>
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.
>@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.
>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.