NOTE: This page is in desperate need of revision and expansion. In the meantime, I suggest you use Rationalwiki’s Manosphere Glossary.
For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.
First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:
MRA: Men’s Rights Activist
MRM: Men’s Rights Movement
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.
Ok, so what do those terms mean?
MRM: The Men’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether. I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.
Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:
Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).
Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.
Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.
The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.
NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.
PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”
Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.
Argenti:
“Then what was this shit:”
Exactly what it looks like, me telling you the premise on deciding views for political organisations. Meaning if communists build gulags and talk about equlity – Communism is not about equality, its about gulags. Thats what they do. Thus “feminism want/try bla bla….” is not a proper description of feminism. Feminists shutting down lots of male athletic college teams due to feminist interpretation of Title IX however thats feminism.
Now let me hear again what feminism is about….
“Please reread the last 6 pages of comments — we’ve been making plenty of claims, both opinion claims, and science claims.”
Science is not a view, Science is a method finding things out that may support several views. The scientific solution to this is called testing. The political solution to this is called democracy. The opposition to this is often called diversity politics – a self-designated socialconstructivist elite wanting to rule a majority population.
Perfect example was “darksidecat” saying constitution is for limiting majority decisions. Me answering. No, constitution is for limiting goverment decisions.
“First it’s “Everyone is implicitly or explicitly making affirmative claims!” but now it’s “people telling what is wrong with other views.” Pick a view and stick with it.”
1. When you (people in general) attack a view, you support an own view, Some (not in general) people saying what is bad just dont wanna say what they think would be good.
2. Most links offered here (not in general real world) are not own views but attacks. Telling what is wrong while not telling what is right.
“When we offer opinion you demand citations, when we find examples of other people sharing those views, you’ve consistently either called them anecdotes, or simply ignored them. ”
3. I started demand citations when people started demanding them of me (lots of pics) while not demanding them of other people.
4. When I say things are anecdotal it is about them being chosen. For instance “none of my friends voted Bush” would mean you dont choose friends voting for Bush. It would say nothing of the pulling results.
“What you don’t know can be knowledge. You’re officially the scariest type of person of all — the kind who thinks he doesn’t need to be told things he doesn’t know. ”
Actually I am the kind that needs to be told not only what is wrong with what I know but what is right with what YOU know. Thus if you for example criticize my country you better have a country with better results. Don t attack Usain Bolts running style!
“You are, apparently, of the believe that having something go from an “unknown unknown” to a “known unknown” is a bad thing. And that is simply scary.”
I deal with what – based on things we know – is more propable to work in real life. Your obsession with not knowing is close to the postmodern wish the people thinking we cant know anything should be the real experts. Alan Sokal had a lot to say about that.
“Oh and btw? Engineering a good percentage not making the same mistakes the other guy did.”
Well, not doing anything at all would obviously mean never making any of the mistakes the other guy doing something did thus people not building shit would be great engineers.
Its the same reason some idiots say women dont cause wars. They see war as a mistake women doing almost nothing – did not do.
Argenti:
“This is true in the case of court decisions, not in the case of public opinion”
Which public are you talking about? The population in general or just some more visible people in media and other places?
“and since, as I repeat, none of us is going to be on the Assange case, the legallese is utterly irrelevant to our opinions on his case, or him in general.”
Any opinion on him being guilty or innocent of crime is bs compared to the supreme court decision based on the evidence. We can have opinion on the actions – not whether they constitute a crime. The public cant declare anyone a criminal.
“No, it didn’t, despite the fact we were not discussing court decisions but public opinion.”
You were discussing whether or not he was guilty of a crime. You cant treat him as guilty if the court declare him innocent. We dont have “thought laws” so feel happy to think he is a criminal.
“None of us are making legal claims. How much clearer could that be?”
If the courts declare him innocent and you claim he is guilty and spread that opinion then you are saying even when declared innocent you are free to treat him as a criminal.
“Any opinion expressed in this thread is not the opinion of anyone legally involved in the Assange case”
In what way does that matter? The point being we should not have any peoples court at all. Public Opinion on crime should not matter. Innocent means innocent.
“Legally, yep, but we weren’t making legally binding opinions.”
