>On The Spearhead, demanding child support is a "provocation," and beating a woman’s face in is "justice."
>
A little over a week ago, a Florida man in the midst of a divorce hearing, apparently upset that he would have to pay child support, reportedly snapped and brutally attacked his wife, leaving her, as one account of the incident notes, “with two black eyes, broken facial bones and split lips.” (You can see the extent of her injuries here.) He’s now being held on felony battery charges. The woman had previously tried to get a restraining order against her husband, but apparently couldn’t convince the court he was dangerous enough to warrant it.
On The Spearhead, sadly but unsurprisingly, it’s the alleged attacker, Paul Gonzalez, who is getting the sympathy. W.F. Price, the site’s head honcho, weighed in on the subject yesterday. In his mind, apparently, the demand that Gonzalez actually provide some financial support for his two children was a provocation of sorts, which led him, as a Marine veteran, to “react … as warriors sometimes do in response to provocation — violently.”
At this point, we know very few details about the case. But that didn’t stop Price from opining confidently on what he imagines are injustices perpetrated against the poor alleged attacker:
What likely happened in that courtroom is that Gonzalez, representing himself, got the shaft. … We don’t know what the child support order was, but it was probably pretty hefty (as usual), and the visitation quite meager. Add to that the fact that his wife was already living with another man, despite having so recently given birth to Mr. Gonzalez’s daughter, and the situation must have seemed absolutely upside-down to the former marine. It was upside down. His wife is obviously a little tramp who has no problem swinging from one dick to another even while raising two babies, and there she was about to get rewarded with an upgrade in lifestyle while the chump father loses his kids and wallet. That’s why Mr. Gonzalez lost it.
Price does acknowledge, in a cursory way, that “beating your wife is always a bad idea” — though he seems less bothered by the beating than by the fact that in this case the divorcing wife “gets to go on camera making herself out to be a poor, innocent little victim. I highly doubt this woman is innocent.”
The commenters to Price’s article rallied around the alleged attacker. In a comment that got three times as many upvotes as downvotes from Spearhead readers, Greyghost celebrated Gonzalez as something of a hero:
I need to send that guy a prison christmas package. He was getting screwed and struck out. To bad he never heard of the spearhead. If about 10 to 15 percent of crapped on fathers did this kind of thing with some murders mixed in there the talk about fathers would sound a lot like the talk when the subject is islam.
Piercedhead offered this take:
Gonzalez may well have been overwhelmed by the realization that being innocent of all his wife’s false accusations made little difference to this fate – he still got treated as if he was worthless. In that case, might as well match the penalty with the appropriate deed…If the courts won’t dispense justice, someone else will – it’s a law of nature.
That’s right: bashing a woman’s face in is a kind of “justice.” Naturally enough, this being The Spearhead, this comment garnered (at last count) 56 upvotes from readers, and only 2 downvotes.
Mananon, meanwhile, suggested that the alleged attack had:
something to do with a warrior’s instinct for dignified self-reliance. … Strip a man of his dignity and what else is there left?
DCM, even more bluntly, described Gonzalez as:
a brave man and a hero.There will be more and more of these incidents and it will be a long time before women are seen as responsible for them — which they are. …It will be men who can’t take it any more who will ignite change.
took it a step further, saying that:
the only bit I feel sorry about is that he did not arrange to have someone else kill her such that his chances of being caught were minimal. By doing this in the middle of the court he will be put in a cage for a long, long time. And he does not deserve to be there. HE is the VICTIM.
Every one of these quotes, with the exception of Nolan’s, garnered at least a dozen upvotes from Spearhead readers. (Nolan’s comment so far has gotten no upvotes or downvotes.)
What sort of comment on this case will get you downvoted by the Spearheaders? One like this:
Wow! Nothing justifies violence. I wonder who will care for the baby while the mother recovers. Or doesn’t that matter?
What a coward. Mad at the judge, goes after a woman.
Actually advocating murder, no sweat. Suggesting that violence is wrong and worrying about the welfare of the children, outrageous!
–
If you liked this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
Posted on April 23, 2011, in misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, the spearhead, violence against men/women. Bookmark the permalink. 310 Comments.
>God this shit makes me feel sick.We don’t know what the child support order was, but it was probably pretty hefty (as usual), and the visitation quite meagerIf the visitation was meager, I daresay that's reasonable given that he's the kind of guy who's prone to snap and beat the shit out of women. "Don't call me violent or I'll beat you up" is usually the province of kindergartners, guys.Actually advocating murder, no sweat. Suggesting that violence is wrong and worrying about the welfare of the children, outrageous! What pisses me off is that they moan about visitation but clearly don't care about the welfare of the child. That's not what visitation is about for them. It's all about stroking the man's ego and giving him ownership of the fruit of his penis.
>I can't even look at that poor woman's face. That's just horrific.
>It's brutal. I decided to take the picture down and replace it with a link to the picture in the first paragraph.
>yes, that's how he writes his nameProbably a "sovereign citizen."
>I hope this isn't what MRAs mean when they desire the right to strike back at a woman in self defence. Reverse the genders in the case and you'd likely have them spewing out stuff like "Its revealing that women are so comfortable in their dominance over men that, in the rare case when they don't get their way, they snap and respond with violence. If a man were to do the same he'd be locked up and put on death row instantly."*grak* I feel sick just writing a parody…
>From the Spearhead article: Gonzales was not an abuser until he attacked his wife in front of the courtI think there's a joke along similar lines. There's this Scotsman in a bar, recounting all his accomplishments, ending with "But fuck one sheep…"Spearhead again: Here she is blubbering in front of the camera.Interesting characterization of a woman describing the fractured face split lip, and two black eyes that her ex-husband gave her: Blubbering. Interesting. I can't really think of any reason outside of naked, comprehensive hatred for women that one would choose to characterize an injured woman's communication as "blubbering," but maybe that's me.Strip a man of his dignity and what else is there left?Oh right. I forgot that in MRAland, being responsible for the financial needs of one's small children = loss of dignity. Vomit.
>FUCK!
>So much for >insert various MRA types who post here<'s theory that getting a restraining order is as simple as just showing up at court.
>Also, M.Bouffant, Peter Nolan is a sovereign citizen who peddles the paperwork that shows up in court sometimes from people who should know better.Based on his comments, I have a feeling he is going to be spending some serious time in prison or will be suicided by cop. Especially since he says he will beat the **** out of any woman who fails to follow his exact orders despite his refusal to follow anyone else's.
