>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.
>This "Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c)" is apparently known in Australia for being a complete quackpot. He has a web site, and a forum, parts of it variously dedicated to the Spearhead, David Icke (!) and "Femi-Nazism" (!!), as well as other topics which presumably appeal to "Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c)".
>Jesus Fucking Christ, THASF just loves to hear himself talk, does he? And he's not talking about this case, except to insinuate shit about the wife. Niiiiiiiiiiiiiice. So leaving the marriage makes that beating okay?
>@THASF "But it might be evident that driving on one side of the road…" So fucking what? That is just a technical attack on the hypothetical, not an argument against the theory. If you could actually demonstrate difference greater than the harm caused in shifting systems, you have just suggested it is malum in se to pick the less optimal side."Very true, but under a strict utilitarian system, there should technically be no need for defensive arms…" This is false. Or, at least, it has not been demonstrated to be true. Nothing in utilitarianism (wtf do you mean by "strict utilitarianism"? Rule utilitarianism? Act utilitarianism?) suggests that people cannot engage in bad actions. Nor does utilitarianism necessitate that for a specific individual, the specific situation will be optimized. Utilitarianism looks at the whole, so it could be the case that instead of 100 utility for one and 0 for another, the utilitarian picks a result of 60 for both. Note how the 100 person could selfishly want the first option and desire to act badly, minimizing overall utility.You also clearly do not understand Burridans ass, as it does demonstrate that making an arbitrary or neutral choice can be better than making no choice at all. If the ass chooses either pile of hay, it gets to eat that pile. If it chooses neither, it starves. The principle of sufficient reason fails, and your silly notion that an arbitrary choice is equivalent to no choice also fails.In addition, you are confusing linguistics with metaphysics. The fact that natural language is often ambiguous does not demonstrate that the objects it seeks to name only exist in relative terms. Changing the linguistic goalposts does not alter the objects being named, it merely changes what sounds you use to refer to them. So, you cannot really argue that 2=3. You can merely change the meanings of those symbols so that 3=3 but you call one of the threes something else. Of course, as you do not think you can demonstrate anything, one wonders why you both to speak or argue at all…As to the nuclear family and marriage, I am pretty much with Engels on those subjects. However, that in no way makes it okay to violently attack people whenever you are not given your own way. If anything, you clearly demonstrate at that point that your ex and the child are better off not being in contact with you and that you are a danger to others in your society.
>The MRM is known as the "abuser's lobby" to those in the justice system and other criminal professionals and you don't have to read their websites for very long to figure out why.
>THASF, You aren't the first person who has ever been let into the hallowed halls of PHIL101. We've contemplated this sort of mindblowing stuff before. You don't seem intellectual. You seem like a jackass. I pray to god you're either 19 or high. Either way, there are philosophy forums where you can talk yourself to death.
>Seriously, THASF, stick to the topic or STFU. And no, you don't need to post endless shit about "utility" or "post-scarcity society" to make your point. You really, really don't. This is really really tiresome to everyone but you. To give you a little bit of an incentive here, I may start deleting comments of yours that are long dissertations about whatever the fuck that have only a tangential relationship to the topic at hand.
>@Talkstorie Well WE have, but we're WOMEN and esp FEMINISTS, higher education is reversed only for us xD It's proof of the higher male brain functions that they're able to put this together WITHOUT any books or classes and only a used copy of the Matrix (new copies are reserved for Femidemic institutions of higher golddigging, I can't say nemore about this on a public forum…). If men had OUR education, they wouldn't just be in charge of the planet, they'd be in charge of existence itself, they'd have reshaped all life in the universe to be monogendered, and that is why the feminist conspiracy must persist in keeping men from philosophy courses *nods*
>Gods, this made me cry. And, an aside… ginmar, I think you are wonderful. Just the bees knees. :3
>It makes me sick to see those bullies rushing to defend a psychopath like that. That is how domestic violence works. The abuser beats the woman and then explains how she "made him do it". The MRM works the same way; they say any violence their members commit is everyone else's fault. At least it happened in front of many witnesses in that courthouse so people would finally believe her and so she could get prompt medical attention. I hope that poor woman never takes him back.
>Seriously, THASF, stick to the topic or STFU. And no, you don't need to post endless shit about "utility" or "post-scarcity society" to make your point. You really, really don't. This is really really tiresome to everyone but you. Srsly. If you want to spout long-winded dissertations that nobody else wants to read, get a blog. That was my motivation, anyway.
>"Unless you think the appropriate response is to hit someone until you have to be tased off of them when they seek child support for the children in common and date someone other then you, there is no possible way these are equal nor could you even make it equal."I never said their actions were equal. I was merely implying that they were possibly being unfair with each other, not that he had a right to hit her, or that what she did was a crime in and of itself. Honestly, I don't know these people. I can't judge their respective characters, can I?"You are conflating two separate issues of fathers rights for those who are not hitting their spouses and the ones who are.A man who hits his wife should get custody or she should give him access to her so he can keep hitting her? How is that even an arguable position?"No. This idiot flew off the handle and had a temper tantrum, and this was the result. Honestly, if this guy's making abuse into a new habit of his, then piss on him. That doesn't change the fact that those kids are gonna be messed up in the head because their parents couldn't get along."You also clearly do not understand Burridans ass, as it does demonstrate that making an arbitrary or neutral choice can be better than making no choice at all."Yes, but it does so in a closed system where time is a factor. The paradox stipulates an interval where the ass arrives at an impasse and then eventually makes a choice."If the ass chooses either pile of hay, it gets to eat that pile. If it chooses neither, it starves. The principle of sufficient reason fails, and your silly notion that an arbitrary choice is equivalent to no choice also fails."No, not just an arbitrary choice. An arbitrary choice between two things rendered completely identical/equivalent to each other. See, even in the case of the ass choosing between two identical piles of hay, it is technically still making a choice. It can choose the left pile or the right pile. But what if the ass is forced to make a choice instantaneously and the piles of hay exist only as non-orientable concepts? Is it possible to effectively distinguish between them, in such a case? It might, if we use symbols. We can say that you've got pile 1 and pile 2, and you're making a choice between them. But then, what if the symbols themselves that we use to define the separate piles are rendered equivalent as well?I was merely making the observation that if all choices are rendered meaningless through nihilism, there cannot be any free will in the conventional sense. This is a problem with nihilism, not with free will. I was using it to illustrate how flawed nihilism is."Jesus Fucking Christ, THASF just loves to hear himself talk, does he? And he's not talking about this case, except to insinuate shit about the wife. Niiiiiiiiiiiiiice. So leaving the marriage makes that beating okay?"What else is there to talk about? How can I impugn his motives when they're so clear-cut? This Gonzalez guy is obviously a complete asshole, but I've had my buttons pushed before and I know how it feels for a man to lose all control. It's not exciting or fun. It's scary as hell, and if you have a lick of conscience, you tend to feel deeply ashamed about it afterward. I sincerely doubt this guy has anything resembling a conscience, so fuck him.For the record, by "losing control", I mean all those times where my dad started freakin' hitting my mom for NOTHING, and I tried to intervene on her behalf, usually putting bruises on all of us in the process. Do you think I like it when a man abuses his wife? Fuck, no!All I was saying was that neither of these parents upheld their duty to their children to get along. To find some way to make things work. That's what makes me sad about all this bullshit.
