get shot, or that some conservative wingnuts will push through a law making your birth control illegal.
In the case of my friend, he was explicitly told that she was barren and his consent was procured through that lie.
ReplyDeleteTranslation, Cold's friend: Bitch got pregnant on purpose. She lied to me! She said she couldn't have kids, which is an edict set in stone with no possibility for uncertainty. She wants my money (ok, a small part of what she will pay raising her child, but STILL!). This is so traumatic for me! I have panic attacks, I keep flashing back to moments of paying money, I get creepy body sensations, my life is spiralling downhill, I've started using just to feel something different than this pain, I lose time, and the trauma keeps repeating itself.
Oh wait actually...I feel like bitching about my ex.
The greatest injustice ever in the history of the world is a man having to pay money to a woman who doesn't fuck him in return. Child support is just the tip of the iceberg, really. Think of waitresses being tipped, just for serving you like they should! How many times have you handed money to fast food workers, grocery store clerks, department store clerks, and even gas station attendants who have vaginas that they didn't immediately allow you to prong in return?
ReplyDeleteIt gets worse! Did you know that there are IRS agents, landlords, and even Hollywood agents that are women? (No wonder Charlie Sheen is pissed.) There should only be ONE reason EVER that a man gives a woman money, and that's if he's getting laid. Anything else is far, far worse than rape.
As a medic to be? Rape is insanely poorly reported. During my gynae posting I came across multiple instances. Women just don't like admitting that they were raped.
ReplyDeleteI would say that I could only get two to admit rape of which one was in marriage so "when I told the cops I was fined for wasting police time".
This is why rape is not reported, because it's "a big fucking joke" to a lot of men. It's inexcusable.
Cold... Rape is evil, no woman jokes about it and gets away with it. We can tell if women are raped or not (medically) as long as the woman comes to us immediately. The issue is getting women to come to us as quickly as possible. If she does it within a day then we will find the rapist and make sure he pays.
The issue is that this is just as bad as rape. You are going to be scientifically prodded and poked and checked to see if you were raped. This is also dehumanising. Can you understand the logic that thinks "no more" rather than "I want to undergo further dehumanising tests to ensure that my rapist goes to jail".
What we need is to improve reporting. We need education in both men and women to reduce rape (we can never stop rape. Rapists will always exist, but we can stop as many of them from existing and jail those who do). This will take time since it requires us to completely crush attitudes such as ones seen in communities such as the MRA movement or in religious attitudes of various people.
Also... Amanda broke my sarcasm meter.
My rule is to tip 10% for lousy service, 15% for so-so, 20% for good, 25% for great, right on up to the 100% tip if you propose marriage and she accepts on the spot (this never happens).
ReplyDeleteOther things that are worse than rape, according to Cold's logic:
ReplyDeleteTaxes
Phone bills
Bus fare
Rent
Credit card bills
They're worse than worse than rape, actually! Child support only lasts 18 years; i'm going to be paying phone bills for the rest of my LIFE!
...or does it only count if the recipient if said pay is a woman?
Yeah, Amanda, I think the poster upthread who complained about women who commit adultery getting custody of the kids sums up your point nicely: your vagina and anything that comes out of it belongs to me, and anything less is a gross injustice.
ReplyDeleteUnexamined Privilege, thy name is the MRM.
They're worse than worse than rape, actually! Child support only lasts 18 years; i'm going to be paying phone bills for the rest of my LIFE!
ReplyDelete...or does it only count if the recipient if said pay is a woman?
Well, considering that in MRA-land feminists run everything, all your money probably ends up in a woman's pocket eventually.
How much prison time should men who falsely accuse women of false rape claims get? Just wondering.
ReplyDeleteTHAT NEVER HAPPENS! Men who are accused of rape have no incentive to lie whatsoever. None. Anyone who says otherwise is a lying feminist.
I remember I LMAO when he posted that original comment because it was just like this Daily Show bit:
ReplyDeleteMoney rape!
@Cold, consensual sex does not become rape merely because one party is a liar. To go back to my analogy, if the Jewish person claimed to be Christian earlier in the evening, it is still not a rape. The condom example is distinguishable due to the fact that it involves the actual sex act consented to, rather than an extrinsic factor that, if known, would affect the consent to a sex act. So, penetrating your partner anally instead of vaginally when they have only consented to vaginal sex is rape, but penetrating anally where anal was consented to, but would not have been consented to with knowledge of, for example, the fact that the person penetrating had a urinary tract infection that they knew could be spread in such a way, is not rape. In the fertility drug case, the man consented to "PIV sex with no condom", but the woman in the condom case did not consent to "PIV sex without a condom". This is also why, for example, it is a rape if person A consents to have sex with person B while blindfolded and C takes B's place without A's knowledge, but not rape if it is A and B who have sex but one later finds out that the other is a member of a different political party, cheated on them the week before, hates puppies, is an arsonist, etc.