>This may be a case of PTSD which does cause people to react like this. It's very difficult to control and is a possible reason for this behaviour. They do mention "marine veteran".The MRAs have suddenly got a raging hard on for the army. It's the whole "if there was a war on, I would be on the frontlines myself" mentality. Except there is a war going on as we speak. I don't see them posting from Afghanistan.
>I'm waiting for NWO to start claiming that he's posting from a battlefield in Iraq…no Afghanistan…no LIBYA!! He's posting from Libya!!
>The only thing that keeps me from freaking out when I see people say shit like this is the reassurance that the Spearhead dwellers are, by and large, a group of insecure petty minded man children who satisfy their broken emotional needs by venting harmlessly into the internet. I hope.
>They do have the internets. And a fair few soldiers get the "Dear John/Jane" treatment when they get home. And I agree, it's not a nice thing to do to any soldier but since when have people done nice things.
>Ugh. People are just sick. Really? Advocate murder?! REALLY?! That poor woman. I hope that man goes to jail for a long time.
>This isn't a case of PTSD. It's a case of a guy who didn't want to pay child support and didn't want to adhere to a visitation schedule as he informed the judge just before he went on the attack. If he would do this in front of a judge, I wonder what kind of abuse he dished out behind closed doors?
>Why does it not surprise me that they're sticking up for the gutless shitebag waste-of-skin coward who did this kind of damage to a woman? He even had to blindside her on top of everything else. This worthless fuck is probably twice her size but these maggots are cheering him like he took on an MMA fighter and won.
>PTSD sufferers can not want to pay child support too. The rage and complete disregard for social backlash is pretty par for course in military PTSD. It's unacceptable behaviour (PTSD sufferers will tell you that) but it explains it. There is very little support from the military in the USA to PTSD sufferers and indeed negligible screening. This may have been avoided had he been given help as his behaviour to lead to a divorce may have had to do with the disorder as well.
>I think that a lot of the divorces and broken homes that soldiers returning from combat experience are due in part to changing perceptions of violence and warfare itself. In ancient times, it was considered an honor to be part of a soldier's family. Nowadays, it is a source of shame. Like, "Oh, did you know? My hubby kills people for a living."Honestly, who would want to tell that to all their friends these days? When did that happen, I wonder? Is it all this technology, perhaps? Have we made war so dehumanizing and distant that the very concept of honorable warfare has been lost to mankind? Regardless, those more martial-minded times were very difficult for man and woman alike, taking a grim toll on both. I find it quite ironic that a bunch of sheltered adolescents in adult bodies would use the head of a spear as their logo. Do they truly desire for a return to the use of sharp, hand-held implements in war and in hunting game?Now there's a thought. Why don't we have these guys do something uplifting, like donning loincloths and going around spearing boars, deer and lions and crap? Work out the kinks, you know? Because honestly, I can't think of any reason for a fellow man to write so much literal crap other than sheer boredom.If MRAs want men to be tops, why do they sit on their asses complaining all day like a bunch of sissies instead of getting out there and doing all these things that we men are allegedly supposed to be better at?How are you gonna "show dem wimminz how 2 lead an ideal lyfe" if all you can do is congratulate a bunch of degenerate, abusive fucks like Mr. Gonzalez there?Oh, I forgot. MRA's apparently don't really concern themselves with winning over women to their cause. They act as if we're supposed to sympathize with them, when they don't show any sympathy to anyone besides members of their own sex. In many ways, some of the more radical elements of feminism are similar.That's why I subscribe to neither. I'm a humanist. I believe in whatever policy that provides the most utility and personal enjoyment to all members of the species, not just one sex.In fact, I don't even believe in the concepts of objective morality, sympathy, compassion or following one's gut. I place personal utility and the strict avoidance of infringing upon the utility of another first and foremost.Interesting concept, huh? Basically, it works like this. Work towards your own fulfillment and self-interest, but don't screw over other people to get it. Kinda like the golden rule. Do unto others, and all that.I combine this creed with a subjective understanding of morality. Basically, no moral position is any more valid than any other. Take the scenario in this article, for example. It's a no-win situation. She took him for all he was worth, and he beat the crap out of her. They were both completely full of it, if you ask me. Neither was technically more or less right than the other. When you start adding up wrongdoings like that to try and determine which one is more of a crook, you start to realize the failings of our current system. Wouldn't it have been nicer if the two of them had mutually agreed to respect the utility and well-being of the other?But then the question becomes how do you enforce it?
>You see, nature is full of unfair bullcrap just like this. Case in point, animal rights activists. They share many of the same strains as both the men's rights activists and women's rights activists. All three bid that we show sympathy and compassion for what the opposition holds to be a lesser being. Why? What good reason would we have? Would we do it out of the goodness of our hearts? Are humans even capable of such a thing?That same kind of moral panic/gut-feeling/intuition-driven bullcrap has been responsible for everything from witch hunts to the outlawing of recreational pharmaceuticals. Humanity simply can't come up with any valid reason for why some things simply should not be done. We just use the same old tired platitudes like "because it's wrong". What the hell does that mean? What are wright and wrong, exactly, if not totally subjective? See, because I'm pretty sure Mr. Gonzalez didn't think he was in the wrong when he beat that poor lady silly. It would make much more sense to say that they infringed on each other's utility. That they violated the golden rule. Would she have liked it if she had to pay child support to him instead? Probably not. Would he have liked it if his ex beat him silly instead of the reverse? Almost definitely not.And don't say consensus makes it wrong, because consensus does not objectivity make. This is the same reason why I think that the idea of "just wars" is bunk. While you're at it, the whole idea of money is bunk too. Just wars are bunk because there's no such thing as justice in a world where you have things like VX gas, Nuclear Weapons, human experimentation, et cetera. It's only the will of one against the will of another. There's no justice there.Currency is bunk because it wouldn't exist if humans didn't exist. It is not a law of nature. It is not directly linked to the total entropy of our universe. It is just a reflection of our own irrational gut-feelings. Our "trust" in others. I could form a country and start printing my own fiat money and then say I have a million dollars. God knows the Fed does it all the time.If humans are to prosper, we must abandon notions of traditional morality, eliminate dominance hierarchies and strive for technologies that will grant us a post-scarcity society where men and women can be truly equal once and for all. No more worrying about alimony, child support or taxes when all the work's done by robots. What's that, you say? Such a change would lead to vast unemployment and poverty? Hooey! Nobody would have to work anymore. Currency would be totally abolished, in fact!Uhh… I think I've been reading too much Iain Banks. Well, not like that's a bad thing, I guess.But seriously, if you look ahead – like WAY far ahead – the technology to create a post-scarcity utopia is definitely on the table. It's simply a matter of making it there alive and having the wisdom to use it correctly.
