Check out my piece on the Atlanta spa shooter in the Washington Post.
As an explanation for mass murder, it’s a head-scratcher. According to police, after being arrested, Robert Aaron Long told them he carried out shootings at three spas in the Atlanta area on Tuesday because he’d been feeling overwhelmed by his own sexual desires. “He apparently has … what he considers a sex addiction,” a sheriff’s department official said, and viewed the spas he targeted as “a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate.” Long has been charged with the murder of eight people, six of them women of Asian descent.
Long evidently wants us to believe that he is the real victim here, a perpetually frustrated man with a “sex addiction” who could not help but lash out at the women he blames for his problems. As bizarre as this reasoning is, Long isn’t alone in embracing it. It’s a logic I often see among the misogynists I’ve been tracking on my blog, WeHuntedTheMammoth.com, for more than a decade.
Warren Farrell makes an appearance, along with The Thinking Housewife (remember her?).
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
@Ohlmann
Well, how else do you think shit like this can be deterred? God knows that giving them incentives to not act like monsters doesn’t work, and my cynical side suggests that the only reason that harshness doesn’t work is because it’s used too inconsistently (read: only on the underclasses and not against the genuinely guilty) and in ways that defeat the purpose of the punishment fitting the crime (which I view as “if you can’t control your desires then we’ll have to do it for you”).
@Big Titty Demon
Thank you for your suggestion. I will do that.
David, as usual your Post article is spot-on.
@allandrel : you should not be *that* dismissive. While you put it in layman terms, that’s non-trivial boolean logic, and mathematics were just in their infancy. It’s similar to how the earliest known mathematic problem can be solved in seconds by anyone with second grade mathematics.
It’s useful to remember that science and mathematics did not just give use iphones, but also a ton of powerful shortcut that make a ton of thing look trivial in retrospect.
@Anonymous : you know, shit like that happen with white terrorists because they know the cops and state have their back, and that white people are never suspicious. And for a bunch of other reasons, but for purpose of dissuasion, if they got half the checks black people had and knew the police were actively hostile to them, the number of shooting spree would be much, much lower.
Also, you’re sort of right saying harshness is too inconsistently applied. But it go farther : harshness isn’t necessary as long as people are consistently caught and punished. You need the punishment to not be a complete slap on the wrist, but you absolutely not need to threaten offenders with a long and agonizing death after weeks of tortures, that won’t be any more dissuasive than ten years of prisons. In fact, if it’s *too* harsh it might be counter productive and you might end up with people not taking the option seriously.
See, for example, the way England’s “Bloody Code” of criminal punishments emphatically did not work in the 1800s. Turns out capital punishment or transportation to Australia for petty crimes doesn’t make people stop committing crimes. (Note, though, I am NOT equating theft of a pocketwatch with murder.)
I wish I had an answer. I wish there were an answer, that would not just punish this evil but more importantly deter future acts like this. I try to raise my own children to know they have consequences for their actions, and to get them to think before they act. But they are basically decent people with a strong sense of ethics, so that approach works. What works, though, to change the people who do not see the value of empathy, or even the essential rights and inherent worth of others?
It’s becoming clearer that the businesses were spas, not brothels, which proves that the shooter’s claim that it was about sex and not race is total bullshit. If it was about sex, well, Atlanta is basically the world capital of strip club but he didn’t shoot up the Cheetah Lounge. Instead, he deliberately targetted Asian-run and staffed businesses. One even had ‘Asian’ in the name.
One victim was a new mother out for a relaxing night with her husband–that’s not a situation where one goes to a brothel.
The media partly to blame here–the term “massage parlor” was thrown around way too freely when it would have just been easier to say ‘spa’. There’s racism behind that.
This paradox is not solved by the observation that proving that “All S are P” is false doesn’t mean that “No S are P” becomes true. If “All S are P” is false, then that could mean that “Some S are P” is true, which could mean that “Some S are not P” is true but doesn’t necessarily.
If Epimenides is telling the truth that “All S are P” then “All S are P” is actually not true because at least one S is not P. This means that “Some S are P” could be true (but isn’t necessarily) but “All S are P” is definitely not. Therefore Epimenides is clearly lying, as “All S are P” is not true, but if he is, then our evidence that “All S are P” is false has disappeared and “All S are P” might be true again.
So the paradox still stands and is not resolved.