>"THASF, You aren't the first person who has ever been let into the hallowed halls of PHIL101. We've contemplated this sort of mindblowing stuff before. You don't seem intellectual. You seem like a jackass. I pray to god you're either 19 or high. Either way, there are philosophy forums where you can talk yourself to death."20 and sober, though sometimes I wish I weren't so sober. If I seem like a jackass, that's because I am a jackass. When I try holding a conversation with people face-to-face, I inevitably start a one-sided monologue about the defense industry and recent progress in the fields of computers and materials science and all the little things that such advancements should make possible. They invariably give me a funny look like I'm some kind of maniac, and then they go straight back to talking about their sexual conquests, which I find to be just as repellent as they find me and my interests. Like, who gives a shit about who you fucked most recently and how you did it? The stuff I'm talking about is humanity's future!"Seriously, THASF, stick to the topic or STFU. And no, you don't need to post endless shit about "utility" or "post-scarcity society" to make your point. You really, really don't. This is really really tiresome to everyone but you."How is it possible for humans to be truly equal in a society that assesses people differently based on their education and their ability to output physical labor or intellectual products over a given time span? How is it possible for the sexes to be equal in a society that treats women as though they are cripples?So, I looked for a better answer. I arrived at post-scarcity economies, transhumanism and utilitarianism. Get rid of money, so nobody has to be the breadwinner. Improve the body, so that everyone is equal. Destroy conventional morality, so that nobody is right or wrong in the conventional sense. Now, it's a given that such a system is going to have drawbacks of its own, but hey. Sure sounds better than what we've got now, at least."Srsly. If you want to spout long-winded dissertations that nobody else wants to read, get a blog. That was my motivation, anyway."You know what? I've considered doing just that.I mean, I've been typing like a thousand words an hour of semi-meaningful debate. If I were writing books, I could have done a NaNoWriMo novel in less than a week. That freaks even me out. I've got all this text in my head, just screaming for cathartic release.
>Then write a blog so we do not have to put up with your pretentious blathering here. Especially since you seem to be viewing any woman who does anything that does not allow a male full access to her regardless of the level of violence as being in the wrong.
>Just so you all know, sexism really bothers me on a deep and personal level. I don't think you people realize why I'm such a profoundly disturbed individual, anyhow. How about I tell you a story?How about the one time where I used to have a sister who was a certifiable genius who self-tested and aced the SATs at sixteen, but died of leukemia at age 19 back in '01? I was eleven years old at the time. My sis started bruising up spontaneously from nothing at all. There hadn't been any fights or arguments or anything. We'd all been getting along great. Two months after she was diagnosed, and then she was gone. Just like that. Didn't even have a chance to say goodbye to someone who I felt was one of the most brilliant minds the world ever saw.Y'know, I remember asking her if she ever planned on starting a family with someone. I wasn't really thinking of the ramifications. I was a pre-teen kid, so I was more concerned with how cute her kids would look than how responsible her husband would be. She came back with a resounding "no". I now know why. It's because marriage is bullshit, that's why. Women expect men to give them all their frickin' money in exchange for being sex slaves with no dignity and no humanity. Men expect women to bury their egos and turn into picture-perfect porcelain dolls that they can admire and fuck whenever they want. What's equal about that? Nothing. My sis had talent. Her works were museum-worthy. She did realistic drawings in conte crayon and clay sculptures that would blow your freakin' mind. Why should she have yielded one inch of that amazing talent in order to become some ungrateful prick's private fuck toy? To be used, discarded and forgotten like so many women before her? To give herself over to a man, and yet have men as a whole talking behind her back about her sex as though her accomplishments and her talents didn't mean anything at all? Fuck that! Fuck it, fuck it, fuck it with a capital F! I am OUTRAGED at the very notion of such a thing!
>"Especially since you seem to be viewing any woman who does anything that does not allow a male full access to her regardless of the level of violence as being in the wrong."He's in the wrong for the same exact reason. He did not allow her full access to him, because he acted like a dick and screwed up their marriage.See? This is the problem with feminism. We all strive for equality – a noble goal, that much is certain. But then, we engage in self-defeating tactics, like defining a woman in unequal terms to her husband, as though she were his property. By doing this, we are denying her free will and enforcing patriarchal assertions. Is it wrong to suggest that they both made mistakes of their own somewhere down the line if they ended up in such a situation? They're not children. They're grown-ups, and sometimes grown-ups have to make grown-up decisions.
>"I've got all this text in my head, just screaming for cathartic release."Please go to wordpress.com, and get yourself a blog. Now. Believe me it's not that hard. I did it. "Women expect men to give them all their frickin' money in exchange for being sex slaves with no dignity and no humanity." then:"To give herself over to a man, and yet have men as a whole talking behind her back about her sex as though her accomplishments and her talents didn't mean anything at all?"Jeezus Haploid Christ. Please, I'm begging you. Go now, and get yourself a freaking blog. It'll be good for us. I mean for YOU! Good for you. And that's what we all really want.