ReplyDeleteYour argument here hinges on your premise that "PIV sex with a condom" and "PIV sex with no condom" are separate sexual acts and that consent to one is not consent to the other. You are, of course, entitled to believe this, just as I am entitled to believe that "PIV sex with a fertile woman" and "PIV sex with an infertile woman" are separate acts for which consent is not interchangeable. Both of us, however, are engaging in intellectual masturbation since neither the dictionary or legal definitions of vaginal intercourse specify a condom or fertility. For that matter, neither the dictionary nor legal(in most countries) definitions of rape recognize the idea of conditional consent. Consent to an act is either given or not given, with no room for conditions.
ReplyDeleteSo, if a woman insists on a condom for sex, she is specifying a condition that must be met before she will give consent. When the man puts on the condom and she gives him the nod, she has given her consent. If he then distracts her at the moment of insertion and removes the condom without her seeing, she won't withdraw her consent because she thinks he is still wearing it. At the end of the act she may be shocked to see a bare penis come out of her, but it is too late at that point to withdraw consent since the activity has already finished. The man is guilty of deceit but not of rape, at least not in most countries. The same would hold true if the man had agreed to pay the woman some sum of money for the act but then ran off without paying or paid with counterfeit bills. Conditional consent is simply not a recognized concept at this time.
I think Cold made people so angry that our responses aren't as measured as they ought to be. While I don't agree with his framing of the issue, I do feel several posters (including Amanda, whom I normally respect) are being needlessly callous toward child support payers.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not that could is comparing child support to rape. It's that he's saying it's *worse* than rape. That's oppression olympics, it dismisses other people's experiences and judgments, and we know he's going to use it to argue for less enforcement of child support or rape charges, both of which are things that should be enforced.
But Amanada et al. are saying rape and child support shouldn't be compared at all, and basically trivializing the importance of the issue. I think that's wrong. Sure it's easy to say "it's just money," but the economy is bad and a little money can mean a big difference in quality of life. I know child support isn't enough by itself to actually provide a good life for a child, but that doesn't mean it's not enough that paying out can't come between a man and his ability to live where he wants or get the medical care he needs or something else important.
Plus, if you're paying child support, that probably means some kind of trauma or at least drama in the relationship with the mother. Whether it's a divorce, an unintended pregnancy you hoped she'd abort, or I guess occasionally a matter of deception, it's probable that there's a lot of shit there. I can easily believe that some men are having flashbacks or breaking into tears as they sign their checks.
So yeah, I think it can be an ongoing trauma that could make some people feel violated, and so I don't think saying it feels like a rape would be inappropriate. That doesn't mean the woman didn't have good reasons, the right to make her own choices, or bigger problems of her own. It just means life sucks for everyone.
Can't we focus on the real reason child support works the way it does--every human's right to bodily autonomy, plus the need to take care of innocent children--without getting into who's feelings are more important? I think saying "being raped is always worse than child support could ever be" is the same kind of oppression olympics as saying the opposite.
Rapists make people less likely to trust men who aren't rapists.
ReplyDeleteYes, and?
Nevertheless, you would object to people assuming you to be a rapist simply because you are male.
Objecting to reality doesn't change it. Some men do rape, and because of them all men have to deal with a certain amount of suspicion. I do, however, object to the feminist efforts to exaggerate the amount of rape and man-on-woman violence that takes place and to create much. much more fear of men than would otherwise exist.
People who falsely accuse rape victims of making false claims make people less likely to believe genuine victims of false accusations -- or would you say it's not fair to postulate something like that?
Whatever effect those people have on the credibility on a random rape accuser is a drop in the ocean compared to the harm done by real false accusers.
Also, the fact that genuine victims are branded as "false accusers" any time a defendant is acquitted -- despite the well-known fact that an acquittal isn't proof of innocence -- casts a lot of doubt on claims that false rape accusations are such a huge problem that we might as well legalize rape.
Are you talking out of you ass again? I've never heard of anyone being branded as a false accuser in the media except in cases where there was actual evidence that she deliberately made a false accusation, or she admitted herself that it was a lie.