No you are talking a about peoples court. Or perhaps experts court. Most of the time they do not present representativ statistics in these “media courts”
“In court that’s about half true, in public opinion? *dies laughing* You ever read a court case before? I’m guessing not, or you’d realize just how foolish some defendants are”
Yes I have read court cases. Several in fact.
“Manson’s leap over the table doesn’t really require much other info to go “probably not safe to have him in court”
Relevance?
“Note the avoidance of the Rodney King case, might that be because thinking the defendants are guilty and hating them for that just makes too much sense to ignore?”
Not at all. Clearly the actions committed by the police officers should have been decided criminal in court but when this did not happen, the police officers were innocent. Thus the wrongdoing was done by the court who did not give a guilty verdict.
Btw, this is again an example of two alternatives that both suck (are not perfect) and choosing the least sucky one.
2 of the police officers later were given guilty verdict by a federal court.
I give you extra points for not screwing up the phrasing of “couldn’t care less.”
Secondly: you don’t care about me guessing things instead of using the information given?
BUT YOU REFUSE TO GIVE THE SAME COURTESY TO ASSANGE’S ACCUSERS?
Hypocrite.
If you find comments in an ancient thread…
If that thread is not even a post, but merely an FAQ…
And if you can’t tell what the conversation is about by reading the last couple posts?
You might be witnessing a derail. 😉
Eh?
On the topic of court stuff… Notice that while the popular phrase is “Innocent until proven guilty” is used, the actual official verdicts are “Guilty/Not Guilty” rather than “Guilty/Innocent” or “Not Innocent/Innocent.” Why? I dunno… But maybe because in a court the prosecutor is trying to prove the defendant is guilty. Failing to do so means that the prosecutor has not met their burden of proof, but that doesn’t mean that the defendant has successfully positively proved their innocence.
“Innocent until proven guilty” means that its the prosecutor’s job to show guilt, not the defendant’s job to show innocence. Thus failure to reach a guilty verdict does not necessarily mean “innocent,” it just means “failure to be proven guilty.”
Aktivarum: You probably did not read what I was writing. The point was you must start with the assumption of innocence. Guilt must be based on evidence – innocence doesnt! Thus what I said had nothing about you having to agree with the court decisions. I said if you cant prove crime you cant claim crime.
Actually, this is completely backwards. That’s the principle of guilty when accused. The police don’t have to be able to prove crime when they claim it. Not in a system where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
If one had to have proof before the accusation, then the charge would be the same as a conviction. What happens in a system based on innocence is that someone claims a crime. It gets investigated. If there is enough evidence then a charge is brought and then the state has to substantiate it enough to convince a jury of the guilt of the accused.
The only people required to suspend their judgement are the jurors. Everyone else can bay for blood (as you are doing for the prosecutors in the Assange case) or not, as they see fit.
So long as the state abides by the verdict of the jury, it works (see Lizzie Borden).
They cant be assumed guilty based on lack of evidence showing them innocent.
Yes, they can.
However you can not TREAT persons not found guilty as if they were guilty.
This is true. I can’t imprison someone who is acquitted of a crime.
But that’s not what you are saying. You are saying I can’t look at the available evidence and come to a personal decision about the guilt of someone.
You are hypocritically saying this when you have done exactly that. You’ve decided that Assange is not-guilty (in part because you have a twisted idea of what rape is), and so have decided his accusers are guilty of a false accusation of rape.
And you are trying to browbeat us into refusing to say we think you are full of shit.
Everyone is implicitly or explicitly making affirmative claims!
Nope. You are saying “X is true”. We are saying prove it.
Science is about comparisons finding which explanations (of the ALTERNATIVES) is more likely.
Not really true, and not relevant, and not the way it works. Science is about testing a theory, and seeing if it describes a situation well. If it does, then it gets put in the “maybe box”. If it doesn’t it gets relegated to the dustbin of history.
It’s not about comparing one theory to another. It’s about comparing each theory to the facts of the world.
Same as when evolutionary theory makes a claim and Intelligent design attacks it for not being perfect. *
Correct, to a point. ID is saying Descent with modiification is wrong. They have to prove it (the wrongness). They are failing. They don’t have to prove ID is right. They could (and if they were smart, they would, but they aren’t, so they don’t) refuse to mention any alternate theory. Any disproof of Darwin would still be valid.
You keep trying to say PUA is science. Prove it.