@LindsayIrene:
The media partly to blame here–the term “massage parlor” was thrown around way too freely when it would have just been easier to say ‘spa’. There’s racism behind that.
I jumped to that conclusion in my first comment, and my apologies.
Meanwhile, on tonight’s episode of Do You Have As Much Emotional Intelligence As A First-Grader, here’s a six-year-old boy allaying his four-year-old brother’s incipient tantrum by using the regulation techniques he learned:
http://twitter.com/Ashleyoutloud/status/1371298855078170630
@Ohlmann:
No knowledge of mathematics is necessary to understand that there are more possibilities than “all Cretans lie all the time” and “all Cretans tell the truth all the time.” All it requires is basic observation that any young child who understands the concepts of lying and the differences between “all, some, and none.”
Policy of Madness:
That doesn’t make any sense. By establishing that it is impossible for “All S are P” to be true, but it is possible for “Some S are P” to be true, the so-called paradox is solved. You don’t go back to the start because there is no need to – you have established a logical explanation for Epimenides’ claim.
Why would you need evidence that “some S are P” is possible? “No S are P” is even more of an unfounded supposition that “some S are P,” so why doesn’t it require evidence, but is assumed if “all S are P” is untrue?
Let’s put this another way:
“All S are P” is false. We know that at least one S is not P.
“No S are P” also cannot be true, as it creates the paradox.
But that leaves endless possibilities between those two options. All those need is to be possible for the “puzzle” to be resolved. We don’t need evidence for them.
I’m reminded of the Young-Earth Creationists who argue that if anything in biology is wrong, then their interpretation of Genesis MUST be right. “Not Option 1” does not automatically mean “Option 2” unless you have established that there are no other options. And nothing in the Epimenides Paradox, or in what you just outlined, does that.
@Allandrel
“No S are P” is a red herring. It’s irrelevant to the discussion and logically impossible to prove from the premises.
But so is “Some S are P” – it’s irrelevant.
“All S are P” implies “Some S are P” – if all Cretans lie all the time, then some Cretans also lie all the time.
But if “All S are P” is false, then we have no evidence whatsoever with respect to “Some S are P.” If at least one Cretan is not a 100% liar, then that implies absolutely nothing with respect to “Some S are P.” It’s not an easy concept. Let’s sub in some other terms.
All mammals are reptiles. We know this to not be true – cats are not reptiles. So does that mean that some mammals are reptiles? Well, no. It turns out that there is no animal that can be accurately described as both a mammal and a reptile, so disproving the premise that all mammals are reptiles does not mean that some mammals are reptiles.
But let’s try a different set of terms. All warm-blooded animals are mammals. Again, we can observe that this is false. Some warm-blooded animals are birds. Does this mean that no warm-blooded animal is a mammal? Well, of course not.
So disproving “All S are P” provides us with no logical information about “Some S are P” – “Some S are P” could be true or it could be false, and there is no way from the evidence that “All S are P” is false to say which.
The only statement of relevance is “All S are P.” Is it true or is it false? Introducing other statements is leading you down a path.
Just read some more info on our wonderful “sex addict”. Long story short: He was tossed out of his church, kicked out by his family, spent over an hour in the spa before the shooting…. if I had to theorize, I’d say it was most likely that he went in expecting a happy ending to help his feefees, didn’t get it, threw a fit, the boss (most likely the first victim) told him to take a hike, so bang bang was the obvious solution in his mind.
What if Epimenides was lying about being Cretan, huh?
Apparently this murderer is just plain racist and disapproves of people finding comfort in a spa setting. Maybe if he’d had a hot tub and an occasional massage, he wouldn’t have been so uptight?
Nah. He’d still be a fundie with a terrible attitude towards women and ethnic minorities.
.45 may have it sussed out.
@Policy of Madness
But if the only thing you can prove is that “All S are P” cannot be true, there is nothing to solve and no paradox. The paradox is dependent on the chain of reasoning that “if ‘all S are P’ is false, then ‘no S are P’ must be true.”
Otherwise there’s no circling back to the beginning. Epimenides is just wrong, and the “right answer” cannot be determined from the information available. That’s not a paradox, that’s just a scenario with incomplete information.
@Allandrel
If he’s wrong, then “All Cretans lie all the time” is false, but it also means that our evidence that “All S are P” is false has evaporated, because the only reason to not believe it to be true is that Epimenides must be lying if it is true.
Yes, it’s a circle, and that’s what makes it a paradox. If we have evidence that “All S are P” is false, then our evidence of it being false is gone.