Finally relying on a "study" that is unverifiable (because the author would not identify the town where the study was supposedly done) and deeply flawed on its face (due to the admission that rape complainants were unethically pressured to withdraw their complaints, and the author never deigned to interview any of them) proves yet again, that the brouhaha over false accusations is little more than good old pro-rape apologetics. "Women are lying bitches, so there is no such thing as rape even if there is." I mean, what else is new?
See what I mean about the strawmen? I said nothing about any study involving a single town, and calling me a pro-rape apologist is just more libel from you. I guess that's all you can do when you have no actual argument to make.
I think Cold made people so angry that our responses aren't as measured as they ought to be.
ReplyDeleteCorrection: some people allowed themselves to become too angry to make a measured response. That's their fault for lacking control over their emotions, not my fault for making an argument they don't want to hear.
I know child support isn't enough by itself to actually provide a good life for a child, but that doesn't mean it's not enough that paying out can't come between a man and his ability to live where he wants or get the medical care he needs or something else important.
Child support is indexed based on the man's income in such a way that whatever amount it ends up being will be significant for that man. $200 a month is pocket change for David Foley, but it's significant for a man earning minimum wage. David Foley, by the way, was ordered to pay over $17,000 a month. That would be enough to provide a good life for the child AND allow the mother to buy some luxuries for herself if it was paid every YEAR, yet this is what he has to pay MONTHLY.
Not only that, but it's more than he can afford. It was calculated based on a higher point in his career, and the misandrist courts refuse to recognize that he no longer makes that much money. In an effort to TRY to make the money, he did a full nude scene in a movie by notorious director Uwe Boll. If a woman was forced to star in porn films to provide her ex-husband with $17,000 a year on pain of imprisonment, there would be a public outcry. But because Foley doesn't have a vagina, the media and the feminists can barely stifle their yawns. In fact, as one presumably male commenter on that very article put it, "Any time you start talking about 10s of thousands of dollars a month for child support, its just state sanctioned financial rape of the guy because they can."
I think saying "being raped is always worse than child support could ever be" is the same kind of oppression olympics as saying the opposite.
So far you are the only person who has actually noticed that it wasn't me who initially tried to compare child support and rape. Amused brought that up in an effort to try and trivialize the financial servitude of men, so I called her on it. As I said before, I would choose forced sodomy over being put on the hook for child support for 18 years. I am entitled to my preference, and it is my opinion that most other men would make the same decision, especially considering that they could be forcibly sodomized anyway as a consequence if being unable to pay due to circumstances beyond their control. Nonetheless, I wouldn't have made the comparison if Amused hadn't made it first.
Child support only lasts 18 years; i'm going to be paying phone bills for the rest of my LIFE!
ReplyDeleteYour contract with the phone company is voluntary, moron.
This raises all kids of practical issues, of course. For one thing, anyone who files a police report would have to be given some form of Miranda warnings, to advise her that anything she says can and will be used against her in a court of law and that she is entitled to have an attorney present.
ReplyDeleteIt's already a crime to file a false police report, how would actually enforcing that law and raising the penalty to something appropriate suddenly necessitate a procedure that wasn't required before?
Also, if the defendant in rape case claims, in his defense, that the sex was consensual, isn't he accusing the victim of a false rape claim?
Perhaps, but in that case she, by claiming that the sex was non-consensual, is accusing him of falsely accusing her of falsely accusing him of rape. He, in turn, is then accusing her of falsely accusing him of falsely accusing her of falsely accusing him of rape. To avoid an infinite regression and to preserve sanity, it would be best not to define a false accusation of a false accusation as a crime.
You are free to use birth control or to get a vasectomy without fear that the pharmacist will sabotage you, or that your doctor will get shot, or that some conservative wingnuts will push through a law making your birth control illegal.
Not true; many urologists are unwilling to perform vasectomies on men that they consider to be at a high risk to later regret said vasectomy and sue. Frivolous trial lawyers are to blame for this.
He said that a person who files a false police report deserves whatever sentence that the person falsely accused would get (despite there not being an actual sentence to determine this from) up to the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteWhatever sentencing guidelines are in place for the crime that was falsely accused should be applied against the false accuser. If one person falsely accuses another of a capital offense, then that false accusation is essentially an attempt to kill the accused and therefore, as far as death penalty rationale is concerned, it is appropriate to execute the false accuser.
Incorrect Cold-"Using weighted totals, we estimated that among the 2,671,863 patients discharged from New York hospitals in 1984 there were 98,609 adverse events and 27,179 adverse events involving negligence." Source But only about 4% of injured patients or their families sue, according to a Harvard study. And only 1 in 5 lawsuits awards the patient. Source
ReplyDeleteFear of those lawyers might be the cause but since it is rare that people do in fact sue, and they are rarely the prevailing party, it is an unfounded fear and not the lawyers fault.