>I know it seems like a contradiction, but my point was that women are being socialized to have a low self-esteem, unlike my sister who esteemed herself very highly and would not kowtow to such nonsense. In a way, she suffered greatly for it. She endured ridicule and attempts and manipulation by her peers, who obviously saw her as some sort of anomaly. This placed a lot of stress on her.That's pretty messed up. She left a household with an abusive dad to hang out with other folks, and they gave her the same fucking abusive treatment. What the fuck? Are women prisoners of their own bodies? Is there nowhere they can go where they're given the proper appreciation and respect that they deserve?Fuck, that gives me the creeps. I don't fucking get it. I'm just as confused as everyone else is. That's why I'm trying to work this stuff out.
>THASF, no one likes a tweaker.
>Look, *THASF*, we don't care about your entire life story. Force-feeding it down our throats isn't going to make us care any more. In fact, it will only make us care less.
>"THASF, no one likes a tweaker."You're absolutely right. Nobody likes little ol' me, because I'm an obsessive-compulsive loser that sounds like he's perpetually high on something and looks like death warmed over. Yay.One time, my co-workers gave me a hard time about a mess I made in a work space. So, to compensate, I voluntarily cleaned EVERYTHING until it sparkled, well beyond what was necessary. They kept telling me "aw, shucks. You don't have to do that".But I did. Because that's who I am.
>And the official victim blaming has begun. No, THASF, it is not fair to assume that if one person gets beaten up by another that the victim did something to earn it. Grown ups making grown up decisions do not violently attack their exes when things do not go their own way. Then you start the whinging about "why didn't she just leave" except this woman did exactly that, she left this out of control asshat and then was attacked (which happens often, women are often killed and severely injured trying to leave or after they have left).
>THASF: WORK THINGS OUT with a therapist. Start a fucking blog. Shit. This post is NOT ABOUT YOU. Get it? And, please, PLEASE start smoking pot. It just might mellow you the fuck out.
>"Look, *THASF*, we don't care about your entire life story. Force-feeding it down our throats isn't going to make us care any more. In fact, it will only make us care less."You can't deny that my life's story contains anecdotal accounts that may be relevant to the issue at large. Even if it seems like I'm only playing at sympathy, you've got to look at the actual meaning and content there. My sister was a very real sufferer of physical and verbal oppression. I saw it happen before my very eyes, and there was nothing I could do to stop it. I couldn't change the system to save her.How would that make you feel? How would you like to be in my shoes? I actually fucking cry over this shit. I'm crying right now. Is that so strange? Are boys not supposed to cry?
>20 and sober,Off by a year. I must be slipping. THASF, listen, I'm a woman with Asperger's syndrome. It took me a long time to get the hang of staying on topic not blathering on about my interests. It's harder for some people than others, but it can be done. It's entirely possible you have a neurological disorder that requires extra effort in this area. I deeply sympathize. In any case, you really should see a therapist. And get your own blog. Not necessarily in that order.
>"And the official victim blaming has begun. No, THASF, it is not fair to assume that if one person gets beaten up by another that the victim did something to earn it." Well, all along I've been stating that I believe that it's wrong to deny another individual their personal utility. Also, I'm not assuming anything. I've just heard some rumors. One blog poster said he knew these two, and said that "she was a mental abuser and she used the kids as leverage". Probably MRA slander from someone who doesn't even know them at all, but you never know. I'm not saying one should assume that fault rests with the victim. I'm saying that – in the interest of fairness to all parties – one should always take the possibility of equal fault into account in any exchange between two human beings that leaves one side in a bad way. We would be hypocrites otherwise.Nevertheless, nothing she could have done would merit a response like this. He acted like a moron, and I honestly hope they put him away for a while."Grown ups making grown up decisions do not violently attack their exes when things do not go their own way. Then you start the whinging about "why didn't she just leave" except this woman did exactly that, she left this out of control asshat and then was attacked (which happens often, women are often killed and severely injured trying to leave or after they have left)."But then, was she in the right to leave him for another man? Men have feelings of abandonment too, you know. I think she was, and this incident proved it. Nevertheless, such a judgment may not apply if this was a one-time outburst and she had been pushing his buttons and working him into a frenzy for years beforehand. Once again, I don't know these people and I can't say either way. Hell, a woman in his shoes would probably have lashed out with an equal degree of violence, and she would be just as unjustified as he was in doing so.To make a long story short, I disagree with both the feminist bloggers and the MRAs. I don't think that the rights of one take precedence over the rights of the other. Not hers, and definitely not his.But you see, there's an issue with my point of view that introduces what appears to be a bias towards males. That's because I'm framing it in what we call a phallogocentric system. If we start defining rights, we soon realize that when we construct dichotomies like "he has a right to her body or he doesn't have a right to her body" or "he should have access to her body or he shouldn't have access to her body", we're objectifying the very concept of womanhood. How revolting indeed.In a phallogocentric system, the construct of marriage automatically constitutes the granting of rights to the male and the surrendering of rights by the female. Divorce then automatically constitutes the loss of rights and privileges by the male and the regaining of rights by the female. I think that this is an inherently dehumanizing logical construction, and it's one of the reasons why I'm so deeply angered at how humans operate in dominance hierarchies (i.e. "One must give a command, and the other must submit/obey."). Even if you flip the genders, the dichotomy of submission and dominance still exists. It's like the world is one big BDSM orgy or something. Why can't we have real equality? Tell me what needs to be done, and let's all do it together in unison as a species.
>"THASF, listen, I'm a woman with Asperger's syndrome. It took me a long time to get the hang of staying on topic not blathering on about my interests. It's harder for some people than others, but it can be done. It's entirely possible you have a neurological disorder that requires extra effort in this area. I deeply sympathize. In any case, you really should see a therapist. And get your own blog. Not necessarily in that order."I don't know how to say this, but a few months ago, I had this horrible ringing in my ears and got a panic attack. I felt like I was having a stroke or something. For the past year, I've tended to spoonerize my writing a lot. I can be typing along just fine, and all of a sudden, I'll transplant a letter from a following word to a preceding one. Like, I'll type "inequality sucks" and it comes out as "sinequality ucks" or something equally-bizarre.I guess one of the reasons why I'm writing so much crap like this is because I'm paranoid about losing my ability to write coherently. I'm trying to exercise my brain so I don't go totally go bonkers. Christ, I need to ditch this crap go for a walk or something. Get a breath of fresh air.