>I'm waiting for NWO to start claiming that he's posting from a battlefield in Iraq…no Afghanistan…no LIBYA!! He's posting from Libya!!Simone, your comment clearly indicates that you don't Support Our Troops, which goes to show how hateful feminists are. Also, too, nothing goes better with MREs than MRAs.
>Y'know, Paul Gonzalez may have PTSD, or not. If he does, as a fellow PTSD sufferer, I hope he gets help. And either way, of course the government doesn't provide enough help for its military, and of course the things that people in the military (including his ex-wife) see in war are awful, but of course having PTSD does not excuse away the act of beating another human being to a pulp.But seriously, that's kind of beside the point. What the fuck explains the absolutely inhuman, heartless reactions of W.F. Price and the Spearhead commenters?
>FWIW, she was also a Marine, something that no one on the Spearhead seems to have picked up on. (OF course, if they had, I'm sure they would be claiming that the fact that she couldn't defend herself from this attack means that women are weak and shouldn't be Marines in the first place. In fact, he completely caught her by surprise from behind and knocked her out with his first punch.)http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Ex-Marine-Beats-Wife-During-Divorce-Hearing-in-Judges-Chambers-119974124.html
>But seriously, that's kind of beside the point. What the fuck explains the absolutely inhuman, heartless reactions of W.F. Price and the Spearhead commenters?Douchebaggery. But we already knew that.
>In before incredibly circular, unrelated-to-the-post argument with an MRA about "Criticizing MRAs is so meaniepants of you, now let's never even acknowledge it when anyone says anything about the substance of those criticisms" starts!But yeah, this is horrible. It's just… it's not even about the man, as usual. It's not really about his child support payments or visitation. It's 90% about the woman and how horrible she was (that TRAMP, living with someone else after separating from her husband–what a filthy, uh, one-timer!) and how good it was that she got beaten. The emphasis on punishing women seems to WAY outweigh the emphasis on making things better for men.It's hard to respect MRA as a rights movement when they say (and when other parts of it don't criticize) things that are horrifyingly aggressive about removing women's rights, and barely at all about expanding men's.
>It is basically a big conspiracy theory. Men never actually do anything wrong, and women are always out to get men. Therefore, if a man snaps and beats his wife in front of a judge, the man must of had a good reason; it couldn't possibly be that the man is crazy, or suffering from PTSD, or whatever. Whatever MRAs make up to support their presupposition is a side matter, one which only accentuates how low they will sink to try to justify their presupposition. Its pathetic, really.
>THASF, how do you know she was taking him for a ride? Because he beat her up?
>I don't think it will be too long before Bill Price and the MRM starts to get credit for promoting violence against women, men (to them, 'manginas', cops, and even family court judges on the-spearhead. In this article alone, there are some atrocious statements…From The dude: "Honestly, I don’t know why more men don’t have their ex wives assassinated. It would be much better for them, plus they could make sure they have an alibi."And of course, one of their most popular members, Peter Nolan, who says:"The only bit I feel sorry about is that he did not arrange to have someone else kill her such that his chances of being caught were minimal."and this:"Welcome to your future. Once men like this realise that to do what they did will only land them in jail and they coolly and rationally decide to kill their tormenters in a way that they will not get caught? You are going to see a flood of dead women."And Peter Nolan has, several times, provided precise ways of murder to the MRA's on that board, such as this advice in a recent spearhead article 'The High Road':"Who are they going to rely in when pissed off men kill a few white knights to let them know that it is no longer acceptable to men to white knight? It’s going to happen. I can feel it in my bones. George Sodini is going to look like a kindergarten kid compared to what’s going to happen when real men who are real pissed off eventually decide they have had enough and do it in a well planned way. A way in which they will get away with it. Try these on for size. How hard is it for any man to figure out things like this.1. Place poisonous gas canisters into a mall. Detonate at a busy period. 80%+ will be women. The men will mostly be manginas.2. Poison the water supply in girls schools, police stations, guvment buildings. Full of women and manginas.3. Make false 911 DV calls and then shoot the cops with a long range high powered rifles. If enough men did this no cop would answer a 911 DV call ever again. There is no way to protect a cop from a high powered sporting rifle at night. None.Do any of you here realise just how easy it is to ANY of these things?" Murder rhetoric can be found going back to 2009 on the-spearhead.
>"THASF, how do you know she was taking him for a ride? Because he beat her up?"Because she was already with another guy before the checks started rolling in, that's how I know.That still doesn't give him – or anyone else – the right to use violence in response.Excuse me if I take the middle-of-the-road approach; these two are both kind of sleazy, repellent personalities, if you ask me.
>Currency is bunk because it wouldn't exist if humans didn't exist. It is not a law of nature.Beaver dams are bunk because they wouldn't exist if beavers didn't exist. Beehives are bunk because they wouldn't exist if bees didn't exist. Horse poop is bunk because it wouldn't exist if horses didn't exist.I pretty much picked that part of your comments arbitrarily. If I were to take the time to address all of your pretentious bloviating I wouldn't make it to work Monday.
>Here is the FBI's tip page for those interested in reporting Mr. Nolan.
>You do not have any information beyond her having a boyfriend and he beat her up.You have no idea when their marriage fell apart and when either one moved out. You have no idea when she decided to start dating this new guy-if she even was actually dating him (the reporter could have easily assumed the guy was her boyfriend without even asking.) You have no idea what the award was, how much she asked for, what Florida's laws are governing child support.Not only that but obviously the checks were not rolling in since that was the day the judge issued the order for child support.So to claim someone is being taken for a ride lacking all of that information and equating it with his beating her up shows me you obviously only are saying you despise someone using violence because you know what our reaction would be if you admitted you thought she deserved it.
>@Elizabeth,Good idea, but Peter Nolan lives in Germany. Bill Price, the person who publishes this garbage, lives in Seattle, WA. It is my understanding that Peter Nolan is on some watchlists already. As he should be.