And you see nothing wrong with it do you Cold? Killing someone over a lie is AOK with you.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth, your reading comprehension is atrocious as always. Anyone with decent reading comprehension would have notice the key phrase, "as far as death penalty rationale is concerned" but apparently that's above your level of reading skill.
ReplyDeleteOh I read it, which is why I noticed you think executing people is okay over a lie.
ReplyDeleteOk, your eyeballs physically scanned each letter and your brain managed to recognize each word, but you still failed to actually grasp the fact that I said it was appropriate according to a specific rationale without saying anything to specify how I personally feel about that rationale. This is what is generally termed "poor reading comprehension"; you have no problem reading the individual words but you have great difficulty comprehending what they mean in a complete sentence.
ReplyDeleteCold: "Are you talking out of you ass again? I've never heard of anyone being branded as a false accuser in the media except in cases where there was actual evidence that she deliberately made a false accusation,"
ReplyDeleteThe Assange case? At this point we simply don't know what happened, and there is zero evidence that they are lying, but the accusers have been vilified in the media, online, etc etc etc by people who have decided they must be lying because they are feminists, or because they think Assange is being set up, or whatever.
It's already a crime to file a false police report, how would actually enforcing that law and raising the penalty to something appropriate suddenly necessitate a procedure that wasn't required before?
ReplyDeleteBecause MRA's advocate such a broad definition for the term "false report" when it comes to rape, that it would encompass most truthful reports as well, seeing that you want any rape acquittal to automatically result in the prosecution of the complainant. Also, because rape complainants, unlike those who report other crimes, are particularly likely to be subjected to threats and pressure to recant a good-faith and truthful accusation. Miranda rules are intended as an antidote to police misconduct in situations where police misconduct is particularly likely. Historically, certain police departments have liberally used threats and inadmissible techniques (such as the polygraph) to get rape victims not to press charges. If a rape complainant is automatically to be brought up on charges as soon as the alleged rapist is acquitted, then clearly, statements extracted by such underhanded means should be inadmissible against her. They are inadmissible against a defendant in any other criminal prosecution. Why should there be an exception for false rape claim prosecutions?
To avoid an infinite regression and to preserve sanity, it would be best not to define a false accusation of a false accusation as a crime.
How very convenient for rapists and rape apologists.
Not true; many urologists are unwilling to perform vasectomies on men that they consider to be at a high risk to later regret said vasectomy and sue.
Not the same. I've yet to hear of a case of a urologist deliberately sabotaging a vasectomy, religious groups picketing or bombing urologists' offices or legislatures passing laws making vasectomy illegal. In fact, sabotaging an elective vasectomy is medical malpractice. However, both statutory and case law in most states exclude sabotaging a woman's elective birth control or abortion from the category of acts that fall within the definition of medical malpractice.
Frivolous trial lawyers are to blame for this.
Really? I thought frivolous plaintiffs are to blame for this. After all, they are the ones who go to a dozen lawyers until they find one that will file the papers. They make the decision to sue. No one puts a gun to their heads. These plaintiffs are the kind of people who can't fathom taking responsibility for their own stupid decisions, so they seek out other people to blame. They blame doctors. They blame women. They blame their mothers. They blame the government. They blame their bosses. They blame the Chinese economy. They blame liberals. They blame lawyers. Anybody and anything but themselves. They never EVER see themselves as responsible for ANYTHING that's wrong with their lives. Whatever blame they would accept is invariably confined to being too nice of a person for the bad, bad world which is, basically, just another way of refusing to see themselves as causing or at least contributing to their own misfortune. None of this, of course, stops them from lecturing others on the virtues of taking responsibility.
The Assange case? At this point we simply don't know what happened, and there is zero evidence that they are lying, but the accusers have been vilified in the media, online, etc etc etc by people who have decided they must be lying because they are feminists, or because they think Assange is being set up, or whatever.
ReplyDeleteActually there is substantial evidence that they are lying, but despite that evidence I have not seen any mainstream media outlet call them liars.
seeing that you want any rape acquittal to automatically result in the prosecution of the complainant.
ReplyDeleteI never said that, in fact I stated very clearly that they should only be prosecuted if there is a compelling case that they lied. I'm done with responding to your strawman arguments. If you can't address my actual position then there is no point in responding to you except when you say something especially amusing.