>THASF, please click this link. http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/*ahem* At the Kurzweilai.net forums, you will find many people willing and able to discuss transhumanism, post-scarcity, and related questions of ethics and philosophy. People who are interested in these things from all over the world! Who are willing to discuss these things at all hours of the day and/or night! It's a great place. Please go and say hello to them!
>I've had panic attacks and moments of aphasia myself, it's very disconcerting. But even if you are in crisis, especially if you are in crisis, this isn't the time and it isn't the place for what you're doing. You're only disturbing strangers on a blog. Go lie down. Do some focusing exercises like counting. That may help more than a walk. Then don't come back. Go write in a personal journal if you feel you must express yourself. Or find an on topic discussion at a transhumanist or post-scarcity site. Then contact someone who can give you guidance. A psychological hotline in your area would be a good place to start.
>Thasf: Just so you know.. not agreeing w/ nebody doesn't make you right, or smart… it makes you that kid in high school who thinks "I hate the geeks and the cheerleaders" makes them unique >_>;; The thing is, I know what you're saying makes a lot of sense to you, but … you're completely misunderstanding what's going on and feminism in general. You talk about everybody else's lack of self awareness, but you won't actually acknowledge your own biases :( And those biases and assumptions are shaping the way you see things. As much as you talk about everybody else being stuck in a social construct, you are too, more so than you think you are and more so than you think the ppl you're talking to are. :( The problem is that you're fighting a world that is not what you think it is, and b/c of that you're punching at shadows. You're not offending nebody, but they're confused why you keep saying "I GOT YOU GOOD" when you're punching at thin air :( You dun have to believe me, I know you prolly wun, secure in your knowledge of being the only true objective person. But… if you are who you say you are, and what's important to you is what you say it is, at least plz listen :) If not, then you can keep punching away but you will never get what you rly want, which is equality, b/c you're attacking structures and systems that aren't there :( I never comment here… and I'm not interested in a fight.. there's no point… and I appreciate your life story :) But I'm commenting just cuz something about you twinges me, like it twinges Zhinxy… we've been there.. or at least I have… I get it :( So I just want to tell you.. put the kb down and just think about it ok? :) Listen too… like ppl here have listened to you :) If they're wrong, they'll be wrong tomorrow and the next day and the next day too… but just… listen :) Also if things are as bad as you're saying in terms of keeping yourself together (as I said, I've been there… I'm thankfully alive now, but I've been there :( ) plz dun ignore those things. :( Plz :(
>That should be Talkstorie not Zhinxy… >_>;; her dual identities aren't a sekrit tho so it's ok :) just used to calling her Zhinxy :)
>Ami, you are a lot more civil toward THASF than I would be, and you've made some good points. Good job.Back on topic: Oh, The Spearhead, home of shrill, insecure misogynists since…I dunno, forever? Looks like forever to me.
>Wow, this is very…different.THASF, I sympathize with your having problems, but that doesn't mean we and this blog are here to help you deal with them. You need to find a more appropriate venue for that and restrict your posts here to things that are actually relevant.And, lest you are unaware, there is nothing particularly smart or compelling about your philosophical views. Materialist utilitarianism just screams "most obviously intuitive views in my high school philosophy class." You're welcome to believe it to your heart's content, but you're not going to impress, or even interest, very many people.
>Jesus Fuckin' Christ, THASF, what in the fuck of shit is WRONG WITH YOU?! Shut the fuck up already. Christ, you were told twenty comments and about twenty thousand selfish, self-indulgent, victim-blaming words ago to shut up and stick to the goddamned topic, which is the fact that MRAs see beating a woman as the appropriate response to anything tht's not servile obedience. And you just want to whine about yourself. Get your own fucking blog already. I have an acquaintance like this, who, when he does something wrong, mysteriously manages to change the subject to how bad he feels and how you—the person harmed by his character flaws and arrogance—should make him feel better and not mention restitution. I suspect he has done this to many, many people, but his status as a white guy enables him to get away with it. I see something of this in MRAs ability–indeed, obsession—with making everything about them. When they hit women, they probably complain that the bitch bruised their hand, and deserves to be arrested and punished for it. Also, Blogger sucks MRA balls, because it keeps telling me it can't comply with my fucking request, then I hit the back button and find out I've been signed in and can now post a comment. Which luckily I saved. Suck my tampon, Blogger or WordPress or whatever the hell this is.
>All right, after reading this thread I'm definitely going to 4chan.
>"You're welcome to believe it to your heart's content, but you're not going to impress, or even interest, very many people."Oh, so you're saying that humans are doomed to be emotional beings rather than rational ones by virtue of our biology? That we will forever be prone to the violent, childish outbursts like the one Mr. Gonzalez had?God, I hope that's not true.As far as high school philosophy goes, you give me too much credit. I'm a home-schooled kid who basically self-studied after the tenth grade. All my philosophical musings, no matter how trite (the school of Kantianism pretty much covered everything I just discussed) are derived from simple observation and integration of facts, like the way an old-school autodidact would do it. I was never exposed to the peer pressure or socialization forces present in a public school setting, so it's only a given that my perspective would seem totally alien to someone who has.I mean, knowledge has to come from somewhere, doesn't it? If you think about it, we may have schools and universities and the like now, but what about during Aristotle's time? Or before that? Who was the first teacher, and who did they learn from? The first teacher was necessarily an autodidact, because there was nobody around to teach them.I basically read some encyclopedias, observed how people interacted with each other, and started making my case in the hopes that I could provoke an intelligent debate on the matter. I'm sorry if I have trouble expressing my views in a way that doesn't come across as distasteful or pessimistic. You see, I'm not interested in getting people to believe what I'm saying and take it as an incontrovertible fact, but the exact opposite. By making these outlandish and controversial statements, I hope to incite others to question their own beliefs. To question everything they see. To exercise the power of skepticism frequently and heartily in all things. That's all I really want.
