>
 |
| Er, not so much. |
Sometimes this job is just too easy. Sometimes I don’t have to even bother to check in on my favorite manosphere sites to find hair-raisingly awful quotes to feature here. Sometimes the Boobz are thoughtful enough to leave them in the comments here.
Take this quote from resident MGTOWer Cold, who currently seems to be spending more time on this blog than I am, comparing rape and child support. (You don’t think these two items are actually in any way comparable? Clearly you do not understand Boob Logic.)
In response to commenter Amused, who pointed out that “being ordered to support a child you’ve fathered isn’t the same as being pinned down and penetrated against your will,” Cold responded:
Exactly, it’s much, much worse. The latter lasts for some number of minutes, the former for at least 18 years. Given the choice it would be a no-brainer for me, and I think a very large number of men agree with me on this.
Setting aside the appalling trivialization of rape as something that’s over in “some number of minutes,” what does this say about Cold’s attitudes towards children? Paying a couple of hundred buck a month to pay for some of the expenses for a child you fathered – your own flesh and blood – is worse than being raped?
If Cold ever becomes a father, through circumstances which are frankly too horrible to imagine, I feel safe in saying that he will not be winning any “father of the year” awards.
I can just imagine the following scenario, some 11 or so years into the future:
EXTERIOR, MOVIE THEATER
Cold’s 10-year-old son: Happy Father’s day, daddy! I’m so glad we’re going to see Toy Story 5! I love Woody!
Cold: Yeah, so does your whore mom, if you know what I mean.
Son: Huh?
Cold: When you get older, you’ll understand. Did I mention that you mom’s a whore? One, please!
Son: Um, daddy, why did you buy only one ticket?
Cold: It’s for me. Get your own. You get enough of my money as it is. I stick my dick in your mom for two fucking minutes, and I’m screwed for life. It’s worse than rape!
Son: Um, daddy, I don’t have any money. I’m ten.
Cold: Well, you should have thought of that when you were a sperm!
Son: When I was a what?
Cold: I’m going in. See you in two hours.
Son: Dad? What am I supposed to do now?
Cold: Not my problem! I’m Going Galt! I’m Going My Own Way! You were a MISTAKE!
Son quietly sobs
Cold: Hey, when we get back to your mom’s place later, remind me to tell her she’s a filthy whore.
And … scene!
(By the way, Cold actually does claim to be going Galt, if self-admitted tax evasion counts.)
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>No, e-string, who to my knowledge has never had any kind of conversation with me unless he is someone I know on some other site, made a "by the same logic" argument aka a reductio ad absurdum. In such an argument the logical structure is maintained while the specific objects of the argument are swapped for the purpose of illustrating how absurd the argument is. You only THOUGHT he was directly comparing child support to rape because your intellect is too feeble to comprehend what he was actually saying. YOU were the one who actually made the initial comparison. Cold: My intellect is strong enough not to be short-circuited by fifty-cent words that you employ as a veneer for idiotic ideas. Not matter how many times you say your "abracadabra" ("abracadabrum"?), it won't fool me, nor, frankly, anyone else. So you might as well lay off the incantations.You don't understand AT ALL how reductio ad absurdum works. (As Plato — who managed to become, arguably, Western civilization's greatest philosopher without resorting to fancy-sounding verbiage, a "technique" he in fact despised — shows clearly, being a snob doesn't make you an intellectual, but quite the opposite; pseudo-intellectual snobbery is the hallmark of a vulgarian.) You'd think it would be impossible for you to sound even more like an ass, but you've scaled new lows here with your little lecture on a subject with which you are obviously unfamiliar. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I do note that since your definition of this form of argumentation is, well, absurd, it's possible your comment was an attempt at humor, Scott Adams-style."Reductio ad absurdum" doesn't mean you attack one proposition by dragging in something that's utterly irrelevant. So yeah, call it by any fancy name you wish, e-string brought up rape in order to trivialize it by comparing it to child support.