Cold-In order to have your belief that a person who files a false rape report is the equivalent to a rapist even though it is not, you also support viewing a false murder report filer as a murderer up to and including executing said filer.
ReplyDeleteAnd you completely ignore the logical fallacy that arises from sentencing someone to a sentence that never happened (as the criminal act did not occur) for a crime with completely different elements then the original criminal act alleged.
I never said that, in fact I stated very clearly that they should only be prosecuted if there is a compelling case that they lied. I'm done with responding to your strawman arguments. If you can't address my actual position then there is no point in responding to you except when you say something especially amusing.
ReplyDeleteActually, what you said was that you support the idea of the prosecutor having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant lied as opposed to making a mistake. Which would exclude the most likely scenario of the defendant's innocence: that she was indeed raped, but the defendant was acquitted for reasons that are beyond her control.
Amused brought that up in an effort to try and trivialize the financial servitude of men, so I called her on it.
That's a lie. Your buddy e-string brought it up in an effort to try and trivialize rape, so I called him on it. Then you rushed to his aid with your half-assed "argument" that, because you'd rather be sodomized than support your child (as if you would ever face a choice in the real world that would require you to put your mouth where your anus is), the plight of men who don't want to support their children is worse than rape.
I've never heard of anyone being branded as a false accuser in the media except in cases where there was actual evidence that she deliberately made a false accusation, or she admitted herself that it was a lie.
And I have. It's quite standard, especially for MRA's, to accuse virtually all rape victims of lying about their rape. They even did it to Lara Logan, despite the fact that there were numerous witnesses to the incident.
Whatever effect those people have on the credibility on a random rape accuser is a drop in the ocean compared to the harm done by real false accusers.
Wrong. Rape apologism is a significant factor in promoting the myth that rape victims exaggerate or lie about their rapes.
Some men do rape, and because of them all men have to deal with a certain amount of suspicion. I do, however, object to the feminist efforts to exaggerate the amount of rape and man-on-woman violence that takes place and to create much. much more fear of men than would otherwise exist.
Actually, it's MRA's who routinely exaggerate fears of rape, because they see the threat of rape as a way to keep women in their place. If victims or rape weren't routinely crucified for wearing eye-liner, being "ambitious", acting "grown-up", wearing sexy clothing, etc., if this vilification of rape victims didn't serve to make women paranoid about what they wear, how they walk, how late they are out at night, there would be a lot less fear and suspicion of men. Also, if MRA's didn't claim so much that men have no control over their own sexual behavior, promoting the myth that a man aroused is akin to an unstoppable natural disaster, there too would be a lot less fear and suspicion of men. MRAs' admonition of women when it comes to rape basically boils down to the necessity to assume every man is a potential rapist; but of course, if a woman does come to feel that every man is a potential rapist, MRA's get insulted and blame feminism.
Cold, that's not actually evidence, much less "substantial evidence." We haven't seen the texts, we've simply heard what Assange's lawyer says they said.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if we accept his description of them as true, they don't actually prove she was lying. They suggest a possible motive that might lead to lying, but they don't prove anything. Why would her being angry at Assange prove she was lying? Maybe she was angry at him because he actually did what he's been accused of.
He would release the texts for public viewing if he was legally able to do so. From how he has described them, the texts constitute very strong circumstantial evidence that they lied. There are also the deleted(but cached) social networking posts at the beginning of this whole fiasco whose content and timestamps contradict the rape claims. Even you seem to realize how flimsy the case is, as evidenced by the fact that you have avoided taking any actual position on it.
ReplyDeleteFun fact: You know how Cold only spends 15 minutes a day on this site? He types a snappy 84 words per minute!
ReplyDelete(That's only including posts in this thread from March 30, and omitting quoted parts.)
Cold-In order to have your belief that a person who files a false rape report is the equivalent to a rapist even though it is not, you also support viewing a false murder report filer as a murderer up to and including executing said filer.
ReplyDeleteA person who files a false report for any crime is attempting to subject their victim to the sentence for that crime. A fair deterrent to this heinous act is for the false accuser to also face the very sentence that he/she tried to inflict on his/her victim if he/she can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have intentionally lied. To make the punishment any less is to stack the deck in favor of false accusers by allowing them to take a shot at inflicting great harm on another human being while knowing that should it backfire, they will be suffering much less harm themselves than the harm they were trying to inflict.
I have not touched the question of whether the death penalty should be on the table as a sentence for any crime; I have only said that the sentencing guidelines for a false accusation of a crime should be the same as a crime itself. In an area that practices the death penalty, falsely accusing someone of a capital crime is tantamount to attempted murder. If such a false accuser is executed, it wouldn't be "for a lie" as you so disingenuously understated; it would be for a lie that was told with the intention of getting another person killed.