>Jesus, and THASF just proved me right by appropriating his sister's pain to be about him.
>THASF, you're not even trying. Now you're just actively being insulting.
>"Jesus Fuckin' Christ, THASF, what in the fuck of shit is WRONG WITH YOU?! Shut the fuck up already. Christ, you were told twenty comments and about twenty thousand selfish, self-indulgent, victim-blaming words ago to shut up and stick to the goddamned topic, which is the fact that MRAs see beating a woman as the appropriate response to anything tht's not servile obedience. And you just want to whine about yourself. Get your own fucking blog already."I'm not a victim-blamer. Under my utilitarian theories, the whole concept of victimization doesn't exist; only a loss of utility for the whole. By striking his ex, that man reduced not only her utility, but his own as well. Actually, he reduced the utility of the entire species. By inviting retaliation from the authorities, some – like those sneering philistines over at the Spearhead – might argue that he victimized only himself, using profoundly perverse, mutated versions of the same rules of classical, objective morality that most people subscribe to.Do you now see why I am disgusted with the current system of ethics that our species operates on? You may not realize it, but I'm essentially on the same page that you are. I believe that "men" like Mr. Gonzalez don't DESERVE to be treated like victims."Also, Blogger sucks MRA balls, because it keeps telling me it can't comply with my fucking request, then I hit the back button and find out I've been signed in and can now post a comment. Which luckily I saved. Suck my tampon, Blogger or WordPress or whatever the hell this is."Do you have your browser set up to clear cookies or keep them? When you post with an account selected from the drop-down, it wants to go through a little gateway where it gives an error while simultaneously baking a cookie/session for the browser to use. I've never really seen any site that does this other than Blogger. Just to be sure, I copy everything I write into the clipboard before posting it.
>Oh for god's sake. You aren't shocking us. You aren't making us question our beliefs. We've encountered homeschooled people before. You aren't an alien being. I was a bookworm, aspie, and autodidact myself. Hell, I've read a lot of Iain Banks. None of this stuff is really that out there. It's not that you come off as distasteful or pessimistic. It's that you're frequently off topic, bizarrely personal, and ridiculously psuedo-intellectual. Look, I'm done here. Please go to the forums I linked above to discuss transhumanism, ethics, philosophy, and politics with people who have similar interests. You won't get the satisfaction of being the only person talking about these things while everybody else goes on about trivialities, but you will learn some things about topics that interest you, and maybe, heaven forfend, make some friends. Now get out of here. I'm going to 4chan with Captain Bathrobe…
>On the moral question: Causing harm to another human being is wrong. It is wrong to use violence to harm people. I don't get why people are condemning this woman for having a boyfriend and looking for child support at the same time. If she did not seek child support, then she'd be a vicious leech forcing her boyfriend to pay for another man's children. There's just no way for her to win, is there? And I think that, as messed up as the kids might be from the divorce, having a dad this violent and unpredictable and with such poor judgment would screw them up more in the long run.
>"Jesus, and THASF just proved me right by appropriating his sister's pain to be about him."Appropriating my sister's pain to be about me? Oh, so you're acting like she's some kind of saint, and I'm some kind of crippled, defective little monster who lived in her shadow? How typical.My sister was gifted, but she wasn't always nice. Hell, one time when I was six and banging on pots and pans with spoons for the fun of it, she got pissed at the racket I was making and threw a spoon at me. It hit me right in the face and gave me a black eye. When I was a little older, she was a super-puritan about EVERYTHING. If I picked up a video game magazine in a bookstore, she'd pluck it from my fingers and screen it for violent or sexual content before allowing me to read it. She would even sit behind me during movies and make animal-like shrieks to drown out curse words. She was very good at making animal noises. Her impression of a velociraptor from Jurassic Park was spot-on. I would sometimes joke that she reminded me of one. I don't think you have a right to say that I "appropriated my sister's pain". Her pain is my pain. We were siblings. We didn't always get along, but we were very close. Now, all that's left is the regret. Heck, I hardly even remember the good times anymore.Everywhere I look, it's just shit, shit, shit.Sheesh, the way people talk, you'd think I was insane or needed therapy or something. My counter to that would be a simple one; how is it POSSIBLE for someone to remain sane when they're surrounded by assholes on all sides? When even the little guy on the street – either through ignorance or malevolence – aids and abets wars and corporate excesses? How is it possible for someone to stay sane when they realize that George Orwell's worst nightmares are a reality in China, where men and women work their fucking fingers to the bone for pennies an hour? Where female infants are murdered because they won't pass on the family name? Where they had to install suicide nets around the company dorms at a Foxconn plant to keep workers from escaping this fucked-up world? Where political dissidents get killed and have their organs harvested and sold to westerners who need a transplant after fucking up their livers by overindulging in expensive liquor that the poor, young Chinese man or woman whose liver they're stealing would never be able to afford?All to supply America with mountains of CHEAP. PLASTIC. CRAP.How can anyone call themselves sane in an insane world? The way I see it, YOU'RE the selfish, indulgent, and pretentious ones if you can't see how fucked-up everything is!
>"Look, I'm done here. Please go to the forums I linked above to discuss transhumanism, ethics, philosophy, and politics with people who have similar interests. You won't get the satisfaction of being the only person talking about these things while everybody else goes on about trivialities, but you will learn some things about topics that interest you, and maybe, heaven forfend, make some friends."Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. Also, thanks for being polite and understanding how difficult it is to have a brain that's as fucked-up as mine is. A brain that makes me do and say self-centered crap. Trust me, I'm not someone to be envied. I'm so deep in my own fantasies about how the world works that I don't even have a fucking clue. I can't even frame a debate without putting myself and my own experiences on a pedestal, because I don't personally know about anyone else and their own traumatic experiences.Some people say I have a big head like I have a big ego or something, but my head actually is PHYSICALLY huge. 24 and a half inches in circumference. I wonder if I have hydrocephaly or something? I also have a jaw that clicks due to some kind of TMJ-like disorder. When I was younger, I had perpetual throbbing pain in my temples due to pinched nerves in my jaw. I had my wisdom teeth out recently because they were causing me pain and my jaw just wasn't big enough. Plus, I'm a massive hypochondriac who's stressed out about my mental and physical condition all the frickin' time, even if I'm probably fine and it's all in my damn fool head. I don't need enemies. I'm my own worst enemy, believe me. I just wish I had some friends, sometimes. Just someone to talk to. That's all.Been fun, guys. I'm out.