You can’t, so you are flailing. (this is completely different from the problem of your self-serving definition of rape, and your lies about the evidence in the case against Assange; note, BTW, that I’ve not said one word about his guilt or innocence. Nor, actually, has Argenti. You, for some reason, seem to think that the actual evidence needs to be suppressed. A more cynical man than I might think that was because you think those facts actually indicate guilt. Such a, more cynical man, might think you were engaging in avoidant behavior, to keep himself from admitting that practices he engages [or would, given the opportunity] are those of a rapist).
Thats where you are wrong. While in The assange case its the matter of guilty or not. In science and politics its the matter about COMPARING which one of two flawed theories works best.”
Again, it’s not. Science is about disproving things. Those which aren’t yet disproven are treated as working, until they fail. No one has to provide alternate theories of why, only show that the one in front of them isn’t working. That’s what peer review is all about.
That you have such a twisted, and unworkable, idea of what, and why, science is explains a lot of the problems in your worldview, and why you are the victim of the con-men and cheats who sell EvPsych, and PUA.
*The ID people don t wanna talk about their own views and neither do people here.”
But a couple of your posts ago you complained that all I do is spout my own views? Which is it? I don’t cite studies (I have, you continue to pretend I haven’t, lying seems to be one of the few consistent things about your work), or I won’t give my own opinions?
If I do neither, then what have I been doing for the past two weeks or so?
Exactly what it looks like, me telling you the premise on deciding views for political organisations. Meaning if communists build gulags and talk about equlity – Communism is not about equality, its about gulags. Thats what they do.
Ok… I’ll run with this.
MRAs are about beating women, killing them, neglecting their children and advocating for rape, and brutalisation.
PUAs are about lying, cheating, manipulating and rape.
That was easy. Because those are the things they do. And what they do is the only thing that matters. It’s not a few bad apples, because one spoils the barrel.
Science is not a view, Science is a method finding things out that may support several views. The scientific solution to this is called testing. The political solution to this is called democracy. The opposition to this is often called diversity politics – a self-designated socialconstructivist elite wanting to rule a majority population.
Perfect example was “darksidecat” saying constitution is for limiting majority decisions. Me answering. No, constitution is for limiting goverment decisions.
This is bullshit. It’s so wrong it’s fractal.
Science isn’t about “supporting several views”, it’s about the best view. The one which matches all the data.
Gov’t, isn’t science. Any number of gov’ts may do just fine in securing personal liberties (which is my personal defintion of good gov’t). Some (a benevolent dictatorship… Think Bernadotte), may do better than a democoracy. Democracy, in fact, needs some checks, lest it run roughshod over the personal liberties of the weak (see how women were treated in democracies until recently).
That you conflate the two shows either incredible ignorance, or (sadly) a quite credible mendacity.
Given your opinions on rape, I’m going with mendacity; colored by ignorance. Assuming that no one is so good as to be able to spout the inanity you’ve been spouting on science, even in the face of explanation; and the ways in which you refuse to admit so much as the presence of counter-argument to most of your work, I am also pretty strongly on the side of literate, but stupid.
Aktivarum: 3. I started demand citations when people started demanding them of me (lots of pics) while not demanding them of other people.
That’s because I wasn’t debating other people, and because you aren’t giving citations. You are linking to news articles, and other blather. The one study you did link to, got response.
You still pretend it didn’t.
So you are a dishonest shit, as well as a fool.
Actually I am the kind that needs to be told not only what is wrong with what I know but what is right with what YOU know.
Yep, and a hypocritical fool. Foolish enough to tell us that he’s a dishonest actor who will never admit to his being wrong.
You demand not only that we show you two objects of different mass fall at the same velocity, but why.
Until we show you both, you will deny that lighter objects fall at the same speed as heavier ones.
That’s the opposite of science. Once you know that a given hypothesis doesn’t match the facts, you drop it and look for one that does. It never ends.
You, you stick your finger in your ears and pretend that only when a theory which is better (and which you are willing to believe) comes along, that the old one is still functional.
That’s without the lies, diversions, and perversions that you peddle in the non-science aspects of the world.
Aktivarum: The public cant declare anyone a criminal.
Two Words:
Lizzie Borden.