And you completely ignore the logical fallacy that arises from sentencing someone to a sentence that never happened (as the criminal act did not occur) for a crime with completely different elements then the original criminal act alleged.
There is no logical fallacy here; a false accuser would be getting the same sentence that he/she tried to inflict on his/her victim, and in some cases that sentence may very well have already been served if the evidence that the accusation was false doesn't arise until years later. That, however, should be immaterial; the intention behind a false accusation is to inflict a sentence and it is that horrific intent that should be punished.
Yeah I went over 15 minutes today, would you like me to deduct that from tomorrow?
ReplyDelete@ Cold:
ReplyDeleteWhat is worse: rape; or a child knowing that their father hates them so much that he'd rather be forcibly sodomized than help take care of them?
Cold, as I said in my earlier comment, I don't think we know enough to know what actually happened in the Assange case. My gut feeling is that the women are telling the truth; their stories are believable, and if they were making something up I suspect they would have gone with much less weird and complicated than what they say (and what I believe) actually happened. But in the end it's a he-said-she-said case and I think that even if what the accusers say is absolutely true it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to prove that in court.
ReplyDeleteYou assume that is in fact the intended result of the person filing the false report Cold.
ReplyDeleteDespite your assumption that the only possible reason a person could file a false allegation is to send the other person to prison or to have them land on death row (in the extreme case there of the murder charge), most of the time it is due to circumstances that have nothing to do with the possible sentence that the person falsely accusing never even considered when making the accusation.
I see Cold thinks that a defense lawyer who's previously lied on behalf of his client is 'proof' that rape victims lie. The defense attorney's a man, too.
ReplyDeleteThe people who are telling the worst lies about the victims in the Assange case----aside from Naomi Wolf, who apparently likes any sort of attention she can get----are his defense lawyers and a notorious Holocaust denier. So much for credibility. The "Surprise sex!" defense came from this bunch. And Cold buys this, so much does he hate women.
I find it quite telling of the thought process of feminists that my simple question was not answered.
ReplyDeleteI find it quite telling of your thought process that you make a blanket statement regarding "the thought process of feminists".
Specifically, it tells me that you're full of shit.
As usual, not a single cite from Ginmar.
ReplyDeleteI have no interest in addressing any of Amused's strawmen, but I will address the one blatant falsehood:
That's a lie. Your buddy e-string brought it up in an effort to try and trivialize rape, so I called him on it.
No, e-string, who to my knowledge has never had any kind of conversation with me unless he is someone I know on some other site, made a "by the same logic" argument aka a reductio ad absurdum. In such an argument the logical structure is maintained while the specific objects of the argument are swapped for the purpose of illustrating how absurd the argument is. You only THOUGHT he was directly comparing child support to rape because your intellect is too feeble to comprehend what he was actually saying. YOU were the one who actually made the initial comparison.
Despite your assumption that the only possible reason a person could file a false allegation is to send the other person to prison or to have them land on death row (in the extreme case there of the murder charge), most of the time it is due to circumstances that have nothing to do with the possible sentence that the person falsely accusing never even considered when making the accusation.
ReplyDeleteI never said that was the ONLY reason people falsely accuse, but the fact is that the false accuser KNOWS that he/she is setting up his/her victim to be given the sentence for the falsely accused crime, whatever that sentence may be, even if that is merely incidental to the primary purpose of the false accusation. Perhaps the accuser is an ignoramus and has no idea how harsh the sentence for that crime is, but in that case he/she still tried to inflict that unknown quantity of harm and deserves to receive the same quantity. Ignorance is no excuse here.
No, e-string, who to my knowledge has never had any kind of conversation with me unless he is someone I know on some other site, made a "by the same logic" argument aka a reductio ad absurdum. In such an argument the logical structure is maintained while the specific objects of the argument are swapped for the purpose of illustrating how absurd the argument is. You only THOUGHT he was directly comparing child support to rape because your intellect is too feeble to comprehend what he was actually saying. YOU were the one who actually made the initial comparison.
ReplyDeleteCold: My intellect is strong enough not to be short-circuited by fifty-cent words that you employ as a veneer for idiotic ideas. Not matter how many times you say your "abracadabra" ("abracadabrum"?), it won't fool me, nor, frankly, anyone else. So you might as well lay off the incantations.