>@THASF…Dude.You're using real life examples of messed up stuff, and then concluding that the entire world just as messed up in order to make yourself look better. That's not being intelligent or enlightened, that's being insanely pessimistic. Seeing and recognizing fucked up events/subjects is one thing, crowing self-righteously about how one is above it all is another. If you see the fucked up things that occur in this planet, you could do more than play "armchair philosopher", you could ACTUALLY WORK TO PROMOTE SOME POSITIVE CAUSES. Donate to an organization, open the door for someone when they're about to walk into a store/cafe, do some volunteer work, write a letter and send it to a magazine or something.Digital Soapboxes do not a difference make. It's easy to philosophize, it's harder to take action, but you know what? The latter is rewarding, the latter is puffery.
>Opps, I meant, "The latter is rewarding, the former is puffery." Being angry and staying up late at night does that to one's grammar.
>God, you're disgusting, THASF. And you sure do want to whine about how mean people are to you when you're not even close to getting their meaning. Not to mention the fact that it's not about you. David, I'd say leave everything he's written so far up, but delete everything after this point. He refuses to listen, or change, or do anything but whine about how we just don't grasp what a truly special snowflake he really is.
>I know I said I'd quit, but I have to respond to these points:"Donate to an organization,"Ever hear of a thing called corruption? What guarantee would I have that my money wouldn't end up in the hands of an African warlord and be used to further their campaigns of rape and genocide?Check this out:Ethiopia: Donors Should Investigate Misuse of Aid MoneyAfrican corruption is a crime against humanityWhy Foreign Aid Is Hurting AfricaSee what I mean? It's stuff like this that makes me want to headdesk so hard that I turn my Unicomp-made copy of an IBM Model M into a pile of rubble."open the door for someone when they're about to walk into a store/cafe,"I always hold the door for people."do some volunteer work,"I would, but my mother wouldn't approve of such a thing. She was always going on about how "Good Samaritans are always the first ones to get killed," and other such brilliant Aesop's fables.In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.Honestly, I remember a few years back when I was riding in the car with her, and I pointed out all the trash alongside the highway and said "hey, maybe we should get a few trash bags some road flares and some traffic vests and clean that up? Make things a little prettier around here."You know what she said? She said that "there are other people who do that, you don't need to put yourself out like that. You'd probably get arrested anyway". Christ almighty. If everyone thought like that, then nothing would get done!"write a letter and send it to a magazine or something."What magazine? Reader's Digest, or something? I'd probably get some smart-ass, dismissive response from the editors for expressing my views. That is, if they printed them at all, which I sincerely doubt.
>THASF, best of luck finding a better forum to talk about what you want to talk about, and getting some help for your issues. I mean that. But we're moving on here. Please, everyone, don't post or reply to off-topic stuff; I'll delete it if/when I see it, but at this point responding to it doesn't help either.
>THASF really has trouble with simple instructions, doesn't he? How many times did we tell him "Stop telling us stories about your personal life" and how many stories about his personal life did he keep piling on?Oh, so you're saying that humans are doomed to be emotional beings rather than rational ones by virtue of our biology? That we will forever be prone to the violent, childish outbursts like the one Mr. Gonzalez had?God, I hope that's not true.Does anyone have any idea where this came from? I said I wasn't impressed that he was a materialist utilitarian, and he replied with…this? He thinks that if you're not a materialist utilitarian, you're, I guess, some kind of biological-determinist nihilist? Seriously, I'm looking for any kind of clue here.It's a dead giveaway that he's spouting philosophical terminologies without understanding what he or anyone else is saying.
>derived from simple observation and integration of facts, like the way an old-school autodidact would do it. I was never exposed to the peer pressure or socialization forces present in a public school setting, so it's only a given that my perspective would seem totally alien to someone who has.No. Just no. You don't seem alien. You seem puerile and simplistic. Want to know why we don't learn like old-school autodidacts anymore? Because actual old-school autodidacts already thought of everything you'll ever come up with on your own. Same reason we have math books instead of expecting everyone to derive calculus (pun!) from first principles. Everything you've said has been picked apart ad nauseam for hundreds of years.At best, you're going to trumpet well-known ideas as though they were brilliant innovations. At worst, you're going to cling to obviously fallacious and debunked ideas because you don't know any better.
>Oh–sorry, David. I was composing this post and hadn't refreshed the page. (I won't post the last bit, where I pointed out that nothing he's said resembles Kant even a little bit. Please don't delete my previous posts, though. I spent time on those.)BTW, your blog really does eat long posts.
>By "covered", I meant Kantianism criticizedutilitarianism… ahh, never mind. Forget I said any of that crap. Back on topic, then.The Gonzalez family is just one broken family out of many. Both the MRAs and the anti-MRAs have their scopes set a little too narrow; I think we all need to look at the bigger picture, here. This problem is the result of feelings of personal entitlement that men and women equally share. Neither this man nor his ex seem to understand the concept of self-sacrifice for the sake of the greater good. That's just my humble opinion.Hell, I'm sounding like one of WH40K's Tau, aren't I? FOR THE GREATER GOOD, and all that.
>OK, that was actually on topic. Good for you.Except you're still equating what the two of them did as though it was equal. How is the woman being entitled for wanting the father to help support her children? And how does the woman not getting child support help anyone? It gives more money to someone abusive and irresponsible, and leaves her kids without support. By sheer numbers, that's three people getting hurt and only one gaining anything.And no. You sound like Hot Fuzz.