Kirby: Scotland has a third verdict, “not proven”, which is an acquital, in terms of being retried, but is the jury saying, “we think the person did it, but the State didn’t quite prove it”.
It’s an interesting variation.
Argenti:
“Aktivarum — Since you seem to get your views on rape from bad TV, go through a few pages of Project Unbreakable for what rape really looks like.”
How do you know which rapes in Project Unbreaklable are real rapes? Do you assume any person thinking they were raped – in fact were raped? The first thing I checked was the ability to control context and content. They do not even answer that question. In their FAQ they link this page (http://postsecretcommunity.com/news-faq/secrets-true)
So basically if only I write some shit on a sign and send there I was raped. Not only once cause if you really wanna be popular in the feminist crown you should say stuff like “I was raped a second time by the police” that is great stuff for a political campaign. Ohh and do call it “rape survival” although the NORMAL result of rape is not death. That really is what propaganda-people would do.
“And if you managed to get through all of those still thinking you know all about how rape victims react? You fail “being a decent human being” and neither I, nor anyone else, can help you.”
Yes cause this information is so much better than the studies I linked and you were highly critical about? However THIS information you believe based on? Well nothing it would seem since they themselves specifically tell they view this as ART, not knowledge. This difference is one of the first things I described here.
Arktivarum: I see…. women who say they were raped were only raped if a court says they were.
All other claims of rape are false.
You, are a rape apologist. You are also (at least) a proto-rapist.
@Pecunium:
That’s… rather interesting. Can’t tell if that’s a good thing or not. O_O
@Aktivarum:
I’m pretty sure the default assumption is that people are telling the truth about their own personal situation. To do otherwise is to do what police have always done in rape cases; assume the victim is lying when zie can’t provide photographic evidence zie was raped (and sometimes even assume then).
But if a story were particularly unbelievable, such as someone claiming to have been raped by police (why hello, strawmonster), it would be met with skepticism. And ever single one of those fake stories strikes a blow at the effort to get rape treated more seriously, because its just another gotcha that proponents of the status quo can use to cherry pick their opinion that rape isn’t all that big a problem.
The assumption is that, with the amount of shit that victims are given in today’s culture, someone wouldn’t willingly claim to have been raped unless it actually happened. In fact, the assumption (a supported one) is that most people who have been raped don’t step forward about it. And feminism is trying to change that.
See, I would have am much easier time arguing with you if you made one tiny iota of sense here.
kirbywarp:
“But maybe because in a court the prosecutor is trying to prove the defendant is guilty.”
No, the prosecutor is trying to find out IF the defendant is guilty. Its not the prosecutors job to prove people are guilty regardless – Although that IS a great description for what Mike Nifong did in the Duke-Lacrosse case. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case)
“Failing to do so means that the prosecutor has not met their burden of proof, but that doesn’t mean that the defendant has successfully positively proved their innocence.”
Yes! That is exactly what it means. Innocent until proven guilty thus always proven innocent when not proven guilty. Prosecution failing means = Innocent.
Wrong. It’s an adversarial system. That’s one of the reasons it’s so fucked up. Do some research.
Aktivarum:
Yes! That is exactly what it means. Innocent until proven guilty thus always proven innocent when not proven guilty. Prosecution failing means = Innocent.
No. Not guilty is not the same as innocent, just as you admitted with the four cops who beat Rodney King. As further proof, they were convicted, by a different court, of a related crime (because no matter how guilty, once convicted they can’t be tried again. Even if they confess).
The legal maxim is, “better that 10 guilty men go free, than one innocent man should suffer”.
No, the prosecutor is trying to find out IF the defendant is guilty.
No. The proescutor, in a reasonable system, has to be convinced the accused is guilty (beyond some level of defined doubt, in the US/UK systems the level of doubt required is defined as, “reasonable”. I don’t know about Sweden. In France they are required to a slightly higher level of reasonable, because they are supposed to have enough grounds to say someone is guilty; and the accused must show a lack of guilt, but I digress; on topic, unlike your digressions into non-relevant, and non-sensical asides).
If a prosecutor doesn’t believe the accused to be guilty (in both the US and the UK) they are obliged to drop the charges. Your example, actually undermines your argument, as the problem in the Duke Case is that the prosecution lacked the means to prove guilt, and so the case was dropped. That Nifong was disbarred is exactly counter to your theory of the way the law works.
