Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, mgriff2k4 is angry that the picture to the right here showed up on his computer screen. Sorry, make that fucking angry. “Did this really just fucking pop up on my news feed?” he asks in the title of his post, adding in a comment: “sorry about the word “fucking” but im really pissed off about this.”
Why is he angry? Presumably, he assumes the statistic is untrue, and that it unfairly paints men as evil murderers.
Luckily, in this Age of the Internet it is trivially easy to find out whether statistics like this are true. It involves something called “Google.” mgriff2k4 did not bother to avail himself of this easy-to-use research tool.
But I did. In less than 5 minutes, I confirmed that this factoid is indeed true, at least according to the most recent figures on gender and homicide found on the Department of Justice’s web site, drawn from FBI data covering the years from 1976-2005. According to the FBI, 30% of women who are murdered are murdered by “intimates.” Roughly 20% are killed by husbands or ex-husbands; 10% by boyfriends or girlfriends. (In the overwhelming majority of cases the murderers are boyfriends, not girlfriends; men are ten times more likely to commit murder than women.)
While four times as many men are murdered than women, only 5% of murdered men are killed by “intimates.” Men kill women more than twice as often as women kill men. Women suffer far more serious injuries from domestic violence than men do; so it is not altogether unexpected that they are also far more likely to be murdered by intimates.
If you want to see what this means on a human level, I suggest you take a look at the excellent if depressing web site Domestic Violence Crime Watch, which links to stories in which men are the perpetrators, and in which men are the victims. There are far more of those in the former category than in the latter.
I should note that (as of this writing) one commenter in the thread also found his way to the DOJ site, and noted that men were more likely to be killed by strangers or acquaintances. But he didn’t bother to tell mkgriff2k4 that the sign in the picture was in fact accurate.
“I suggest that your time would be better spent at Derailing for Dummies, fighting the good fight. Kittenwar. Leekspin.com.”
Could always waste time with the Procatinator.
So, Varpole, who declaims on antimanboobz that he won’t comment here (I gave up on trying to comment there when he said the requirement was that I pretend he was making an argument he wasn’t making), therefore makes a sockpuppet to tell himself he ought to stop blogging at anti-manboobz?
Whoa… wherever it is he get’s whatever it is he’s smoking, that’s some serious shit. He might want to share.
For the “record,” Definitely NOT cloudiah… is not me. The fact we have the same IP address is an amazing coincidence, but stranger things have happened; sometimes IP addresses have identical twins, but sometimes they’re fraternal and don’t look alike at all. 😉
(The best part is that he has a WP blog so he should have known how easy it would be to track his sockpuppet via IP address — but he couldn’t help himself. I know, I know, man boobz is a compulsion..)
Pecunium — “Whoa… wherever it is he get’s whatever it is he’s smoking, that’s some serious shit. He might want to share.” — Yes it is, and no he shouldn’t! Not with me anyways, that’s more like PCP than anything plant based. (Lol, if it is PCP, he may not even realize he’s sockpuppeting, that’d be kind of hilarious…)
Cloudiah — “The fact we have the same IP address is an amazing coincidence, but stranger things have happened” — it’s your roommate, right? 🙂
I believe it was my cat, Hazel. I am pretty sure it wasn’t (cat) Buster, because she’s still wearing the cone of shame. I did not know Hazel was a MRA! I will attempt to cure her via belly rubs, ear scritches, and salmon treats.
Sorry I’m late to the conversation, but I was out making Microsoft punch General Mills.
Hmm. Has Varpole been trolling us the whole time?
If you mean trolling us as in “he’s actually a feminist who’s been pretending the whole time,” no, the dedication and cleverness required to pull off such a ruse is inconsistent with the vapidity and incoherence of Anti-Manboobz, and the sense of humor required is inconsistent with Varpole’s bitterness.
Just because you have incompatibly sized genitalia in relation to my genitalia does not invalidate what I have to say.
That’s what misogynists get for thinking in sex-binary. I mean, it’s not like there is only ONE WAY to have sex. But then again, I’m not sure we should tell them that. Their heads might explode at the idea that “sex” can be multifaceted and involve stuff other than PiV.
Did anyone else just break out laughing when Linus Buttwalds or whatever varpole’s troll name was got to “somewhere you can make a difference in the real world”?
I just saw there was a discussion on free will in this thread! And that’s totally the subject of my doctoral dissertation! I’m bringing back that topic!
In philosophy, there are different ideas about what COUNTS as having free will. Here are examples of some positions people have defended and are still defending:
1. You acted out of your own free will when there were no external force and no internal compulsion in terms of severe neurosis or the like.
2. You act out of your own free will when your second-level desires conform to your first-level desires. First-level desires are desires for things or acts, while second-level desires are desires for other desires. Like, a smoker might have a first-level desire to smoke, but a second-level desire not to have urges for cigaretts. But when these match, you act out of your own free will.
3. You act out of your own free will when you’re reason-responsive. That is, you do what you do for a reason, and if a sufficiently strong reason to do the opposite had been present you would have done otherwise.
4. Roughly something like 1, 2 or 3 holds AND it’s the case that your brain isn’t completely deterministic, but there’s some indeterminism present at the right place in the decision-making process.
5. We can initiate completely new causal chains with our decisions. Environment and genes may push us in this or that direction, but at the end of the day it’s completely up to ME whether I let them push me or not. I am the ultimate cause, not earlier events, but I.