>"Reductio ad absurdum" is often used to describe a "by the same logic" argument even though that differs from the original academic meaning in which a premise or conclusion is shown to logically lead to something absurd. Both meanings can be accurately described by the Latin words and both work by taking an essential aspect of the argument and showing its absurdity, not that I would expect you to be able to grasp this simple truth without difficulty.E-string used rape and child support as interchangeable specifics in the same logical structure. Semantics aside you have demonstrated your severe lack of intellect by being unable to distinguish between the use of two different things as interchangeable logical objects and the assertion that the two things are similar.
>"Reductio ad absurdum" is often used to describe a "by the same logic" argument even though that differs from the original academic meaning in which a premise or conclusion is shown to logically lead to something absurd. Both meanings can be accurately described by the Latin words and both work by taking an essential aspect of the argument and showing its absurdity, not that I would expect you to be able to grasp this simple truth without difficulty.What YOU don't seem to grasp is that using Latin words doesn't render an otherwise nonsensical argument meaningful. You truly do use Latin verbiage as magical incantations — this is not an exaggeration, you really are doing it. It's sad, really. You are using this terminology you clearly don't understand the same way a drunkard uses a lamp post — for support rather than illumination. By the way, nice attempt to distinguish between "the original academic meaning" and supposedly some other, non-academic (but intellectual!) "reductio ad absurdum", as a way to justify your complete ignorance. Academic or not, in this form of argumentation, the absurd conclusion must flow from the premises being attacked, rather than some sort of a "substitution". "If A is B, then XYZ" is NOT "reductio ad absurdum"; what it is, is moronic prating with a dash of pretentiousness.E-string used rape and child support as interchangeable specifics in the same logical structure.*Eye roll* Jesus Christ, you are a sad, sad case. E-string used rape as something "interchangeable" with child support. He didn't pick murder, he didn't pick the Holocaust, he didn't pick cancer. He picked rape. Why? To trivialize it. And for you to deny that this is the case — THAT's a blatant falsehood.Semantics aside you have demonstrated your severe lack of intellect by being unable to distinguish between the use of two different things as interchangeable logical objects and the assertion that the two things are similar. You've demonstrated your severe lack of intellect by confusing reductio ad absurdum with tu quoque, you ass. Also, child support and rape aren't "interchangeable logical objects". Although this will make an honorable entry into the Pseudo-Intellectual Bullshit Hall of Fame: "I wasn't comparing apples to oranges! I merely treated them as interchangeable logical objects!"
>Your contract with the phone company is voluntary, moron.Taxes and rent, though? Not so much. Paying for other people to have roads and healthcare and stuff: SO MUCH WORSE THAN RAPE. Oh, and nice ableist language there.
>Cold – why on earth would you desire my empathy? You've made it clear that empathy is not something you value, so why do you care if I have it towards you or not?
>"Cold – why on earth would you desire my empathy? You've made it clear that empathy is not something you value, so why do you care if I have it towards you or not?"Well, Sally, it goes like this: first, Cold bashes you for lacking empathy re. his monumentally tragic life, then (I bet) he'll answer the above question by telling you you can shove your empathy where the sun don't shine because he doesn't need your goddamned empathy, he's a MAN!! It's all devilish, wickedly clever manipulation, Sally, you see, just like imaginary Machiavelli. You are supposed to realize that underneath that cold (hint!), chiseled, granite-hard and uncompromising exterior is a tortured but beautiful man who has spent all his life longing for a woman's devotion, and repeatedly had his love desecrated, and that's why he's a hypermanly man whose soul lies all torn and bleeding, and all he's ever wanted was … twoo wuw. (This is supposed to make you swoon and drop your virtual panties, not necessarily in that order.)
>Wow Amused, that was an incredibly detailed speculation. It's almost as if you have imagined this kind of personality before, perhaps as you pleasure yourself with your vibrator since no self-respecting man will touch you?Oh, and I'm not even going to address your moronic screed(ohhh, there's more ableist language) about the use of Latin shorthand and your inability to tell the difference between a comparison and an expository analogy. It basically speaks for itself, and it doesn't say anything good about your intellect.