So, once again, you are either mistaken, or prevaricating. i.e. you are wrong, or a liar.
Howard Bannister: It’s not the adversarial nature of the system which is fucking it up. It’s fucked up because the State has a lot more money/time/resources than the defendant.
In the US the use of plea bargains allows the State even more power… because a prosecutor can afford to “over-charge” and plead down to what they think the real crime was. The defendant can’t afford the cost of the trial, and worse can’t afford the risk of losing at the higher charge.
So it’s almost certain a significant number of people convicted of crime are not guilty of them, and may even be innocent. That the police are skilled at testimony, given great credit by juries, have structural advantages in interrogation; which makes it easier to get a statement which looks incriminating (even discounting the ease of extracting a false confession) and the deck is stacked against the defendant.
Which makes the low rates of prosecution, much less conviction, of rape all the more telling.
@Aktivarum:
You are wrong. You could probably say that it’s the police’s job to find out if the defendant might be guilty, but a prosecutor steps into the court room with a concept of why the defendant should be convicted, and tries to prove that case in front of a jury. I don’t know how to explain it any clearer than that.
Again, you are wrong. Failing to prove that someone committed a crime does not prove that they didn’t do it. Otherwise, how could someone be proven to be guilty long after a court had found them not guilty? If you proved innocence, then you couldn’t later find out they were guilty.
Why does this matter in the case of rape? Because rape is a crime that is very difficult to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, especially if you hold the notion that women tend to lie about not wanting sex to play hard to get or something. It’s way too common for a rape to occur, then for the case to be dropped by the police or not enough evidence found in a court room. And then MRAs claim that the charge was false, and want to stigmatize an actual rape victim as a liar.
What “not guilty” means matters, because “not guilty” does not prove that the accusation was false, or that the victim was lying. And it matters because it’s far too common for rape charges to be dropped through lack of evidence or because the authorities involved have the per-conceived notion that the victim is lying.
Yes–structural problems in the way justice is administered. But I think the core adversarial system idea has problems to begin with. That it encourages situations like…
(oh, no, links and sources! Aktivarum averts his eyes–they don’t exist to him!!!)
Harry Connick Sr., and his staff.
TL;DR version–prosecutors outright ignoring the Brady rule. Holding evidence that suggests the defendant was innocent–not even turning it over to the Defense.
“A 2003 study by the Center of Public Integrity, which the students cite, found more than 2,000 appeals since 1970 in which prosecutorial misconduct prompted dismissals, sentence reductions, or reversals.”
Hmmm.
But then this gets into a huge philisophical discussion about how to make the adversarial system fair, whether there are any workable alternatives to the adversarial system–in terms of history, it’s a fairly new idea, and we know that it’s worlds better than what it replaced. But does that make it the best?
But I wouldn’t want to get into that anywhere near Aktivarum. Because somehow that’ll just prove his point. By disproving it. Which proves it.
Plus, I don’t cite enough studies. So I must be wrong. (even when it seems like every other thing he posts actually undermines his point…)
Argh.
Rape survivors have survived a life threatening situation. I think it makes perfect sense for them to use the word survivor. Some people don’t like using the word victim for themselves, because our culture stigmatizes victimization as making a person weak. Some other people here in Joplin prefer the term tornado victors instead of victims. I personally don’t have a preference of saying tornado victim, victor, or survivor, but I do respect the terms that other people want to use for themselves.
By the way, one of the definitions of survivor is “a person who continues to function or prosper in spite of opposition, hardship, or setbacks. “. So stop trying to decide who gets to use the word survival and for what situations.
No, the public can’t make a legal decision on whether or not someone is guilty or pass out a punishment for a crime. You agree, though, that the public can think whatever they want about a case. It’s okay for Nancy Grace to say she believes Casey Anthony is guilty of murder, but she doesn’t have the legal authority to punish Anthony.
Again, there are no thought crimes, so private citizens can think what they want to think. I also have freedom of speech. I am allowed to say I think OJ is guilty even though he was acquitted. I am not treating him as a criminal. I am not giving him a legal punishment like a court can. I’m just saying what I believe is true.
Of course private citizens are not allowed to punish people they believe to be criminals. That’s vigilantism, and it’s illegal. They are allowed to say they think they’re guilty, though.