You don't understand AT ALL how reductio ad absurdum works. (As Plato -- who managed to become, arguably, Western civilization's greatest philosopher without resorting to fancy-sounding verbiage, a "technique" he in fact despised -- shows clearly, being a snob doesn't make you an intellectual, but quite the opposite; pseudo-intellectual snobbery is the hallmark of a vulgarian.) You'd think it would be impossible for you to sound even more like an ass, but you've scaled new lows here with your little lecture on a subject with which you are obviously unfamiliar. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I do note that since your definition of this form of argumentation is, well, absurd, it's possible your comment was an attempt at humor, Scott Adams-style.
"Reductio ad absurdum" doesn't mean you attack one proposition by dragging in something that's utterly irrelevant. So yeah, call it by any fancy name you wish, e-string brought up rape in order to trivialize it by comparing it to child support.
"Reductio ad absurdum" is often used to describe a "by the same logic" argument even though that differs from the original academic meaning in which a premise or conclusion is shown to logically lead to something absurd. Both meanings can be accurately described by the Latin words and both work by taking an essential aspect of the argument and showing its absurdity, not that I would expect you to be able to grasp this simple truth without difficulty.
ReplyDeleteE-string used rape and child support as interchangeable specifics in the same logical structure. Semantics aside you have demonstrated your severe lack of intellect by being unable to distinguish between the use of two different things as interchangeable logical objects and the assertion that the two things are similar.
"Reductio ad absurdum" is often used to describe a "by the same logic" argument even though that differs from the original academic meaning in which a premise or conclusion is shown to logically lead to something absurd. Both meanings can be accurately described by the Latin words and both work by taking an essential aspect of the argument and showing its absurdity, not that I would expect you to be able to grasp this simple truth without difficulty.
ReplyDeleteWhat YOU don't seem to grasp is that using Latin words doesn't render an otherwise nonsensical argument meaningful. You truly do use Latin verbiage as magical incantations -- this is not an exaggeration, you really are doing it. It's sad, really. You are using this terminology you clearly don't understand the same way a drunkard uses a lamp post -- for support rather than illumination. By the way, nice attempt to distinguish between "the original academic meaning" and supposedly some other, non-academic (but intellectual!) "reductio ad absurdum", as a way to justify your complete ignorance. Academic or not, in this form of argumentation, the absurd conclusion must flow from the premises being attacked, rather than some sort of a "substitution". "If A is B, then XYZ" is NOT "reductio ad absurdum"; what it is, is moronic prating with a dash of pretentiousness.
E-string used rape and child support as interchangeable specifics in the same logical structure.
*Eye roll* Jesus Christ, you are a sad, sad case. E-string used rape as something "interchangeable" with child support. He didn't pick murder, he didn't pick the Holocaust, he didn't pick cancer. He picked rape. Why? To trivialize it. And for you to deny that this is the case -- THAT's a blatant falsehood.
Semantics aside you have demonstrated your severe lack of intellect by being unable to distinguish between the use of two different things as interchangeable logical objects and the assertion that the two things are similar.
You've demonstrated your severe lack of intellect by confusing reductio ad absurdum with tu quoque, you ass. Also, child support and rape aren't "interchangeable logical objects". Although this will make an honorable entry into the Pseudo-Intellectual Bullshit Hall of Fame: "I wasn't comparing apples to oranges! I merely treated them as interchangeable logical objects!"
Your contract with the phone company is voluntary, moron.
ReplyDeleteTaxes and rent, though? Not so much. Paying for other people to have roads and healthcare and stuff: SO MUCH WORSE THAN RAPE.
Oh, and nice ableist language there.
Cold - why on earth would you desire my empathy? You've made it clear that empathy is not something you value, so why do you care if I have it towards you or not?
ReplyDelete"Cold - why on earth would you desire my empathy? You've made it clear that empathy is not something you value, so why do you care if I have it towards you or not?"
ReplyDeleteWell, Sally, it goes like this: first, Cold bashes you for lacking empathy re. his monumentally tragic life, then (I bet) he'll answer the above question by telling you you can shove your empathy where the sun don't shine because he doesn't need your goddamned empathy, he's a MAN!! It's all devilish, wickedly clever manipulation, Sally, you see, just like imaginary Machiavelli. You are supposed to realize that underneath that cold (hint!), chiseled, granite-hard and uncompromising exterior is a tortured but beautiful man who has spent all his life longing for a woman's devotion, and repeatedly had his love desecrated, and that's why he's a hypermanly man whose soul lies all torn and bleeding, and all he's ever wanted was ... twoo wuw. (This is supposed to make you swoon and drop your virtual panties, not necessarily in that order.)