>Christine WE, this is how these jokers work.They are, in the main, privileged little whiny fuckers whose only contribution to their glorious struggle against the misandrist oppressors is to cheerlead murderers like Sodini and talk a bunch of shit. They have all these ideas about what should be done with all us "white knights" and "manginas" but when it comes down to it they're counting on some other guy to go off the deep end and do their dirty work for them. They're all sitting around double-dog daring each other to become terrorists, all hoping someone else is going to be the one to pick up the gun. They crank up the impotent anger until some crapsack like Sodini acts on it and then they hope the rest of us get scared by it.
>"1. Place poisonous gas canisters into a mall. Detonate at a busy period. 80%+ will be women. The men will mostly be manginas.2. Poison the water supply in girls schools, police stations, guvment buildings. Full of women and manginas.3. Make false 911 DV calls and then shoot the cops with a long range high powered rifles. If enough men did this no cop would answer a 911 DV call ever again. There is no way to protect a cop from a high powered sporting rifle at night. None."I was laughing at that nonsense the other day. What infantile drivel. None of those sound like a good idea, even if you're a hardcore MRA type. Even if you're a genuine terrorist. I mean, if you use even a little common sense, you'd realize that the perp would get caught about five out of six times. Not to mention, somebody stupid enough to actually spell out such plans is not smart enough to pull it off without getting caught. No way. Honestly, that is about the level of intelligence that I would expect from those morons.It's like those guys just sit around reading Paladin Press books and stroking each other's egos and nothing else. That's actually kind of pitiful.
>The German version of the FBI. They may not be watching him close enough.
>"Beaver dams are bunk because they wouldn't exist if beavers didn't exist. Beehives are bunk because they wouldn't exist if bees didn't exist. Horse poop is bunk because it wouldn't exist if horses didn't exist."Ahh, but there's a difference. As intelligent beings, humans have the power of choice. The use of currency as a store of value is not nearly as inevitable for humans as an instinctual action performed by an animal that doesn't know any better. It's certainly not as inevitable as defecation.I think I should re-phrase my statement. You see, money does not have inherent value. A beaver's dams are a form of artificial habitat. They have inherent value. Beehives produce honey and nourish the bees' young. They have inherent value.Even animal feces can be used as fertilizer. It has inherent value.What can you say about a piece of paper with Ben Franklin's face on it? It's just paper!"I pretty much picked that part of your comments arbitrarily. If I were to take the time to address all of your pretentious bloviating I wouldn't make it to work Monday."Fine. I'll give you the short version:1. Many of the common laws found in human society are based on illogical gut-feeling and have nothing to do with any actual material gain or harm that a person receives. Case in point, censorship laws that define "obscene speech". Who do these laws protect and why? Who has a right to define what is obscene? Consensus does not make something obscene. Even if you got everyone on Earth to agree that something was obscene, it wouldn't be. Why? Because the property of being obscene is not a real value of any given thing. Water is wet, fire is hot, this book is obscene. Which of those three describes a real, intrinsic value? This is the same reason why currency is just a trick. Just a psychological game. It has no intrinsic value either. So, why do people fight over it?2. People should follow the golden rule and show each other respect at all times. The aim should always be to come to an agreement that is mutually beneficial for all parties.3. There is no such thing as moral objectivity, only moral relativity. The existence of objective morals would imply the existence of a priori knowledge. We know this to be false, because if you eliminate all conscious and sapient observers (i.e. by exterminating the human species), no such knowledge exists. In other words, it is not possible for a human being to justify themselves morally to anyone. It's all in your head. Religion is an example of mankind trying to turn our subjective morals into objective morals by ascribing them to a pre-eminent, all-powerful being with no beginning and no end. This, however, opens the way to tyranny. Manipulate religion, and you manipulate the masses as well. It would be better if mankind could find a way to structure our society around mutualist principles. Eliminate the class system and meaningless hierarchies. God to Government to Man to Woman to Child. Everything runs in a straight line from top to bottom. So what do you do? You level the playing field. You try and find a new meaning for mankind to exist in the absence of a divine purpose.
>Thasf:I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on free will. Our thoughts stem from our brains, which are completely governed by the laws of physics and chemistry. Whence then comes the power of choice?I'd posit that, for the same reason humans insist that we have free will over our actions, we create constructs like currency and obcenity laws. Value may not be inherent in a piece of paper, but it is still there because it represent value to us humans. Thus it is still important, and that is why people care about the value, and why people fight over it. Saying this value doesn't matter amounts to the same rationale people use to dismiss relativistic morals (morality isn't inherent in this universe, therefore it is meaningless).I haven't thought about this too much, so feel free to clarify your position or criticize mine. I'd be interested in continuing this discussion.
>Shorter MRA:The assailant is the real victim here!
>Eoghan:I'm not sure that works. David here isn't in tears on the matter, nor bemoaning the country's return to marxism, communism, godlessness and Islam. :)Perhaps you'd like to point to the original article that you find contradicts the OP?
>hope you are enjoying being the glen beck and fox news followers of the gender debate.Except for that whole "deliberately defrauding the audience" thing.
>Hrm.. has Eoghan's comment disappeared? I appear to have gone insane…
>You're not crazy! I saw it too!
>Yeah, I deleted it. I have banned a tiny number of commenters; Eoghan is one of them. Unfortunately, blogger doesn't actually let you ban people, so I delete his comments whenever he shows up.
>David, for added lulz, instead of deleting the comments, change them to "I like pie!" Though I suppose blogger won't let you do that, either.
>Agreed with Johnny. :PAnyway, thanks for the clarification.