In a country with a free press, people are going to talk and write a lot of opinions on high profile court cases. When someone famous like Assange gets accused of a crime, it gets a lot of media coverage, and the general public is going to form their own opinions. Sometimes a person will be acquitted of a crime, and the public will still dislike hir. I don’t know how you can prevent that without taking away the freedom of press and freedom of speech.
It would be dangerous to allow governments to arrest people in secret, too. If court cases were held in secret, then governments could abuse that power and start prosecuting people for made up crimes. It’s better to have public scrutiny for our criminal justice system.
“Science is not a view, Science is a method finding things out that may support several views. The scientific solution to this is called testing.”
Thanks for telling me wtf all that college was for, and in relevant things scientific claims are unproven (or not 100% proven) claims, ergo the phrase “we’ve been making…science claims” makes perfect sense.
“The political solution to this is called democracy.”
Um, politics is not science. It truly does not matter whether that’s democracy, monarchy, communism, or anything else — none of them are supported by scientific testing (we went through the whole “can morality be empirically proven” thing last week, I can find you the link if you can learn to read for meaning).
“1. When you (people in general) attack a view, you support an own view, Some (not in general) people saying what is bad just dont wanna say what they think would be good.
2. Most links offered here (not in general real world) are not own views but attacks. Telling what is wrong while not telling what is right.”
Please review the tangent about FGM — if something is bad, then not doing it is good — this is simple enough my cousin’s 5 year old could handle it.
“3. I started demand citations when people started demanding them of me (lots of pics) while not demanding them of other people.”
Nobody provided “lots of pics” until my comment about what rape really looks like. In other words, no one did “lots of pics” until 2 weeks into this.
“4. When I say things are anecdotal it is about them being chosen. For instance “none of my friends voted Bush” would mean you dont choose friends voting for Bush. It would say nothing of the pulling results.”
And Jessay provided you with a newspaper article saying the same thing, you ignored it. (It’s here if you want to try that one again)
“Actually I am the kind that needs to be told not only what is wrong with what I know but what is right with what YOU know. Thus if you for example criticize my country you better have a country with better results. Don t attack Usain Bolts running style!”
First, sports? Red herring! Second, so you are daft enough to not see “what you are doing is wrong and you should stop” as remotely helpful advice. Like I said, scary.
“I deal with what – based on things we know – is more propable to work in real life. Your obsession with not knowing is close to the postmodern wish the people thinking we cant know anything should be the real experts.”
Argh, no, I said no one can know everything, and refusing to acknowledge the things you don’t know is the scariest kind of lack of knowledge. Someone who knows they don’t know something is easy to teach, someone who insists they don’t need to know things will never learn.
You did not say “If people build cars by telliing what is wrong with other cars you would not even be able to drive a car today cause people would never build them – they would just stop building.” — you said sabotage, that’s not the same as “not doing anything at all”. We can all still scroll up and see what you said last, not that I haven’t told you that at least three times now.
“Its the same reason some idiots say women dont cause wars. They see war as a mistake women doing almost nothing – did not do.”
Your second sentence is gibberish, the lack of connection between “They see war as a mistake” and “women doing almost nothing” makes is incomprehensible. Your first sentence is typical nonsense ignoring that politicians cause wars (or at least community/group leaders, eg Kings).
“Which public are you talking about? The population in general or just some more visible people in media and other places?”
Those of us commenting here, those of us you where trying to insist must use the “innocent until proven guilty” standard — we don’t have to, we are not legally involved.
“Any opinion on him being guilty or innocent of crime is bs compared to the supreme court decision based on the evidence. We can have opinion on the actions – not whether they constitute a crime. The public cant declare anyone a criminal.”
A decision they haven’t made yet, so nice try, but irrelevant. Also, false, as Pecunium had tried displaying with examples. As for the last sentence, we know, that’s why it doesn’t matter what we think. We’re entitled to whatever opinion we like, because that’s all it is, an opinion.
“You were discussing whether or not he was guilty of a crime. You cant treat him as guilty if the court declare him innocent. We dont have “thought laws” so feel happy to think he is a criminal.”
First, yeah, we can, everyone here so far has said the cops who beat Rodney King are guilty, regardless what the court said. Further, that is not what thought crime means. In fact, your insistence we can’t even think Assange might be guilty is much closer to thought crime —
Straight out of the newspeak dictionary.