You don’t have to think it’s a particularly interesting paradox. It really isn’t. It’s a valid logical paradox, but as you’ve grasped, the paradox kind of evaporates once you leave the process of pure logic and start to look at the state of the real world. The dichotomy paradox is much more interesting, at least to me, as it sort of bends the brain the same way calculus does.
Perhaps Epimenides was a hypocrete; not consistently performing up to his own cultural standards.
@PoM
Which is one reason why the concept of ‘pure’ logic is entirely meaningless outside of mathematics.
Not really. Calculus involves quite complex mathematical techniques. The dichotomy ‘paradox’ is a game of semantics.
@PoM
At this point, it’s really starting to sound like the old physics joke where a chicken farmer asks a physicist for help, and the physicist offers a solution that will work – assuming a spherical chicken in a vacuum.
@Allandrel : but in the end, the physicists are instrumental for a lot of things, ranging from GPS to proper building method.
A lot of theorical problems, like physician simulations or the logical problem in the cretean paradox, are voluntary simplified a lot, because that make them solvable. Then once we understand what the **** is going on, engineers can use approximate results inspired from theses theoritical construction to do concrete stuff.
The cretean parafox introduce the fact some logical statement can be problematic even without involving real world wonkery. Starting from there, either you accept that some statement are neither true or false (AKA, someone saying “I am lying” is neither lying nor not lying), or you accept that you can make things that look like logical statement but aren’t. (AKA someone saying “I am lying” isn’t saying something that have a sense).
Note that it’s *still* pretty basic stuff. But pretty basic stuff can be awfully useful on the long run.
(Dalillama : the cretean paradox isn’t about semantic, and have just as many deep ramification as the dichotomy. Also, pure logic is, quite litteraly, a field of mathematic, so your sentence isn’t anywhere near as meaningful as you seem to think)
@Ohlmann
The cretan bs is not a part of mathematics. Pure logic is a part of mathematics. Thus, pure logic has no relevance in that matter, q.e.d. Furthermore, if you had actually read the comment to which you refer, you would note that it was the Dichotomy ‘paradox’ which I described as a meaningless game of semantics, although in fact the Cretans are liars bit is as well. Please do work on your reading comprehension in future. Would it be easier for you if I made my point in French?
I can only feel pity for you, Dalillama. Being the #1 foremost authority on every single subject known to humanity seems to have sucked all the joy and wonder from your life. I’m so sorry that you seem so miserable.
@PoM
I don’t claim to he the #1 expert on anything, but knowing more about any given topic than you or Ohlmann is a much, much lower bar to clear, and I’ve known you long enough to be fairly confident that I am more expert on absolutely any topic than either of you, or indeed both of you put together.
PS: I also take joy in pointing out all the ways you’re wrong. Perhaps it’s petty of me, but I am at peace with that aspect of myself.
@Dalillama
I know your goal is to insult and hurt me, but you can’t. Whatever is causing your deep insecurity and need to prove yourself is neither my doing nor my problem. You do whatever you feel a need to do to soothe yourself but don’t expect me to engage with it.
@Policy of Madness:
There’s nothing deep to analize there, Dalillama is just a reckless bully and abuser that should have been banned ages ago.
Dalillama: 5% bluster, 5% hatred, 90% hot gas.
The negation of “P(X) is true for all X in set S” is not “Q(X) is true for all X in set S”, but “P(X) is not true for at least one X in set S”.
Things are getting real salty in the mathematics fandom, eh? Can we not just enjoy things?
Like, yeah, the Cretan paradox is easy (and not a paradox) enough once you figure out out what Mabret just said. Does that mean being confused by it is stupid?
Not at all! The first time bouncing against this kind of statement is rough on everyone. Some people just encounter it sooner than others.
Also, it’s a good lesson in recursive definitions, and how they can trip someone up! And remembering the proper negation for IF Cretan THAN liar structures.
Does that mean it’s awesome? And anyone who has brains MUST understand how valuable it is to math and logic and the natural order of things?
Nah. It’s not that cool. Cool enough to be worth staring at (and wrestling with on first spotting in the wild). But not a great “no one cares about the origins of math like I do” rubric.
I’m gonna go stand out in the rain and see if I can rinse some of this salt off.
TL;DR: Nobody is an idiot for loving the Cretan paradox, and nobody is an idiot for thinking it is a paradox.