>"You do not have any information beyond her having a boyfriend and he beat her up."You're right. I only have rumors to go on. I thought this entire site was about discussing all the malevolent hearsay from MRA blogs? ;)"Not only that but obviously the checks were not rolling in since that was the day the judge issued the order for child support."Sorry about that. As a consequence of my Washington-ese, I have a tendency to mix up tense a bit. What I should have said was before the checks start rolling in, not started."So to claim someone is being taken for a ride lacking all of that information and equating it with his beating her up shows me you obviously only are saying you despise someone using violence because you know what our reaction would be if you admitted you thought she deserved it."You're implying that's how I feel. No, I don't think that she deserved that. I don't think that anyone deserves that bullshit from anybody.Trust me, I could go into detail about my abusive, sexist dad, or my sister who died of leukemia ten years ago, or any other number of things, but I won't. I'll spare you that nonsense. All 3,100 words of it. I cut and pasted it into MS Word when I decided it was getting too long and much too depressing.Rest assured – or not-so-assured – I've seen this kind of violent shit first-hand. I suppose it's only human for me to try and seek out balancing factors. To try and find a reason for it. Honestly, there is no excuse for this sort of behavior. I'm sorry if you thought that was what I was trying to say. I do have a tendency to say things that sound a little cold and impartial, I know. That's just how I am. It drives a lot of people away. Sometimes, I tell myself that they just don't want to hear about the cold, harsh realities of our world. That they want to keep deluding themselves. But even that is a form of self-delusion on my part. That's why I keep my mouth shut most of the time. Better than making a fool of myself.@Kirby: An interesting hypothesis. So, you say that free will itself is a sort of a spiritual, non-material aspect of humans?I've thought of this potential before; about the hard problem of consciousness. Some people take that even further. For example, if the human brain is capable of formulating ideas about things that technically don't exist – for example, picturing a symbol for a numeric function that normal mathematics simply cannot parse – could the brain itself be said to run on non-mathematical principles? Could it be that consciousness itself is a result of a physical law that science does not yet understand? Hmm. I believe that these secrets will be revealed in due time. When computers are powerful enough. When scientists can model a human brain in a virtual space and get it to function like one, if such a thing is even possible.
>It's MORE pathetic that he was a Marine, and JUSTICE, if that even comes close to a proper spin on this, would be that guy going after the JUDGE or the bailiffs, but no. That pathetic cowardly piece of shit beats her. He had kids, he can pay for them. I knew these people in MRA did nto want father's rights, they want ABUSERS rights and to never be questioned like in yesteryear when men ruled and abused without consequence. THAT is what they want. Trigger warning on this article.
>Nietzsche spoke of the death of god and the rise of nihilism, but many people misinterpreted his intent. His intent was not to praise the nihilists; in fact, he was merely observing the fact that science had removed moral authority from the divine, and that it therefore fell upon a tangible sapient being to take the place of religion and provide their own moral authority. An "Ubermensch", or "Overman", who – through charisma, culture and sheer force-of-will – would lay down the law. Well, we all know how that turned out, don't we? Nietzsche would likely have been horrified had he lived to see what incredible depravity his ideas had inspired.But the problem's still there. How exactly does one go about setting rules for others if they have no real moral authority to do so? What recourse does anyone have? If nothing has any intrinsic value, does that mean that life, government, society and civilization are all utterly meaningless? Should humanity go hide in a corner and just quietly die?My proposed solution is a simple one. Humans should live for life itself. In fact, I believe that a loss of intrinsic value in all things is liberating, because then the question becomes how to give things value the proper way; by grounding them in physical law.Personally, I think our currency would make a whole lot more sense if it were tied to something. Like energy production/usage. Ever hear of the Technocracy movement? I think they had the right idea. Scientists and engineers in the lead, organizing society in such a way so that little is wasted and none are left wanting. A world where the dollar and the joule were the same thing. Currency actually tied to the entropy of the universe instead of having an imaginary, indefinite value. Wouldn't that be interesting?
>And this asshole at the spearhead equating this with self reliance and dignity? He doesn't have dignity because a big bad court gave his children justice? What a pathetic sociopath piece of shit this man is, the one beating that defenseless woman to a pulp, and the ones at the spearhead. As far as I'm concerned the FBI should watch all those nutjobs over there and their daily actions of 'dignity' preservation. Lunatics. There is no rad fem place on earth you would find something this crazed and imbalanced and dangerous. I mean even prostitutes abused from birth and time and time again by Johns and the system are not given this type of rhetorical back slapping and warning to the rest of society.
>"JUSTICE, if that even comes close to a proper spin on this, would be that guy going after the JUDGE or the bailiffs"I thought about that, but no. He was way too much of a yellow-bellied shitbag to think of something like that. Plus, if he has half a brain – which I sincerely doubt, given his former profession of choice – he probably reasoned that they'd end up stopping him sooner if he did that. They'd probably have tased him in about two seconds.This is a shame, though. I tend to have quite a bit of respect for Marines. They're almost always an upgrade from the Army as far as personal integrity and combat ability goes. What this man did disrespected the corps.
>@THASFYou misunderstand. I'm saying the very opposite, that there is no non-material aspect. My point was that if you do not believe free choice exists, then free choice is simply an illusion that people use, a construct just like morality and currency. By saying that free will is inherently valuable but currency is not, you hold a contradictory position. (Basically, if beaver damns are inherently valuable for providing a habitat for beavers, then currency is inherently valuable for providing a method of transaction for humans.)I'm almost certain, though I cannot prove it, that the appearance of free will is a direct product of consciousness, and consciousness is an emergant property of a complex brain tied to the senses. This is because after generations of searching we haven't found the slightest bit of evidence to believe otherwise, and have found countless pieces of evidence suggesting we live in a natural universe. However, the concept of free will, just like morality, is a useful one that aids conscious beings, so we use them.Here's something to think about though. You say that it is impossible for someone to justify themselves morally to another. Why? Sure, we don't have an absolute authority to look to, but that doesn't solve the morality problem anyway (see Euthephro's dilemma). It should be clear that morality only holds any meaning for conscious beings. It shouldn't be such a big leap to then say that the goal of a moral system is to aid the survival of concious beings, and the Golden rule (in one form or another) is one good aspect of this. I would say this is a justification for a "relative" morality, though its about as objective (meaning not dependant on any one being's views) as you can get.Bah, this turned out rambly… Ah well.
>@boobootubeHow on earth would going after the Judge in this case be considered JUSTICE?@THASFThe point of currency is to provide an easy means of exchanging services and products in society. A way of saying that X ammount of time or Y item can be exchanged for Z service. How is tying currency to entropy (which honestly I have no idea what you are talking about) any less arbitrary than simply saying Y item is worth W dollars?In short, the point of currency is not to assign an arbitrary value to an item, but to provide a shortcut for a bartering system. What the currency is based on, theoretically, has no impact on this.