“If the courts declare him innocent and you claim he is guilty and spread that opinion then you are saying even when declared innocent you are free to treat him as a criminal.”
Considering the slim odds any of us will ever meet Assange, it doesn’t really matter whether we treat him as a criminal now, or after he’s found innocent, or after he’s found guilty — do you intent to admit he might be a rapist if they find him guilty btw?
You really are a special kind of stupid — public opinion on criminal does not matter, thus we can hold whatever views we like as long as we are not legally involved. As we are not legally involved, we can hold whatever views we like. And innocent in court can also mean not enough evidence, or bias, or other things that do not equal “did not do it” — eg the Rodney King case, that they beat him has never been disputed, the question was whether that was legal guilt, and so far 3 of us have said we think the cops were guilty regardless what the court said.
I’m not talking about court at all! I’m talking about public opinion — unless you suddenly think I’m endorsing vigilante justice, public opinion has absolutely no legal bearing. (And since you’re a bit thick, let me be clear, I am not endorsing vigilante justice)
Relevant as example of previous statement, you really have some trouble with examples huh?
We’re perfectly capable of blaming the court and thinking the officers guilty at the same time.
Also, I second all of the following:
Howard’s entire comment.
Kirbywarp’s entire comment.
Pecunium’s explanations of “innocent until proven guilty”, this sentence “This is true. I can’t imprison someone who is acquitted of a crime.”, the repeated statement about your hypocritical views, and particularly this:
“No one has to provide alternate theories of why, only show that the one in front of them isn’t working. That’s what peer review is all about.”
and this
“But a couple of your posts ago you complained that all I do is spout my own views? Which is it? I don’t cite studies (I have, you continue to pretend I haven’t, lying seems to be one of the few consistent things about your work), or I won’t give my own opinions?
If I do neither, then what have I been doing for the past two weeks or so?”
Two weeks today btw, you’ve been at this for two weeks. To prove what point? I’d try guessing, and with most people I could within far less than two weeks, but your “arguments” and opinions contradict so often I’m not even sure you know what your point is.
“Gov’t, isn’t science.”
ANd as for Pecunium’s explanation of science in this comment — he’s just explained how you are committing a new fallacy, time for Spot That Fallacy!!
“You, you stick your finger in your ears and pretend that only when a theory which is better (and which you are willing to believe) comes along, that the old one is still functional.”
Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
“Do you assume any person thinking they were raped – in fact were raped?” — Did you get to the ones about how cops and DAs respond? If so perhaps, just perhaps, this will make an iota of sense — outside a court of law yes, yes I do.
“Not only once cause if you really wanna be popular in the feminist crown you should say stuff like “I was raped a second time by the police” that is great stuff for a political campaign.”
Provide just one person saying they were raped again by the police, I said revictimized which does not mean “raped again”, it means victimized again. As in, made to be a victim, I already defined “to make” for you, so let me skip to victim —
victim, noun
1. a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: a victim of an automobile accident.
“Ohh and do call it “rape survival” although the NORMAL result of rape is not death.”
And now for survival, and survivor, which is what I assume you meant there —
survival, noun
1. the act or fact of surviving, especially under adverse or unusual circumstances.
2. a person or thing that survives or endures, especially an ancient custom, observance, belief, or the like.
survivor, noun
1. a person or thing that survives.
2. Law . the one of two or more designated persons, as joint tenants or others having a joint interest, who outlives the other or others.
3. a person who continues to function or prosper in spite of opposition, hardship, or setbacks.
Note the absence of anything about risk of death.
“Yes cause this information is so much better than the studies I linked and you were highly critical about?”
Try linking to a study that says remotely what you say it says. I tear apart bad studies, not just your studies (Pecunium, would you confirm this please, since you’ve seen me do it to other trolls, thank you)
“However THIS information you believe based on?”
You’re forming your opinions on what rape looks like from the media, so yes, views from real people are an improvement. Yes, I believe what rape looks like is what rape victims say their rape looked like, just how thick are you?
“Well nothing it would seem since they themselves specifically tell they view this as ART, not knowledge. This difference is one of the first things I described here.”