Number 5 is probably not really consistent with what we know about science and how the world works. It seems that whether causation is deterministic or probabilistic events are always caused by earlier events, and these events may of course include persons or take place inside persons, but… it doesn’t seem consistent with science that a person ZIRSELF could cause something. The others are perfectly consistent with science as we know it. Regarding 4, it should be noted that as neuroscience looks today it deals in probabilities (Event A in the brain makes event B 70 % probable, that kind of thing) rather than deterministic (given event A, event B had to follow). So for all we know, we might have free will according to 4. And there’s really nothing in today’s science that says we can’t have free will according to 3, and that many people have free will according to 1 and 2 is just obvious.
I think somebody earlier mentioned Benjamin Libet’s experiments. The problems with neuroscientists doing experiments to determine whether we have free will is that they don’t bother to explain what they MEAN by free will, so ultimately it’s like doing an experiment to determine whether human beings possess the power of xympf. You may have a vague idea at the back of your head what xympf is, but it’s not good science unless you spell it out in detail before you start investigating whether we have xympf or not. Libet found (or thought he found, the experiments have been criticised for a variety of reasons, but let’s put that to one side) that first an event happens in your brain, and then a decision follows. Okay. But that doesn’t contradict 1-3. It contradicts 4 only if there’s a 100 % correlation between brain event and later decision, but if I recall correctly there wasn’t. And I think it only contradicts 5 as well if the correlation was a 100 %. The scientific objection towards us having free will of type 5 is more of a general kind; in general, science is built on the assumption that events cause other events, not that a person could just cause something.
You might react by saying “but I’m interesting in whether we have free will in the ordinary sense of the word!”. But according to various experiments on non-philosophy college students it seems like there is no “ordinary sense”, some people think of free will according to 1, others according to 5 etc.
Sorry for giving you an entire lecture… You can just skip it if it’s boring, but to me (obviously) this is super-interesting.
@indifferentsky
“How does someone else get you to kill your own mother, shoot her in the face point blank.”
Reward, manipulation, coercion, deception. These would probably be the top four methods of getting someone to kill.
By saying a man can’t be manipulated by a woman into commiting evil acts you’re upholding the patriarchy. Man is strong and can never be manipulated by a woman who is weak. Man is to blame. When a man manipulates a woman into acts of evil she is weak and innocent. Man is to blame. Patriarchy serves women quite well.
Now I feel like NWOSlave is desperately trying to warn us about something we need to know, but some diabolical wizard or evil cleric has cast a spell on him that makes him speak in total nonsense.
Man who kill his own parents is to blame, yes. How evil of me.
Okay, since is “Women are evil manipulators who control men with their evil sexy woman-ness, and therefore must be kept firmly under the thumb of men, lest they bring about their ruin.” NOT a patriarchal idea?
*since when
Find out if these stats are “true”?
Attaboy, go to the Dep’t of Justice! After four decades of federal feminuttery generally, and four years of Obama, militant,hardcore man-hating feminists are undoubtedly at least as frequent in DOJ offices, from top to bottom, as sundry black and “hispanic” supremacists, global warming frauds, illegal alien apologists and firearms prohibitionists
Are such people even capable of telling the truth, even if they wanted to?
When do politicians–or feminists–lie? Whenever they speak!
Thirty percent? How long has this supposedly been going on? When are women going to disappear entirely? When will these murder stats rise to 40%, 50% and up? Will it reach a point where 99% of (heterosexual) women with “husbands or boyfriends” are murdered by them? Why stop there? Leave at least a few women to be murdered by complete strangers,. shall you? Hey, don’t forget the lezzies! Let their “wives and girlfriends” also have some fun.
I could continue but the point has been made. There are three “facts” associated with feminism, lies, damned lies, and statistics. This included all three!
@ Dvärghundspossen:
I thought it was interesting. I’ve noticed that discussions of free will (amongst non-philosophers, at least) often don’t really go anywhere because everyone seems to be using the term “free will” slightly differently and yet no one ever seems to think it’s necessary to explain precisely what they mean when they use the term.
So I knew that there were different definitions out there, but I hadn’t seen anyone break down those differing definitions into five categories like that. That was useful. Thanks.
Good luck with your doctoral dissertation.
Meller, don’t be stupider than usual.
Of women killed, 30 percent are killed by their husbands or boyfriends.
You, of course, probably think the women drove the men to it, and we need to accept that it was deserved, the same way you said ithiliana’s student deserved to be killed.
That’s because you gloat over women being abused, raped, and killed.
“When do politicians–or feminists–lie? Whenever they speak!”
I am a feminist.
Does this prove I’m not a feminist?
And that’s like, totally the wrong kind of supremacist to be, amirite?
Asshole.
You call that a point?
Hey, don’t forget the homophobia! You might not have driven home just how much of a fucking slimeball you are without it!
Reading comprehension, schmeading schmomprehension.
(Previous comment directed at DKM, natch.)
And of course, Mr. “I’m not saying she deserved it, but…” is an absolute fucking paragon of honesty and integrity.
Really, this line of reasoning is perfect example of what a lying, hypocritical asshole Meller really is.
“Rampant feminuttery and female disobedience drive men to be violent toward women! But those murder stats must be made up, because feminists! And, um, immigrants or something?”
If, according to you, men are so easily driven to violence by all these supposed societal ills, why don’t you believe the statistics? This is the sort of thing you keep warning us about (read: threatening us with) isn’t it?