>Ahh, I see. You hold a position of strict materialism similar to my own.I like your idea about the source of free will, but I think people get hung up on the semantic meaning of free will itself sometimes. What is free will? Is it merely the ability to choose between good and bad, or the ability to choose between two positions of equal value that may not necessarily be positive or negative, just different? For example, let us say I exercise my free will and choose to pick up a pencil from my desk. I could pick it up with my right hand or my left. No choice is morally-superior. Yet, I could say have exercised my free will by choosing between one or the other.Or have I? Under nihilism, no action or any given thing has any intrinsic value at all. Therefore, free will cannot exist, because one cannot choose between two things of equal intrinsic value. Which is to say, when one chooses between two worthless things with no intrinsic value whatsoever, they have not exercised the power of choice. The choice itself becomes a non-choice. What a bizarre paradox!My theory is that the human brain is primarily concerned with symbolism, and that we assign different symbolic meanings to things in order to give them value and provide ourselves with the illusion of choice. But then, you start running into huge problems, like which symbols take precedence over other, similar symbols.I look at a tree, and I say it should be called a "gree" instead. I get into an argument with the guy next to me. He says it should be called a tree, as always. I keep insisting on using the new terminology. Who is "right?"This conflict is the root of all art, language, mathematics, politics, economics… pretty much every subjective experience the human body is capable of interpreting and reading back out.
>"The point of currency is to provide an easy means of exchanging services and products in society. A way of saying that X ammount of time or Y item can be exchanged for Z service. How is tying currency to entropy (which honestly I have no idea what you are talking about) any less arbitrary than simply saying Y item is worth W dollars?"The problem with this system is that it is not inflation-proof. As I said before, I could start printing money and call myself rich. But then, I'd get in trouble. The government does it all the time. Why don't they get in trouble too?The problem is one of money supply. How do you have enough of a given currency to carry out the complex transactions that take place in modern free-market economies? The gold standard put a hard limit on the amount of currency that you can have at any given time. However, once you transition to fiat currency, you're essentially working in a system of totally arbitrary value. Your money is only worth as much as someone says it is, and what value is their say, anyway?The people in charge of regulating a fiat currency could, in theory, say that a given country has "infinibucks", or that a one-dollar note is redeemable for one of Jupiter's moons. A fiat currency is, by its very nature, an indefinite currency. The only thing that keeps it stable is trust and consensus between leading economists and the proletariat that uses the currency.By linking your currency to the total entropy of the universe (i.e. "One dollar is worth x amount of joules of actual mechanical energy") you make your currency finite instead of infinite, because there isn't an infinite amount of energy in the universe. Oh, but a counter-claim to that would likely be that we can't stamp an infinite number of coins or print an infinite number of bills. A valid claim indeed. However, what about electronic banking? I'm sure someone could fit a googolplex or even an infinity symbol in there somewhere. A lot of people use debit cards that aren't actually physically redeemable for anything, these days."In short, the point of currency is not to assign an arbitrary value to an item, but to provide a shortcut for a bartering system. What the currency is based on, theoretically, has no impact on this."You're right. Normally, it wouldn't. That is, if currency were used for bartering for goods all the time. However, what if the intangible fiat money itself is the good being bartered, or some property of that money? What if agreements regarding that money are the thing being traded? What about stock options or hedge funds? What about derivatives?If you haven't already seen this skit, you should. I found it rather… illuminating.
>"I look at a tree, and I say it should be called a "gree" instead. I get into an argument with the guy next to me. He says it should be called a tree, as always. I keep insisting on using the new terminology. Who is "right?""Well, for the moment, if you try to call it a 'gree,' no one will know what you're talking about. Then, you must decide which is more important: your right to call it what you want, or for other people to understand what you're saying.If instead of tree, you came up with a new word for something that either didn't have a word for it, or had a word that most people didn't recognize as a word, you might have better luck convincing people to call it what you want to call it.
>"Well, for the moment, if you try to call it a 'gree,' no one will know what you're talking about. Then, you must decide which is more important: your right to call it what you want, or for other people to understand what you're saying."You speak of consensus. Naturally, because a large majority would disagree with me on a change made to the English language, my point of view in such a debate could be said to be an example of arguing over semantic definitions. However, as I said earlier, consensus does not equal objectivity. Once again, as is typical in my thought experiments, I must kill off the majority of the human population and pretend that they don't exist for a moment.Let's say that there are only two sentient beings in the entire universe. Therefore, a consensus is impossible to achieve, because one will always hold only exactly half of the vote. Now, let us say that these two beings are arguing about which word should be used to describe a physical object or principle. One posits one word as the solution, while the other one posits another. They cannot agree with each other. Which one is objectively right? Which symbol is more valuable than the other? Eventually, either party will have to cave in, or they will have to agree to disagree.This whole concept of "disagreeing about definitions of things" is behind a HUGE number of human behavioral patterns. It may even be the foundation of much of human psychology. As I said before, I believe the human brain is primarily concerned with symbolism; that it is an engine for generating and processing symbols.This even applies to the topic at hand. You see, we're arguing about how to define this man's actions in a non-real, metaphysical context. It's simple and easy to say that "what he did was wrong". It's more difficult to describe what I believe actually happened.Because right and wrong are merely figments of the human imagination, what he actually did was deny her personal autonomy and the use of her body by hospitalizing her. This goes against my strict utilitarianism; by doing this thing, he has achieved a sub-optimal end. He has done more harm than good. He took pleasure at her displeasure, rather than finding a solution that would have provided pleasure to both and improved their well-being. He played a zero-sum game rather than increasing the value of the entire system.What he did was not inherently wrong, as actions have no inherent a priori moral value. However, it was incorrect from my perspective, where utility for all subjects in a given system is the thing that one should always strive for. Naturally, this is also a subjective point of view.Heh, I'm sure that must sound robotic and unnatural to you. True, true. It's easier to just frame things using appeals to reason and gut-feeling rather than appeals to utility. But it just doesn't sit well with me, for some reason. Just like calling trees "grees" doesn't sit well with me either. What irony, that the very irrational gut-feeling that I so despise would dictate my ability to try and distance myself from it. Another paradox.
>Do we really have to re-derive semiotics and the nature of existence before we can say that beating a woman because you don't want to pay child support is wrong?
>Basically, even coming from a frame of mind such as my own where right and wrong are meaningless, it is still not a "good" thing to infringe upon another human being like this. What I'm essentially trying to say – in as few words as possible – is that even when circumstance technically forbids the realization of an ideal, the goal should be to bend reality until instant gratification for all participants is achieved. Not just a choice few. All.Sounds reasonable, no?
>If the deadbeat doesn't want to financially support his children, he should sign all rights away.