Yeah you continue to misrepresent art, despite having a pair of artists in this debate, trust me, we’ve noticed your idiocy. Art can, and often does, transmit knowledge, particularly when the art form in question is photography.
Seconding, kirbywarp and Howard.
“Prosecutor doesn’t meet burden of proof, person is found not guilty, but this doesn’t mean they are innocent.” To which you exclaim “Yes!” and then go on to miss the point completely and say that that means they are innocent. Prosecution failing means = not guilty. Not guilty does not mean innocent, it means the burden of proof was not met. Guilty, Not Guilty, and Innocent are three different legal standards —
guilty adj. having been convicted of a crime or having admitted the commission of a crime by pleading “guilty” (saying you did it). A defendant may also be found guilty by a judge after a plea of “no contest,” or in Latin “nolo contendere.” The term “guilty” is also sometimes applied to persons against whom a judgment has been found in a lawsuit for a civil wrong, such as negligence or some intentional act like assault or fraud, but that is a confusing misuse of the word since it should only apply to a criminal charge.
not guilty n. 1) plea of a person who claims not to have committed the crime of which he/she is accused, made in court when arraigned (first brought before a judge) or at a later time set by court. The choices of what one can plea are: guilty, not guilty, no contest, not guilty by reason of insanity, or incompetent to stand trial. 2) verdict after trial by judge sitting without a jury or by jury (unanimous decision in all but two states, which allow a verdict by only 10 of the jurors), stating that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of crime or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time crime was committed. The accused cannot be tried for again for the crime charged.
innocent adj. without guilt (not guilty). Usually the plea which an accused criminal defendant gives to the court at the time of his/her first appearance (or after a continued appearance). Such pleas often disturb the public in cases in which guilt seems obvious from the start. However, everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and the innocent plea gives defense lawyers an opportunity to investigate, find extenuating circumstances, develop reasons punishment should be lenient, bargain with the District Attorney, and let the memories of witnesses fade.
Note the second definition for Not Guilty. Also, what Howard said. And this from Pecunium —
“If a prosecutor doesn’t believe the accused to be guilty (in both the US and the UK) they are obliged to drop the charges. Your example, actually undermines your argument, as the problem in the Duke Case is that the prosecution lacked the means to prove guilt, and so the case was dropped. That Nifong was disbarred is exactly counter to your theory of the way the law works.”
And also this explanation. Also kirbywarp’s explanation of rape cases. And also what bionic mommy said here and here.
So um yeah, we’re not demanding citations from each other because we agree, and in many cases have already seen the relevant citations (and in the cases we haven’t, or I haven’t anyways, the point is so irrelevant to anything on topic that there’s no need for citing tangents).
Oh and you failed “being a decent human being” btw.
I have a comment in mod, but wanted to note —
“You can’t, so you are flailing. (this is completely different from the problem of your self-serving definition of rape, and your lies about the evidence in the case against Assange; note, BTW, that I’ve not said one word about his guilt or innocence. Nor, actually, has Argenti. You, for some reason, seem to think that the actual evidence needs to be suppressed. A more cynical man than I might think that was because you think those facts actually indicate guilt. Such a, more cynical man, might think you were engaging in avoidant behavior, to keep himself from admitting that practices he engages [or would, given the opportunity] are those of a rapist).”
I am more cynical than you apparently. I will still give our peddler of fish the benefit of the doubt that it’s “would engage in” not “has engaged in” but yeah, the defense mechanisms are high in this one.
Utterly tangential, but how well do you know Lizzie Borden’s case? Iirc she was convinced in public opinion mostly because she didn’t faint when she found the bodies, like a proper Victorian lady would have.
Argenti, you’ve caused me to do some reading up on Lizzie Borden. I recommend Robertson, C. W. (1996) Representing Miss Lizzie: Cultural Convictions in the Trial of Lizzie Borden. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities (8), 351-416.
According to Robertson, Borden’s “self-possession” both immediately after the discovery of the bodies, and during her trial, were seen as a more significant indicator of her guilt than the fact that she stood to inherit more than $150K. So, you have a good memory!
@howard bannister
uh, there are plenty of available alternatives, some of which have features to recommend them over adversarial courts. relevant to the current discussion- iirc continental courts using inquisitorial systems actually have a lower rate of false convictions than adversarial courts. where are you getting that adversarial courts are clearly better than other systems?