>As far as the photo goes, I find it kind of interesting that everyone's focusing on the (admittedly horrific) extent of her injuries. But what about him? Upon close inspection of his facial features, I can't help but notice how remarkably similar he looks to me. Similar eyes, similar head shape, similar jaw, similar mouth. The dead stare. The cyanosis of the lips. Similar everything. Trust me, this isn't some kind of narcissism thing, because I don't see that degree of similarity very often.I mean, look at his crooked jaw. Maybe he had temporomandibular joint-related headaches growing up? Maybe his anger-management issues are a result of pinched nerves and perpetual stress as a result of these genetic/growth defects?If true, that's pitiful. Honestly, I think a lot of folks – men and women alike – are wandering around out there with latent, undiagnosed systemic illnesses that negatively affect their quality of life and turn them into abusive, hateful fucks when they grow older. Kind of sets up an argument for the virtues of eugenics, huh? Like, maybe we shouldn't be breeding people who are going to grow up to be mentally, physically and emotionally-defective?It's still no excuse for violence.
>"Except you're still equating what the two of them did as though it was equal. How is the woman being entitled for wanting the father to help support her children? And how does the woman not getting child support help anyone? It gives more money to someone abusive and irresponsible, and leaves her kids without support. By sheer numbers, that's three people getting hurt and only one gaining anything."Well, there are multiple stages to this problem. First off, these two individuals – Paul and Catherine – decided to marry. Second, they decided to have kids. Third, one or both of them decided to divorce. Fourth, she arrived at the Broward County courthouse for a divorce hearing, and he flew off the handle and beat the crap out of her in the judge's chambers. In this, he was totally out of line; this we can all agree on.Those are the only stages we can identify. There may be more. Is it not rational to say that – during any of the aforementioned stages – both parties could have, at varying times, shown degrees of self-interest that were detrimental to their marriage and neglectful of the well-being of their children?
>I'm not saying that he shouldn't have to pay child support. He should. It's the law, and it's what's best for the kids in this circumstance.What I'm saying is that they both showed poor judgment when they chose to put their own personal comfort ahead of raising their kids properly. Though, in retrospect, who would want those kids to be raised by an abusive fuck like this? Here's hoping her new man isn't such a dick, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
>Isn't it weird how every one of these threads ends up having a target that everyone else dogpiles on? I was there a couple of times, NWO, THASF… well, I guess it keeps things interesting, otherwise you'd just have a bunch of people agreeing with each other and the whole thing would die after 10-20 comments.
>Agreed, Ion. It's very weird that every one of these threads ends up with someone rambling at 3 comments per 1 comment made by everyone else, virtually none of which manage to A) present a coherent argument, or generally B) present any coherence at all.
>"Kind of sets up an argument for the virtues of eugenics, huh? Like, maybe we shouldn't be breeding people who are going to grow up to be mentally, physically and emotionally-defective?"Wow, that is morally repulsive. It is also factually inaccurate. People with mental illnesses, including people with psychosis, are not more likely to commit violent crimes. Your asinine theories about criminality and head shape were debunked about a century ago. Attitudes like yours are extremely harmful to the wellbeing of people with disabilities. They also do not decrease crime. The opposite, in fact, because they tend to be used as excuses to reduce deterence of perfectly deterable individuals.
>"Wow, that is morally repulsive. It is also factually inaccurate."Hence why I used the terms "kind of" and "maybe". Perhaps there are futuristic alternatives to primitive, immoral eugenics, like in-utero gene therapy, pharmaceuticals or cybernetic augmentations? Note that by cybernetics, I don't necessarily mean stuff like super-powered robo-prosthetics that let you jump ten stories or any of that Hollywood nonsense. I mean something like a small spinal implant that modulates the nervous system, controlling stress hormone releases and preventing paresthesia-like conditions or unexplained, continuous pain/headaches, et cetera.I mean, what about conditions like harlequin ichthyosis or treacher-collins syndrome? Can you honestly say that some of these kinds of congenital disorders shouldn't be eliminated from the populace by any means necessary in order to minimize suffering?I mean, I just don't get it. Where did this guy learn to hit women like that? What lowered his moral and intellectual inhibitions to the point where he would stoop to such savagery? Is it because he's a Marine? Is it because they taught him to be a killer? Is that it?I mean, honestly. Where do these people go wrong? Why can't we find that negative stimulus and eliminate it once and for all?
>"Your asinine theories about criminality and head shape were debunked about a century ago."I wasn't talking about phrenology or anything like that. Rather, I was merely suggesting that the presence of certain phenotypical traits in this individual may be an indicator for growth disorders that may lead to constant physical pain and depression later in one's life. That doesn't make them criminals automatically, of course, but it may be a contributing factor when combined with the stress of modern life.It is a fact that people with certain ethnic backgrounds are more prone to certain genetic diseases and abnormalities. Disorders like sickle cell anemia and thalassemia have higher affected populations in people of African or Asian descent, respectively. Similarly, I believe that there's a whole host of genetic disorders that may be specific to people of Hispanic or Caucasian descent. Now, keep in mind that I'm not proposing genocide or euthanasia or such evil, radical measures as those. Genetic screening combined with voluntary sterilization may be the only "good" eugenics regime possible. It would be even better if we could correct abnormalities during the gestational process. For instance, I have astigmatic eyes. Without corrective eyewear, I can barely read one of those high-contrast green and white road signs when it's six feet in front of my face. Lots and lots of people have this condition, so I'm hardly unique. Can you honestly say that we wouldn't have been better off if medical science had some way to prevent it before we were even born?Sorry, I guess I'm getting off-topic again. I just wish there was some way to explain all the barbarity that goes on in the world. For the record, there isn't. Just human nature, I guess. I mean, think about it. How would a human explain our barbarous nature to an alien race? For that matter, how would a parasite that eats the tongues of fish like Cymothoa Exigua justify its existence to us?See, this is why I hate terms like "disgusting" or "morally repulsive". They imply that a universal standard of repulsiveness exists and that all things should adhere to it. There isn't. We made it up, based on our irrational gut-feelings. Nature is cruel that way.One time when someone tried getting all theological with me, I pointed out things like parasitic worms and insect-killing fungi. I said "are those god's creations too?" The guy actually tried pulling that whole "Those exist because god cursed the earth/They're the invention of the devil!" thing.It was this sort of illogical recourse to conventional "feel-good" notions of morality that made me come to embrace utilitarianism as the ideal. It's because systems of ethics based on gut-feelings about right and wrong do not meet the scientific criteria for falsifiability.Of course, this is the part where most would insist that "humans are emotional creatures, so we need to take our precious feelings into account". Yes, sadly. Humans are emotional creatures. That's why a grown man flipped out and beat his ex half to death right in the middle of a goddamn courthouse. :(Is it wrong to ask for humans to exercise a little logic? A little reason?