>"Do we really have to re-derive semiotics and the nature of existence before we can say that beating a woman because you don't want to pay child support is wrong?"Well, when you put it that way…Oh, but come on! Isn't this philosophical banter fun? If you ask me, it sure is a heck of a lot more fun than simply moping about over the misfortune of others, even if this is a touchy subject. I mean, hell. There's a lot more suffering and bloodshed where that came from. This is Earth, not some two-bit massage parlor. Honestly, most people don't even want to dwell on such things for very long, lest they become paralyzed by their own self-loathing. That's one of the reasons why I think we men are often so keen on dismissing such news out of hand; we fear being mired in complete and total despair, unable to move or act. So, we say "fuck it" and move on. If it looks callous and cold, that's because it is callous and cold. Honestly, stuff like this doesn't even bother me anymore. Not when I've seen photos of people blown in frickin' half from anti-aircraft gun fire. I'm completely desensitized, like a machine.Sometimes, though, you've just got to slow down and ponder why things are the way the are. That's what I do. Heck, I'm not sticking up for the guy, if that's what you're thinking. I'm not totally sympathetic to either of them, in fact. Then again, the way I see it, if he was willing to haul off and hit her like that, she probably had good reason to divorce him. And, to be honest, I don't quite get the indignation from the MRA camp. So he beat her up. So what? What does that prove? That violence is the solution to all your problems? And here I thought MRAs were always the first ones to complain about "rising rates of violence and aggression in the female population". Oh, so it's okay if a man hits a woman who "provoked" him, but a woman who hits a man who "provoked" her is a bitch/whore/slut/pejorative/whatever? You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't applaud a man for a violent act while condemning a woman for doing the same thing. That's just hypocrisy.See, that's the problem with objective morality. It always devolves into hypocritical double-standard bullshit that does naught but prove its own subjectivity.
>"Therefore, free will cannot exist, because one cannot choose between two things of equal intrinsic value." This is patently false. See "Burridan's Ass" (ass as in donkey, to head off some of you pervs who read this blog ;) ).Also, you fail on the issue of a priori proofs. Some things are a priori and true, 1+1=2, for example. You assertion that something must be proven a priori to be objectively true also begins to fall into "truth is relative" territory.You also fall into the common fool moral relativist trap. While some systems of relativism are not silly on their face, many followers love to talk about what humanity or others "should" do. But that is invoking a moral standard. When you suggest I ought to do a thing because that thing is better, you invoke some sort of moral objecitive standard to do so. You can't really say something like "tyranny is bad" until you have defined bad, which takes you right back to defining a moral standard."One posits one word as the solution, while the other one posits another. They cannot agree with each other. Which one is objectively right? Which symbol is more valuable than the other? Eventually, either party will have to cave in, or they will have to agree to disagree." As a matter of linguistics, this is false. We have these things called "synonyms". Both natural and computer languages are capable of defining the same object in different terms. Besides, your larger point still fails even exempting that obvious falsehood. Again, with Burridan's Ass, we can and do make choices between equivalent objects. Such a choice would be morally neutral. Think about ph levels as a comparison. Some things are acidic, some alkaline, some neutral. Some choices are good, some bad, some neutral. It can also be the case that making a neutral choice better increases utility than no choice at all. The legal concept of malum prohibitum actually reflects this idea well. Think about driving on one side of the road or another. Left or right, it is rather arbitrary which a society chooses and it is not evident that picking one is better than picking the other. However, having people drive on one side decreases traffic accidents and increases people's ability to get where they want to go. So, a society should pick a side, even though the choice is arbitrary and neutral. However, it is well worth noting that malum prohibtum does not expand across cultures. It is not bad to drive on the left side of the road in France but the right in the US. Neither culture is more evil than the other due to this. However, it is still bad to drive on the left in the US, because that decreases the utility of US roads. Whereas malum in se (bad in itself) acts work in a different way. Slavery might be one example. A culture cannot arbitrarily elect slavery over nonslavery without decreasing utility and we can say that cultures with slavery are worse than those without. See how that works?It is worth noting that langauge about rights does in practice tend to be justified with utilitarian explanations. Rights format fits relatively well into rule utilitarianist systems. So, when we invoke a "right to bodily autonomy", we often do mean that it increases utility for people to have bodily autonomy as a rule. While there are ethical theories where one can assert that someone has a right to something which is wrong under rule utilitarianism, as a practical matter, this is not an argument you see much. People who invoke, for example, a "right to bear arms" generally will give some theory about self protection, deterrence of aggression, etc. when questioned about the existence of such a right. Most rights language works to express a percieved or actual conflict between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
>"It would make much more sense to say that they infringed on each other's utility. That they violated the golden rule. Would she have liked it if she had to pay child support to him instead? Probably not."This makes no sense. How is Scott-Gonzalez "infringing" on her ex-husband's "utility" by seeking child support? They have two child. Those child need support. It would make more sense to say the children are "infringing on his utility" by existing. So he doesn't want to pay child support? So what? How is that relevant to the two children, both under the age of five? Are you advocating child abandonment once it become inconvenient to pay for them?
>"This is patently false. See "Burridan's Ass"."The point that they were trying to illustrate with that metaphor was different from my own. Basically, all things being equal, they were trying to say that the donkey wouldn't be able to choose between one thing or the other. The classic "fish or cut bait" scenario.On the other hand, my own paradox was that – no matter the choice eventually made – choosing between two things made inherently equal by the nihilistic principle that nothing has intrinsic value is the same as making no choice. In this, I was trying to illustrate how nihilism generates paradoxical events when you try and apply conventional logic to it."Also, you fail on the issue of a priori proofs. Some things are a priori and true, 1+1=2, for example. You assertion that something must be proven a priori to be objectively true also begins to fall into "truth is relative" territory."But it is. Because truths can only be formulated in a living mind, and I feel that the living mind is the very seat of subjective experience. Of course, that should be taken with a grain of salt, just like anything else I've said."You also fall into the common fool moral relativist trap. While some systems of relativism are not silly on their face, many followers love to talk about what humanity or others "should" do. But that is invoking a moral standard."And I realize this fully. Yet, at the same time, I argue that it is possible for one's views to remain totally subjective even if they appear to be making objective statements. Just because someone declares something to be objective does not make it so. To me, the only objective truths are ones which are self-evident without prior knowledge, or even sapient beings to acknowledge them. Or, are even those subjective? I suppose they could be, in a roundabout way.Humanity's own bias towards our qualitative experiences plays a huge role, here. For example, we perceive fire as "hot". Another species might have nerve endings that perceive fire as "cold". Is it hot or is it cold? Also, your 1+1=2 example relies on a system of symbols that I hold to be entirely subjective. I could argue that 2=3 or any other seemingly-nonsensical mathematical formulation. Even though the facts of the matter seem unambiguous because of their everyday usage in a formal setting, the symbols themselves that we use to make our cases present a certain degree of ambiguity.