Wow Amused, that was an incredibly detailed speculation. It's almost as if you have imagined this kind of personality before, perhaps as you pleasure yourself with your vibrator since no self-respecting man will touch you?
ReplyDeleteOh, and I'm not even going to address your moronic screed(ohhh, there's more ableist language) about the use of Latin shorthand and your inability to tell the difference between a comparison and an expository analogy. It basically speaks for itself, and it doesn't say anything good about your intellect.
Cold - why on earth would you desire my empathy?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, why would I? I certainly never said I desired it. You may have imagined that I did for reasons that I don't care to know, but the fact remains that I said no such thing.
I was looking for recent information on what happens in custody disputes. This site is not a research site but suggests the following:
ReplyDeleteThere are now 2.2 million divorced women in the United States who do not have primary physical custody of their children, and an estimated 50 percent of fathers who seek such custody in a disputed divorce are granted it.
So it sounds like 2.2. million women must send a check in every month, too. It also sounds like fathers do pretty well in those disputed custody cases.
Note also that child maintenance payments are for the child. Not the custodial parent.
Wow Amused, that was an incredibly detailed speculation. It's almost as if you have imagined this kind of personality before, perhaps as you pleasure yourself with your vibrator since no self-respecting man will touch you?
ReplyDeleteOooh, Cold, I see you've brought out the heavy artillery. "When all else fails, make juvenile insinuations about her sex life! THAT'll show her!" I vaguely remember you expressing righteous outrage when someone made a nasty comment about your sex life (even though you were the one who brought it up first). I think it was shortly before or shortly after you lectured us on the importance to treating people the way you yourself expect to be treated. Anyway, it's like this: my sex life is none of your fucking business. I confess I don't know the Latin shorthand for that, so I can only hope it's unambiguous enough for you.
Oh, and I'm not even going to address your moronic screed(ohhh, there's more ableist language) about the use of Latin shorthand and your inability to tell the difference between a comparison and an expository analogy. It basically speaks for itself, and it doesn't say anything good about your intellect.
What does it matter? The important thing is that you've just admitted that e-string analogized child support to rape. You poor thing. Bloopers like this often come on the heels of unimaginative sexual insults whose authors have too high an opinion of their puny intellects; although, neither you nor e-string left much room for arguing that by claiming that paying child support is worse than rape, you weren't actually comparing child support to rape. Oh, and I'm not worried about the impression my words make about my intellect. After all, I'm not the one posturing here.
Not sure how I missed that comment from Cold. I don't delete a lot of comments -- practically none -- but that's over the line. Since it's been commented on I'll leave it up, but, yeah. What *is* the Latin term for having such a weak argument that you have to resort to making rude remarks about what you imagine someone else's sex life to be?
ReplyDelete@David, it certainly falls under "ad hominem" in most cases.
ReplyDeleteCold, if you'd pop your head up out from under your rock, you'd easily find the truth about both the Assange lawyers' statements AND the holocaust denier's identity. Unless, of course, you had some reason to cherish the idea of a false rape accusation. I'm not in the habit of re-inventing the wheel for MRAs who demand cites and then either don't read them or lie about them.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, the truly interesting thing about your belief about this case is that you're so gleeful and joyous at the opportunity to call women liars. So much for that defense that you were raped yourself, huh?
And many of the most scurrilous things about the Assange case can be easily sourced to the same one or two articles...based on quotes by the lawyers. Either you're stupid or dishonest to ignore that. Take your pick.
BTW, David, you might pass the IRS a quick note about Cold's other comment; they tend to be interested in such things.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a point that is being overlooked here in saying child support is the result of a misandrist system.
ReplyDeleteWomen. Pay. Child. Support. Too.
I am a child support enforcment prosecutor. Nearly half of our cases involve mothers as noncustodial parents ordered to pay support.
Not only that, but having worked in the system every day, I can most assuredly say it is not as many of these bitter non custodial parents are saying. No one is thrown in jail for merely being poor. Judges and attorneys do work for the best interest of the child and we realize that throwing someone in jail is counter intutive. Noncustodial parents are worked with closely to ensure that the amount set is the correct and is neither too high or too low, we provide job placement resources and referals to vocational rehabiliation programs to help them get back on their feet and we give multiple second chances. It's only after months of the noncustodial parent showing an utter lack of willingness to participate in these opportunities or make any sort of effort towards taking care of the child that they helped bring in to this world that they actually serve any jail time. The child support system is not a pefect system by any means, but it isn't this gross injustice that ruins a man's (or woman's) life. Rape, on the other hand, is.