>http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/philosopher.htm
>David, don't be afraid to wield the banhammer. The banhammer is your friend.
>Here's another thought, THASF: What if the blue I see, is, like, not the blue you see? What if we both just *call* it "blue" but if I saw through your eyes it'd really be, like, green?Duuuuuude.
>"I mean, I just don't get it. Where did this guy learn to hit women like that? What lowered his moral and intellectual inhibitions to the point where he would stoop to such savagery? Is it because he's a Marine? Is it because they taught him to be a killer? Is that it?"It's called the Patriarchy. Under such a system, men and women are socialized to believe that men are simply better than women by virtue of the fact that they are men. Ever hear about the experiment where children were told that people with a certain eye color were superior? That is how sexism and racism start.A boy is told that men are just 'naturally' more aggressive, that they can't help it. He is taught that it is women's job to 'tame the beast' within him, that is it women's job to always be nice and understanding, because, of course, women are just much better at that sort of thing.Since now the responsibility for a man's behavior and actions is dependent on a woman, it becomes her fault when he lashes out. Or, if he doesn't have a wife or girlfriend, it becomes all of womanity's fault for not being willing to take care of him.Now, if you really want to increase your understanding of the matter instead of just blathering about how mind-boggling it is, trying googling 'Feminism 101.'
>@Darkside CatPsychosis by definition is an uncontrollable altered state. People can commit violent crime under it but it cannot be charged. A Psychiatric patient knocking out a nurse is not going to be charged. It's not a crime due to mental state. However psychotic states and paranoid states do cause people to commit more violent crimes. The important thing to realise about "crazy people" is that they think they are sane. The logic of their thoughts generally is solid EXCEPT for one crucial bit. A simple explanation for THASF?The army is not a place for inculcating young men with a balanced world view in the hopes of turning them into productive members of society.You learn how to kill and how to follow orders. When you go to a war, you practice how to kill and how to follow orders. Only it's not the way how it's supposed to be. It's a lot more yelling and screaming. The enemy often is shooting back at you and no one cares if you crap yourself in fear (oh yes. No one shows that bit in a war movie.) Soon you are jumping at shadows. Often you will come under fire and you cannot do anything because you have no orders and no support. So you just sit there getting shot at with no one to lash out against. At some point something breaks inside you. You fear everything. But you are trained to fight fear with rage so it doesn't show. When you go back home you still are stuck in this mentality where when you are placed outside a comfort zones you wish to physically lash out, because that is all you know. Because all your problems could be solved by punching them before this. It's very hard to control without therapy and without medications. PTSD is the leading cause for divorces and break ups post service. It is also the cause of suicide in many soldiers post war. A lot of abuse is due to this. It's the sufferer's fault because you can control it. It's a case of willpower. But willpower is in short supply when you are a PTSD sufferer. Addictive behaviour is common.Or alternatively he could be a giant abusive arsehole… I would say test him for PTSD and get him the help he needs if he has it. Parole should be linked to his progress as a PTSD sufferer. No parole if he is just a giant berk who hits women.
>Amnesia…The army trains you to solve your problems through force. When you serve in a combat zone you are placed under incredible stress.You are taught in training to obey order and handle a weapon. No one tells you about "what it's like". War is chaotic and no one really follows any rules. No one tells you about "how you will be so scared you will actually lose bowel control". Or how someone will shoot your friend in the leg solely to have him lying there injured so your unit cannot move (you cannot leave him behind). Sometimes you don't have orders to engage despite being under fire and you have to just sit there and hope that amongst all the bullets labelled "to whomsoever it may concern" there isn't one with your name on it. Something breaks inside you and you respond to threats with violence. Because that is what you are trained to do. And it's a fine way to be in the army since your discipline ensures that you only lash out against the enemy. The problem is this mentality is now hardwired. You think like that because it is how combat PTSD works. Your response to fear and stress is violence. Oh there are actual physical changes such as excess testosterone and adrenaline. Clouds your judgement and makes you have wild mood swings. It's why you get therapy and drugs to control them. Not a Patriarchy, just a fact of life. Not everything has to be about male dominated societies. Women who served also respond violently and since men have a lower tolerance for this in relationships they often leave. Women Combat PTSD sufferers are "complete loners" who live in little bubbles of anger. That being said this is the most likely reason for this occurrence. It could be that the man is a raging dick. The Raging Dick option is always a good call. It doesn't have to be patriarchy so much as "the guy is an arsehole".
>And thus THASF dismisses the woman's injuries once again to focus on the poor widdle wife beater, speculating that maybe he came from the planet MOngo and thus suffered space sickness and she shouldn't have provoked him. Or something. But he's not that different from our resident MRAs; they find men fascinating, but women are just punching bags with vaginas. She must have done something to make him pissed off, because to assholes like Ion—who sees only a dogpile on poor widdle dipshit—all guys get the benefit of the doubt. These guys always trust other guys. They value other guys. They hate women. Why don't they just fuck one another and leave the rest of us alone?
>Avicenna, will you quit with the bullshit? You're making excuses for this asshole too and in the process revealing that you get all your information about the military and PTSD from Viet Nam era war movies and fuck only knows what else. Excess testosterone? Anything but to blame the guy himself, I guess. Jeez. Some guys are just desperate to justify one guy attacking a woman. You're one of them. It's vile.
>Here's another thought, THASF: What if the blue I see, is, like, not the blue you see? What if we both just *call* it "blue" but if I saw through your eyes it'd really be, like, green? Duuuuuude.Dude, that just blew my mind. I'm freaking out here! Pass the Cheetos.
>assholes like Ionginmar, are you angry all the time because you got your legs blown off in the war, like Lieutenant Dan? Just wondering.