>Cold – why on earth would you desire my empathy?Indeed, why would I? I certainly never said I desired it. You may have imagined that I did for reasons that I don't care to know, but the fact remains that I said no such thing.
>I was looking for recent information on what happens in custody disputes. This site is not a research site but suggests the following:There are now 2.2 million divorced women in the United States who do not have primary physical custody of their children, and an estimated 50 percent of fathers who seek such custody in a disputed divorce are granted it.So it sounds like 2.2. million women must send a check in every month, too. It also sounds like fathers do pretty well in those disputed custody cases.Note also that child maintenance payments are for the child. Not the custodial parent.
>Wow Amused, that was an incredibly detailed speculation. It's almost as if you have imagined this kind of personality before, perhaps as you pleasure yourself with your vibrator since no self-respecting man will touch you?Oooh, Cold, I see you've brought out the heavy artillery. "When all else fails, make juvenile insinuations about her sex life! THAT'll show her!" I vaguely remember you expressing righteous outrage when someone made a nasty comment about your sex life (even though you were the one who brought it up first). I think it was shortly before or shortly after you lectured us on the importance to treating people the way you yourself expect to be treated. Anyway, it's like this: my sex life is none of your fucking business. I confess I don't know the Latin shorthand for that, so I can only hope it's unambiguous enough for you.Oh, and I'm not even going to address your moronic screed(ohhh, there's more ableist language) about the use of Latin shorthand and your inability to tell the difference between a comparison and an expository analogy. It basically speaks for itself, and it doesn't say anything good about your intellect.What does it matter? The important thing is that you've just admitted that e-string analogized child support to rape. You poor thing. Bloopers like this often come on the heels of unimaginative sexual insults whose authors have too high an opinion of their puny intellects; although, neither you nor e-string left much room for arguing that by claiming that paying child support is worse than rape, you weren't actually comparing child support to rape. Oh, and I'm not worried about the impression my words make about my intellect. After all, I'm not the one posturing here.
>Not sure how I missed that comment from Cold. I don't delete a lot of comments — practically none — but that's over the line. Since it's been commented on I'll leave it up, but, yeah. What *is* the Latin term for having such a weak argument that you have to resort to making rude remarks about what you imagine someone else's sex life to be?
>@David, it certainly falls under "ad hominem" in most cases.
>Cold, if you'd pop your head up out from under your rock, you'd easily find the truth about both the Assange lawyers' statements AND the holocaust denier's identity. Unless, of course, you had some reason to cherish the idea of a false rape accusation. I'm not in the habit of re-inventing the wheel for MRAs who demand cites and then either don't read them or lie about them. In any event, the truly interesting thing about your belief about this case is that you're so gleeful and joyous at the opportunity to call women liars. So much for that defense that you were raped yourself, huh? And many of the most scurrilous things about the Assange case can be easily sourced to the same one or two articles…based on quotes by the lawyers. Either you're stupid or dishonest to ignore that. Take your pick.
>BTW, David, you might pass the IRS a quick note about Cold's other comment; they tend to be interested in such things.
>I think there is a point that is being overlooked here in saying child support is the result of a misandrist system.Women. Pay. Child. Support. Too.I am a child support enforcment prosecutor. Nearly half of our cases involve mothers as noncustodial parents ordered to pay support. Not only that, but having worked in the system every day, I can most assuredly say it is not as many of these bitter non custodial parents are saying. No one is thrown in jail for merely being poor. Judges and attorneys do work for the best interest of the child and we realize that throwing someone in jail is counter intutive. Noncustodial parents are worked with closely to ensure that the amount set is the correct and is neither too high or too low, we provide job placement resources and referals to vocational rehabiliation programs to help them get back on their feet and we give multiple second chances. It's only after months of the noncustodial parent showing an utter lack of willingness to participate in these opportunities or make any sort of effort towards taking care of the child that they helped bring in to this world that they actually serve any jail time. The child support system is not a pefect system by any means, but it isn't this gross injustice that ruins a man's (or woman's) life. Rape, on the other hand, is.