>"Think about driving on one side of the road or another. Left or right, it is rather arbitrary which a society chooses and it is not evident that picking one is better than picking the other. However, having people drive on one side decreases traffic accidents and increases people's ability to get where they want to go."But it might be evident that driving on one side of the road causes fewer accidents than driving on the other. Humans are either left or right-handed, and more people are right-handed than left-handed, so there may indeed be some measurable statistical difference introduced by our uneven biological factors, no matter how small."People who invoke, for example, a "right to bear arms" generally will give some theory about self protection, deterrence of aggression, etc. when questioned about the existence of such a right. Most rights language works to express a perceived or actual conflict between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism."Very true, but under a strict utilitarian system, there should technically be no need for defensive arms, because one who commits an act of aggression would be doing it while knowing that they're reducing the utility of the whole species taken as an average, including themselves (they should not want to be incarcerated). However, I am fully cognizant of the fact that such an approach does not preclude the possibility that one would commit a violent act. It merely encourages them not to, and some people need more than simple encouragement.Of course, the problem with moral relativism is that it's very hard to set things in stone and tell people what should and should not be done without contradicting oneself. Relativists can only safely make observations and not concrete claims, or so it would seem. In fact, it's arguable that the essence of moral relativism is that it reduces all claims – including my own – to mere suggestions, none more valid than any other. If I recall, one philosopher formulated an argument against subjectivism thusly: "subjectivism is false. If you say that it is true, you cease to be a subjectivist."Of course, that too is subjective, and so forth.
>"So he doesn't want to pay child support? So what? How is that relevant to the two children, both under the age of five? Are you advocating child abandonment once it become inconvenient to pay for them?"No, because that would infringe upon the utility of the children. Plus, who says that the children are infringing upon the utility of the father? Children are all potential providers of value.If a mother wants out of an abusive relationship, that's one thing, but if she's depriving her kids of contact with their biological father, then that's another thing entirely. What incentive will men have to get married if they fear being separated from their kids whether he leaves his wife or his wife leaves him? How is that fair? Do the kids have any say in it at all?This is one of the reasons why I think patronymic naming conventions are bullshit. They give men the impression that we own our kids, when that's obviously not the case. People should have multiple given names and a "clan name" that they don't use, just to keep them from in-breeding. Preferably something numeric, just to be sure.Personally, I feel that it's contemptible that parents try and treat their kids like property. Children are not vases and floor lamps. They are not inanimate objects for people to fight over. Children are a resource, and they need to be carefully cultivated as such. If their biological parents are incompetent, perhaps they should be raised by someone else?See, this is why I advocated a post-scarcity society. It's because patronymic naming conventions, inheritance, child support and parental feelings of entitlement to their children are all related to concepts of material wealth. Eliminate wealth, and you eliminate the need for many aspects of the nuclear family. All besides one; the need for parents to connect with their children and raise them in a way that doesn't obstruct them from achieving success in their own lives. That sure simplifies things, doesn't it? Wouldn't it be nice if people put kids first? See, I'm going to be one of those adults that's always championing the rights of the kids. I'm not going to turn into one of those bitter old fucks that growl about "kids these days". I'll always stick up for the kids. You know why? Because I was one. We all were.And, to be honest, I still am one at heart. The optimism. The naivete. It's still all there. Or, at least I wish it was, sometimes.
>THASF, I was not mistaking your tone. You are making the two actions equal when the actions are completely unequal just based on the limited information before us. She has a new guy in her life and was asking her ex to support his children. He put her in the hospital by beating her in front of a judge, her lawyer and all the other personal who were there that day. Unless you think the appropriate response is to hit someone until you have to be tased off of them when they seek child support for the children in common and date someone other then you, there is no possible way these are equal nor could you even make it equal. So it was not your tone that was cold-it was your view of it being that she was wrong and deserve it.
>You are conflating two separate issues of fathers rights for those who are not hitting their spouses and the ones who are. A man who hits his wife should get custody or she should give him access to her so he can keep hitting her? How is that even an arguable position?
>"In ancient times, it was considered an honor to be part of a soldier's family."Don't waste good iron for nails or good men for soldiers. -ancient proverb
>"Do we really have to re-derive semiotics and the nature of existence before we can say that beating a woman because you don't want to pay child support is wrong?"Apparently so.Jesus fucking christ. So many different ways to handwave basic being a decent fucking human being.
>Goddamit, this fucking thing ate another comment. To everybody making excuses for this loser, I've got PTSD, and I'm a veteran, and I've seen these assholes at first hand. They think that now they've got carte blanche to act out every grudge, every hatred, every little Fox News fantasy they ever had. PTSD makes you vulnerable. In many cases it makes you fearful. This guy was a scumbag before he went wherever. He came to the Marines Pre-fucked. People forget that service members don't come out of nowhere, they come from the house next door. Look up Richard Corcoran. He was one of a gang or rich white boys who cornered a developmentally disabled girl in a basement after years of harassing her and other girls, literally making her eat shit, and probably committing other rapes which they got away with. The town backed up the rich white rapists, and the harassment the victim's family went through was so vile that they gave up after the first trial convicted the first batch of rapists. Corcoran was the son of a police detective. I hope his daddy wasn't a sex crimes detective. Anyway, Richie joined the Army, with the full knowledge of the Army but without issuing a warning to his female coworkers or the civilianis in Afghanistan. I've served beside guys like this and they're a horror in every way possible. Anyway, Corcoran's wife sensibly decided to leave him, at which point he tried to murder both her and her new boyfriend. He succeeded only in killing himself, leaving unanswered the question of whether or not he told people that he gathered up to twenty big young guys in a basement to assault one young woman with a whiffle bat. Too many male veterans think that if they claim PTSD they can beat and rape women to their heart's content. I know of at least one case where the guy claimed his PTSD made him stick his penis into lots of different women after threats of violence and harm. That particular symptom does not appear in any list of PTSD symptoms that I'm aware of. You don't see women doing this.